Only In America

(Click pic for story.)


It is basketball time.

While Oregon State is developing its criteria for a new coach, I enjoy thinking about the changes that have taken place. Who wouldda thunk the Beavers would have a top ranked football team? For those of us who led with Ralph and bled with the Great Pumpkin, the world is topsy-turvy. I spoke with Michael Collins at OSU and they are being very closed lip about their thoughts for a new coach. Watching the great coaches during the next few weeks, remember, we don't need a flashy coach who will bring stars to campus. We do need a coach who will remember the value of fundamentals, and in basketball it's quick and speed.

Folks who criticized Ralph were excited about Jimmy coming in and "finally letting the kids play". Stars do not win basketball games. Teams do. Teams like Georgetown get uber-talented players. Combine that with fundamentals and Georgetown continues to have great teams. Jimmy had a few years and the plan to "let the kids play" was subtly sundowned as Jimmy was encouraged--directly--to retire to a well-deserved life of ease. He was a great assistant. Just never got there as a head coach. It was disappointing. Sitting next to Ralph all those years. Sad, really. How little rubbed off...and stuck.

Portland State is heading to the show. If you didn't watch the game the chances of your seeing it are pretty small. I'm not sure ESPN has replay of NAU v. PSU at the top of their scheduling list. PSU is this year's Cinderella team. They beat NAU. Beat 'em. Did PSU get a chance to recruit at the level of OSU? I think not. So how did they end up getting into the Show? Face it, kids, coaching counts. First time in the history of PSU. March Madness.

If you ever heard Ralph talk about basketball you know how simple the game is. I was at Gill when I watched what approached the perfect basketball game. While Mike Montgomery was at Stanford he won 70 percent of his games and took Stanford to the Show 12 times in 18 seasons. I watched The Game. One of the best, ever.

One of the principles of Ralph's game was the Miracle of Possession. Posssession was evenly divided between teams. One team scores. The other team gets the ball. The key to basketball is scoring when you have possession. And denying scoring to the other team when they have the ball. If you score most of your points in the paint, your offensive rebounding percentage goes up. If you deny the paint to your opponent, your defensive rebounding goes up. If a team is shooting 33% from 3-point range, you've got a chance at getting the ball back 67% of the time. If they turn over the ball, that's one more opportunity to score. If you turn the ball over, you lose a chance to score. What Oregon State did during the Ralph Miller years was turn the Miracle of Possession into a modus operandus for winning seasons. Ralph didn't like dunks because lay-ups off the glass had a higher probability of success than a dunk. Many a young man found pine after a spectacular dunk. It was the Way of Ralph.

If you hit the OregonLive forum you'll see a lot of banter about "change". If Edmund Burke were coaching, he'd be talking about fundamentals. Could Charlie Sitton match up with Patrick Ewing? Has Georgetown won the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament since 1982? Interesting questions. I know the final score, 69-45, doesn't convey the brutality of that game. McMinnville farm boy up against a 747. Whatta game.

And yet success bred contempt. The Game versus Stanford. The 1982 Georgetown game. Critics of the program wanted more razzle-dazzle. Where were the "stars"? To me, Charlie will always be a star. He played straight up against Patrick Ewing. You try it. And who woulda thunk that Charlie's #2 would go on to become one of the enduring players of the NBA? Why was A.C. perenially so good? From Benson High School to Oregon State University to the LA Lakers to that Florida team, A.C. remembered the fundamentals of basketball. If you've ever spoken with A.C. I don't think you'd be over-awed at his communication skillz. Post-game interviews never got deep. And think back, during the years in La-La Land, did A.C. ever become a media darling? No. He remained true to Ralph. Speed and quick. Think with your eyes. A lay-up is worth as many points as one just inside the arc. You rebound better in the paint. Take care of the ball.

Fundamentals. It was this train of thought that was interrupted by this David Mamet article from the Village Voice. The article is about change. When is it necessary? When is it appropriate?

When is change, for the sake of change, simply mind-numbingly stupid?

So I leave you with a musical thought. From Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil. (Lyrics here.)

"It Was A Drive-By Lack Of Insurance"

The quality of debate, or the lack thereof, is both moribund and ridiculous.

If you talk about Man Made Global Warming--now known as APG because anthropogenic is such a smart word--the predictiable reaction from Progressives/Lefties is all about the mathematic process, an arcane process that again addresses issues of smart versus unsmart. Can't do the math? Then you aren't allowed an opinion.

The type of reasoning required to come to this lofty, unassailable position was brutally displayed by this latest missive from FamiliesUSA. The headline?

"New Report Shows How Many People Are Likely to Die in Oregon Due to Lack of Health Coverage"

I know a lot of dead people. Well, people who are currently dead. And show no sign of change in the near future. Maybe you know a dead person, too. Currently dead.

My grandmothers are both dead. One died as a result of a stroke. One died as a result of cancer. Both were sad events. Neither of these women had health insurance.

Perhaps science has advanced that much in such a short time. Knowing now that both my grandmothers would still be living had they had health insurance really burns me up. So, I'm happy that FamiliesUSA is putting out amazing statistics like this:

"* Families USA estimates that one working-age Oregonian dies each day due to lack of health insurance (approximately 350 people in 2006).

"* Between 2000 and 2006, the estimated number of adults between the ages of 25 and 64 in Oregon who died because they did not have health insurance was nearly 1,900.

" * Across the United States, in 2006, twice as many people in that same age category died from a lack of health insurance as died from homicide."

Now, I don't have health insurance. So I have a dog in this hunt. Full disclosure.

So far, this hasn't killed me. I am reassured by the "homicide" statistic quoted by the authors. See, in my family, no member has been the victim of homicide. Not among my cousins, second cousins, cousins once-, twice-, three-times removed. When I think back to my father, his brother, my grandfather, his father, my cousins, nieces and nephews, I can't think of a single person lost to lack of insurance. We have, of course, had some close calls. And no homicides.

When my cousin Stevie rolled a combine--almost 40 years ago--he got lucky. He was able to jump and avoid being crushed. At the time, he didn't have health insurance. Had he known then that he could be killed from a lack of health insurance I'm not sure he would have ever remounted the steps of that killer machine.

But in my family, cowboy tough isn't just a saying.

When my great-grandfather walked from Astoria to Moscow during the Nez Pierce Uprising he was aware of his insurance coverage. And I have reason to believe that that lack of insurance wasn't his greatest concern. Nor was it listed as "cause of death". (It is reported that Chief Joseph died "of a broken heart." This in the face of the mandatory federal care provided to him.)
What makes this press release entirely piquant is its inclusion of the Senator Gordon Smith quote:

“Every American deserves a chance at a long and healthy life,” U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) said today. “As this report highlights, having good health care insurance coverage makes an astounding difference in one's likelihood for a healthy future. It is imperative that we work to ensure that all America's have access to quality, affordable health care."

And I want a pony. But I can't afford it. So, I make choices accordingly. Silly me.

Hillary To Outlaw Gasoline Production

You can't make this stuff up.

Somewhere, someone on Senator Clinton's staff thought this was a good idea. Hillary will make it illegal for oil companies to invest in new research and development, new oil field discovery and new oil production.

Under the Clinton Energy Plan, oil companies will no longer be allowed to choose how to direct their investments. Their investments will directed for them by the federal government.

According to the campaign press release from Senator Clinton's staff, released today, this plan is in reaction to today's high gas prices. Nowhere in the press release does the campaign describe any principles of market pricing that would result in lowering prices. In fact, no where in this press release is the goal of lower gasoline prices stated. Well, that couldn't be, could it?

Why would a policy, predicated upon that "soaring cost of oil is dragging down our economy and driving up prices on everything" would have, as a result of the policy, lower prices?

Here is the press release in toto:

"Hillary Clinton Statement on All-Time High Oil Prices"

"Today's record setting oil prices underscore the stakes in this election. The soaring cost of oil is dragging down our economy and driving up prices on everything from gas at the pump to food on families' tables. Gas is approaching $4 a gallon in some parts of the country and the average American family is spending $2,000 more a year on their energy costs than they were in 2000. Americans need a president who is ready to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fight global warming from day one, not someone who voted to provide new special interest tax breaks and giveaways to big oil companies. My opponent voted for Dick Cheney's 2005 energy bill; I knew it would take us in the wrong direction.

"For seven years, the Bush Administration has stood by as the price of oil has skyrocketed, now breaking $107 a barrel. As a result, companies like Exxon are reaping the highest profits in the history of the world-$40.6 billion in 2007 alone-and we are more dependent on foreign oil now than we were before 9/11.

"As President, I will create a Strategic Energy Fund that will require big oil companies to reinvest some of their huge windfall profits in clean, renewable technologies. I will reduce the amount of oil we import by two-thirds from projected levels by 2030, or more than 10 million barrels per day. These steps are part of my overall plan to transition to a clean, green economy and create at least 5 million new green collar jobs in America."

See? "Oil expensive, babble-babble-babble, Dick Cheney, babble-babble-babble, Bush Administration, babble-babble-babble, Exxon, babble-babble, clean, renewable, green, jobs."

There are so many reasons why the communist/socialist/progressive/Lefty politicians endear themselves. Always long on policy prescription, short on any common sense. Unfortunately, the level of debate has fallen to such a low level, that while this proposed policy prescription is ridiculous on its face, there are going to be those who can't see why or how any of this is bad. And as bad law forces prices higher, the only relief will be for the government to get into the pricing business. Control production. Control price.

Next step "to each according to their need"? "From each, according to their ability"?

Ya know, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, I never imagined that a return to the failed policies of socialism would ever be embraced again. Just take a look at what's happening to Venezuela.

And Senator Clinton wants to travel down the path to the new world with you. She's just gonna be the boss.