Friday, October 10, 2008

Don't Stop Believin

With the economy spiraling down the drain, there are few reasons to celebrate.

Today I have my first reason to celebrate in a long time. The Grizzlies have won their first game of the 2008-2009 season. Detractors might say that this is only the preseason, but in these uncertain times, we have to make do with less, and look to the small things.

With that in mind, I was looking to the Grizzlies upcoming schedule to see when I thought the Grizzlies might win their first regular season game. In the spirit of Hubie Brown, I thought I'd circle game three at Chicago. It's an away game, and Chicago has more talent and experience than the Grizz. But for all it's talent, Chicago might have less chemistry, and I'm trying to be optimistic.

When do you think the Grizzlies will win their first game? 


Jay said...

Where was this video taken?

David Jones said...

The video was taken in Cyprus. You can read more about it here:

John said...

I think we will win of our first four for sure. There is a chance we could sneak one out against the Magic on Halloween night, if we can get our offense to click. I am anxious to hear your take on the Heisley interview in the CA today including the snippet on the economy at the end. Do you think we can compete with New Orleans in 3 years? I see us being closer to Houston in three years than competing in for the division.

David Jones said...

It does not surprise me that a billionaire is opposed to plans to tax the wealthiest people in America.

On the one hand, Heisley deplores that the American people are not sophisticated enough to make good choices about how to solve problems. Yet, his critique of Obama's economic policy is also not sophisticated: "Where is Obama going to get the tax dollars to pay for this?"

Obviously, you can't implement something until you fund it. However, there are many tradeoffs that can be made to get funding, and Heisley doesn't seem to want to discuss them.

Finally, I like his reasoning around Hillary Clinton vs Barack Obama. According to Heisley, Obama's success is the result of circumstance. Therefore, he is not qualified.

On the other hand, Senator Clinton's boot-strap success is a result of her merit. Or is it because "she [has] somebody in reserve"?

Heisley's 'sophisticated' argument: One candidate has had success because of circumstance, while the other's success stems solely from her competence.