Unemployment

I was listening to Glenn Beck today on the way to work and was reminded of something that happened last year.

The Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, and the one thing they have actually accomplished since then (the only thing?) was raising the minimum wage. Of course, the New York Times hailed it as "a major victory to low-income workers."

Um, maybe not.

Glenn, in the link above, argues that raising the minimum wage merely causes employers to cut these minimum-wage jobs rather than pay the higher rate.

So in essence, the wage hike hurts those making the minimum wage most.

Ironic.

As Glenn concludes:

This is from the University of California. An economist out there found the 10% minimum wage hike cuts employment of young and unskilled workers by 8.5%. He says in the last 11 months alone, the U.S. minimum wage has increased by more than twice that amount. So if we are expecting a 20% minimum wage hike, we can expect a 17% drop in employment in uneducated workers. It's crazy.

Bingo. It's the problem of theory vs. reality, as applied by politicians. Thanks Congress!

But of course, we all know unemployment is rising due to President Bush's policies. Or Iraq somehow.

Rodeo thoughts

As part of my internship with the Post-Register, I'm covering the Idaho State High School Rodeo Finals this week. To be honest, I'd never even been to a rodeo before yesterday.

Unfortunately, like most outdoor sporting events so far this summer, it was freezing. Cold wind, overcast sky, everyone wearing heavy coats and many had gloves.

Good ridin' and ropin' weather, I suppose. :)

Anyway, watching the high school students get out there and try to tie up a goat in under five seconds or rope a calf in under 10, I realized how small the window is in rodeo.

A kid can spend weeks and months practicing and working on an event, and then he or she has one, maybe two shots, at getting it right in front of a couple thousand people against other kids who have worked as hard as they have.

Talk about stress. I doubt I could rope the hind legs of a calf in a hundred tries (much like my attempts at slacklining), and here these teenagers are getting it done in one shot. But at the same time, there were plenty of competitors who didn't get it done, and I can't imagine it was for lack of effort or preparation.

It's like if the NBA Finals consisted of Kobe Bryant shooting a single free throw... into a moving hoop. And then Ray Allen gets a single free throw attempt into the moving hoop. Whoever gets the ball into the hoop first, wins the whole deal.

Small window, indeed.

Anyway, fun times. I'm heading down again either Thursday or Friday to do an interview or two.

Finals Game 3

I was busy covering a rodeo last night, so I missed the entire Lakers/Celtics game.

After I got home and checked out the box score, I felt better about that.

What an ugly, ugly game.

Kobe, Allen and Vujacic played well. Lakers-2, Boston-1. Lakers pull out the ugly win. Simple math.

Pierce was 2-14? Garnett shot 6-21? Odom and Gasol combined for 5-18 for 13 points. Good golly, the spirits of Detroit/San Antonio 2005 were strong last night.

Kobe was apparently brilliant. 60% shooting from the field and seven rebounds is a good line. Of course, his 18 free-throw attempts are completely fair, despite the fact that KG took two free throws and Pierce only took three. Kobe is entitled to take 18-30 free throws in any given game. For him to take less than that is a travesty.

And as Section F Sports says, The Machine should be starting over Vlad the Impaler, and it's not even close.

In essence, Laker fans should be extremely worried. In a game that was essentially do-or-die for L.A., only two of their players showed up. They only scored 87 points. At home. And you're not going to see a Boston team where KG and Pierce both stink up the joint.

So keep looking forward to next season and the return of Andrew Bynum, heir to the throne of Wilt Chamberlain. Then you'll be unstoppable.

But this just isn't your year, dirty Gasol trade notwithstanding.

This commercial freaks me out

The dark, soulless eyes of the children scare me to death.

Energy

Two thoughts about our energy crisis:

1. Congress is responsible for us being entirely at the mercy of our enemies for oil (in other words, $4/gallon oil). American oil companies can't drill in Alaska. They can't drill off our coasts. (And yet, China and Cuba can.) It's estimated that we could be completely self-sufficient for oil if not for the environmental groups screaming that drilling for oil would destroy the planet.

Now, obviously oil isn't the best form of energy for the environment. Cars and planes and busses that run on gasoline pollute the air. But at this point in time it's our most efficient method for getting from point A to B. Until new technology catches up to internal combustion engines, this is where we have to be.

This brings me to my second thought:

2. Nuclear. It's time we stopped being petrified of the ghosts of Cherynobl and Three Mile Island. France is almost entirely powered by nuclear. If the French can do it, why on earth can't we? Yes, the disposal of nuclear waste is an issue, but so far a 100% clean form of energy does not exist. And nuclear waste can be safely stored. When the perpetual motion machine is invented, I'm all for going for that. Until then, nuclear it is.

And for transportation, let's go electric. Electric powered by nuclear is the best option we have right now, in my opinion. And the electric car is almost here. The whack-job environmentalists who have got us into this mess have a choice with three options. Either a.) let us drill for oil on our own soil, b.) let us go nuclear or c.) knock us back to the Stone Age, technologically.

It seems that far too many of these people are bent on Option C.

So here we are. I have zero confidence that either Obama or McCain will pursue a nuclear/electric course, so who knows where we'll end up in a few years?

Gotta love politics.

Well, L.A. made it interesting

The Celtics seem intent on giving as many of their fans as possible a major heart attack this postseason. How do you let the Lakers come back from a 20-point deficit with under eight minutes left?

Well, for one, KG disappeared. Garnett's last contribution to the game was a hitting a jumper with 7:54 remaining. This made it 95-71. After that? Nothing. No rebounds, no made baskets, no blocked shots, nothing. He did miss two shots, so maybe he was somewhat involved.

And for two, the Lakers made a bunch of threes. Fisher hit one, Vujacic made two, Radmanovich made one... it was raining 3-pointers for those last few minutes.

And for three, Boston got dead lazy. I know that the lead seemed insurmountable, but you can't just stop playing with over seven minutes to go. Pierce made a lazy pass that Radmanovich took in for a dunk, no one rotated onto Fisher for the three he hit, and overall, the offense for Boston looked stagnant.

As much as I enjoy bagging on Kobe, I can't really put this loss on him. Sure, he went into full I AM KOBE FEAR ME mode in the third quarter, taking bad shots, making bad passes, staring down his teammates, sulking on the bench, but other than that, he was great. 30 points, eight assists, four rebounds on 11-23 shooting is good enough to satisfy me.

For most of the third and fourth quarters, defense was the problem for L.A. When Leon Powe is getting dunk after dunk after dunk, you may want to rethink your strategy, Phil.

Looks like most of ESPN's "expert picks" are hanging by a thread, if not completely blown up already.


If the Lakers don't win the next four games, seven of these ten "experts" are wrong. How can I get one of their jobs? I can be wrong as often as they are, I promise!

I think part of the problem here (re: the predicitons) is that the Lakers run through the West wasn't as impressive as many people believe. Yes, the Western Conference was very very deep this year. Yes, there were eight 50-win teams at the end of the regular season.

Buuuut... the road for L.A. wasn't exactly grueling. Denver was a joke. Until Utah develops a modicum of interior defense, they're not going to give a great team any problems. And San Antonio is not the San Antonio of 2007. Duncan was great, but faltered down the stretch more than once. Manu was hurt, and the role players didn't play their roles very well.

I don't want to take away too much from the Lakers, who are a very scary team and will remain so for a long time, but I think the way they ran through the West is a bit misleading.

So on we go. Given the Celtics' inability to win on the road in the playoffs, I wouldn't be extremely surprised if they lost all three in L.A., but it would be an impressive move for the Lakers. I say the Lakers win two of the three, then win Game 6, forcing a Game 7 in Boston.

Finally, how impressive has Rajon Rondo been? He follows up a very solid 15 and 7 game by handing out 16 assists and only two turnovers in Game 2. He didn't shoot especially well, but if he's getting his teammates going like that, I don't care. The way this second-year 22-year old has adjusted to the bright lights of the Finals has been fun to watch.

Oh, and a quick thought on the officiating. Can we please stop looking at free throws attempted as a sign as to whether the officiating was fair or not, announcer guys? I know the Lakers were outshot 38-10 from the line tonight, but show me clear-cut examples of fouls against L.A. players that were not called and then we can discuss unfair officiating.

The times I've complained about free-throw disparity for the Jazz, I've had at least four or five examples to point to in support.

And besides, Laker fans complaining about the refs is as laughable as anything there is in the NBA.

Back to Los Angeles we go.

NBA Finals thoughts

So far, so good for the Celtics. They got exactly what they needed out of Game 1. Kobe was intent on taking difficult shots from the get go; I watched him attempt at least three tough fadeaways from the baseline in the first quarter alone.

And after realizing he wasn't getting touch-foul calls (like he did against Utah), he started settling even more for long jumpers. You can't stop Kobe, but the best thing you can do it force him into tough looks and hope the shots don't fall. On Thursday, they didn't.

Kevin Garnett, Powe and Perkins manhandled Gasol and Odom, just like Boston needed. Rondo played very well, an unexpected bonus. Allen, while not scorching from outside, got to the free-throw line and hit his freebies. And we all know about Pierce.

Kobe took 26 shots; his teammates took a combined 51. Perfect.

Now, Boston can't expect 70% shooting out of Pierce every night, nor rely on Rondo to give you 15 and 7 on average. But as Simmons has been saying, this team is full of guys who will step it up one game and disappear the next. The Celtics don't need six guys to play spectacularly every game; they just need KG, Allen and Pierce to play well and then some combination of the remaining 12 to show up. Risky, but it's worked so far.