June 29, 2017: Do A Flip!

I caught up to the present on a TV show I was watching (which never happens), and decided to finally pull the trigger on Better Call Saul after the mentions in the movie TV post. In the first episode, I saw he had the same flip phone that I used to have. Ahh, the early aughts...

62 thoughts on “June 29, 2017: Do A Flip!”

    1. I had a client jump to their death this week. It's been rough.

      Also, on our way to Wisconsin Dells in our new minivan.

          1. I'm with free. When we drove to Tennessee, the first pitstop was past the Dells. Made it seem like we ought to be doing that more.

      1. Our first cell phone was the futuristic looking flat one that I'm pretty sure was featured in MIB. Can't find any still of Tommy Lee Jones holding it, though.

    1. The first baseman didn't make much of an attempt to catch it. Maybe he couldn't have reached it anyway, but he really didn't even try.

        1. The score bug indicates one out, yes. But I don't know if Revere was running on the throw--he didn't cross home plate until after the outfielder picked up the ball. It seems like there would at least have been a play on him.

        2. Revere was on second. The Dodgers really gave that one away. Revere reached on error, went to second on a wild pitch, third on a passed ball and scored on the throwing error.

  1. "In order to accomplish that, we maybe started the year not anticipating being a clear buyer at the Deadline," Levine said. "I don't think we feel that's changed dramatically, other than maybe adding his one qualifier: We're probably not going to be inclined to spend lavishly on short-term assets, but we would be very open to spending aggressively on assets that we could use to propel our team forward this year and for years to come.
    "I think it leaves us contemplating buying, and that's how the season has impacted our decision-making."

    1. I'm okay with that. It'd be nice to make the playoffs, obviously, but I don't see them having a championship-caliber team, and I wouldn't want to mortgage the future just to make the playoffs.

    1. Seems like they keep pushing your hours back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back...

    1. Gonsalves pitched seven innings last night, so I'm pretty sure it won't be him. Romero last pitched Sunday, so he's a possibility.

  2. A thing I learned at work today: be careful following Google search results from searching for a phone number that calls you. We don't have Websense or the like here, and the third search result I got, without any meaningful warning, took me to a pr0n site, with full frontal nudity and, umm, activity, on display.

    I now need to bleach both my eyeballs and my browser history. (oh, and sent a note to our IT dude; you know I'ma gonna cover my butt)

      1. I mean the $20.17 Fourth of July sale still isn't bad, but that's twice what I could have paid.

      1. And, as I'm being reminded, the idea of writing about a Gibson start is a bit depressing.

  3. I'm seeing story headlines that "Venus Williams at fault in fatal car crash" that happened earlier this month. Weird report.

    According to the Sporting News coverage,

    The police report, which was first obtained by TMZ, says Williams was "at fault for violating the right of way of [the other driver]." Williams, 37, was not impaired or distracted, according to the report .

    Jerome Barson was a passenger in a car that struck Williams' SUV, which was blocking an intersection in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., on June 9, according to TMZ. Barson suffered head trauma and spent the next two weeks in ICU before succumbing to his injuries. His wife, who was driving the vehicle, had some broken bones and other injuries, her attorney told TMZ.

    The police report has contradictory statements from both parties. Williams claims her SUV was in the intersection after traffic in front of her had slowed to a halt. Barson's wife says Williams suddenly darted into the intersection and there was no time for her to stop.

    "Ms. Williams entered the intersection on a green light. The police report estimates that Ms. Williams was traveling at 5 mph when Mrs. Barson crashed into her. Authorities did not issue Ms. Williams with any citations or traffic violations," Williams' attorney, Malcolm Cunningham, said in a statement to CNN.

    Whenever someone dies in a traffic incident, it's pretty much by definition a tragic event. But basically, the report says that she was guilty of entering the intersection without clearly having room to get through before the light changed. And got hit by cross-traffic.

    Now, I don't know about you, but in my world, regardless of whether some idiot is blocking the intersection, I don't have a "right of way" to drive through that idiot. So how is she "at fault" for the fatal accident? She's at fault for blocking the intersection and could have been ticketed, but the other driver hit her and should have had every opportunity to not hit her. And one does not "dart" into anything at 5 mph. That's a 12-minute mile jogging/walking pace.

    1. The police report has contradictory statements from both parties.

      That would explain how you "dart" at 5 mph.
      My question is how do you enter an intersection on a green light and yet the cross traffic is going full speed and unable to stop before hitting you. There clearly is at least one party not being truthful here.

      1. The police report estimated Williams's speed at 5mph. That doesn't have much to do with her misrepresenting anything.

    2. I agree. I wonder if the "at fault" language is some police-ese that I don't know. This seems like a situation where traffic is congested and drivers should be aware that intersections may be blocked, even if they shouldn't be. I don't like when people block the intersection, but sometimes it is difficult to avoid, especially if people are preventing you from crossing an intersection by making right turns on red when there's really not space for them.

      1. During the time I live in LA, they implemented the "Gridlock Law" which tickets drivers for entering an intersection they are unable to exit before the red light. She certainly violated that law, whether it exists there in FL or not, but I don't think an insurance company would find her at fault for what was a lack of defensive driving on the other vehicle's part.

        1. Considering the police didn't issue a citation to Williams, I presume such a law does not exist in Florida.

          I strongly dislike people blocking the intersection, but I've seen situations where intersections are just really poorly designed. Some traffic would just never move if people weren't willing to go out into the intersection because the other side of the intersection empties and fills while they are sitting on red cycle after cycle. More details would be required to really understand what happened here. Venus entered at 5mph, how fast was the other car moving? Did it accelerate from stopped at a red or was there no lineup of traffic in the other direction so they were driving toward the green light at near the speed limit?

          1. yea, the Gridlock Law was exactly what I was getting at as the limit of her "liability" in this accident. Legal (Last Clear Chance Doctrine) and insurance principles strongly suggest that the other driver bears the majority of the responsibility for the accident (last opportunity to avoid and stuff).

            The "Does it matter?" advert (a California PSA on motorcycle safety) on driving defensively is appropriate here. Somebody is dead.

          2. Florida law on gridlock:

            The 2016 Florida Statutes

            Title XXIII
            MOTOR VEHICLES
            Chapter 316
            View Entire Chapter
            316.2061 Stop when traffic obstructed.—No driver shall enter an intersection or a marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle the driver is operating without obstructing the passage of other vehicles or pedestrians, notwithstanding any traffic control signal indication to proceed. A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318.
            History.—s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 76-31; s. 319, ch. 95-148; s. 160, ch. 99-248.
            Note.—Former s. 316.107.

            1. But then why wasn't she cited? If you aren't going to cite someone when they were blocking and intersection and an accident ensued, when would you ever cite someone for this?

    1. The Twins probably don't look at it this way, but if I was in charge this would not necessarily be just a one-off. If Jorge pitches well, or even fairly decently, I'd give him a chance to see if he can stick.

Comments are closed.