Home > Duluth.Talk > Archives > 2008 > January
January 2008
Some questions about the Gwinnett Braves
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
How do I feel about the Gwinnett Braves?
Mixed.
My initial reaction: “good for them.” I like going to Turner Field to watch a game, but it’s an expensive chunk out of my budget. Tickets, concessions, parking fees — it adds up pretty quickly.
Throw in crime, panhandling and traffic, and it becomes hard for the experience to live up to the reward.
Having a minor league team in a populated metropolitan area will hopefully alleviate some of my concerns. Better prices and a safer environment in which to enjoy a day out sound like better alternatives to me.
As a fan, I will find it more rewarding to get behind an up-and-comer, someone who “hasn’t made it yet,” as it were.
To me, minor leaguers look like they are having more fun playing the game than they do at the professional level — same with hockey. That makes for a more entertaining contest, in my view.
I think that the Gwinnett Braves can be a more visible and influential part of their community than the Atlanta Braves are in theirs. Signing autographs and actually enjoying people, attitudes that feel more like a day in the park than they do sweating the traffic.
To me, it plucks the strings of the purist’s heart.
I’m not thrilled with the way the “powers-that-be” went about it. I understand the need for privacy when constructing a deal like this. Like many of us, though, I am so used to our politicians acting in secret that I am instantly suspicious of them. Past experience tells me that my skepticism is rooted in good reason.
I read in the news that Buford is planning on a mixed-use development to surround the new stadium. On the surface, it sounds like a good idea. But who profits from it? Do the people who will profit from it have anything to do with initiating the move to begin with? Will it be a case of a few wealthy developers profiting heavily while offering little benefit to the community, building cheap townhomes and sticking them on two-lane roads that were straining with the heavier flow of traffic before they were built?
What will be done about the increased flow of traffic in the area? Getting around the Mall of Georgia is difficult enough as it is. Is more development going to make the traffic worse? This is a question I would like to see explored in more detail.
Obviously, a good time to answer these questions would have been during the negotiation process. Since it was done in private, though, it makes me wonder whether or not these people have even thought this through.
So, I haven’t made up my mind how I feel about it. I guess, then, call me Missouri on this issue. Show me.
How do you feel?
Permalink | Comments (16) | Post your comment | Categories: Bill Allen
Blame longer commutes on cellphones
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Readers of my blog (all five of you - thanks, Mom and Dad - the rest of you, the check’s in the mail) have read about my “reluctance” to join the cell phone culture.
My Mom got me a cell phone for Christmas 2006 - my first one. Because of my stroke, she felt that I would have access to a communication device if I needed assistance.
I see the benefit of a cell phone, but I’m not a slave to it. Only a few people (maybe the aforementioned five) know my number. I forget about it more than I use it, which is no surprise to people who know me.
My biggest complaint about cell phone users is their rudeness. Talking loudly in public areas, not paying attention in checkout lines, interrupting conversations to “take this call” (I mean, come on. What does it say about me when you interrupt my conversation to start another one with someone else?), and holding up traffic are a few of my beefs.
It turns out I have some vindication. Drivers talking on cell phones are making our commute even longer, concludes a new study as reported by Seth Borenstein for The Associated Press.
Motorists yakking away, even with hands-free devices, crawl about 2 mph slower on commuter-clogged roads than people not on the phone, and they don’t keep up with the flow of traffic, said study author David Strayer, a psychology professor at the University of Utah.
“The distracted driver tends to drive slower and have delayed reactions,” said Strayer, People kind of get stuck behind that person, and it makes everyone pay the price of that distracted driver.”
Strayer’s study found that drivers on cell phones are far more likely to stick behind a slow car and change lanes about 20 percent less often than drivers not on the phone. They took about 3 percent longer to drive the same highly clogged route (and about 2 percent longer to drive a medium-congested route) than people who were not on the phone.
Friends and neighbors, any of you driving on the streets of our fair community have experienced this. My informal survey found about 6 out of every 10 drivers talking on their cell phone while I was driving home. Many cell phone users drove between 10-15 mph slower, in the left lane, than their fellow commuters.
Turn signals are used infrequently enough among commuters, but are nonexistent among cell phone users. My favorites are the talkers who are evidently lost, first wanting to turn left at the intersection, then right, then left again. They changed lanes regardless of whether or not they had an opening to do so.
Turn left at a traffic light? Not if a cell phone gabber is in front of you. They are oblivious to traffic movement, to when the light changes, even to whether or not they are blocking an intersection. And all of this is just the tip of the iceberg.
The cell phone is an accessory; I am not. There has to be a way to put these thoughtless cads in their place. So I ask you, my good readers: What can we do to regain respect from rude cell phone users?
Permalink | Comments (50) | Categories: Bill Allen
The long answer is…
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
State Rep. David Ralston (R-Blue Ridge) summed up Georgia politics in a nutshell for me.
The issue was revamping the sexual predator law that the Georgia Supreme Court held as unconsitutional last year. The revised law continues to impose one-size-fits-all justice, putting the same restrictions on a 17-year-old who engaged in sex with a willing 15-year-old and on a 50-year-old pedophile who preyed on young children in parks.
Committee members asked Ralston whether restrictions should be calibrated based on an offender’s history.
“The short answer is yes,” he told them. “But the long answer is that there is a lot of debate about that, and my view is that I would like this to go forward without being caught in that discussion.”
Hmm. Let’s think about this.
How come a 15-year-old girl can’t form criminal intent to engage in sex with a 17-year-old boy, but a 13-year-old boy can form the criminal intent sufficient to be charged with murder as an adult?
“The long answer is that there is a lot of debate about that, and my view is that I would like this to go forward without being caught in that discussion.”
Why are building roads the only answer to traffic concerns? Can’t we synchronize the timing of traffic lights, develop public transit, construct more sidewalks and park areas?
“The long answer is that there is a lot of debate about that, and my view is that I would like this to go forward without being caught in that discussion.”
Is throwing more money at schools the only way to improve education? Are there no other changes we could make, including examing the functions of our school boards, administrators and teachers that might improve student scores?
“The long answer is that there is a lot of debate about that, and my view is that I would like this to go forward without being caught in that discussion.”
What if we don’t want another Wal-Mart in our community? What if we want to change where and how subdivisions and stores can be constructed in our community without asking its citizens how they want to do it?
“The long answer is that there is a lot of debate about that, and my view is that I would like this to go forward without being caught in that discussion.”
I think many of our state leglisators view themselves more as babysitters than as stewards of the people’s republic. “Now, now. This is all pretty complicated stuff, you wouldn’t understand. We know what we’re doing. You just hush up and run along now.”
I want the debate. I want the discussion. I want to be persuaded, cajoled. Tell me why you’re right and I’m wrong. Or vice versa. I don’t want to vote for politicians with an agenda, I want to vote for politicians who answer to me, the citizen, first. Even if we disagree, I want to know that you will at least listen.
And if you don’t want to get caught up in that discussion, then step aside and let someone who does.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Categories: Bill Allen
