my other blog has a r.i.p. tag. i didn't want to have to add one to this blog. now i have. let's all hope i need never use it again.
josh hancock was this team's cal eldred, in one respect, having the strength of ego to do the mop-up role but the ability to get the outs when they were most important. josh was a team player and from all accounts an extremely nice guy. i liked him, i liked that we had him in cardinal red.
the question has been raised: was josh hancock drunk? the answer, in my opinion, is meaningless. will his death be less tragic if he was intoxicated? will his friends and family grieve any less?
in the last twenty years or so, a vocal minority has arisen in our country blaming alcohol for any manner of social ills, using drunk driving as an easy target for their spearhead. drunk driving is foolish and unsafe, but that doesn't make drinking evil. if we're playing fair, let's go ahead and condemn driving as well, since it's hard to get a dui on foot. driving is worse for more people (and the environment) than drinking, which primarily affects the drinker.
i've railed about this once too many times this year. go cardinals. resquiat in pace, josh.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
tales of a cardinals convert
Labels
- 'roids (3)
- albert (8)
- ankiel (2)
- anthony reyes (1)
- blogs (1)
- blooper (1)
- busch (5)
- complaints (10)
- drinking (2)
- free agents (8)
- gary "freakin'" bennett (2)
- gluttony for punishment (3)
- gollum (3)
- hamlet (3)
- injuries (2)
- izzy (4)
- jack (3)
- jenc (5)
- jim edmonds (2)
- jrod (1)
- light at the end of the tunnel (3)
- marquis (5)
- mulder (1)
- offseason (7)
- playoffs (1)
- pond scum (2)
- r.i.p. (1)
- salaries (3)
- scott rolen (6)
- sightings (1)
- surprising optimism (2)
- the curse (8)
- the other teams (1)
- tony la russa (3)
- trades (4)
- trouncings (7)
- wishful thinking (6)
- world series (3)
- yadi (4)
3 comments:
First of all, my condolences go out to the Hancock and Cardinals families. Mr. Hancock passed away much too soon.
However, saying that whether or not Hancock was drunk is "meaningless" is naive.
If he was drunk, it wasn't just his own life he was putting at risk; it was everyone else on that road that night. He easily could have killed others. Meaningless others?
If he was drunk, his actions were reckless, criminal, and downright stupid ... setting quite the example for the Cardinals faithul. Meaningless behavior?
Of course, you'll disagree ... especially after writing off LaRussa's recent DUI for a BAL of 0.93 as him merely being "tired" and excusing fans who drive home drunk from a game as merely victims of the "period of time between seventh inning last call and the game's end is rarely long enough for everyone to sober up."
Come on. Take off the Cardinal red-tinted glasses and get serious. Otherwise you run the risk of rendering Hancock's death meaningless.
at this point, josh's state of inebriation is meaningless. i agree that it's foolish, reckless, and downright stupid to drive drunk, but that argument doesn't make this occurance any less tragic, and it won't make a lick of difference to him. the main thing we can take away from finding out josh was drinking is an important lesson and thanks to fate or whatever higher power that no one else was hurt.
yes, of course i do disagree, but i question if you have noted that i haven't condoned drunk driving at all. regarding the fans after the games, i don't wish to excuse that; i'm only speaking about the reality of the situation. the drunk tanks at the downtown police station couldn't be made big enough to catch everyone, so they (hopefully) snag the worst offenders and pray for the safety of the rest. a perfect solution? hardly, but a logistically feasible one.
i stand by my assertion that a .093 BAC need not mean a person is drunk. i'm a firm believer in field sobriety tests as opposed to the notoriously inaccurate breathalyzer, because i know there are people who are looped at .03 and people who are fully functional at .11.
as i do the vast majority of my drinking at home, it doesn't come up that i have to risk drinking and driving very often, but i am in agreement that driving drunk is dangerous and stupid. what i cannot and will not agree with is the methods of enforcement, which are more effective as a way to raise money for MADD than catching dangerous criminals and potential vehicular homicide offenders.
this has nothing to do with cardinal red tinted glasses.
Nowhere did I say that Hancock's death wasn't tragic. It was. Perhaps even moreso now that the police report regarding the circumstances of Hancock's death has come out.
Apparently he ran the trifecta of driving no-nos: drunk, stoned, and talking on his cell phone while in the fast lane on the freeway.
Hopefully Hancock's tragic death will make a lick of difference to Cardinals fans and to everyone with a driver's license -- a reminder that there's more at stake than just a police ticket.
No one has to risk drinking and driving. It's a choice.
And saying that field sobriety tests are superior to BAL tests is like saying there shouldn't be speed limits on highways. Just because one person can adeptly drive at 75 MPH but another person is a safety risk at 45 MPH doesn't negate the necessity of having a 65 MPH speed limit.
Societies have to set limits somewhere, and as long as they're 65 MPH or .08 BAL, those that live in that society should be intelligent enough to abide by those rules.
Unfortunately, two Cardinals have now illustrated the consequences of choosing not to.
Post a Comment