Links first: Today’s chat transcript. My podcast with the drunks at Drunk Jays Fans. Some intriguing-looking jalapeno cornbread with a recipe, although it includes sugar, which makes it corn cake, doesn’t it? Jerry Crasnick wrote a good piece on Adenhart that gets a little more at Adenhart as a person than as a prospect. (Seriously, stop talking about his baseball future. It’s trivial.)
Speaking of Adenhart and the chat, did anyone get what I was saying here?
J.B. (Dunmore, PA): As a father, today’s news really upset me. Three lives lost and another in the driver that is pretty much over. This may sound harsh but I really hope that young man spends a good chunk of his life behind bars.
Keith Law: They should release the other driver and give him a pass to the Angels’ clubhouse for Friday’s game. And then lock the doors.
I was suggesting that the killer (let’s not mince words – that’s what he is) would be locked in the clubhouse with Adenhart’s teammates. It doesn’t read that way to me now.
On to more mundane matters: I was in Sarasota for the last three days and ate a lot of needlessly heavy food. My go-to place from years past, an Amish restaurant called Yoder’s, wasn’t quite up to my memories of it. They’re best known for their pies, and while they do have a great variety, I had three flavors in three days and didn’t love any of them. The strawberry-rhubarb pie was packed but with about 90% rhubarb; if I wanted rhubarb pie, I would have ordered it, since that’s another option. The peach pie and blackberry pie were both filled with gooey cornstarchy liquid and not enough fruit. Their pie crusts are very good, though – tender, not really flaky, very soft and buttery.
The food is mostly comfort food. Their fried chicken is above-average, pressure-fried (the Colonel’s method!) to produce a crisp crust and fully-cooked meat in a shorter time than traditional skillet-frying, which takes about 45 minutes. Unfortunately, the meat I got was lukewarm and I had to send the thigh back. (The drumstick wasn’t much warmer, but you can’t put a fried drumstick in front of me and get it back unless you use the jaws of life.) Their roast turkey is solid-average – it peels apart like it’s been smoked but doesn’t have the slightly rubbery texture that I always associate with smoked turkey – while their smoked pulled pork was moist but kind of flavorless. The stuffing was mushy, and the green beans were grayish-green from overcooking. I did have one meal at another Amish restaurant down the street, called Mom’s, with pretty similar results.
Tropical Thai in northern Sarasota was just bad. The chicken in the chicken with green curry was barely cooked and way too soft – almost like a great steak, except that that texture is great in steak and lousy in poultry – and the sauce had clearly been thickened with some kind of starch, while the vegetables in it were also undercooked.
And one more dud before I get to the two recommendations: Dutch Valley is a diner that claims to be known for its Belgian waffles (spelled “Belgium waffles” on the sign outside, which I now know was a warning). Putting pancake batter on a Belgian waffle iron does not produce a Belgian waffle – it produces a thick, dense, doughy cake-like waffle that, if cooled to room temperature, might make a suitable mattress for a hamster.
Word of Mouth was a better bet for breakfast, at least a solid 50, although I found the food to be a little hit or miss. On the plus side, their scone of the day today was pineapple-coconut (right out of the oven) and it was incredible – slightly dry, like a good scone should be; sweet but not overly so; with bits of actual coconut inside and a crumbly texture. Their home fries are nicely browned and cooked with onions, although today’s onions were more black than brown. The Tex-Mex omelet with chorizo had absolutely no salt in the egg portion, and when I ordered eggs over medium the other day I got something about five seconds past over easy. They serve Harney & Sons teas and the service is very good, but they play awful music (John Mayer on Tuesday, Hootie & the Blowfish today). There are two locations, and I went to the on Cattlemen near Bee Ridge. It’s a solid 50.
Mi Pueblo is a local mini-chain of Mexican places serving mostly the usual fare of burritos, enchiladas, and tacos. Their tacos al carbon with steak were outstanding. The steak was soft – how often have you had steak in a taco or fajita and needed a hacksaw to chew it? Mi Pueblo’s was at the other end of the spectrum. The rice was fresh and gently seasoned, not sticky with tomato paste or sauce. The one I went to, at the corner of McIntosh and Bee Ridge, is tiny and there was a wait when I arrived on a Wednesday night after 7, so the locals seem to have caught on. Based on one dish I’d hazard a grade of 55.
Keith, I travel quite a bit for work like you do and I often eat alone. I’m just curious what you do while you’re at a restaurant by yourself. Book? Laptop? Other?
I think eating meals alone is by far the worst part about traveling.
I understood exactly what you were saying in that response. Frankly, I would fully endorse your suggestion.
Keith:
I got what you were getting at with the Adenhart comment, but I did have to back up and re-read it. I read pretty fast, but usually know when I’ve come across a sentence that doesn’t seem to “fit”, and that one gave me that sense, so I went back and read it more slowly…I could see some people not getting the point you were making…
Book. Dinner with the empty chair is not fun, but I do get through a lot of books that way, at least.
I got what you meant, Keith, but I can’t say that I agree with it. Vigilante “justice” never solved anything. But I certainly agree that he should be locked up for a good, long time. Drunk driving is bad enough, but drunk driving when your license has been revoked for that very crime already is despicable.
I understood what you meant but I’m too numb to react to what you say.
Yeah, Keith, I read it the way you intended live during the chat, and still do now..
I knew what you meant the first time I read the comment.
I grew up in SWFL, and I have eaten at both of those Amish places, and Word of Mouth. But I haven’t ever been to The thai place or Mi Pueblo, as I have my mexican spot that I haven’t eaten at my enitre life. There is another Amish place just north of Sarasota that is better than both Yoder’s and Mom’s (or at least there used to be) that was better every time I haven’t eaten there. Next time I make the big trip (I guess 5 hours from Tallahassee is big) I will swing by Mi Pueblo, should be easy enough to find if it is on the corner of Bee Ridge.
I thought you only went to Arizona, what was the trip to FL for?
…my mexican spot that I HAVE eaten at my entire life. EditFAIL.
…was better every time I HAVE, fail again. I just clicked the miPueblo site and there is one closer to my house in Venice. Now I know I’ll hit it.
I was there to see some HS prospects. Should be two articles going up over the next few days with video.
Sweet, they are probably Sailor’s but oh well I’ll read and watch anyway.
Keith–have you ever tried Philippe Creek in Sarasota/Siesta Key? It’s been several years, but I remember it being a nice seafood place.
Re: reading in the restaurant. Do you ever get shit from some of the nicer places you dine at? Not that I think you would let it get to me, but I generally roll with a book or newspaper and some places aren’t so keen on the idea.
BSK: Never. I’ve even asked for certain tables where the light appears to be better and never had anyone bat an eye. A newspaper can be a little loud, I guess, while a book is unobtrusive. It’s a stretch, though.
Keith,
I’m not sure it’s entirely irrelevant to mention Adenhart’s lost baseball future. His ever so brief baseball past is why we know who he his at all, and the potential length and quality of his baseball future is, in part, why we care so much. If this had been just a drunk driving accident in California, it would have been tragic, but not the sort of tragedy that reaches the East Coast.
His pitching, of course, shouldn’t be the main thrust of the story covering the lost life of a 23 year old, but it does bear a mention, I think.
I am pretty comfortable on my own people watching. Having had self esteem issues in the past I find it quite liberating to be sat relaxed on my jack in a place now. Indeed where once I would have found the darkest most hidden corner I now pretty much sit in the middle with the best view.
I’ve used newspapers and even broken out the PC and modem although burned a hole in my carry case from a ‘romantic’ candle last time I pulled that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The problem with DUI is not what happens to this individual. The problem is what happens to others. A bit of alcohol treatment or a fine. In the US I understand you do not even get stood down from driving in England DUI is an automatic year off and almost a 100% conviction rate (I understand people get off in the states) – still does not discourage.
I don’t know if the crime is any greater if you kill someone other than in the eyes of the law. Some argue they take greater care but that is probably fatuous and for me missing the point – reactions are impaired.
I guess the question is should the next drunk who crosses a red light be treated as an attempted murderer? Like this killer but one who mercifully did not kill anyone.
Is there some tacit social acceptence at work here? Sort of like someone who rolls a few blunts at weekends? People do not report friends to the police even when they know it is happening.
Keith,
I got the point of your statement, and didn’t pick up the alternative interpretation of it until reading this post.
Also, I saw the jalapeno cornbread recipe as well, and am thinking of making it. If you keep the sugar pretty low it doesn’t impart any real sweetness, but it does seem to help it get an even better crust (especially when making it in a cast iron skillet).
Have you picked up Ruhlman’s new book yet?
Hi Keith,
I got what you were saying in that response. It reminds me of a scene in The Wire were a suspected cop killer is in a cell and looks horrible. When a cop is asked what happened he says they took him on a detour to the dead officers precinct house before heading to the county jail.
Jon UK: You bring up points that show some of the hypocrisy for drinking in this country. People show indignation for drunk driving at this instance, but several of the same people will commit that crime this weekend.
I think the problem stems from a few things, but most problems come from the buzzed drivers or others lack of responsibility. Many people see nothing wrong with driving after having some drinks despite having impaired judgment. We condone buzzed driving but rail against drunk driving. Also, it is common to see people say “that guy is drunk,” but unless you know him well, they do not stop them from driving. And bars feed into that in most places by kicking out the drunk guy and saying “not in our bar anymore, not our problem.”
Also, I know that in this country if you get the right lawyer and are willing to spend ~$10,000, then a DUI will never appear on your record; you will just get community service and maybe have to go to a 2 week rehab.
I read the comment to mean the driver of Adenhart’s car being with the Angels teammates. You know…the driver was there the last moments of the trio’s lives and all. A time to heal and grieve together without media hullabaloo. I thought that was a classy idea. A little dissapointed to find out it was something different.
Jon UK, I get what you’re saying but most any non-drug crime in the US is punished based on results, not intents/inputs. Hopefully some massive cracking down on those who do kill while driving drunk would drastically cut back on those who take the risk but who knows. It all sucks.
I read the comment as retribution…and cannot, for the life of me, figure out the other implied meaning.
Keith, I understood exactly what you said. The sentiments are shared here. These homicides happen all too often and a very public example should be made. But even after retribution, it still won’t be enough. This child menace took away too much and I guess that is why we consider it a tragedy.
BTW Keith, just reading the chat transcript – this was classic! At first I was like Keith made a mistake, and then it all fell into place…good one:
Jason (NYC): Do you have a dislike for Vanderbilt? Seems like you are always knocking there players.
SportsNation Keith Law: I hope you didn’t go their. I thought that David Price fella was pretty good. Still do.
John UK-
Your point is lost on me. We only care because he was a baseball player? Not at all. The reason most of us know as much as we do is because he was a baseball player. But we care because we are human. I don’t know about everyone, but as Keith pointed out, it was not just Andenhart who died. Two other young people lost their lives as well. This is a tragedy all around, and would be whether or not he was a baseball player. We are just more aware of it because he was. But we do not care more because a player with a bright future was lost. We care because anytime a person with a bright future is lost, it is tragic.
I do agree with regards to DUI’s. I argued this with a lawyer friend, and unfortunately our legal system is not generally designed well to handle “intent”. Did the driver intend to kill? Likely not. But did he intentionally put people at risk by choosing to drive drunk? Absolutely. I don’t think that impaired drivers who are lucky enough to not hit someone, either through their own actions or sheer chance, should be punished less than people who do take lives. If you put lives at risk, you should be punished, regardless of what came of it. It’s the same idea of “attempted” murder. Is someone more guilty than another because his shot was fatal while the other “merely” left someone a parapalegic? Unfortunately, our system primarily punishes outcome, not intent, which is highly predicated upon chance and, unfortunately, leaves us with a legal system that does not protect us from drunk drivers. Regardless of whether or not the person should be “punished”, if you view our correctional system as intending to protect citizens, than I don’t know how you guarantee that someone who has demonstrated a willingness to drive drunk will EVER be safe.
Rant over.
The driver was driving on a suspended license from a previous DUI conviction. Does anyone know what the penalties are for that? Taking someone’s license away for a DUI isn’t going to stop them from driving, and obviously the penalty for a repeat offense wasn’t high enough to stop this guy. I wonder what the percentage of people who still drive with suspended licenses is.
bsk- are you actually suggesting people be punished based on their likelyhood of causing harm? what do you do with someone who speeds? or talks on the phone while driving? or texting? is this not a hinderance while driving? I have no idea what you are arguing for and would like you to draw this out for clarity. apparently these people should be punished?
“I guess the question is should the next drunk who crosses a red light be treated as an attempted murderer? Like this killer but one who mercifully did not kill anyone”
Yes. But that answer is coming from someone that has absolutely no tolerance for drunk drivers.
I don’t think that the consequence should be simply based on the outcome of the event, since the outcome is so often determined by chance and, therefore, the consequence does not necessarily appropriately fit the severity of the action. We punish people for putting others at risk all the time, whether or not anyone is actually hurt. Otherwise, we would NEVER punish drunk drivers unless they hurt someone. We would just sit around and wait for things to happen and then act accordingly.
It really depends on what you believe the justice system is designed to do. Is it punitive? Rehabilitative? A deterrent? Or designed to protect the public? I feel it’s primary function SHOULD be the last of the four and the secondary function should be the second. Unfortunately, our system tries to do a little bit of everything and fails on all accounts. If you believe, as I do, that it should protect people, than is the serial drunk driver who hits someone any more or less dangerous than the serial drunk driver who narrowly avoids someone? As far as I’m concerned, they are not, and they should be handled accordingly.
If I shoot someone in the head and put them in the coma, I would be charged with attempted murder. If that guy dies as a result of that gunshot, the charge changes to murder. Did my action change? No. So why am I suddenly charged with something different?
Jeff, it depends on the state. The only one that I could find that specific scenario for is Kentucky, where being caught driving under the influence with a license suspended for a DUI carries a penalty of up to a year in jail, $500 fine, and a year with your license revoked (obviously, this is without any accident). California is one of the harsher states in terms of DUI penalties, so I suspect the penalty there is worse; from what I can tell, a second DUI offense (without one’s license being suspended) means 90 days to a year in jail, a year of your license being suspended, and $390 to $1000 in fines. Also, one of the penalties for being caught driving with a license suspended for DUI is that you are required to install a device in your car that prevents it from running if you can’t pass a breathalyzer. There may be other penalties for CA that I’m missing for this specific scenario, but hopefully that gives you some idea.
By definition in your example the acts are different – attempted murder vs murder. Each carries different weight and is punished accordingly. Intent is irrelevant. I’m sure Pujols intends to hit a homerun every at bat, but only his action matters.
This begs the overall question, if one is not caught driving drunk, is it a crime? no it isn’t. An act is only criminal once consequences are levied. Crime and Punishment explores this question in a freakishly haunting way.
Thanks for clarifying your position.
I’d bet Pujols doesn’t intend to hit a HR every at bat, but to hit the ball hard every at bat.
The ACTIONS are not different. The person still did the exact same thing. And, as you stated, intent is meaningless. Though, our system DOES try to take intent into account at CERTAIN times. Manslaughter versus murder. Justifiable homicide/self-defense versus murder. In certain situations we do take intent into account and at certain times we don’t. It is inconsistent. And I, personally, think we more often should take intent into account, as difficult as that is to do.
I have not read C&P. Most of my beliefs have been formed by reading philosophical and/or “religious” texts. I put “religious” in quotes because I mean writers like Dorothy Day, not necessarily the Bible.
As for your Pujols argument, don’t we now acknowledge that results are somewhat out of a player’s control? Informed teams make decisions based on the TALENT of a player, not necessarily the results he has achieved. Is that not SOMEWHAT of a parallel situation?
The intent is again irrelevant only the outcome. Shooting that individual will result in an outcome. Whether the individual is killed or paralized is directly related to the severity of the crime. That is chance. That is how life is. In the circumstances you gave, those situations are often extraordinary and not the norm. Intent does have a place but very often it does not. When the gun is fired and the outcome is settled, is intent a justifiable defense? “I didn’t mean to kill but only to scare.”
I had to google Dorothy Day. Theologian or activist saint? I’ve read a bit of Hans Kuhn and really liked it. Barth is more my cup of tea though. Everyone wins in the end. haha.
The “and then lock the doors” made your point very clear.
I’m routinely amazed, and despite the definition of those words it is sadly accurate, at the level of punishment that is deemed acceptable in cases where an individual chooses to be wholly irresponsible and whose actions end in such terrible events.
I hope that a great amount of good comes of the loss of these three lives.
(and I would like to agree but having watched the press conference I think the Angel’s players themselves may have been far too grief stricken to dole proper justice)
Hard to classify Day. I guess I’d say she’s a mix of both. Mind you, she informed my idea on the justice system’s purpose moreso than the role of intent. I think this is somewhat of an “agree to disagree”. It is more a philosophical debate than an objective one, and I don’t know that we are going to change minds on this board. I do think you are underestimating the ways in which intent is already factored in in many ways. The problem is our system doesn’t know what it wants, so sometimes it is outcome based, sometimes intent, and often mindless.
By the way, if you want to understand how and why the church should be one of the most liberal entities in the world, read some Day.
I can assume what I think a justice system is for, and in my “Republic” I can pretend it works. Our justice system is a system to generate revenue. Speeding tickets, jay walking, and simliar “offenses” are inhibitation of basic human rights in order to generate revenue. These glasses always must be worn when viewing our justice system and anything else is simply a gross misunderstanding of our system. I am however interested in continuing this converstion yet you are right, on this forum, lets agree that we disagree. I think intent is a defense lawyers reasoning and I’m the prosecution, where “intent” is a thin veil to lessen guilt. “I didn’t mean to!” never worked with my mom.
As for the liberal church, it would be wise to define “church” and “liberal” before throwing that out. Suggestions to read by her?
Speeding his hardly a basic human right, and being ticketed for it is not an inhibition. I agree that many “offenses” are trivial matters that are on the books to generate revenue, but speeding is a poor example. That one belongs.
Seat belt laws, on the other hand…
If you remember, my argument with regards to intent would have been a prosecutors dream, at least with regard to the drunk driving situation. I guess I mean intent of action and not intent of mind, if that means anything, which it might not. I’m not necessarily arguing for the, “But I didn’t mean to” defense (though I think that is applicable in certain situations). Rather, I am arguing in favor of, “I don’t care what ultimately happened, you took risks with other people’s lives you had no business taking and you will be judged as if you had taken their lives.”
As for Day, I can’t recall anything off the top of my head. It’s been a few years since I’ve looked closely at her work, but I can try to dig it up. As for “church” and “liberal”, I suppose my point was that catholic/christian ideology (I’m using lowercase C because I do not mean the organized institution, but rather the underlying belief system) is incredibly socially progressive. Much of her writing borderlines on socialism/communism, which I am not necessarily advocating. But when you see how one quote from the bible is repeated over and over again to justify the persecution of homosexuals, yet every other message from these works demonstrate that defending the defenseless and advocating for the rights of all is inherent to the belief, you realize how screwed up it is at this point. There are still great works done by members of the church or people working on behalf of it. Unfortunately, the message has become so twisted that “right-wing” and “Christan” have become linked. And that is just so far from the original intention.
Again, not trying to debate the politics of all of this; just pointing out a really interesting thing that can be taken away from her work and something that I think is completely unknown to many people today: socially progressive catholicism.
It gets very tricky when you try to punish someone for their intent. This comes into play often with “hate crimes”, which are deemed to be worse because the intent is based on bigotry.
Many people forget that bigotry is perfectly legal (while I certainly do not condone it). Therefore, if you punch a stranger on the street at random, or punch them because they are (insert characteristic here), the punishment is the same.
That stinks that Yoder’s has slipped a little in quality.
Did you head over to St. Armand’s Cirlce and get some Kilwin’s Fudge and Ice Cream? Are there any good eats in St. Armand’s Circle? Do you plan on hitting some Tampa eats? If so, you have to hit First Choice BBQ in Brandon.
My issue is the subjectivity of “you took risk of other peoples lives”. If i speed to 46 mph in a 45 mph zone with people in the car, that’s a risk. This becomes a slippery slope quickly and ultimately anytime you reach down to adjust an air vent in the car you subject passangers to risk. Is that a punishable crime? Where is the line between acceptable risk and non-acceptable risk with others lives? This demarcation is entirely impossible and I’m frankly not sure how a justice system would work this way.
Did you BSK adjust an air vent driving your car on April 11th @ 3:45pm while taking your kids to baseball practice? That is punishable by 3 days in jail and 25 hours community service. This clearly doesn’t work. I am assuming this isn’t your point. Clarification please.
Big C is the universal church and little c is the church on the corner.
I agree with your point though. Details we could quibble over but yes the message in the New Covenant is clearly to love. Fundamentalist brand religion has gotten away from that, drawn a line in the sand and said, “we’ll love you if you do these things” which of course is polarizing. Heaven forbid you be on that other side. You might check out Karl Barth. He’s a little weighty but know that he has one point and he just talks about it in different ways for about 10 volumes. You can start really anywhere and be okay. He’ll get back to whatever you didn’t pick up the first time. it is nice that way.
BSK,
While I believe your ideas are well-intentioned, this is a “Minority Report” type of situation. Is the next step arresting people for attempted murder as they walk to their car from the bar to drive home? They clearly intend on driving, so whether or not the intention to kill is there or not, they intend on putting others at risk soon. Can you pre-emptively stop this legally (as you could if someone was found to be plotting a murder/terrorist attack, etc)? I realize this is a very extreme example, but it’s a huge can of worms to open from a legal standpoint.
Keith,
Any chance of Fort Myers and Tampa area food spots?
John and brian-
Great points both. I realize it’s a “slippery slope” argument, but I don’t really believe in slippery slopes. You can certainly draw a line and say, “This is what we consider acceptable and this is what we consider unacceptable.” Obviously millions of actions we take somehow increase the risk of death to other people. Driving in the first place does. But we don’t allow that. We recognize that certain actions are of high utility and offer very little risk to others. Driving 46 instead of 45 qualifies here. But drunk driving does not offer any utility to anyone but the driver his/herself and the risk to others is extreme. So in that situation, I think you can make a law and not feel obligated to do so in every other seemingly related context.
As I said, we already have laws that incorporate “intent”. Selling drugs with intent to sell. Taking part in a conspiracy. I’m not saying that intent should be the full picture; moreso, I’m arguing that simply responding to the ultimate effect of actions is often shortsighted and does not necessarily take into the full scope of the person’s actions and potential consequences.
Should say “But we don’t disallow that” in the first paragraph. Also, in the second paragraph, it should say, “Possessing drugs with the intent to sell.” And the last paragraph should have “account” between into and the.
Little hungover here and hoping not to make Keith weep for our language.
your examples aren’t good as intent to sell drugs is fine. the crime is the possession of a controlled substance. shouting ‘I want to sell drugs’ will get funny looks but very little punishment. conspiracy’s are only a crime where plans of action and execution are in place. I can conspire to build a bomb but that isn’t a crime. also- there is a notion here that some great aribitor decides which action has enough utility to warrant the risk. this is entirely arbitrary as the drunk driver certainly thinks drinking is of value and getting home is of value- hence utility of drunk driving. again this goes back to the idea of action not being a crime until caught or harm done. we can certainly go around and around but I’m going to propose consequences being in direct connection outcome as the standard. any intent is due to special circumstances and not a standard.