In case you hadn't heard, NBA Commish David Stern is implementing a dress code for NBA players that requires collared shirts and the hiding of all 'bling,' among other things.

 Stephen Jackson of the Indiana Pacers isn't the only player to have spoken out against the proposal, but his statement struck me as interesting.

"I think it's a racist statement because a lot of the guys who are wearing chains are my age and are black," said Jackson, 27. "I wore all my jewelry today to let it be known that I'm upset with it.

"I'll wear a suit every day. I think we do need to look more professional because it is a business. A lot of guys have gotten sloppy with the way they dress. But it's one thing to [enforce a] dress code and it's another thing if you're attacking cultures, and that's what I think they're doing."

That's what he said.

If black males being told NOT to wear chains is racist, then what is it if young black males are FORCED to wear chains? 

Here in Lexington, KY, factions of the local government have been trying to use eminent domain statutes to condemn and purchase Kentucky American Water Company simply because the Company is part of an international conglomerate.

Ever since proponents of condemnation lost their influence in last year's city council elections, they have undertaken efforts to get the issue placed on the ballot as a referendum issue. The correct number of signatures was collected, and these proponents (in lock-step with the mayor) tried to force a city-wide vote on November 8, 2005.

Kentucky law says that referendum votes can only be held in years where general elections take place. The Kentucky election board clearly states that there is no general election for 2005.

Read that last paragraph again. Got it? If no genereal elections, then no referendums.

The referendum proponents tried to go to court to fight that rule. Well, not fight, exactly. They tried to get the Kentucky Supreme Court to overlook the applicable laws and make a ruling in their favor.

I wonder how much money the lawyers made off of these condemnation proponents fighting a 'fight' that had no chance of success. Who convinced these proponents that spending money on lawyers could get a state supreme court to make a ruling without reading the applicable laws?

So the referendum will wait until 2006 when there are general elections in Kentucky.

Our local newspaper, the leftist Herald-Leader has run stories claiming that the local mayoral and city council elections will be heavily influenced by the water fight.

I most strongly disagree.

If a referendum will dictate what the mayor and council must do in regards to condemnation, then who cares what opinion the candidates for office hold? The outcome of the referendum directly affects the behavior of the elected officials, not the other way around.

If voters are stupid enough to believe the newspaper, then why is this referendum going to be on the '06 ballot? 

My aunt griped that this was both inept and insensitive, so I've deleted it.

I hope this makes her happy.