It’s unreasonable for a 30 year old man to need to be accountable to someone in order to ensure he doesn’t fall into trouble. I have no doubt about this. But it’s also unreasonable to waste away a ton of promise and potential through excess alcohol and drug use.

If it’s Josh Hamilton and the Texas Rangers’ belief that something unreasonable, but ultimately harmless, will keep him from doing something that’s unreasonable and harmful, it would be unreasonable to argue against it. And so, Josh Hamilton requires an accountability partner to travel with him and ensure that he doesn’t back slide into the world of drinking and drugs again.

For years that role has been filled by Johnny Narron who was an assistant hitting coach with the Rangers. He left that position this winter to become the hitting coach with the Milwaukee Brewers. Less than two weeks ago, it was announced that Hamilton’s father-in-law, a former counselor who originally assisted Hamilton in getting clean, would step into Narron’s former role as an accountability partner.

Unfortunately, after some time to think about the duties involved, the former AL MVP’s father-in-law decided that he couldn’t do it.

As Jon Daniels and the Texas front office weigh the possibility of signing Prince Fielder to a long term contract, I wonder if this carries any added significance. While it’s far from certain that locking Fielder up would negate a contract extension for Hamilton, who is eligible for free agency at the conclusion of this coming season, it’s certainly unlikely that the Rangers would give multiple years to two players with question marks attached to their durability.

Yes, Fielder has been the model of that very characteristic over his first six full seasons in the league, but there has never been a player with his body type in the history of the game. We have no way to predict how he’s going to age. Meanwhile, Hamilton’s reckless playing style combined with the abuse his body went through during his dark years also makes it difficult to project his future decline.

Getting Blanked contributor Matt Klassen recently compared the two players in these terms for Fangraphs, coming to the conclusion that Fielder is a safer bet. If the Rangers are swayed similarly, Hamilton’s need for a guardian should be taken into consideration and push the team further in Fielder’s direction.

It’s tough. No one wants to discriminate against someone in need of a second chance, and Hamilton has been just as good to the Rangers as the team has been to him. However, when dollars, cents, pennants and World Series titles are involved, everything becomes a factor. Unfortunately for Hamilton, “everything” in his case includes a shady history and the current need for extra attention that only serves to remind his team about that history.

Comments (59)

  1. “Yes, Fielder has been the model of that very characteristic over his first six full seasons in the league, but there has never been a player with his body type in the history of the game.”

    Mo Vaughan?

    • Fielder is listed at two inches shorter and fifty pounds heavier.

      • Not sure how much you can take these listings for gospel but:


        Prince: 5-11 / 268lbs
        Mo: 6-1 / 275lbs

        Baseball Reference:

        Prince: 5-11 / 275lbs
        Mo: 6-1 / 225lbs — really?

        • Wow. I never looked at the FanGraphs one before. Thanks.

          That link I used describes to a degree how difficult it is to judge things based on weight because of the difficulty in finding the right one.

  2. Frankly, this is pathetic. Hamilton is a grown man and has to take care of himself eventually. If that means chaining himself to the hotel room bed on road trips, so be it. The Rangers are completely justified in being concerned about having a player backslide into being unable to do his job. There’s turning a blind eye to Mickey Mantle and then there’s turning a blind eye to Josh Hamilton.

  3. Interesting post. I like Josh Hamilton. I like his style of play and he clearly puts up great numbers when he’s in the lineup. I admire his courage and I wish him well. But he is not the kind of employee to whom I would offer a long-term contract right now.

    Then again, neither is Prince Fielder.

    • Even aside from the addiction problems, his style of play – as exciting as he is to watch – would be a big concern for me as a team interested in signing him long term.

      • It’s sad and ironic that teams and fans want players to play hard and bust their asses to help win games, and yet that very quality can make them difficult to confidently invest in.

        • I think in general it’s probably the fans who want to see that kind of balls-to-the-wall play, whereas teams would prefer players to be more cautious.

  4. This has to be one of the most unique (and difficult) decisions ever about a star player hitting free agency. There’s obviously tremendous upside there but I think the risk is just too large to give him anything near the mega-deals that top free agents have received in the past couple of offseasons. I mean, Hamilton has certainly done a lot more than Jayson Werth did when he hit free agency, and they’re close in age, but it feels borderline crazy to give more than $100 million to Hamilton when there are just so many question marks (I guess it was also pretty crazy to give it to Werth, but for mostly different reasons).

    Here’s something to think about: let’s pretend Prince Fielder has a known medical condition that causes him to periodically wake up in the middle of the night with an uncontrollable urge to break his own legs, and the only way to snap him out of it is to have a team-appointed therapist stay with him each night and say some kind of magic word to stop him and bring him back to reality when he’s having one of his episodes. Any team who signs him would have to provide this therapist, and trust that he does his job properly; if he doesn’t, there’s a good chance that Fielder will break his legs and severely hurt (or end) his career.

    Ignoring the ridiculousness of the situation, how much would that affect his free agent value?

  5. There is something unique about the travel involved in certain jobs and the sense of isolation that makes dealing with an addiction more difficult. The draw to the addiction often remains for a person’s lifetime.

    Add in the tragic incident last year of Hamilton trying to throw a boy a ball, only to have the boy’s father fall to his death, and it’s at least a bit understandable how Hamilton would feel drawn back to his old vice during that time to help him cope with the “what-ifs” and guilt that could accompany such a situation.

    I see no reason to think it unreasonable for a man who has struggled with such problems and who is often away from close friends and family (support) to desire a travelling companion. In fact, many Christian speakers (such as Shane Claiborne) travel with a companion to help keep them grounded.

    If professional athletes have their own private nutritionists, agents to negotiate their contracts, translators, publicity folk, etc, then having an “accountability partner” makes perfect sense, if for no other reason than to be extremely proactive. It wasn’t that long ago that Hamilton was on the verge of losing his career. He clearly values staying sober, and wants to use every means at his disposal to make sure that happens.

    I assume the team is involved because they would have interest since the accountability partner would be traveling with the team.

    • Completely agree with this.

      Look, if you’ve been through what Josh Hamilton has been through, the fact that you’re a functioning human being at all is pretty astounding. Whatever he has to do to keep from going back there is totally fine.

    • I also completely agree with this. It’s not at all unreasonable for a recovering addict to have/require/prefer an accountability partner, especially with the tempations he likely encounters due to roadtrips, etc. It’s not for nothing that AA and other groups recommend this practice.
      But then again, why would Parkes let this get in the way of his contempt for Hamilton and his religious beliefs:

      • Maybe try rereading the first two paragraphs in this post, big guy.

        • One minute after posting this reply, you say, “It’s the fact that he needs [an accountability partner] that’s more alarming.”

          You can’t have it both ways. Either it’s reasonable/not-alarming or unreasonable/alarming. What we’re suggesting is that it is in fact not alarming, since it’s a common practice, and it makes sense given his life situation and personal history.

          Basically, read the first two paragraphs in your post, then your comments, big guy.

          Also, recognizing his problem and actively pursuing help could be equally seen as a positive future indicator by some. To say that this reminds Texas of his risk factor is like saying a pitcher who has had Tommy-John surgery going for a preventative check-up will remind a team that he did, in fact, have surgery on his arm, which makes him more of a risk.

          • On a side note, I agree with Parkes’ analysis of Josh Hamilton’s comment about hitting that home run.

            Hamilton’s comments are akin to someone saying that God blessed them by giving them a parking spot closer to the mall. It’s one thing to acknowledge blessings in little things, but it’s another thing to attribute specific coincidences to special revelation.

          • I think it’s unreasonable to criticize Hamilton and the Rangers for setting up an accountability partner. Ultimately though, I think it’s unreasonable that he needs one, and it’s an element that would add to any judgement I make on his future with my theoretical baseball team.

  6. I really doubt Texas would be overly-concerned about the additional cost of a “accountability partner” for Hamilton, I mean it’s just small potatoes for them in comparison of the contract it would take to keep him in the first place, on a side note though, what makes us think Hamilton could even get 100 million in the first place? I can’t see too many teams lining up to pay him that, so I doubt he’d have much leverage, not too mention after all his dark years how do we know he wouldn’t jump at taking a discount so he could end his career with the team that salvaged it?

  7. I’m a big Josh Hamilton fan. His recovery to not only a functioning human being, as Bill Parker says, but to an elite person in their field, is inspiring. Whatever mistakes a person makes doesn’t define them, but their response to those mistakes certainly does. I hope Josh Hamilton has a long baseball career from this point on.

    Let’s be honest though – if the Rangers sign Fielder, trading Hamilton for a package of players/prospects would be a coup. Would a team like the Marlins be interested in trading Logan Morrison and prospects for Hamilton perhaps?

    • Hamilton would only get traded if the Rangers are out of contention in July, which is unlikely. And even then, he’d most likely be seen as a rental player for a contender, with free agency looming.

    • I don’t think that the fact that Hamilton needs an “accountability partner” is alarming. The fact that he is seeking out such a person to me says that he has insight into his problems (which is a large part of the battle) and is taking all available precautions to ensure that he doesn’t slip back onto the wrong path… It would be “alarming” to the team and others if he refused to have an accountability partner.

      • Agreed. Especially weighing it against the risk of relapse and what that would do to the Rangers’ ability to field its most competitive line-up with a sober Hamilton batting in the 3/4.

      • But that’s glossing over the fact that he still needs one. This to me isn’t an issue I’d overlook. If two players of equal value are presented to me to pick one, and one requires an accountability partner and the other doesn’t. I’m going to take the one that doesn’t every time. The need alone suggests a risk to me.

        • Don’t most players have people who work for them? Ultimately, is this THAT much different?

          If I’m evaluating risks in signing Josh Hamilton, I’d say his style of play combined with his history of getting hurt makes me pause- as well as evaluating risks of his past drug/alcohol use, and how that affected his body. If he needs a doctor/psychologist/trainer/nutritionist/accountability partner to stay on top of things, it really wouldn’t be a factor.

        • People, people! What we’re all forgetting the intangible effect of requiring an accountibility partner!

          • …and apparently I lost the ability to type.

            “What we’re all forgetting IS the intangible…”

  8. how far fetched would it be for the jays to make a play on hamilton if the tub of lard signs in texas? im assuming it would take every asset we have in the minors to pull it off.

    ok back to reality.

  9. Dustin I hope to god someone in your close family gets a serious addiction and you can eat your words and have a human spirit….

    The man is a recovering hard drug addict and you think it is unreasonable for him to have an accountability life coach – Freak your a donkey.

    If any organization considered the man having a life coach and a therapist in his life to a be a bad thing they must allow their knuckles to drag. Do you live in a freaking cave?

    The man has a life accountability partner so he doesn’t have a relapse, in life!!! – if anything this is a positive to him and the organization he works for and not something the team must consider as a negative.

    Bell Let’s Talk Day – Feb 8.

    Even though Dustin may think mental health is a joke and something that makes you ‘less accountable’ this is a very serious problem and issue and we shouldn’t be criticized by peoples like Dustin for having therapy in our lives.

    • Read into it what you want. I’m merely saying that I would consider his past and his current need for an accountability partner before I signed him to a long term contract. That consideration would lead me not to offer one.

      Thanks for the best wishes to my family, though.

      • So when it’s the thought of your family you turn into a human eh?

        Just because this man is a professional athlete does not mean he is not human. Human’s are not perfect and a life accountability coach or therapist may be what he needs to succeed. Clearly he is doing a better job than you, you just pick on people that have mental health issues to make yourself look like a better reporter. I got a grand idea for you let’s do a large article on Meta World Peace next and how his mental health holds him back in his career!!!

        For you to take a mental health issue and insult him because of it shows what an a*shole you really are. You are insulting this man and his life just because he is part of the little white ball and a piece of wood club? Just because he is a professional does not make it correct to harass or even belittle someone that has address mental health issues.

        You deserve the best wishes, perhaps it may open your eyes to life.

        • Jon, in all fairness, Dustin isn’t saying that Hamilton isn’t human. You may be reading into it a bit more than you should.

          That being said, I do think he is thinking of it as an intangible, which I personally find amusing.

        • Please point out what you’re referring to.

          • From your 12:59 comment:
            “If two players of equal value are presented to me to pick one, and one requires an accountability partner and the other doesn’t. I’m going to take the one that doesn’t every time.”

            I know you say there’s a potential risk, but the whole thing strikes me as intangible. As far as we know, he’s been clean for a number of years, so I’m not sure how much risk there is.

            Certainly something like this has a less tangible effect on his (potential furure) performance than hustle, attitude, leadership, etc.

            • He had a back slide in 2009. Deadspin documented it. The fact that he needs a support person with him suggests this is something that he continues to struggle with, which while understandable, given the difficulties of being on the road and a professional athlete, would make me think twice about signing him to a long term deal. It’s not as big of a factor as his injury history or the recklessness with which he plays, but I would consider it.

          • Somewhat related: What would you say is a usable definition of intangible?

  10. To The Score: How can you allow Dustin to belittle mental health while soo many good organizations are trying to change the general perspective of these illnesses.

    Just because Dustin is backwards does not mean The Score should post his garbage.

    Bell has provided a day to talk about mental health while The Score belittles athletes who use therapists… Awesome….

  11. You start by belittling him “It’s unreasonable for a 30 year old man to need to be accountable to someone in order to ensure he doesn’t fall into trouble”

    how do you know what’s reasonable? Are you a freaking genius? Do you walk in this man’s shoes? Did you take mental health therapy in school? Wheres your PHD behind your name, ohh wait is it easier to just say that’s ‘unreasonable’ so you have something to write about? Per say belittle him to sell an article??!?!?!

    Guess what its not unreasonable to have an accountability coach or life coach when recovering from a serious drug addiction.

    Do you want me to cite more of your dumb*ss lines or you get my point smart guy?

  12. This whole article is a trash on mental helath and Josh Hamilton so you can get ahead in your career!!!

    And you can not even recognize that what you said was wrong.. And your fighting this by asking for quotes you wrote!!!!

    I have been offended by some of your blatantly wrong sports articles in the past, but not to the degree that this article has offended me!!!
    Mental health is not sports perhaps leave this article to someone who isn’t just trying to sponge their way to the top.

  13. ya your next two sentences don’t make up for it bud…. So what you throw an insult, support your insult and than fuck while am at it i will throw one more:

    “But it’s also unreasonable to waste away a ton of promise and potential through excess alcohol and drug use.”

    Do you know what an addiction is? It’s not like he wants to relapse!!!! This IS WHY HE HAS THE ACCOUNTABILITY COACH!

    I personally like Dustin the best when he gets mad an insults his readers!! Yes I can read three sentences, can you not drag your knuckles in life you neanderthal? Or was that last word too big for you?

    • If you comprehended the three sentences together you’d realize that I was supporting the Rangers/Hamilton’s choice to have someone with him.

      How many 30 year olds require that type of support. In terms of non-specifics, I would maintain that 30 year old men on the whole don’t need an accountability assistant. That’s why I find it to be an unreasonable thing. This is hardly an enormous leap.

      What I imagine happened here is that you read the first sentence and became incensed, assumed the rest of the article was disparaging and expressed your anger without giving much thought to what was being written. Am I close?

      • Most 30 year olds don’t need a hitting coach either. I’d even venture to guess there are more 30 year olds with an accountability partner than there are with hitting coaches. That doesn’t make the former unreasonable.

        But we’re not really looking at accountability assistants here – that’s a result of his professional circumstances as much as his hitting coach is, in a way – we’re looking at support systems. Try looking at the first two paragraphs as they might apply to a typical Joe dealing with the same problems:

        “It’s unreasonable for a 30 year old man to need to attend a support group in order to ensure he doesn’t fall into trouble. I have no doubt about this. But it’s also unreasonable to waste away years of his life through excess alcohol and drug use.

        If it’s Joe’s and employer’s belief that something unreasonable, but ultimately harmless, will keep him from doing something that’s unreasonable and harmful, it would be unreasonable to argue against it. And so, Joe requires a support group to ensure that he doesn’t back slide into the world of drinking and drugs again.”

        It comes across as a lot more mean spirited (I don’t think that was the intent, but it does read that way) when it’s something more of us can relate to. The only difference between Joe and Josh, though, is that in Hamilton’s case, his travel schedule and fame make a typical support group impractical, whereas the cost of hiring a specialist to fill the same role is insignificant.

        • If you believe those sentences read as though they’re mean spirited, I’d suggest you’re coming in to the reading with a pre-existing bias. We’re not talking about a support group. We’re talking about a person specifically hired to follow someone around for them to check in with so as not to relapse. For that to be necessary for a 30 year old man is unreasonable in comparison to the majority of 30 year old men.

          A hitting coach in the comparison that you present is specific to one field of employment. A more accurate comparison would be a specific industry instructor, advisor, etc. I would suggest that the typical 30 year old man has one of these, and that it’s not an unreasonable thing to have in one’s life. At the very least, it’s far more common of a need than a full-time support person.

          • Support groups and accountability partners are both solutions to the same problem. The core difference is that a professional athlete’s lifestyle makes consistent support group attendance a less practical solution than hiring a full-time employee. If it’s the situation and not the solution that’s unreasonable (which is implied by the third sentence) then it stands to reason that the support group should be judged by the same standards as the solution used by someone whose life requires a different solution.

            As far as how it reads, the first paragraph comes off as attention-grabbing, which is fine, but I think it’s really the first sentence of the second paragraph that reinforces a tone different from what I figure your intentions are. When you say it’s “unreasonable but harmless”, it comes across as dismissive of his need for this type of support system, even if you make it clear that it’s reasonable that the team allows it if they think it might help. The way it’s worded, it’s no longer looking at the accountability partner in the frame of his past choices here, but rather it’s being looked at from the point of view of the Rangers’ present decision-making process. Unorthodox would be more suitable here. I get that you’re using repetition of unreasonable for stylistic reasons, but given the degree of repetition here, even a single questionable use of the word can skew the emphasis in the wrong places. It sets up a tone that comes across as judgmental.

            Now, I don’t think the rest of the article follows that tone. For the most part, it’s a good article, and one I agree with. We can’t overlook his situation, including his past bad choices, when projecting his future. His recovery and redemption makes for a great story, but the reality is that as much as you might like to put his past behind him, you can’t, and his means of dealing with his past is a reminder of that fact. If you ignore the beginning of the article, the rest is clear.

            But you also know that the emotional response you create in your readers as you draw them into your article will set the tone for the way they read the rest of the article. In this case, it’s dealing with a subject that a lot of people can relate to in an emotional way. With five uses of the word unreasonable in the first four sentences, that sets the tone as people start reading; it’s attaching “unreasonable” to a subject that’s touchy to a lot of people, and which ultimately has nothing to do with the rest of the article.

            I don’t think it’s meant to be judgmental, but you’re too good of a writer not to recognize how the choice of wording at the beginning of the article can easily set that tone.

  14. Gotta say, Dustin, I think these people (many of them) are making a not-totally-unfair point. To the extent your point is a purely pragmatic one — as between free agent A with addiction issues and free agent B without, and all else being equal, you go with B — I think that’s right on and pretty impossible to argue with.

    But the sentence “It’s unreasonable for a 30 year old man to need to be accountable to someone in order to ensure he doesn’t fall into trouble” seems largely tangential to that point, and it *does* seem like you’re belittling and judging people who have struggled with addiction. It’s clear enough, in fact, that I don’t think people should have to read on and put 2 + 2 together to determine that that’s not what you’re trying to say. It’s impossible to shake the sense that those first two sentences are generally dismissive of addiction or other mental illnesses.

    It’s just that one word, “unreasonable,” which seems so completely unnecessary and inapposite. The comment right above this one right now says “I would maintain that 30 year old men on the whole don’t need an accountability assistant. That’s why I find it to be an unreasonable thing. This is hardly an enormous leap.”

    But it IS an enormous leap. What is reasonable or unreasonable for any one person isn’t determined by majority rule, thank God. Unusual, uncommon, atypical? Sure. But “unreasonable” is a totally different thing. It just doesn’t fit there. It’s entirely “reasonable” for Hamilton to have an accountability partner, or whatever else gets him through the day.

    So, in short: I know what you’re saying, or I think I do. But it’s not a huge failure in reading comprehension for someone to read those first two sentences and get the wrong idea.

  15. One thing that struck me in the comment section of the article about his father-in-law dropping out is that Hamilton doesn’t feel he needs an accountability partner at this point. However the Rangers feel better with one and he’s agreeable to that. Doesn’t that change the picture a little bit?

  16. I’ve read Dustin’s writing for a long time and nothing I’ve read would lead me to believe that he’s a mean spirited person trying to belittle people with addictions or mental health issues. I think some of you ought to come down off your high-horse and read a little bit closer.

    Dustin never said “it’s unreasonable for an addict to have someone help them keep out of trouble”. He said it’s unreasonable for a grown man to need someone to keep them out of trouble, but that wasting away enormous talents on drugs and booze is. In addition, he says “If it’s Josh Hamilton and the Texas Rangers’ belief that something unreasonable, but ultimately harmless, will keep him from doing something that’s unreasonable and harmful, it would be unreasonable to argue against it.” While this isn’t a tacit endorsement of the accountability partner, it’s at least presented as a “if it helps you, go for it” scenario.

    The reality is, pro sports is a lot different than real life. In pro sports, a guy like Josh Hamilton becomes a millionaire at a young age without having to prove anything at a professional level (draft bonus). Some of these guys are under-educated or not educated at all, even if they played ball in college, because let’s face it – they’re only in collage to PLAY ball. Some of them don’t have the first clue about how to act responsibly and how to take care of their money, and often their reps don’t help them much since they’re there to get a paycheck. I think that what Dustin is getting at is that other young stars, many of which are probably too rich and famous for their own good, shouldn’t need someone to mentor them and keep them in line, especially when they get older. If Josh Hamilton was never a victim to his addictions, it makes sense that it would be unreasonable for him to need an accountability coach.

    While I do like Josh Hamilton a lot – his style of play, his commitment to recovery – I too would feel slightly uneasy about investing tens of millions of dollars in his acquisition if I were an MLB GM. And let’s be honest – all of you business owners out there – if you had to choose between two potential hires, one is a recovering addict and the other not, I imagine most would err towards the non-addict, no matter how much you’d like to give someone a second chance. There would be concerns there about reliability, and in the end, you have a business and a livelihood to think about. This the crux of the argument here, and I think people are probably being a tad over-dramatic.

    • Thank you. I very much appreciate this comment.

    • I think most (but obviously not all) commenters here recognize that that’s what he was TRYING to say. And given that and the facts that (a) I really like Dustin and (b) getting fired from one media outlet per week isn’t among my goals, I don’t want to carry this too much farther.

      It’s just that the headline and those first two sentences convey a VERY clear sense that the author is belittling Hamilton and his issues. When the words one has chosen are that clear on their face, I don’t think it’s (ahem) reasonable to expect all readers to comb through the rest of a piece and try to determine another meaning that might be applied to those words.

      And frankly, you can read through the rest of the piece and determine Dustin’s intention for the piece as a whole, which, again, I think was right on. But none of it helps explain the choices in the headline or first two sentences. You read through, totally get what he’s saying, look back up at the top — and that first bit STILL sounds like belittling addictions, and just seems totally out of place given the rest of the piece. It’s not a big deal worth getting all “dramatic” over (like some of the idiots above — wishing harm to your family, really? Yikes), because it’s clearly NOT the point…but it does seem to me like a (very rare) unfortunate choice of words.

      • I can admit that the first sentence is meant to grab attention. That’s something of a common approach. But I also have an expectation of the readers of this blog, whom constantly deliver witty and poignant points in the comments that are quite often contradictory to my own, to read through more than the first sentence before developing an opinion on the piece, let alone comment on it.

        Incendiary Asshole

        • I think both of those things — attention-grabbing and expecting readers to read all the way through — are totally fair, but I don’t think that’s quite the issue. It seems to me the first bit was not just inflammatory, but was unrelated to what you were saying in the rest of the piece, and had a very clear meaning that isn’t really challenged or cleared up by the rest of it. But that’s just me. I’ll stop now.

          Nit-picking Jackass

  17. If the takeaway is that his history of substance abuse makes him a higher risk going forward – both due to the risk of relapse and due to the long-term effects that prolonged drug use may have on his body, I’d agree with that entirely.

    But I don’t agree with the way it’s presented in the article.

    If a person makes poor dietary and exercise decisions early in life and develops diabetes, you could argue that the person’s illness is a result of unreasonable choices. Following the same logic, you could say that it’s unreasonable for that person to need insulin.

    But would you then say something like “If he and his doctors feel that something unreasonable and harmless (insulin injections) will keep him from doing something unreasonable and harmful (dying from his illness), it’s unreasonable to argue against it”?

    Or you could say it’s unreasonable for anyone to go to support groups like AA is unreasonable if it’s for a problem that better choices would have prevented.

    Or a person lost his eyesight because he didn’t wear the proper protection in a work environment is doing unreasonable things with everything he does to adapt to his disability.

    It’s perfectly reasonable to hold someone accountable for the poor choices a person made in life that led to those problems, and to point out how those choices may impact him in the future, but it’s a bit of a stretch in logic to label every action a person does as a result of those choices as unreasonable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *