Be Happy It's Not "A Woman's World"

Everyone likes to fantasize about how much better things would be if their kind were in charge. It's part of why Muslims are so willing to blow themselves up; because they think that we'd all be happier under Sharia law. They claim past successes like other constantly revolting Middle East societies as proof. The truth is, people pretending to be happy because they were scared. A large part of Sharia law is chopping off body parts, and all that "listening" and "pleading your case" really gets in the way of the hacking.

I say that to provide a warning to the women of the world, because it's well known that nothing is ever good enough for women. They always want more. And when it comes to women's rights, we're on a slippery slope, because in jokes, women are always talking about how great the world would be if they were in charge. Trust me, women, you don't really want that.

How do I know what women want? Because I know a lot of women, and they like to complain about what they don't like. So, it's not like it's a secret about what women want. And what you don't want is to run the world.

I'm not saying that women are incapable of being in charge, because they are. For one, they're in charge of every household in America (except the one on Dr. Phil where that fat kid slapped his mother. That would have never happened at my house, unless I was trying to commit suicide). Husbands (men) dance to the tune that his wife is playing. That's just how life is. But to think that the world would improve because women ran it, well, that's just lunacy.

I don't know where women get off thinking that way, because women can't get along with other women at a garden party. What makes them think that the situation will get better when they've got a nuclear arsenal at their fingertips?

Women get mad at each other over the simplest things, like wearing the same dress, but try to have the rest of us believe that they'll just talk out their problems. They do it all the time on sitcoms. Two women will be sniping at each other behind their backs, but once they're in the same room together, they decide that they adore each other and their burning hatred for each other was all the men's fault. Well, that's bullshit of the first order.

Women HATE each other. I don't have a female friend that hasn't uttered the following statement to me: "I HATE OTHER WOMEN." And with good reason. Women are petty, women are jealous, and women are vindictive. And no man is as hard on a woman as another woman. The only people who call women "whores" are other women, because men are okay with a woman who just wants to get hers. It's not like we can't relate.

And how will women running the world change their relationships with men? You think your man is jealous now because you're making more money than he is? How do you think he'll act when he has to report to you in every aspect of his life? At least now, he can go to work and get away from you.

If women wind up running the world, you might as well just turn into Amazons, because that's going to destroy the entire notion of manhood. And women LOVE manhood. Women love it when their men take charge and show initiative. If women are running things, then who's gonna sing those songs where women love their man for paying their bills? Beyonce's career will become extinct, because she'll have to start adding substance to her songs. And do you really think we're gonna keep opening doors for you? "Shit, you're in charge; you open MY door." You'll be encouraging us to be the lazy slobs you already think we are.

Women HATE IT when men aren't trying to get Master's degrees like they are. Women HATE IT if they have to do something because men didn't do it to THEIR LOFTY STANDARDS. They already resent us for the littlest things, like not doing things like them. If women actually started running the world, we'd see a rash of women dying of aneurysms.

Not only that, women LIKE to use their sex appeal to get their way. Well, if you're running the world, who are you going to seduce? The only reason why that works is because men can't say no. Women were trained (mostly by dealing with horny men) to reject all sex until they decide to go along with it. If men aren't promoting chicks that they're sleeping with, then who are you gonna gossip about?

It's just going to create a world that you, women, will not be happy in. I'm just trying to save you from yourselves. Just be happy with shattering that glass ceiling instead of having delusions of grandeur.

Moral failings are no longer news

Dial it back a little bit, commentators. Tiger Woods' career isn't even gonna take a hit from this. No one even really cared about this story until AFTER he drove into a tree. Until then, it was just another athlete stepping out on his wife. "Yawn. At least Shaq slept with Gilbert Arenas's wife to make it interesting."

Sure, it's embarrassing, having private voicemails and text messages out there in the public eye, but in the end, who's really gonna care? Yes, he was wrong, but he didn't do anything to the public-at-large, so why would any rational person hold this against him? The only person he owes any explanation to is the white woman that hit him with that golf club. Me, I'm just hoping Tiger learned not to leave the evidence everywhere for folks to find next time.

See, people don't seem to realize that we don't live in the "stare-down-your-nose-disapprovingly-and-judgmentally" society anymore. No one cares about the moral failings of our celebrities, which is why "making great movies" is an adequate defense for Roman Polanski drugging and raping a 14-year-old. No, "giving a shit" keeps us from laughing at Lil Wayne having four kids by four different women this year. That shit SHOULD BE disgusting, but that's just the way of the world today. Ah, bastard children. Hilarious.

It's 2009, though, and we love our TMZ, Smoking Gun, and reality TV. We don't like to point out that our public figures are ethically and morally bankrupt (except politicians and corporate CEOs, of course...fucking with my money), because we're writing it off as "entertainment." "I love watching these rich hood rats fight each other, because it's not real life. It's inside the TV. Hey, you heard that new R. Kelly yet?" No, one really cares, because our public figures in 2009 are just as trashy (or in Robert's case, WAY MORE trashy) as the rest of us.

Now, if Tiger had done something that got him put in handcuffs, you might see a little different reaction, the kind of overreaction that's always about "the children." You know, because everyone knows that kids are huge fans of golf and the news.

But the way the world is now, can anyone REALLY get on him too harshly for this? I mean, it's hard to judge someone when you're hiding mistresses' phone numbers under guys names in your cell phone. "No, baby, Jared's not a woman; he's saving his voice for karaoke." It's hard to point fingers when you're taking phone numbers from guys that you KNOW want to fuck you, relationship or not, justifying it by calling them "my friends."

How many regular folks these days are cheating on their husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends? What's the divorce rate these days, like 55%? Politicians are dropping off the moral high horse like flies and it seems like every day, some celebrity is getting caught up in the same trashy drama that regular folks do. It's old hat now, seeing a wife chasing her husband down the street with a golf club, while he drives into a tree. That happened over here six times before the mailman came.

We should just be glad that what happened was all that happened. No one got stabbed, no one got shot, no one got beaten into a pulp in the passenger seat of the car, because Tiger's concussion came while he was still in the house. Allegedly.

It would be nice if all of our public figures would stop sleeping with everyone, but that's not likely to happen. They're not magical faery folk from a fabled land far away, they come from the same places that we do, so it's not like we should be shocked that they act this way if WE are also acting this way. All we can do is keep trying to do better ourselves, and hopefully, it'll rub off on others. And by "keep trying," I mean "START trying."

Tiger Woods ain't gotta say shit

By now, everybody has heard about Tiger Woods running into a tree down the street from his house at 2:30 in the morning. Everybody knows about his face being scratched up, how he had blood in his mouth, and how he was laid out in the street when the cops got there. Everybody knows that his wife busted out the windows of the truck to save him. We also know that Tiger ain't saying shit else.

He's not talking to the cops, he's not talking to reporters; I don't even think he's coming outside until his face is healed up. And you know what? He doesn't have to.

I know reporters are going to keep trying to get at the truth, because that's what they're paid to do. I know the cops want a statement, because he drove over a fire hydrant and hit a tree. But Tiger hasn't committed a crime here. Tiger has no obligation to the press and once he showed his license and registration to the cops, he didn't have to say anything further to them. He doesn't have to tell the whole story to us or anyone else. At this point, all we're doing is wasting gas flying helicopters around his house or posting up on the corner looking for a statement. We're not getting one.

He already said all he was going to say on the matter, and while I don't believe the official story (if she had the good sense to run and get a golf club to bash out the window, why couldn't she grab the extra car keys instead? Because she already had the club and wasn't done swinging it at him yet. That's why he ain't have no shoes on, cuz that chick was crazy.), who the fuck am I?

This is one of the things that's wrong with us: Even though we have all these websites and folks with cameras everywhere and Twitter, these folks are entitled to their privacy and we don't need to know everything that's going on inside their homes. The irony is, the same people who are trying to get the dirt on Tiger (or any other celebrity) are the same ones who sit around complaining about how "that nosy bitch won't keep my name out her mouth."

Tiger (or anyone else) don't owe us shit. Some people believe that because they spend their money to see them or wear their clothes or whatever the case may be, that these folks owe them something. "I spent all this money supporting you, and this is the thanks I get? Where's the gratitude?" It's kind of a backwards way of thinking to me. It's not like we give these people money out of the kindness of our hearts. We're getting something for our money.

We get to watch Tiger play golf or we get to wear Michael's shoes or we get to listen to Jay-Z's music. At that point, we're even with these cats. Money was paid, services were rendered, everybody's square. Obsessing over their lives is something you're doing for free, and just because you're putting all this extra time into them doesn't mean that they actually owe you extra information. You don't extra credit for being a fanatic (or being nosy), unless your goal is to get a restraining order.

So go ahead and keep quiet, Tiger. The speculation is more fun, anyway. And it's amazes me how quickly everyone learned to pronounce "Uchitel."

Atlanta Hawks: When is Mike Woodson getting his extension?

Are ya'll ever gonna pay this man, or are you waiting for him to start turning magic tricks?

I really can't understand what more Mike Woodson needs to do to get some support (the financial kind) from the Atlanta Hawks. In between Billy Knight trying to throw him under the bus to save his job and Rick Sund signing him to two-year deal (that's his way of saying, "we're giving you just long enough to get yourself fired,"), Mike Woodson has taken this team from a joke of a team to the second round of the playoffs. In 2009, they're one of the top teams in the league (record-wise).

And he did it in four years and some change. The team's record got better every season. They pushed the eventual-champion Boston Celtics to seven games. They got out of the first-round for the first time since 1999. I'm thinking he must not be kissing the right amount of ass for them to favor him, even though successful organizations typically just want their head coach to win basketball games. And keep from getting choked by his players.

All he's ever done is his job, without complaining about Josh Smith's bad shot selection or how Billy Knight waited until he was about to get fired to bring in a real point guard. No, we can't have that. Who care that the Hawks are improving? They must want a master showman, full of witty soundbites, like Phil Jackson. Well, too bad, Atlanta Hawks. Every coach can't be Phil Jackson. If you wanted him, you should have tried to hire him. I'm sure he would have stopped laughing at you eventually, but it can't hurt to try.

Instead of complaining about what he isn't, why not look at the facts?

1. He got this team to commit to playing defense. You know, because Woodson understood that if your team can't score, maybe you should see about keeping the other team from scoring, too. So he gave this team an identity: Defense and rebounding.

Sure, some people thought, "Yeah, let's let these high school kids with no real point guard or actual scoring threat just run and gun. It's the best way for them to learn," but those people have no business coaching a team, like Mark Bradley. Sure, they'll be entertaining, but they'll lose. A LOT. Most recently, "the Sonics" won about 13 games using that strategy, and they had Kevin Durant. The Hawks had Antoine Walker and Al Harrington at the time, and they couldn't win using that strategy BEFORE Woodson got there.

2. He turned Josh Smith into a productive player. When Josh Smith came out of high school, he was just a tall guy who could jump really high. He couldn't shoot, he couldn't dribble, and he didn't play defense. He only got drafted because Billy Knight was forever enthralled by Bilas Buzzwords, like "potential," "wingspan," and "athleticism."

And look at Josh Smith today. Averaging about 20 and 9, consistently leading the league in blocks, and one of the team's anchors. Sure, some of that was going to happen anyway, but Josh Smith does some dumb stuff out there sometimes, like throwing up three-pointers that he can't make. Like trying to make passes on the break. And even though he is one of the stars of the team, Woodson has been willing to go to the mat with Josh Smith, which is almost unheard of in the NBA today.

Take on one of your stars? Are you kidding me? I don't care how many bad shots Mo Williams takes, I bet Mike Brown isn't gonna call him out. Josh Smith needed that. He needed someone to say, "Hey, you suck as a three-point shooter. How about you stand closer to the paint. You know, a place where you have the advantage?" And since he never played for Bobby Knight, Mike Woodson had to be that guy.

Yeah, he still takes bad shots, but he's cutting back. I watched a game last week where I didn't see him take a single ill-fated three pointer. Now, that's progress.

3. He thrived as a coach despite being saddled with Billy Knight. That alone should get him an award of some kind. Nobel should start handing out a sports award, because the stars were lined up for yet another first-time head coach to get fired at the start of his third season. Just look at the situation: A poorly run franchise hires a first-time head coach and sticks him with a roster of high school players. That exact same situation has killed tons of coaches, many of them right here in Atlanta. Terry Stotts never did really catch on, did he?

4. He turned the team into something that doesn't embarrass the city. Or was I mistaken when I saw that sold out Philips Arena during the playoffs the last two seasons? It wasn't like so many nights when the Lakers would come to town to play at Staples East. No, these people were actually cheering for the Hawks.

What more could you possibly want? Angels singing his names from the heavens? That won't happen; he's not Tony Dungy. Maybe they're so blinded by the success of years' past that they can't see the good thing sitting in their laps. That happens sometimes when you have such a storied history. Other than the Clippers, how many teams can say that they have THAT MANY consecutive losing seasons?

I get that Rick Sund is kinda new around here, and that General Managers usually like to have their own people in place, but they shouldn't ever listen to Mark Bradley or Jeff Schultz. They've got a really good coach in a league where so many teams fall apart because they don't have one. Not to keep harping on them, but look at the Clippers. Even when they're good, they're a disaster waiting to happen, and Mike Dunleavy doesn't exactly strike me as the captain to lead them through the storm. The only reason why he hasn't been fired is because Donald Sterling doesn't want to have to hire another coach while he's still paying this one.

Now, if the Hawks don't want to pay the man, I'm sure someone will gladly take him off their hands and Atlanta can get back to the days where sadsack coaches could always find a place to hang their hats. But Atlanta deserves better than that, and for the first time since the mid 90s, right before Pete Babcock destroyed it all, it actually has it.

Just give Mike Woodson his extension. No one can say the man hasn't earned it.

...then what was the Civil War about?

Sure, the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Right. You keep telling yourself that.

To tell you the truth, I've never read a book about the Civil War in my life. Personally, I was satisfied with what the American Public School System indoctrinated me with. So everyone that calls the war by it's other made-up names, like "The War of Northern Aggression," or "The War of Southern Independence," could be absolutely correct. And I'm not going to try to correct them. Plus, I think it's cute how they try to make themselves the heroes.

Thing is, changing the name of the war doesn't make it NOT a civil war. "The North vs. the South" is the definition of a Civil War. And it's not like anyone recognized your secession. You couldn't even come up with an original name. "Confederate States of America" sounds like a less-desirous knock off, like "Velvet Revolver" compared to "Guns N' Roses."

So what if you change the name or say the war was about something else? All of the people fighting for the South were still slaveowners, so no one gives a shit about their other problems. That's like saying the Nazis were killing the Jews because of high-interest loans AND because they were Jewish. Like other people who were crippled by finance charges are going to suddenly start defending the Nazis.

See, the slavery part is all we care about, mostly because it was a fucked up part of our past. Who really cares about states' rights, anyway? The only people who care about states' rights are the people who really want to do something crazy, but the Federal Government won't let them. It's not like the government is keeping them from doing something positive, like rescuing orphans from fire-breathing dragons. They're mad because the Feds are keeping them from doing something like bringing back slavery in some states, where "Nigger Hound" would be a glorious job title.

Yet, some folks barely want to admit that slavery was even a factor. They dress it up by saying, "The North was trying to tell the South that it couldn't run its economy how it wanted." And that would sound pretty good if the North was trying to tear down your low-emission, green factories that run on hydrogen and love. But no, the lynchpin of your economy was INVOLUNTARY HUMAN LABOR, so it had to come down at some point, even if the slaves were horrible genetic mistakes, like German people. And if you didn't have the foresight to prepare for the end of that sweetheart deal after 400 years, then you deserve losing everything. With financial preparation like that, I can only imagine how they would have handled the Great Depression.

Just be glad that things changed this way instead of at the hands of a group of slaves, tendering their resignation by choking white people with their shackles.

So, why SHOULD we care about any other possible factors? They all sound like justification for continuing slavery to me, and at this point, it's should be pretty obvious to all involved that Black folks thoughts on the matter are pretty much concrete. Not that they really care about what Black people think, because let's face it, these folks are either racists or bigots. Anyone arguing in favor of the South during the Civil War can probably count all the Black people they've met.

I have yet to hear a compelling reason as to why I should even listen to the argument. It ain't like I'm gonna suddenly gonna hang pictures of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis next to Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. And it's possible that they were good men, but I don't really care, because in the end, they were fighting to keep my people enslaved. I guess if you wanted me to hear you out, you should have fought a little bit harder when Sherman was burning down Atlanta.

Don't ruin the dunk contest, LeBron

The word is that LeBron James is going to enter this year's dunk contest. Well, allow me to be the first to ask LeBron to sit his ass in the stands.

See, everyone automatically assumes that LeBron is gonna light it up. That we're going to see the second coming of Vince "Dr. J" Jordan. Legendary performances, fireworks, backflips and shit. And I just don't see it happening. Now, if it was some other player, it probably wouldn't matter. But it's LEBRON JAMES. The most famous athlete in the world today. That's only gonna raise expectations that I'm not sure LeBron can fulfill unless he can dunk while still sitting his throne.

Physically speaking, yeah, he's capable of doing probably every dunk you can think up. But he hasn't really demonstrated that ability in games.

Look, there are dunkers and then, there are guys who can dunk. Larry Bird could dunk, but he was too busy dominating the Three-Point Shootout. Tim Duncan can dunk. Hell, it's in his name.

But dunkers think about dunking from the time they cross the half-court line. They are always trying to put themselves in position to dunk. And if someone's in front of them, they're trying to go over the hapless soul who thought that blocking this shot was a good idea. A dunker is the kind of person who wants the defender to be in his highlight reel. Vince Carter was a dunker. Kobe Bryant was a dunker. These are the kinda guys who give you a taste of what you'll see All-Star Weekend...by cramming the ball down someone's throat.

LeBron James just isn't that guy. Most times, if he's going towards the basket, he's likely to avoid contact in the air and lay the ball in. He rarely, if ever, dunks on anyone. And his dunks are all generally the same.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that, because let's face it: Dunk contests don't get you into the Hall of Fame. Dunk contests don't even get you respect. If that were the case, there would be a statue of Harold Miner somewhere. And it's not like there's a process to get in. Doug Christie has been in the dunk contest. Jamie Watson has been in the dunk contest. They're not exactly critical about this sort of thing. And when it comes to things that matter, like titles, LeBron James is likely to get his share. In the end, this really isn't a big deal.

But if you're going to be in the dunk contest, you should be showing us glimpses all along. J.R. Rider told us on Draft Night that he would win the contest, then dunked on Hakeem Olajuwon at the start of the following season. They resurrected the contest for Vince Carter, because his highlight reel was that spectacular. Guys like Michael Jordan, Dominique Wilkins, Clyde Drexler, and Shawn Kemp did their dunk contest dunks in games. In the lane. Going baseline. On fast breaks.

But none of that is to say that LeBron CAN'T do something spectacular. I don't think anyone saw Dwight Howard's performance in 2008 coming. All of that creativity was hiding in there. Who knew? I certainly didn't. I was thinking we were gonna have a Larry Nance sighting. But he showed his ass. LeBron might have some creativity hiding in there that he just hasn't shown us.

But why put yourself through all that, LeBron? After all, the dunk contest has historically been used to establish players. Michael did it for three of his first four years, back when dunk contests still meant something. I believe the only reason he did it in 1988 was because it was in Chicago. Kobe and Vince both got in once, then didn't even bother defending their titles. The last Hall of Famer to even participate was Dominique Wilkins when he won in 1990. Since then, the only potential Hall of Famers to participate since were Kobe Bryant (1997), Ray Allen (1997), Vince Carter (2000), and possibly Dwight Howard (2007-2009). Most of the guys who show up these days aren't even the leading scorers on their teams. I don't even think Gerald Green (2007, 2008) was a starter.

You don't need the stress, LeBron. You're already established. If you were going to do it, your rookie year would have been the time. You and Dwyane Wade could have brought the house down instead of Fred Jones (2004). Is he even in the league anymore? Who he play for?

Just watch it like the rest of us instead of artificially inflating the importance by BEING LEBRON JAMES. Especially when there's a good chance you can't live up to the hype.

Spitting in the eye of the Apocalypse

You'd think I would have become more afraid the closer we got to 2012, but that hasn't happened.

In 2004, I read a book called "Fingerprints of the Gods," handed me my first concrete prediction of the end of the world. Until I read that book, I thought end of the world predictions were bullshit; they were vague and hazy at best, predicting any period of time that could be made to fit the clues. And Y2K was still fresh in my mind, when I watched people less intelligent than I am clear store shelves of duct tape, batteries and bottled water. I don't know what that stuff is supposed to prevent from happening, but it's a universal sales item during all potential disasters.

So when my eyes traveled across the date "Dec. 12, 2012," I was scared to the bone. I didn't even sleep that night. I thought to myself, "It must be true. They gave an exact date. And look at all this professional-sounding evidence." It took me a week to move past knowing when the world would end. I didn't know what to do. Should I inform people? Is the government preparing for this?

But over the years, after doing more reading on the subject, it dawned on me: No one knows what the hell is going to happen. One night in the library, I read no less than 25 separate theories on what's supposed to happen on that date. Yeah, we don't have a clue.

And even if we did, what can we actually do about it? Seriously, think about it. It's not like we can send Bill Pullman and a ragtag group of snowboarders on a race against time to save us ("Wicked Heroes!"). And since it's still a Herculean effort to get 10 people to the fucking moon, our chances of evacuating the earth or loading up arks are pretty slim. So if the world IS going to end, there's NOTHING we can do to stop it. If the world IS going to end, then we are all going to die. Violently and painfully.

No more Super Bowls. No more Pixar movies. Jay Leno will FINALLY get off the air. Looking at it like that is actually pretty liberating.

So, really...why even bother discussing it? The people in movies like this ("2012," "Deep Impact") always try to keep this stuff a secret, because they know how ya'll are. Panicking, randomly killing people, mass hysteria, or as Billy Bob Thornton said in "Armageddon," "Basically, the worst parts of the Bible." You people really don't know how to act during times of crisis.

When I was in college in Jackson, MS, one day, the news said that an really bad ice storm would be coming through the area. The entire city of Jackson shut down for three days. And the storm never came. Three days over rumors of fucking ice. Even if the government knew we were all gonna die, they shouldn't tell anyone. Why should the general public be entrusted with news of their own potential extinction? That's exponentially worse news than ICE. You're not going to handle it well.

But nothing's gonna happen. Or maybe it's all 100% true. I really don't know. Why waste time worrying, though?

Think about it: The scale of apocalyptic events predicted is GLOBAL. GLOBAL EARTHQUAKES. GLOBAL FLOODING. POLE REVERSAL. CONTINENTAL SHIFTING. SUPER-VOLCANOES. INVISIBLE PLANETS HITTING THE EARTH. No amount of preparation will be able to save you from that. I don't care how many rolls of duct tape you buy.

And there will no about be people doing stupid shit all year, because they believe there won't be any consequences. The amount of dumb shit that's likely to happen in 2012 could cause a resurgence of the newspaper industry. Every day, there will be a story of a guy who drove his car off of a parking deck or someone lighting themselves on fire in the middle of the street. And we won't even have to go to Iraq to see this. You telling me you want to miss that by hiding out in your Apocalypse-proof bunker? Trust me, you want to be there on Dec 13. 2012, when your buddy tells you he "banged the hot chick with AIDS" because he thought he was going to die. That story's gonna be really funny over a beer.

So just stop it. Stop it and just go have a beer with your friends. BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.