Friday, April 04, 2014

I totally get your Kardashian anger, Vogue readers.

Some people wonder why you wasted all that time being upset about Kim Kardashian on the Vogue cover.  "She's just getting her money and not hurting anyone." Someone probably told you to stop hating, because they have no idea how to form a legitimate argument.  But I understand, Vogue readers.  That's right, Thad Ochocinco, sporadic blogger who knows nothing about anything outside of sports or comic books, feels your pain. 

To sum it all up, It's worlds colliding, except no one asked or wanted them to. 

See, on some level, people read shit like Vogue so they don't have to deal with lowbrow shit like the Kardashians.  It's supposed to be a safe space away from all of that.  People who like the Kardashians have the E! Network, where they can have all of the Kardashians and Chelsea Handler and Joan Rivers that they can handle.  The rest of us program our cable boxes to skip over the E! Network, because ignorance of what is on that channel is bliss.  "You keep that over there, and I'll stay over here."  "I don't bother you and you don't bother me."  It was like a storefront church in the middle of a red light district, except that in this metaphor, the Kardashians are actually the church and the red light district is the rest of the free world.  You know, come to think of it, maybe this metaphor doesn't work.

But to stick with it, say the church starts venturing out to convert the people.  Now, my ambisexual S&M Massage parlor isn't hurting anyone, but here comes this nun, trying to save souls, which kills my business.  She's making people think that there's something wrong with the sexual gratification of a massage while being whipped by a person of an unidentifiable sex.  But we had an understanding:  You keep inside the church, and I won't have your building firebombed by the mob underboss who controls this neighborhood.  Basically, this metaphor can also double as the pitch for Quentin Tarantino's Sister Act.

That's what's happening here.  Kim Kardashian is invading what was supposed to be a Kardashian-free zone, and we all deserve one of those, because without it, we're likely to devolve into whatever we call people from Tennessee.  She's breaking the terms of the agreement, and a lot of people are upset.  True, it wasn't her decision (the editor of Vogue said this would never happen, then magazine sales got low), but Vogue readers didn't want this.  Vogue readers (I guess, because I don't know any) believe that they're too high class to watch a show about two sisters smelling each other's vagina sweat (this actually happened on "Keeping Up With the Kardashians").  When the bar is that low, I'm not gonna say that they're wrong for feeling that way.

Usually, when worlds collide, something good comes out of it, like when the Justice League fought the Avengers, when Larry Bird played against Magic Johnson, when Spider-Man started selling Twinkies in the 1970s.  That was both adventurous and delicious.  This is more like what happened to Ashlee Simpson at the Orange Bowl.  Or when RoboCop showed up on WCW Capital Combat.   Yeah, worlds were colliding, but in the same way that the world of sports cars sometimes collide with the world of the underside of a truck.  There was symbolic blood everywhere that night, and it was in the form of Sting's expression when he realized that he was actually standing in front of people pretending to be saved by RoboCop.

So I understand the anger of Vogue readers, and you should, too.  For all everyone's talk of "She's just doing her thing, let her make her money," or whatever stupid shit people say to make it appear like they're above it all, you know you'd be pissed if someone tried to feature her useless ass in three episodes of The Walking Dead. 

Thursday, February 13, 2014

No One Cares If You Approve Of Their Life Choices

It's pretty common these days to say, "I just don't agree with his lifestyle," as if people are sitting around waiting for your fucking approval.  You usually hear this in conversations about gay people or gay marriage, but I don't see why people even waste time thinking about it.  Gay people haven't gotten the approval of lots of people in human history, and it hasn't curbed the inherent lust for same-sex flesh even a little bit.  So clearly, they're not waiting for you to give the thumbs up. 

In fact, the more people that come out against gay activities has led to a response in the other direction:  More gay people are being openly gay.  The idea that you think your approval is needed has actually drawn more gay people out of hiding.

Back when people didn't talk about gay sex so much, because everyone was sexually repressed, gay people just kept quiet and snuck off to their bathhouses or the Blue Oyster, or wherever gay people got together.  But now that gay sex is on everyone's lips, gay people decided to fight back.  And yes, that particular phrasing was done on purpose.  

See, you don't have to approve of anything, because it's still going to happen.   For instance, I don't approve of bigotry, but it hasn't stopped you from saying stupid shit about gay people, has it?  In fact, to drive the point home, try that strategy in other scenarios to demonstrate how effective it is.  Next time a bear attacks you or a guy tries to rob your house, you should tell them, "I don't approve of this lifestyle choice," and report back here to let me know if it prevented you from getting shot or eaten.  My thinking is that I won't ever hear from you again.

That's why, despite this overt lack of approval, we still have gay people.  The arrogance needed to believe that approval matters is why we still have thickheaded people walking around worrying about cock-ravenous gay men attacking them in showers and alleyways.  I wish bigots understood how funny it is to listen to them fear the lustful urges of gay men without ever considering that:

A: Gay men might also have self control.

B: The bigot in question probably isn't even their type.  

Instead of saying that you "approve" or "agree" with something, you should really ask yourself if you do or don't care.  If you don't care, then you generally don't give a shit, and never think up stupid phrases like, "I don't agree with his lifestyle," or "What if he looks at me in the shower?" If you do care, then you probably give more thought to the activities of gay men than actual gay men do.  At this point, you have to ask yourself why you care so much what gay men are doing.  The answer is either one of those things:  You're fucking ignorant, or you' know, curious. 

You probably also assume that your own life is worthy of approval.  It probably isn't.  You probably cheat on your wife, or steal pens from your job, or vote Republican, or contribute to Love & Hip-Hop's ratings.  Maybe you drink too much, or let your kids sag their jeans, or cheer for John Cena.  Any number of things that deserve to be frowned upon.  By my standards, I think that saying kind words about Justin Bieber should come with a mandatory jail sentence.  And if you're thinking right now that it isn't about your standards, but the standards of your religion: I don't approve of your religion.  Odds are, it's a manmade invention designed to placate the masses so they don't attack their wealthy overlords.  It probably has a well-entrenched history of murder, genocide, racism, and misogyny, and in the modern age, does nothing but drive wedges in between people and/or hides pedophiles from justice. 

So instead of wasting all that time and energy being judgmental (because this is a game that we can all play), why not just go live your life and let everyone else live theirs?  All of that focus on manlove is time you could be spending inventing a Fruity Pebbles drink, or an iPad that does more than waste time.  We don't need another person trying to stand in the way of other people's happiness, but we can always use another person who really couldn't give two fucks what's happening in someone else's bedroom.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

On Marcus Smart, Jeff Orr, and Acting An Ass At Basketball Games

If you taunt, berate, out belittle athletes in games, it says a lot about how you view them. To you, they're not people. They're chattel. Hired entertainment. Dancing monkeys. They don't become real until they come onto the stands. Like Mos Def said, "The hardheaded always gotta feel it to believe it." 

A thorough, well-earned, ass-whooping will end a lot of this. The average fan really doesn't wanna risk the possibility that security will get there before they eat that two-piece.  It's all fun and games until that ass is getting tenderized. I think we all understand that most fans are pussy, even in this shit-talking, rude, and insulting environment we call "America in 2014."  Everybody talks, but almost nobody really wants to back it up, which is part of the reason why gun sales are up.  The threat of backing up shit-talk without a gun would eliminate all but the most "bout that life" fans from getting disrespectful. The people who want to fight would just have to become the hazard of doing business, I guess.

Still, we can't have that. Letting players to go after pieces of shit in the stands is a horrible business plan, because unlicensed dentistry in a public place isn't really a selling point.  No matter how right the player may be (I still think that Dikembe should have been allowed to punch that dude for calling him a monkey), that kind of stuff has to be deterred. Otherwise, players will think that it's normal to run in the stands and people will stop coming to games.  This isn't wrestling, where the fight coming into the stands is a good thing.  Patting the participants on the back will just make you part of the fight.  And the first time a totally innocent fan gets hit by a player, that fan will suddenly own a piece of the team and start making all the stupid trades that you and your friends talk about during flag football.  So what's the solution, then?

There isn't one. I think we all understand that human beings are terrible creatures, most of which don't deserve the basic decency that they think they're entitled to. I work in a field where all I do is deal with entitled, shitty, people who think they're better than me because I have on work boots.  I see it all the time.  You're condescending, arrogant, and rude.  Just look at how you act when you go to a restaurant, or heaven forbid, Wal-Mart.  You don't deserve any kindness, especially after you answered your phone in the movie theater.  Dear People of America: Generally speaking, you're pieces of shit.  Okay, you might not set car bombs, kick puppies, or use the n-word, but those aren't the only things you can do to be considered a terrible person. 

So expecting the paying customer to improve his own behavior is a fool's errand.  The leagues still need to get something in place to deal with this, because it's gotten ridiculous. Basically, the leagues (Really, just the NBA and college basketball, because it's no coincidence that the leagues where the players have weapons also have barriers between players and fans) need to empower players to get fans ejected.

Tell the players that if someone is getting out of line, they can pull a ref to the side, point the person out, the ref will eject the fan, and security will throw him out on his ass.  It should be that simple. I doubt the players would lie on fans, because they've got out things going on, like the game happening around them.  They don't have time to pick out fans to eject so you can confirm your victimization bias.  Truth is, do you know how big of an asshole you have to be to get the attention of someone on the court, let alone make them try to come after you?  And while the players run the risk of identifying the wrong person, after throwing down $1,000 on courtside tickets, the fans standing around the right person will make sure that they stand out.  Watching everybody turn into snitches will be part of the fun of a program like this.

And to get an athlete in the middle of a game so upset that they want to put their hands on you is hard to do.  I know, because I've tried, and I assure you, it takes more than effort and a big mouth.  When I was in college, my friend Mike and I used to sit courtside at our team's basketball games and go in on people.  To us, it was all in fun, but we were assholes, plain and simple.  It got to the point where it was secondary to the game.  We just wanted to insult people.  We felt like we were creating the homecourt advantage that Jackson State desperately needed (because we weren't getting better players any time soon).  And to show how stupid our asses were, we yelled at the referees more than anyone else.  The same referees that could have put us out at any time, and here we are, making fun of their shoes and pants. To their credit, they never reacted, and I know they heard us. 

They should have put us out. I would have. If it had been me, i would have tried to get is banned from the building. What we did was uncalled for.  Fun at the time, because we were stupid 20 year olds, but uncalled for.

So I get why people do it when they're young.  I wouldn't do that now, because I'm mentally well-adjusted.  You're supposed to grow out of this kind of shit, but the people who seem to wind up in these incidents now are all 40 and 50 year old men.  I guess it's empowering to feel like you can yell at these people and they can't do shit, but how emasculated do you have to be in your personal life to think that insulting rich athletes is a healthy outlet?  Who told you your dick was small, Jeff Orr?

Because it isn't about the money that they paid for tickets that makes people feel empowered to act like that.  Hell, we got in free to our games and we were practically standing on the court.  I think that making it about the money paid just gives them an excuse.  No, they're just shitty people.  I bet they treat wait staff at restaurants the same way.  It has nothing to do with the tickets.  There are hundreds of other people in that same section who paid just as much who didn't incite a player to jeopardize his paycheck, scholarship, or legal freedom just for the chance to crack them across the jaw. 

Knowing that, I won't blame Marcus Smart for shoving that asshole, because I've been that asshole. Jeff Orr had that coming, and probably more, just like i did. We can't keep going through life thinking that, just because someone is doing something for us, be it entertaining us or working on our behalf, rich or poor, that we can just treat them with disrespect.  You might think you're above them in that instance, but a fist to the face will put you on the same level real quick.  

Friday, January 31, 2014

A Calm, Sensible Reaction to Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor

Jesse Eisenberg is Lex Luthor, because Michael Cera is already booked.

I'm sure that's the kind of reaction that DC was expecting and I'm all too happy to give it to them.  And it's not even because I'm angry about the casting. I actually kinda like it.  I, unlike so many others, have perspective.  The perspective that comes from an reading too many comic books.  I understand that there are many different versions of Lex Luthor, and that Jesse Eisenberg fits into a few of them.  Dare I say, this casting is brave...and bold.  Please, hold your applause, because that joke was awful.

Still, you're gonna have to go through the initial shock of people saying, "The fucking dude that played Mark Zuckerberg is gonna be Lex Luthor?"

I saw a guy on Facebook that said, "Is he going to invent Facebook to defeat Superman?"  Really, that's the level of discourse DC has to face, and it's not like Jesse Eisenberg has given the fans a ton of ammo to throw back at him.  This won't go much past unfunny Facebook jokes and DC will be fine with that, because they already weathered the worst of this storm with Ben Affleck.  That was an epic tantrum, and once we got past that, it's like people couldn't really get that mad anymore.  It was like the world said, "Okay, we all know this flick is gonna suck. They really can't do any worse than this." 

And after that, Gal Gadot just got questions about her physique, mostly because no one knows who she is.  Jesse Eisenberg is just getting bad jokes, like the ones I've written just now.  It's all just been diminishing nerdrage, so we'll probably be done with this story by Monday.  No one even noticed that Jeremy Irons is playing Alfred.

I saw more outrage yesterday that Fox wants Channing Tatum to play Gambit in a future X-Men movie.  It wouldn't be a surprise that Fox was thinking about doing some more bad X-Men casting, but people were legit mad at that, I guess because Channing Tatum is too sexy or can't act or something.  As if Gambit is a character filled with such pathos that only a Shakespearean actor could capture it all.  Anyway, the X-Men flicks are filled with terrible decisions. I still believe that Halle Berry was cast because she was the only black person the producers could name.

Warner Bros. is supposed to be better than that.  Or at least Christopher Nolan is and Zach Snyder are.  And I'm willing to give it a chance, because as I've said trying to talk people off the ledge today, it all depends on what kind of Lex Luthor will be in the movie.  You got your "evil businessman" Lex Luthor (who could stomp ass), and you got your "sociopath scientist" Lex Luthor (who could not).  I think the second one is something Eisenberg can work with.  As long as he's not on there talking about being the "greatest criminal mind of our time," I think we'll be fine.

Monday, January 20, 2014

Dr. King: The Hero I Never Knew

I think most young black men go through a phase where they turn against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I know I did.  It happened to me around the time I read The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

When I started learning about Brother Malcolm, I got excited.  Here was a guy who wasn't taking no shit off white folks.  He dared them to do something in a time when they could have done it and gotten away with it.  He wasn't concerned with racial harmony or any of that bullshit.  He wanted what was right, and he wanted it now.  He was openly dismissive of anyone who stood in the way of that message.  When you're a young black man in a country that doesn't seem to like or respect you, it's empowering to read his thoughts.  And who didn't want to be the dude telling off these white folks, and they couldn't do shit about it?  I wasn't racist or anything, but I liked to believe that, if I was alive then, I would have stood with Malcolm X. 

Compared to that, Martin Luther King was boring as hell.  Oh, he gave some speeches?  He marched on Washington?  "Man, please.  Let me know when he starts fighting back," I'd think, like there was gonna be a later chapter of his life. "Ol' weak ass Dr. King.  Malcolm X is a real nigga."  That's how young I was.  I used ignorant words like that. 

Speaking of ignorant, that's exactly where that attitude came from:  Ignorance. 

Except for four years, I went to school in the South.  I started out in Sumter, SC, and finished in Biloxi, MS.  And in all those years of school, I learned like, five things about black history.  It wasn't because I was in the South, because the American schools overseas weren't exactly opening the floodgates of black history for me, either.  I can't imagine it was different anywhere else in America.  By the time I graduated from high school, all I had learned in school about black people was "The March on Washington," "I Have A Dream," "Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad," "George Washington Carver," and "Crispus Attucks was the first person to die in the Revolutionary War."  Didn't even learn what Crispus Attucks was doing there.  And what made it sadder was that my history teachers at Biloxi High were all black. 

Point is, if you grow up thinking that's all he did, then you're gonna think he's weak.  Every year, they celebrate this man and all they say is that he created racial harmony through nonviolent resistance.  They paint him as weak willed, like he just took abuse from white people until they felt bad and signed the Civil Rights Act.  Based on what is said about him in the mainstream, Dr. King didn't win because he was determined.  The white folks just got tired of hitting him, and that's how we got our rights.

I kept that attitude about Dr. King for a long time.  After I read The Autobiography of Malcolm X, I decided to read up on other black names that I had heard about, but didn't know anything about.  I wanted to know about the revolutionaries who empowered us and fought back.  The ones that scared Whitey back in the 60s and 70s so bad that they never talk about them now.  So i bought books about Marcus Garvey, the Black Panthers, Eldridge Cleaver.  I read books of speeches from revolutionary figures of the time.  I wasn't becoming militant, but I felt like I was learning about who we were during those times that schools don't talk about.  Fighting the power, in a way.

But it never occurred to me that I didn't know enough about Dr. King.  I figured they had to be telling us all we needed to know about him, because white folks love the man.  If he had been militant or anything, they wouldn't celebrate him like they do.  The Panthers.  Brother Malcolm.  This is that real, right here.  So I never bought books about Dr. King.  Still haven't, in fact.

But I did make an effort to learn more about the man, out of respect, really.  I mean, he got shot with firehoses and had dogs sicced on him.  And he suffered the indignity of having Paul Winfield play him in a movie.  So here and there, I'd pick up little factoids or read articles about him online.  And I came to understand where he was coming from.  I also saw that he wasn't the weak-willed simp I always believed him to be.

I also understood why they only teach us two things about him, because this man was trying to bring this whole system down.  Yeah, white folks like him now, but they didn't like his ass back then.  They weren't embracing his message, J. Edgar Hoover was tapping his phones.  They thought he was a terrorist and Communist, bent on destroying America.  Yeah, nice ol' Martin Luther King.  Sure, the FBI was on Malcolm X and the Panthers, but they were just criminals to the FBI.  No one considered that they were toppling anything.  Not even with Malcolm X's plan to speak before the United Nations.  White America truly feared Dr. King. 

Some of them still do, because there are tons of websites bent on discrediting everything Dr. King stood for.  The man's been dead for almost 50 years and they're still throwing dirt on his name, as if he's gonna come back and lead the revolution again. 

And that's because he was a true revolutionary, planning to bring the poor right to rich folks' doorsteps.  He was against the war in Vietnam, because he could see that it was just another way to exploit poor people.  He wasn't just trying to help black people, he was trying to change this whole system.  His "second bill of rights" was so ambitious that this country would be unrecognizable today had it fully been implemented (it probably wouldn't have, but still).  The only reason why rich people celebrate him now is because he's dead and couldn't do all of the things he had planned.  If you hate socialism, then you should just go ahead and start hating Dr. King retroactively.  Dr. King thought so much bigger, and even though we celebrate him today, we're actually doing him a disservice by reducing the expanse of his vision.

That's what should be taught in schools.  Racial harmony is cool and kids need to learn that, because kids are assholes, but they also need to see the totality of his message.  I wish I had seen it when I was younger, and I'm ashamed to say that it took me until my late 20s and early 30s to learn what I do know.  I'm not done learning about him, though.  I've found that I identify with him more than I ever did Malcolm X.  In today's world, Dr. King resonates more than ever.  Which says a lot about where we are as a nation.

Friday, January 03, 2014

You should be ridiculed for caring about Dwyane Wade's outside kid

You people express shock at the dumbest shit. 

Dwyane Wade and Ludacris were revealed to have knocked up their side pieces in the same week.  Both are in relationships (but were on breaks at the time).  Dwyane Wade is an NBA player.  Ludacris is a rapper.  The only thing shocking here is that they didn't knock up the same woman.  I mean, we don't know that rapper and ballplayer sperm can't do that.  

If anything, it's your own fault for believing that a pro basketball player or a rapper would stay faithful to his wife.  And I don't say that because I think they're bad people.  I say it because they're constantly having random model/stripper ass thrown at them as they travel in luxury around the world.  The man who can resist that forever either has supreme will or is already gay.  The rest of us would have to have his wife standing next to him at all time, like Doug Christie did.  As freakish in the face as Doug Christie looked, the only reason why he got through his day without tripping into a pair of strange, spreadeagled thighs is because Jackie Christie was never more than 10 feet away at all times. 

True story.  Sat in on his interviews and everything. 

So, I don't see why what Wade and Cris did was anything outside of what you should expect from them.  If you want to call them out for anything, call them out for raw dogging their jump offs.  I mean, I assume they've both had enough jump offs to know better.  I also don't see why you're coming to Gabrielle Union's defense all of a sudden, because y'all know y'all hate Gabrielle Union. Gabrielle Union was this generation's Robin Givens until people stopped casting her in movies.  And the hate came solely from the fact that she was too good at her job of playing smart-mouthed shrews in every flick she'd been in.  It wasn't even based on real life.  So let's not act like you're doing this for her benefit.

And I'm sure, somewhere out there, someone's thinking about the kids, because Dwyane Wade and Ludacris (I guess) are supposed to be role models.  And if you're letting Ludacris's example raise your kids, then you're a worse parent than Siovaughn Wade.  Allegedly.  There might be an explanation for that day she sat on the corner wearing a sandwich board. 

But anyone who would look at Ludacris as a role model shouldn't be allowed to raise the kids that they're claiming to protect.  I mean, this is the same person who led off with "What's Your Fantasy," "Phat Rabbit," and "Ho," and followed up with "Area Codes," "Move Bitch," "Splash Waterfalls," and "P-Poppin."  These are probably the parents who post videos of their twerking children on YouTube.  The video would probably be set to a Ludacris song if he had any hits out right now.  As for Wade, true, he has a fatherly image that would be a good example for young boys. But so did Bill Cosby, when we were kids.  And look at how our generation turned out.  Our generation didn't follow his example.  Our generation didn't even eat the damn pudding pops. 

Also, I'm not throwing shade on Luda for those songs, because I own every last one of them.  Believe me, I ain't judging.  I'll be able to recite the words from "Ho" when I'm on my deathbed.  I'm just saying, if your kids ever knew the words to those songs, you're a horrible parent, that's all.

So what are we really talking about here?  Two men who ruined the concept of a "break" for black men everywhere, for starters (a ridiculous concept, anyway).  And a bunch of women who care more about two strangers' relationships than their own, evidently.  Also, I'm seeing that I have a far different concept of what is "shocking" than everyone else.  Magic Johnson was shocking (and scary).  Tiger Woods was shocking (and hilarious).  No one's been burnt or driven into a tree in either of these stories, which makes them quite boring.  I need to be scared or entertained, so I refuse to pay attention until we hear that one of the women is actually a man or something like that. 

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Everybody can't be Eddie Guerrero. So stop holding that against Chavo.

There's no shame in not being as talented as Eddie Guerrero. 

There have been thousands of wrestlers to walk the earth in the last hundred years.  It's safe to say that many of them were not on Eddie Guerrero's level.  You're talking about a guy who was strong, athletic, super-charismatic, and able to match up with any wrestler in the world.  When he was alive, he was easily one of the five best wrestlers in the world.  Since guys like that don't grow on trees, people get that, since he was so great, there was no shame in not being able to live up to his standard.

Unless you're Chavo Guerrero, Jr.  Then, you just plain suck.

Chavo had the misfortune of being raised with Eddie Guerrero.  Had he grown up anywhere else in the world and become a wrestler, he'd be looked at respectably, and judged on what he can and can't do.  But because his last name is Guerrero, this guy has to live the rest of his life being told that he isn't Eddie.  If only his last name was Cruz.  Chavo Cruz might have been a world champion by now, or at the very least, a TNA World Champion. 

All that's ever said about Chavo on the internet is that he isn't as good as Eddie and that he's getting by based on his name.  To be fair, everything said about everyone on the internet just as negative, but when it comes to Chavo, I'm like, "You're taking it too far, internet.  You're talking about him like you're talking about President Obama."  The guy just can't do anything right. 

So he isn't charismatic as Eddie.  So he doesn't move like Eddie.  So he isn't the wrestler that Eddie was.  Who the fuck is?  You know who else wasn't Eddie Guerrero?  AJ Styles.  Or Rey Misterio, Jr.  Or Big Show.  Or Christian.  But no one's rubbing their noses in the fact that they aren't some other guy.  Except maybe Christian.  I mean, Edge was so much bigger than him. 

But folks do it to Chavo because they share the same name.  All the while overlooking the fact that he's pretty damn good himself.  No, he's not Eddie, but he's a guy that also has good, fast-paced, exciting matches.  And he's stuck next to fucking Hernandez.  The internet is so fixated on hating Chavo for not being Eddie that they're overlooking the fact that he's teaming with Hernandez and still manages to pull good matches out of his ass.  Now that is talent.  When was the last time Eddie had to carry a shit partner like that?

The internet:  "When he teamed with Chavo." 

Me:  "Well, I guess I kind of walked right into that one, didn't I?"

Except that Eddie didn't have to carry Chavo through those matches.  No one did.  It ain't like he was Erik Watts, a clear case of nepotism.  Chavo carried his weight, held his own, whatever cliche you want to use to describe someone who does their part.  Chavo was one of the "Smackdown Six," and for once, he wasn't just "Eddie's nephew" something like that, where he could be dismissed.  He was on equal ground with everyone else.  And was just as big a part of those matches as Edge or Rey Misterio, Jr. or [REDACTED] or Kurt Angle.  Or, yes, even Eddie Guerrero.  Go back and watch those matches.  World titles be damned; Chavo Guerrero, Jr. can wrestle.

It's safe to admit it to yourself, Internet.