I have hereby decided that I am going to be upset at the prejudice against black people in this world. I'm going to start right...now. The reason why I'm doing this is not because of some grave injustice, like some sort of indoctrination process that prevents our children from learning about their past or suffering through today's brand of hip-hop. No, I'm talking about something far greater: We don't have a word to describe people who hate us.
I think we should have a word like the Jews have, like Anti-Semitic. Right now, we just have to settle for "racist," and that's misleading, because just about anyone can use it, except for white people. But if we could label people with our own word, that would change everything. Having our own slanderous word would be the signpost for a new golden age!
Then, we could throw that label out anytime someone dares criticize anything any black person does! You don't like our children wearing their pants off of their asses? You don't like famed black ambulance chaser, Al Sharpton commenting on a racial issue? You don't like Cynthia McKinney playing the race card...again? Well, you'll be slapped with this new tag that I haven't come up with yet. Just like the Jewish people. Except all our last names don't end in "stein" or "berg."
Somehow, the Jewish people of the world have managed to scare everyone into believing than any criticism of their people is "anti-Semitic." Therefore, no one ever does it, unless they've got a bomb strapped to their chest. Or just before they get shot by the police after they've gone on a rampage in Seattle...again. Even if its warranted, no one ever does it. And the thing is, all your blind support for a place and a people that is sometimes wrong, just like everyone else, isn't going to make Jesus come back any faster.
It seems to be to the extreme with the Jews. Either you hate them enough to shoot up your city block, or you turn a blind eye to everything they do. All because no one wants to be labeled an "anti-Semite." Honestly, I'd have more respect for Mel Gibson if he said what he really felt without having to talk to Jack Daniels first. And he was so quick to say he didn't mean it, because he didn't want to be labeled an "anti-Semite." I wonder what he really thinks about black people. Notice there was no mention of him called Danny Glover a "big-lipped, chicken-eating, porch monkey, whose people won't stop breeding and are responsible for the decline of American society." That was probably in the unedited transcripts.
It's almost as annoying as when the white media tries to get mad about a supposed racial issue before black people do. All a white person has to do is call a black person a "black person" and the media will get all up in arms, when it was really no big deal to begin with. Except with Jewish people, it's all self-contained. And they've trained everyone else to be that way. Except black people. Something about Jews and black people doesn't seem to mix. Except in Ethiopia, oddly enough.
So basically, to sum it all up, stop walking on eggshells around Jewish people. They fuck up just like everyone else. It's just that their fuck ups usually involve missles flying into a Muslim-populated housing development. And exploiting the Holocaust. But that's another story.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
The Truth About USA Basketball
This country's sportswriters would have you believe that the rest of the world has caught up to the USA in terms of basketball talent. They've produced some good ones, true indeed, most notably, Dirk Nowitzki, of Germany and Steve Nash of Canada. But has the world REALLY caught up? Has anyone does any real critical thinking about this issue? Well, neither have I, but this is what I came up with when I was sitting on the toilet one morning:
The '92 Men's Team contained Hall of Famers, from top to bottom. The three captains of the team have all been a part of the "Best EVER" discussion (Jordan, Bird, Magic). There are 23 NBA Championships, 15 Most Valuable Player Awards, and 5 NCAA Championships on this roster. Two of the top three all time assist leaders and two of the top four all time scoring leaders are listed here. 10 out of the 12 are among the NBA's 50 Greatest Players. Quite simply, the greatest collection of talent ever assembled in any sport, ever. The Dream Team, indeed.
The 2004 Men's Team contained three NBA Championships, three NBA MVPs (all credited to the same player, except one MVP award), two NCAA championships, one NBA rookie, three others with two years NBA experience, six players who weren't even the best player on their own team, one player who had never played on a winning team, one center, and no jump shooters. Not to mention, a coach who's only effective if he has two years to work with the team. I don't think it's any surprise that this team lost. However...let's look at who WASN'T on this team:
Shaquille O'Neal, Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Vince Carter, Jason Kidd, Tracy McGrady, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Reggie Miller, Jermaine O'Neal, Chris Webber, Gilbert Arenas, Rasheed Wallace...combined with Allen Iverson and Tim Duncan, and you have the A-List talent in the league. To recap, that's 11 NBA Championships, and 5 MVP awards. Seven of them could be ranked among the NBA 50 Greatest. Two of them already are. You actually expect me to believe that anything the world could come up with could match this team? You actually expect me to believe that the gap has closed that much?
The reason why we lost in 2002 and 2004 is because we didn't have our top stars there. Period. No team in the world could beat our top stars, and nothing against Shawn Marion and Carlos Boozer, but they hardly qualify as "top" anything. The 2002 team was even worse than the 2004 team! Nick Collison made the 2002 team! Nick Collison! Is he even in the league anymore? Raef LaFrentz? Antonio Davis? Ben Wallace...before he was good?
The misconception was that we could throw any NBA players out there against the world and we'd win every time. I don't even think that was the case back in 92. Imagine if, instead of the Dream Team we sent, guys like Dan Majerle, Kevin Johnson, Jerome Kersey, Derek Harper, Charles Oakley, Joe Dumars, Kenny Anderson, and Derrick Coleman over there. Good players, to be sure, but definitely not A-list. Not even B-list, for some of them. Do you really think they would have been blowing out teams by 40 points? Can you confidently say that they would have won the gold? Well, that's what we did in 2002 and 2004. Instead of Kevin Garnett, we got Derrick Coleman. Derrick f'n Coleman.
Now, we're in panic mode and that's why guys like Vince Carter and Allen Iverson, who were more than willing to play, are staying home. Guys like that were blamed for the losses. Yeah, that damn Iverson...he was so selfish that he kept passing the ball to his teammates. That damn Vince Carter, who actually has some international experience. And a gold medal, to boot.
The current strategy is a good one, having a team that plays together longer, to create continuity. And it's probably required, considering most of the top stars keep bowing out. I think it's a bit overkill to lock out the top stars who do want to play, though. This time, the mistake could be that we sacrifice talent for continuity and politcal correctness. Or just plain politics. We know that a lot of people out there don't like Iverson or Vince.
The world hasn't caught up, we just got overconfident. Plain and simple.
The '92 Men's Team contained Hall of Famers, from top to bottom. The three captains of the team have all been a part of the "Best EVER" discussion (Jordan, Bird, Magic). There are 23 NBA Championships, 15 Most Valuable Player Awards, and 5 NCAA Championships on this roster. Two of the top three all time assist leaders and two of the top four all time scoring leaders are listed here. 10 out of the 12 are among the NBA's 50 Greatest Players. Quite simply, the greatest collection of talent ever assembled in any sport, ever. The Dream Team, indeed.
The 2004 Men's Team contained three NBA Championships, three NBA MVPs (all credited to the same player, except one MVP award), two NCAA championships, one NBA rookie, three others with two years NBA experience, six players who weren't even the best player on their own team, one player who had never played on a winning team, one center, and no jump shooters. Not to mention, a coach who's only effective if he has two years to work with the team. I don't think it's any surprise that this team lost. However...let's look at who WASN'T on this team:
Shaquille O'Neal, Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Vince Carter, Jason Kidd, Tracy McGrady, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Reggie Miller, Jermaine O'Neal, Chris Webber, Gilbert Arenas, Rasheed Wallace...combined with Allen Iverson and Tim Duncan, and you have the A-List talent in the league. To recap, that's 11 NBA Championships, and 5 MVP awards. Seven of them could be ranked among the NBA 50 Greatest. Two of them already are. You actually expect me to believe that anything the world could come up with could match this team? You actually expect me to believe that the gap has closed that much?
The reason why we lost in 2002 and 2004 is because we didn't have our top stars there. Period. No team in the world could beat our top stars, and nothing against Shawn Marion and Carlos Boozer, but they hardly qualify as "top" anything. The 2002 team was even worse than the 2004 team! Nick Collison made the 2002 team! Nick Collison! Is he even in the league anymore? Raef LaFrentz? Antonio Davis? Ben Wallace...before he was good?
The misconception was that we could throw any NBA players out there against the world and we'd win every time. I don't even think that was the case back in 92. Imagine if, instead of the Dream Team we sent, guys like Dan Majerle, Kevin Johnson, Jerome Kersey, Derek Harper, Charles Oakley, Joe Dumars, Kenny Anderson, and Derrick Coleman over there. Good players, to be sure, but definitely not A-list. Not even B-list, for some of them. Do you really think they would have been blowing out teams by 40 points? Can you confidently say that they would have won the gold? Well, that's what we did in 2002 and 2004. Instead of Kevin Garnett, we got Derrick Coleman. Derrick f'n Coleman.
Now, we're in panic mode and that's why guys like Vince Carter and Allen Iverson, who were more than willing to play, are staying home. Guys like that were blamed for the losses. Yeah, that damn Iverson...he was so selfish that he kept passing the ball to his teammates. That damn Vince Carter, who actually has some international experience. And a gold medal, to boot.
The current strategy is a good one, having a team that plays together longer, to create continuity. And it's probably required, considering most of the top stars keep bowing out. I think it's a bit overkill to lock out the top stars who do want to play, though. This time, the mistake could be that we sacrifice talent for continuity and politcal correctness. Or just plain politics. We know that a lot of people out there don't like Iverson or Vince.
The world hasn't caught up, we just got overconfident. Plain and simple.
Why Do I Keep Watching This Crap?
I've been watching wrestling for about twenty years. Yes, I'm that old. And never has there been a time where wrestling has been as bad as it is right now. Things have gotten so bad that I actually question why I watch this stuff. Seriously...why do I cordon off every Monday night to watch sweaty, muscle-bound men roll around in the ring, pretending to fight?
When I was a kid, I believed it. It was real. Hulk Hogan couldn't be stopped. Randy Savage was actually going to kill Hulk Hogan. The Million Dollar Man shoving hundred dollar bills down Jake Roberts' throat really did damage his esophagus. No, Jake Roberts and Rick Martel really couldn't see each other through those hoods. And yes, The Undertaker really was a wrestling zombie. Sure, there was that unexplained phenomena of how the guys were unable to stop themselves from running off the ropes, but that was just something that hadn't occurred to me at the time. Piledrivers could be done without killing your opponent. They just had really strong necks, that's all.
When I was a teenager, it was chic. For the first time I can remember, it was okay to openly be a wrestling fan. My nWo and Austin 3:16 shirts were conversation pieces. Yeah, wrestling wasn't real, but I still felt it was worthy of respect. After all, it takes hard work to do what they do, night in and night out. Sure, the occasional moron needed to be argued down, but overall, it was a good time. I had begun to appreciate wrestling. I studied the finer points, the moves, the psychology of it all. To me, watching a good match was no different than watching a good basketball game. It wasn't competition anymore, but I liked when they pretended that it still was. As I got older, it became a soap opera, but it was still good. And it was exciting. You never knew what was going to happen next. Except for The Rock's catchphrases.
As a young adult, the unthinkable happened. WWF bought WCW. For those of us who grew up watching NWA and WWF, this was unheard of. And era was over. It brought curiosity, but it also brought apprehension. Curiosity because we wondered if we'd actually see WWF vs. WCW. We imagined matches with Stone Cold, The Rock, Triple H, and The Undertaker on one side and on the other, Ric Flair, Sting, Lex Luger, and Goldberg. None of it happened, of course. Apprehension because we secretly knew that competition is what drives innovation. The period of my teenage years, where wrestling was actually mainstream, came about because of competition. Those days might actually be over. And for the ones who remember when NWA and WWF were two entities that never acknowledged each other, when a wrestler would leave one promotion and show up in another under another name, with a fresh start and a whole roster of wrestlers to start feuds with...it was outright rejection. We knew the days of our youth truly were gone. A giant part of our youth was never to be seen again. At least, not with any respect.
And now, as an old man, I question myself. Not because i feel like I'm too old to watch this crap, but because I don't feel like the people who create the shows care about what's being shown. Those of us who truly love wrestling know that to be involved in it, you have to love it. To put up with the crap that goes on, the egos, the injuries, the politics, the constant grind...you have to be in love with wrestling to go through it all. And it just doesn't feel like the people who are making it truly do.
Those of us who truly love it remember back when they had territories, when the same wrestling you saw in Florida wasn't the same wrestling you saw in Georgia. When Jerry Lawler was the most hated man in Texas, but was practically God in Memphis. When "wrestling" wasn't a dirty word. There were no "characters." There were "gimmicks." There were no "storylines." There were "angles." When the reason for the feud was something as simple as missing the tag from your partner in a match, but that feud would become so big and so serious that the only way to settle it, after a year of constant fighting, was in a steel cage. When the show wasn't an infomercial to sell the monthly pay-per-view. I don't think the people in charge of "creative" understand any of that. And they haven't shown any effort to learn it. And it shows in what passes for a wrestling show these days.
They don't want a wrestling show. They want an action-adventure, high-octane, Monday Night soap opera. They want highly fleshed out characters with intricate motivations. There's nothing organic about it. They just kind of shoehorn everything together and try to force things to work. Wrestlers don't come out and wing it, in the ring or on the mic. Tag teams are thrown together and broken up two months later. Feuds come about not because two wrestlers might put on a good match, but because a pay-per-view is coming up and they've got to fill up the card. Everything is just wrong these days. They're really missing the important stuff here.
Earlier today, I was reading a user review for a martial arts movie where someone was complaining about the lack of story. The next review responded by basically saying that if you're watching a martial arts movie for the storyline, then you're missing the point. There's only so many ways to make two guys fight. I think the same thing goes for wrestling.
So "creative," next time you sit down to craft a storyline for two wrestlers...think about that. If you're coming up with stuff like spilling hot coffee on each other to start a feud, or fighting over a shampoo commercial in Japan, or humping a mannequin that's supposed to be another wrestler's dead ex-girlfriend...you're thinking too hard. The classics never go out of style. Two guys fighting over a woman. One guy is tired of carrying his tag team partner. One guy is fighting to protect his hated manager who's being attacked by another wrestler. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, try building on what's come before. It's worked for a hundred years. Even "geniuses" like Cornette and Heyman don't stray too far from the norm. I know you don't think you're better than they are.
Just keep it "wrestling," instead of "soap opera."
There's some pretty good stuff out there, though. Or so I'm told. TNA is actually pretty good, although I'm not sure if my standards have been lowered so much that I'm fooled into thinking it's good. The new school wrestling with an old school mentality is working for them. I'm assured at least ONE good match if I watch WWECW. There's other stuff, too...like Ring of Honor and Jersey All Pro and Combat Zone...all these independents where the next generation is coming up. But I'm too old (or lazy) to try to keep up with all of that. That's too much work. I'm too used to the days when you'd simply change the channel to the competition if the show was no good. The ratings forced them to make it good. Except there's no competition now. So I guess that's why I watch...to see if it's ever going to get good again.
When I was a kid, I believed it. It was real. Hulk Hogan couldn't be stopped. Randy Savage was actually going to kill Hulk Hogan. The Million Dollar Man shoving hundred dollar bills down Jake Roberts' throat really did damage his esophagus. No, Jake Roberts and Rick Martel really couldn't see each other through those hoods. And yes, The Undertaker really was a wrestling zombie. Sure, there was that unexplained phenomena of how the guys were unable to stop themselves from running off the ropes, but that was just something that hadn't occurred to me at the time. Piledrivers could be done without killing your opponent. They just had really strong necks, that's all.
When I was a teenager, it was chic. For the first time I can remember, it was okay to openly be a wrestling fan. My nWo and Austin 3:16 shirts were conversation pieces. Yeah, wrestling wasn't real, but I still felt it was worthy of respect. After all, it takes hard work to do what they do, night in and night out. Sure, the occasional moron needed to be argued down, but overall, it was a good time. I had begun to appreciate wrestling. I studied the finer points, the moves, the psychology of it all. To me, watching a good match was no different than watching a good basketball game. It wasn't competition anymore, but I liked when they pretended that it still was. As I got older, it became a soap opera, but it was still good. And it was exciting. You never knew what was going to happen next. Except for The Rock's catchphrases.
As a young adult, the unthinkable happened. WWF bought WCW. For those of us who grew up watching NWA and WWF, this was unheard of. And era was over. It brought curiosity, but it also brought apprehension. Curiosity because we wondered if we'd actually see WWF vs. WCW. We imagined matches with Stone Cold, The Rock, Triple H, and The Undertaker on one side and on the other, Ric Flair, Sting, Lex Luger, and Goldberg. None of it happened, of course. Apprehension because we secretly knew that competition is what drives innovation. The period of my teenage years, where wrestling was actually mainstream, came about because of competition. Those days might actually be over. And for the ones who remember when NWA and WWF were two entities that never acknowledged each other, when a wrestler would leave one promotion and show up in another under another name, with a fresh start and a whole roster of wrestlers to start feuds with...it was outright rejection. We knew the days of our youth truly were gone. A giant part of our youth was never to be seen again. At least, not with any respect.
And now, as an old man, I question myself. Not because i feel like I'm too old to watch this crap, but because I don't feel like the people who create the shows care about what's being shown. Those of us who truly love wrestling know that to be involved in it, you have to love it. To put up with the crap that goes on, the egos, the injuries, the politics, the constant grind...you have to be in love with wrestling to go through it all. And it just doesn't feel like the people who are making it truly do.
Those of us who truly love it remember back when they had territories, when the same wrestling you saw in Florida wasn't the same wrestling you saw in Georgia. When Jerry Lawler was the most hated man in Texas, but was practically God in Memphis. When "wrestling" wasn't a dirty word. There were no "characters." There were "gimmicks." There were no "storylines." There were "angles." When the reason for the feud was something as simple as missing the tag from your partner in a match, but that feud would become so big and so serious that the only way to settle it, after a year of constant fighting, was in a steel cage. When the show wasn't an infomercial to sell the monthly pay-per-view. I don't think the people in charge of "creative" understand any of that. And they haven't shown any effort to learn it. And it shows in what passes for a wrestling show these days.
They don't want a wrestling show. They want an action-adventure, high-octane, Monday Night soap opera. They want highly fleshed out characters with intricate motivations. There's nothing organic about it. They just kind of shoehorn everything together and try to force things to work. Wrestlers don't come out and wing it, in the ring or on the mic. Tag teams are thrown together and broken up two months later. Feuds come about not because two wrestlers might put on a good match, but because a pay-per-view is coming up and they've got to fill up the card. Everything is just wrong these days. They're really missing the important stuff here.
Earlier today, I was reading a user review for a martial arts movie where someone was complaining about the lack of story. The next review responded by basically saying that if you're watching a martial arts movie for the storyline, then you're missing the point. There's only so many ways to make two guys fight. I think the same thing goes for wrestling.
So "creative," next time you sit down to craft a storyline for two wrestlers...think about that. If you're coming up with stuff like spilling hot coffee on each other to start a feud, or fighting over a shampoo commercial in Japan, or humping a mannequin that's supposed to be another wrestler's dead ex-girlfriend...you're thinking too hard. The classics never go out of style. Two guys fighting over a woman. One guy is tired of carrying his tag team partner. One guy is fighting to protect his hated manager who's being attacked by another wrestler. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, try building on what's come before. It's worked for a hundred years. Even "geniuses" like Cornette and Heyman don't stray too far from the norm. I know you don't think you're better than they are.
Just keep it "wrestling," instead of "soap opera."
There's some pretty good stuff out there, though. Or so I'm told. TNA is actually pretty good, although I'm not sure if my standards have been lowered so much that I'm fooled into thinking it's good. The new school wrestling with an old school mentality is working for them. I'm assured at least ONE good match if I watch WWECW. There's other stuff, too...like Ring of Honor and Jersey All Pro and Combat Zone...all these independents where the next generation is coming up. But I'm too old (or lazy) to try to keep up with all of that. That's too much work. I'm too used to the days when you'd simply change the channel to the competition if the show was no good. The ratings forced them to make it good. Except there's no competition now. So I guess that's why I watch...to see if it's ever going to get good again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)