No, his career's not over, but his career in Houston pretty much is. All the Rockets need to know is if he can play well enough to have trade value when he comes back from microfracture surgery. All they need is for him to be able to resemble the old Tracy McGrady is six minute bursts, just long enough to trick some less-intelligent GM into giving up two good players, a draft pick, and an expiring contract. The Rockets have discovered the kind of team they want and it's the team that dismantled LeBron Jesus and the Disciples on Thursday.
This Rockets team has a record of 12-6 whenever McGrady's out, which is better than the 20-15 record they have when he plays. That's strike one. They've been decent, but struggling to find an identity. They don't know whether they want to be a finesse team or a rough-and-rugged team. Lucky for Houston that Tracy McGrady's knee decided it needed to be cut open, because his fragile leg made all of the tough decisions for them.
It's really all for the best, because when has anyone ever known McGrady to want to play defense? McGrady's done well just to stand in front of his man, because if he could, he'd go sit on the bench until his team started heading back the other way. Meanwhile, the team around him is pretty much built for playing defense. Shane Battier, Luis Scola, and now, Ron Artest have made their careers playing defense. Suddenly, the Rockets' best player has become the odd man out.
Really, the worst thing that can happen for McGrady is that the Rockets get out of the first round of the playoffs without him. He's been trying to get out of the first round since he got in the NBA. Toronto did it right after he left for Orlando. And depending who they're matched up with this season, I expect Houston to do it, too. If McGrady's thinking about his future, he better be hoping that Ron Artest completely loses it before the playoffs start. I'm talking a complete meltdown; biting people, full nudity, maybe even some fire. If McGrady wants to retain a shred of respect in this league, he better be on his good knee right now. Praying.
As of today, Houston is fourth in the west and if the playoffs started now, they'd get Portland. Portland's a young, talented, and balanced team that Artest alone can scare into losing in five or six games. If this scenario plays out, consider it strike two.
Really, when was the last time a guy came to a team and completely supplanted the previous star in one season? It's like when Hulk Hogan went to WCW and made Ric Flair and Sting his sidekicks. And it's not even like Artest did it on purpose, but right now, he's playing like the guy that Houston always wanted McGrady to be: To do whatever it took to win. And McGrady just never was. Now here's Artest, fitting in with this Rockets team better than McGrady is. Maybe he should have played more defense.
McGrady has always been a flashy player, the kind of guy who sells jerseys, shoes, and posters. There isn't a single thing he can't do with that ball and once upon a time, only Kobe Bryant was a more dynamic scorer than he was. Artest scares me when he handles the ball, because you might see him try to throw no-look, behind the back passes and fail. Just on a whim. You really have no idea what he might do with the ball. Fortunately for him (and unfortunately for McGrady), this Rockets team doesn't need more scoring; they need someone to lead the defense. They also need someone that stays healthy. McGrady hasn't played a full season since he's been in Houston.
But I could have jumped the gun on this. McGrady might come back from this and the Rockets might make it all work. But then again, LeBron James might sign with them, too. Or Spider-Man. I mean, anything's possible, right?
Friday, February 27, 2009
The Haynesworth signing in perspective
As much as I'd like to see an upgrade to my Atlanta Falcons' defense, I'm really very happy that the Falcons didn't land Albert Haynesworth. Let some other, stupider owner give $41 million in guarantees to a guy who hasn't played a full season since 2002, in a league when breaking the bank for a defensive player has NEVER worked. Haynesworth is good. He's really good. But there are starting quarterbacks making less money than he is now. And those quarterbacks aren't known for taking plays off, like he is.
And while that retard owner is at it, why not throw another $22.5 million in guarantees at DeAngelo Hall, probably the most overrated corner in the NFL? I can say that with some certainty, having spent four years watching him get lit up in Atlanta. Not even the sorriest NFL quarterback avoided challenging DeAngelo Hall, let's give him $54 million. Well, I guess you do need someone to fill the position.
In the meantime, the Redskins' offense couldn't even score on teams like the Bengals and the Browns. For a fraction of the money that Haynesworth is getting, they could have signed four brand new offensive linemen so Jason Campbell can finish a game without picking turf out of his teeth. The defense still would have been good without Haynesworth. Yeah, it's a big splashy signing, but it doesn't make them that much better and it doesn't sell tickets, either, unless I missed the part where fans started going to games to see defensive tackles.
It's kind of like the Yankees resigning Alex Rodriguez to a 10-year, $275 million contract when the Yankees had all the leverage because no one else was offering within $100 million of that number. It makes me wonder how Dan Snyder got rich at all negotiating like that, because I assure you no one was even close to paying $100 million to Haynesworth.
It might work out for the Redskins, though. It's not like they gave all that money to Quincy Carter, because then it just becomes coke-and-whore money. But what do I know? I'm just a guy who watches this crap.
And while that retard owner is at it, why not throw another $22.5 million in guarantees at DeAngelo Hall, probably the most overrated corner in the NFL? I can say that with some certainty, having spent four years watching him get lit up in Atlanta. Not even the sorriest NFL quarterback avoided challenging DeAngelo Hall, let's give him $54 million. Well, I guess you do need someone to fill the position.
In the meantime, the Redskins' offense couldn't even score on teams like the Bengals and the Browns. For a fraction of the money that Haynesworth is getting, they could have signed four brand new offensive linemen so Jason Campbell can finish a game without picking turf out of his teeth. The defense still would have been good without Haynesworth. Yeah, it's a big splashy signing, but it doesn't make them that much better and it doesn't sell tickets, either, unless I missed the part where fans started going to games to see defensive tackles.
It's kind of like the Yankees resigning Alex Rodriguez to a 10-year, $275 million contract when the Yankees had all the leverage because no one else was offering within $100 million of that number. It makes me wonder how Dan Snyder got rich at all negotiating like that, because I assure you no one was even close to paying $100 million to Haynesworth.
It might work out for the Redskins, though. It's not like they gave all that money to Quincy Carter, because then it just becomes coke-and-whore money. But what do I know? I'm just a guy who watches this crap.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
A-Rod lied? Didn't see that one coming.
I must have missed the memo that said, "As a condition of us paying you $25 million, you are not allowed to lie to anyone, ever." Sportswriters' reaction to Alex Rodriguez lying to them when he was trying to be honest was priceless. It's almost as if sportswriters have to swear not to use any of their intelligence before they start covering athletes. I find it hard to believe that they graduated from college without tugging off at least two of their professors.
"I, Jay Mariotti, do solemnly swear to pretend as if I've never encountered a human being in my life, as it relates to discussing or writing about athletes."
I didn't know that Alex Rodriguez was going to lie, mainly because I don't know Alex Rodriguez. Also, he was volunteering information, so I took at all at face value. But since he did lie, it's not like it changes how I look at him. I'm not surprised at all that he tried to lie his way out, because I know that he was born right here on Earth, where I've watched people lie for way less than that. I had a friend lie to me about whether or not he saw "Transformers: The Movie" in theaters as a child, so A-Rod lying to protect his job in Major League Baseball doesn't even make me blink. He's got a lot to lose, so what did they expect him to do?
Sportswriters are acting as if he's wrong for not telling the world about this back when it looked like he wasn't going to get caught. I know all of two people who told the truth when they didn't have to and all it ever did was cause more trouble than it was worth. So, people should always be expected to lie in these situations. Tell the truth for what? No one was going to find out anytime soon and all that telling on yourself is going to get you is reporters digging through your garbage. Yeah, I'm really seeing the benefit.
Not only that, who are the sportswriters of America to demand that athletes be honest with them or even the average fan? They get paid to play with balls, not be Jesus. And this being America, there was has never been a benefit to men who play with balls "coming out" about what they do behind closed doors.
Whenever I meet a girl that I could get serious with, I always tell her about how I'd prefer for women to just tell me that she wants to sleep with someone else so we can go about the business of her getting the fuck out instead of cheating on me. It never happens, though, because they think they can get away with it. It doesn't stop anyone from cheating and it doesn't stop anyone from lying. And I'm trying to create an open environment, with no repercussions. I'm not going to flip out and hit anyone. I just want the truth. Now, if I can't get the truth, what makes sportswriters, with their follow-up questions, digging, and judgmental nature, are going to get an open admission?
No, they're going to make you catch them, because they stand to lose a whole lot more than a warm body to snuggle with at night. If LeBron James was secretly gay, he'd kill everyone in Cleveland to keep that quiet, because he knows that the dream is over if the word ever got out. Do you really expect him to risk that happening just so Michael Wilbon will keep thinking he's honest? LeBron won't care if you think he invites Satan over to play XBox on Sundays, so long if you keep thinking he's straight.
If you believe that he'll risk a bomb like that getting out, you're probably one of the ones who's going to buy his inevitable rap CD. That's why he has PR people: To explain that he wasn't really sucking that guy off, but actually picking up his kielbasa off the floor. With his mouth. Because his hands were full of rescued puppies that couldn't be seen in the picture. Bad cropping. Plus, it was all Photoshopped.
So let's not act like A-Rod's lies make him an extraordinarily terrible human being. He's not a mass murderer or the Anti-Christ; he's just a guy who lied about something to save his ass. Hell, Bush lied to America every other day and never got called on it. So come down off the high horse, because you'd do the same thing in his position. It's wrong, yes, he's no better than the rest of us. He's just really, really, rich and has banged Madonna. And if the sportswriters could look past their own miserable existences that only Death's icy touch can free them from, they'd see that.
"I, Jay Mariotti, do solemnly swear to pretend as if I've never encountered a human being in my life, as it relates to discussing or writing about athletes."
I didn't know that Alex Rodriguez was going to lie, mainly because I don't know Alex Rodriguez. Also, he was volunteering information, so I took at all at face value. But since he did lie, it's not like it changes how I look at him. I'm not surprised at all that he tried to lie his way out, because I know that he was born right here on Earth, where I've watched people lie for way less than that. I had a friend lie to me about whether or not he saw "Transformers: The Movie" in theaters as a child, so A-Rod lying to protect his job in Major League Baseball doesn't even make me blink. He's got a lot to lose, so what did they expect him to do?
Sportswriters are acting as if he's wrong for not telling the world about this back when it looked like he wasn't going to get caught. I know all of two people who told the truth when they didn't have to and all it ever did was cause more trouble than it was worth. So, people should always be expected to lie in these situations. Tell the truth for what? No one was going to find out anytime soon and all that telling on yourself is going to get you is reporters digging through your garbage. Yeah, I'm really seeing the benefit.
Not only that, who are the sportswriters of America to demand that athletes be honest with them or even the average fan? They get paid to play with balls, not be Jesus. And this being America, there was has never been a benefit to men who play with balls "coming out" about what they do behind closed doors.
Whenever I meet a girl that I could get serious with, I always tell her about how I'd prefer for women to just tell me that she wants to sleep with someone else so we can go about the business of her getting the fuck out instead of cheating on me. It never happens, though, because they think they can get away with it. It doesn't stop anyone from cheating and it doesn't stop anyone from lying. And I'm trying to create an open environment, with no repercussions. I'm not going to flip out and hit anyone. I just want the truth. Now, if I can't get the truth, what makes sportswriters, with their follow-up questions, digging, and judgmental nature, are going to get an open admission?
No, they're going to make you catch them, because they stand to lose a whole lot more than a warm body to snuggle with at night. If LeBron James was secretly gay, he'd kill everyone in Cleveland to keep that quiet, because he knows that the dream is over if the word ever got out. Do you really expect him to risk that happening just so Michael Wilbon will keep thinking he's honest? LeBron won't care if you think he invites Satan over to play XBox on Sundays, so long if you keep thinking he's straight.
If you believe that he'll risk a bomb like that getting out, you're probably one of the ones who's going to buy his inevitable rap CD. That's why he has PR people: To explain that he wasn't really sucking that guy off, but actually picking up his kielbasa off the floor. With his mouth. Because his hands were full of rescued puppies that couldn't be seen in the picture. Bad cropping. Plus, it was all Photoshopped.
So let's not act like A-Rod's lies make him an extraordinarily terrible human being. He's not a mass murderer or the Anti-Christ; he's just a guy who lied about something to save his ass. Hell, Bush lied to America every other day and never got called on it. So come down off the high horse, because you'd do the same thing in his position. It's wrong, yes, he's no better than the rest of us. He's just really, really, rich and has banged Madonna. And if the sportswriters could look past their own miserable existences that only Death's icy touch can free them from, they'd see that.
Weed won't be illegal forever
I really can't believe that Michael Phelps story was as big as it was. I can't believe he lost endorsements behind it. He was even on the verge of facing criminal charges. Weird, considering no one knew exactly what was in that pipe he was puffing on. I know, I know...what else was he going to have in there? Raisin bran? Toenails?
But do you really know that there was weed in there?
Either way, that's beside the point. It just blows my mind that we're still tripping on weed smokers like we are. I can't believe we haven't legalized it yet, considering how much we know about the plant. I'm not worried about it, though, because I know one day, it will be legalized. Just as soon as the generations preceding ours are too old to stop anyone from doing anything about it.
See, for a lot of prior generations, drugs were a taboo subject, like Black people or anything sexual. It was just wrong and you didn't even bring it up, unless you wanted to catch five across the face. You didn't question the rules, because this is how it was. So because the establishment succeeded in making everyone believe that Satan lived inside of drugs, drug use was mostly limited to the seedy looking kids in the neighborhood huffing paint behind Old Man Skinner's barn or smoking reefers with the Negro boys from the next town. Drugs didn't hurt Negroes because everyone knew back then that they had no souls. Anyway, back then, if you were caught smoking weed, you were looked at as if you raped babies during bank heists. It was a really big deal.
Then the 60s and 70s came and all Hell broke loose. It's a wonder anyone got anything done because everyone between the ages of 16 and 45 was probably on something while they had sex with someone else. Every STD that exists today was invented by God to stop whatever hedonism was doing back then. It didn't work, though, because all drugs have the inherent effect of overriding one's natural fear of getting burned. Plus, there was heroin. Lots and lots of heroin.
Then "Scarface" came along and introduced a young generation to the life of being a drug lord and how one of their hobbies is burying their faces in mountains of cocaine. Everyone who saw this movie as a child would grow up to be a rapper who made songs about how they actually did everything they saw in "Scarface."
Combine that with a young Nino Brown introducing New York to crack and now you have a nation of people who are not only unafraid of drugs, but believe themselves to be drug experts, despite never personally using most of them. Everyone today can pick out a crackhead with alarming precision. Every fifth album title contains a drug reference of some sort. There is even a magazine called "High Times," and their offices don't suffer daily police raids. One professional wrestler made an entire career out of being a weedhead. The weed plant is a logo now. We are awash in drug culture these days.
As a result, marijuana doesn't have the same stigma with our generation as it does with the generation that's keeping the drug laws in place. To the younger generations, weed isn't even that big a deal; it's even acceptable. Everyone knows someone who's currently smoking weed, at the least. What else can be said? People really, really, like to get high. And one day, it'll be legalized.
Now crack? That's a whole 'nother story.
But do you really know that there was weed in there?
Either way, that's beside the point. It just blows my mind that we're still tripping on weed smokers like we are. I can't believe we haven't legalized it yet, considering how much we know about the plant. I'm not worried about it, though, because I know one day, it will be legalized. Just as soon as the generations preceding ours are too old to stop anyone from doing anything about it.
See, for a lot of prior generations, drugs were a taboo subject, like Black people or anything sexual. It was just wrong and you didn't even bring it up, unless you wanted to catch five across the face. You didn't question the rules, because this is how it was. So because the establishment succeeded in making everyone believe that Satan lived inside of drugs, drug use was mostly limited to the seedy looking kids in the neighborhood huffing paint behind Old Man Skinner's barn or smoking reefers with the Negro boys from the next town. Drugs didn't hurt Negroes because everyone knew back then that they had no souls. Anyway, back then, if you were caught smoking weed, you were looked at as if you raped babies during bank heists. It was a really big deal.
Then the 60s and 70s came and all Hell broke loose. It's a wonder anyone got anything done because everyone between the ages of 16 and 45 was probably on something while they had sex with someone else. Every STD that exists today was invented by God to stop whatever hedonism was doing back then. It didn't work, though, because all drugs have the inherent effect of overriding one's natural fear of getting burned. Plus, there was heroin. Lots and lots of heroin.
Then "Scarface" came along and introduced a young generation to the life of being a drug lord and how one of their hobbies is burying their faces in mountains of cocaine. Everyone who saw this movie as a child would grow up to be a rapper who made songs about how they actually did everything they saw in "Scarface."
Combine that with a young Nino Brown introducing New York to crack and now you have a nation of people who are not only unafraid of drugs, but believe themselves to be drug experts, despite never personally using most of them. Everyone today can pick out a crackhead with alarming precision. Every fifth album title contains a drug reference of some sort. There is even a magazine called "High Times," and their offices don't suffer daily police raids. One professional wrestler made an entire career out of being a weedhead. The weed plant is a logo now. We are awash in drug culture these days.
As a result, marijuana doesn't have the same stigma with our generation as it does with the generation that's keeping the drug laws in place. To the younger generations, weed isn't even that big a deal; it's even acceptable. Everyone knows someone who's currently smoking weed, at the least. What else can be said? People really, really, like to get high. And one day, it'll be legalized.
Now crack? That's a whole 'nother story.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Delusion of Holocaust Denial
I truly don't care whether or not a Holocaust denier is getting let back into the Catholic Church, but the whole idea of denying the Holocaust is something's always baffled me since I first heard of these people. I suppose it leaves open the possibility that there are slavery deniers out there and that Black people are actually from here, springing naturally from the trees in America's forests. You know, because we're monkeys.
As I understand it, Holocaust deniers do not believe that Adolf Hitler had plans to systematically murder the six million Jews that are claimed to have died in the Holocaust, despite having an irrational hatred for Jews. It's a stretch for me to believe, but then, I used to believe that Tupac was still alive. I have no room to bag on anybody. The point is, some people will believe anything. Some people still believe that the Egyptians were white, even though they're African in all of their representative art. Must have all been a typo. Just one big typo made of stone.
The difference between the Egyptians and the Holocaust, though, is that the Egyptians lived thousands of years in the past. The Holocaust happened like, 70 years ago. It might as well have happened last March, because there are pictures and videotapes of the damn thing. There are living eyewitnesses who saw it go down from both sides. So unless everyone involved is lying, the fact that former Nazis admitted to it kind of puts a boot heel in the throat of the deniers' beliefs. I guess the mass graves that were found during and after World War II is just some sort of traditional Jewish sleeping method where they nude up, lie in giant piles on top of each other and decompose. I hear Moses used to do the same thing in his day.
The only part of their story that they can even hold onto without sounding like lunatics is whether or not it was actually six million people and that's a legitimate question. How did they arrive at that number, because it's not like they had CSI back then. I don't think they could reconstruct the charred ashes of people to get an accurate count. They still don't know exactly how many people died in the World Trade Center, so i'm pretty sure that the number of Holocaust victims isn't exactly spot on. Could be five, could be seven, but it was a massacre either way, so what are we arguing about here? If the number is between one and three million, do we have to call it the "Microcaust" instead and they have to give back "Holocaust Rememberance Day?"
They found the gas chambers, and try as you might to paint the gas chambers as something other than gas chambers, they weren't giving the Jews "Freedom Showers." Why go through all this trouble, anyway? It's not like the Nazis intentions were misconstrued. "They weren't really hatemongers who wanted to conquer the world. God was just really in the mood to love all of his non-white children up close and the Nazis were carrying out his will."
It's not exactly a noble crusade, defending the Nazis. The only people who defend Nazis are other Nazis, and I don't know about anyone else, but that leaves a credibility gap. Same with the Aryan Nation, Skinheads, or Klansmen who try to pick up the slack. No one's even going to consider your argument because invariably, part of it is going to contain words like "master race" or "Seig heil!" That stuff never works, mostly because no one knows what "Seig heil" means.
So feel free to let one of those guys back into the Catholic Church. I don't care, because I don't take marching orders from an old guy in a plexiglass box on top of a car.
As I understand it, Holocaust deniers do not believe that Adolf Hitler had plans to systematically murder the six million Jews that are claimed to have died in the Holocaust, despite having an irrational hatred for Jews. It's a stretch for me to believe, but then, I used to believe that Tupac was still alive. I have no room to bag on anybody. The point is, some people will believe anything. Some people still believe that the Egyptians were white, even though they're African in all of their representative art. Must have all been a typo. Just one big typo made of stone.
The difference between the Egyptians and the Holocaust, though, is that the Egyptians lived thousands of years in the past. The Holocaust happened like, 70 years ago. It might as well have happened last March, because there are pictures and videotapes of the damn thing. There are living eyewitnesses who saw it go down from both sides. So unless everyone involved is lying, the fact that former Nazis admitted to it kind of puts a boot heel in the throat of the deniers' beliefs. I guess the mass graves that were found during and after World War II is just some sort of traditional Jewish sleeping method where they nude up, lie in giant piles on top of each other and decompose. I hear Moses used to do the same thing in his day.
The only part of their story that they can even hold onto without sounding like lunatics is whether or not it was actually six million people and that's a legitimate question. How did they arrive at that number, because it's not like they had CSI back then. I don't think they could reconstruct the charred ashes of people to get an accurate count. They still don't know exactly how many people died in the World Trade Center, so i'm pretty sure that the number of Holocaust victims isn't exactly spot on. Could be five, could be seven, but it was a massacre either way, so what are we arguing about here? If the number is between one and three million, do we have to call it the "Microcaust" instead and they have to give back "Holocaust Rememberance Day?"
They found the gas chambers, and try as you might to paint the gas chambers as something other than gas chambers, they weren't giving the Jews "Freedom Showers." Why go through all this trouble, anyway? It's not like the Nazis intentions were misconstrued. "They weren't really hatemongers who wanted to conquer the world. God was just really in the mood to love all of his non-white children up close and the Nazis were carrying out his will."
It's not exactly a noble crusade, defending the Nazis. The only people who defend Nazis are other Nazis, and I don't know about anyone else, but that leaves a credibility gap. Same with the Aryan Nation, Skinheads, or Klansmen who try to pick up the slack. No one's even going to consider your argument because invariably, part of it is going to contain words like "master race" or "Seig heil!" That stuff never works, mostly because no one knows what "Seig heil" means.
So feel free to let one of those guys back into the Catholic Church. I don't care, because I don't take marching orders from an old guy in a plexiglass box on top of a car.
Monday, February 09, 2009
A-Rod: The New Bonds
I really don't care whether or not Alex Rodriguez used steroids.
Honestly, the girlish subplot between he and Derek Jeter is far more interesting. So is the story about how Madonna used "Material Girl Power" to convert A-Rod to Kabbalah. This mess about A-Rod using whatever he used ranks somewhere after "How many more times is A-Rod going to choke in the playoffs?" Clearly, whatever he used didn't help him there.
No, the real story is going to be the reaction to all of this. Barry Bonds isn't even acknowledged as the Home Run King. Mark McGwire won't ever get into the Hall of Fame. Roger Clemens is pretty much a social leper at this point. I hear Rafael Palmeiro and Sammy Sosa were thrown into a pit and made to fight each other to the death. The reaction to these people has been over the top, wanting to take back their numbers and records. I think they even wanted to put as asterisk on Bonds' DNA so he wouldn't taint the name of his highly respected father and put a restraing order on Bonds' tongue so he can't tell anyone else that Willie Mays' is his godfather.
Alex Rodriguez was supposed to be the end of all that foolishness. He was supposed to right the ship, clear the storm clouds, inject the light of righteousness into the veins of baseball. A-Rod is the Golden Boy, the one who was going to save baseball from Barry Bonds, the man who ruined the sanctity of this holiest of games by personally introducing it to steroids and eating from the Tree of Knowledge. A-Rod was supposed to break the home run record, end the Bonds curse, and save the entire galaxy. We'll know that A-Rod is being held to the same standards as Bonds when people start throwing batteries at A-Rod.
So far, they've gone pretty easy on A-Rod. I guess the main difference between him and them is that he admitted that he did it. That helps. But he only admitted it after someone caught him. He might actually be sorry, but he still got caught first. It's not like he was sorry three weeks ago.
He's also trying to use the "I don't know what the hell I took" defense in the middle of guilty confession, which is the same one Bonds is using. Now, what makes A-Rod more credible? They didn't buy it when Bonds said it. It's a stupid defense no matter who's using it, because it hinges on me being a complete fool who believes that a highly trained athlete, who can recite their caloric intake for the month, has no idea what's in the syringe that's sticking out of his ass. Lemme help you out in telling the difference: When you inject b-12, it doesn't burn in your veins with the intensity of 1,000 lies.
But I'm curious to see if folks will be nicer to him because he's not Bonds. After all, people were jumping down Bonds' throat just on the suspicion that he might have used steroids. People (myself included) were suddenly experts on steroids, and we all knew that there was no way that Bonds or McGwire could naturally be that big. They were so skinny and then ALL OF A SUDDEN, they were 260 pound monsters! Bonds' head had tripled in size! Triple H keeps tearing his quadriceps because steroids weaken the tendons, making users more susceptible to muscle tears! We knew everything about steroids, and yet not one shred of proof.
Meanwhile, Rodriguez has admitted that he did it and as of yet, I haven't heard anyone saying that he should have an asterisk placed next to his name. No one's saying that A-Rod should be banned from the sport and so far, people are saying that there's a chance that A-Rod will one day make the Hall of Fame. Bonds got banned from the Hall because the rumor mill spoke too loud.
Just hearsay and "reports." And what the hell does that even mean? There are "reports" that Michael Jordan has seven extra kids out of wedlock, but no one knows what their names are. All we have on A-Rod is an admission out of his own mouth. We don't even know if A-Rod really stopped in 2003 like he said. We just have to take him on his word that he stopped, which is probably worth more than Bonds never failing a drug test. The fallout from this is going to be interesting. If Skip Bayless doesn't have a stroke on TV, I'll be shocked.
Because not only does he seem to have the public and press (more or less) on his side right now, there have even been those who have made the excuse that we shouldn't even know about this, because his name shouldn't have even been released. That's like saying we shouldn't blame Bush for fucking up the country because it's not his fault that we let him be that stupid on a grand stage.
He's getting the benefit of the doubt, which Bonds never did. Even McGwire and Clemens got the benefit of the doubt. But the sportswriters like A-Rod and McGwire and Clemens and they don't like Bonds. And since they all instantly go on their periods when Bonds' name comes up, their editorial process is instantly swayed.
But when you really think about it, which one is worse: An admitted steroid user who apologized or a suspected steroid user that won't admit it?
Honestly, the girlish subplot between he and Derek Jeter is far more interesting. So is the story about how Madonna used "Material Girl Power" to convert A-Rod to Kabbalah. This mess about A-Rod using whatever he used ranks somewhere after "How many more times is A-Rod going to choke in the playoffs?" Clearly, whatever he used didn't help him there.
No, the real story is going to be the reaction to all of this. Barry Bonds isn't even acknowledged as the Home Run King. Mark McGwire won't ever get into the Hall of Fame. Roger Clemens is pretty much a social leper at this point. I hear Rafael Palmeiro and Sammy Sosa were thrown into a pit and made to fight each other to the death. The reaction to these people has been over the top, wanting to take back their numbers and records. I think they even wanted to put as asterisk on Bonds' DNA so he wouldn't taint the name of his highly respected father and put a restraing order on Bonds' tongue so he can't tell anyone else that Willie Mays' is his godfather.
Alex Rodriguez was supposed to be the end of all that foolishness. He was supposed to right the ship, clear the storm clouds, inject the light of righteousness into the veins of baseball. A-Rod is the Golden Boy, the one who was going to save baseball from Barry Bonds, the man who ruined the sanctity of this holiest of games by personally introducing it to steroids and eating from the Tree of Knowledge. A-Rod was supposed to break the home run record, end the Bonds curse, and save the entire galaxy. We'll know that A-Rod is being held to the same standards as Bonds when people start throwing batteries at A-Rod.
So far, they've gone pretty easy on A-Rod. I guess the main difference between him and them is that he admitted that he did it. That helps. But he only admitted it after someone caught him. He might actually be sorry, but he still got caught first. It's not like he was sorry three weeks ago.
He's also trying to use the "I don't know what the hell I took" defense in the middle of guilty confession, which is the same one Bonds is using. Now, what makes A-Rod more credible? They didn't buy it when Bonds said it. It's a stupid defense no matter who's using it, because it hinges on me being a complete fool who believes that a highly trained athlete, who can recite their caloric intake for the month, has no idea what's in the syringe that's sticking out of his ass. Lemme help you out in telling the difference: When you inject b-12, it doesn't burn in your veins with the intensity of 1,000 lies.
But I'm curious to see if folks will be nicer to him because he's not Bonds. After all, people were jumping down Bonds' throat just on the suspicion that he might have used steroids. People (myself included) were suddenly experts on steroids, and we all knew that there was no way that Bonds or McGwire could naturally be that big. They were so skinny and then ALL OF A SUDDEN, they were 260 pound monsters! Bonds' head had tripled in size! Triple H keeps tearing his quadriceps because steroids weaken the tendons, making users more susceptible to muscle tears! We knew everything about steroids, and yet not one shred of proof.
Meanwhile, Rodriguez has admitted that he did it and as of yet, I haven't heard anyone saying that he should have an asterisk placed next to his name. No one's saying that A-Rod should be banned from the sport and so far, people are saying that there's a chance that A-Rod will one day make the Hall of Fame. Bonds got banned from the Hall because the rumor mill spoke too loud.
Just hearsay and "reports." And what the hell does that even mean? There are "reports" that Michael Jordan has seven extra kids out of wedlock, but no one knows what their names are. All we have on A-Rod is an admission out of his own mouth. We don't even know if A-Rod really stopped in 2003 like he said. We just have to take him on his word that he stopped, which is probably worth more than Bonds never failing a drug test. The fallout from this is going to be interesting. If Skip Bayless doesn't have a stroke on TV, I'll be shocked.
Because not only does he seem to have the public and press (more or less) on his side right now, there have even been those who have made the excuse that we shouldn't even know about this, because his name shouldn't have even been released. That's like saying we shouldn't blame Bush for fucking up the country because it's not his fault that we let him be that stupid on a grand stage.
He's getting the benefit of the doubt, which Bonds never did. Even McGwire and Clemens got the benefit of the doubt. But the sportswriters like A-Rod and McGwire and Clemens and they don't like Bonds. And since they all instantly go on their periods when Bonds' name comes up, their editorial process is instantly swayed.
But when you really think about it, which one is worse: An admitted steroid user who apologized or a suspected steroid user that won't admit it?
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Steve Kerr's campaign for the Pete Babcock Hall of Fame
Every so often in sports, you encounter a championship-level team that gets completely destroyed by someone who has no idea what the fuck they're doing. It's usually a team that's got most of the right pieces in place, and in searching for that final piece to put them over the hump, they completely destroy the entire thing by killing the thing that made it special in the first place. It's just the classic example of the artist not knowing when to stop tinkering with his masterpiece, except that in this case the artist is overpaid and not very smart.
In 1994, believe it or not, the Atlanta Hawks were major players in the NBA. They were in a neck-and-neck battle with New York and Chicago for the entire season and were expected to make some noise in the playoffs. Led by Hall of Famer Dominique Wilkins in his prime and a defensive focus, they started the season ending Houston's 15 game win streak and never looked back.
But there was talk of Dominique Wilkins' upcoming free agency and whether or not he would resign with Atlanta, the only team he'd ever played for. This was back in the days when it wasn't uncommon for a player to stay with one team for his entire career, so there was no reason to think he wouldn't resign. Still, the talk hung over the team for the entire season.
Well, not the entire season. See, then general manager Pete Babcock and his low 50s IQ was convinced that he couldn't resign Wilkins, so at the trading deadline, he shipped him off to the Clippers for Danny Manning, who also didn't resign with the Hawks. Even though the 57-25 Hawks earned the #1 seed in the playoffs, it took them all five games to put away Miami, before falling to the Indiana Pacers in six games. The Hawks were left with, literally nothing. The Wilkins-less, Manning-less team finished the next season at 42-40. All because Pete Babcock had no idea what he was doing.
The sports landscape is littered with stories like this. The 2006 San Diego Chargers firing Marty Schottenheimer after a 14-2 season, because general manager AJ Smith didn't like him. The 1997 Seattle Supersonics trading Shawn Kemp for Vin Baker. The 2004 Los Angeles Lakers trading Shaquille O'Neal for three loaves of bread and a set of steak knives. All of them dropped from championship level teams to struggling to make the playoffs overnight. Well, go ahead and write the Phoenix Suns down on that same list, because if the Shawn Marion for Shaq trade didn't convince anyone, shopping Amare Stoudamire will.
Not only are the Phoenix Suns considering trading Amare Stoudamire, they want to blame all their woes on him, because clearly, it was his decision to trade Shawn Marion, fire coach Mike D'Antoni, and hire Terry Porter to replace him. It couldn't have been because general manager Steve Kerr, who somehow qualified for being a general manager by color commentating at TNT, is about as good at his job as Pete Babcock was at his.
If the Marion trade was just plain stupid, then the idea of trading Stoudamire has to get a brand new word, because "more stupid" can't adequately describe how dumb you have to be to think this is a good idea. Amare Stoudamire is a 26 year old beast from anywhere on the floor who holds career averages of 21 and 9 who fought back from microfracture surgery to become one of the premier power forwards in the league. The knock on him is that he doesn't play defense, but no one on the Suns did when Mike D'Antoni was coach. Defense got in the way of scoring more points.
But instead of tweaking the run-first team that was on the floor and building around Stoudamire, Steve Kerr is determined to turn Phoenix into San Antonio by building around 36 year old Shaquille O'Neal, who can't run with Steve Nash and Stoudamire. Instead of using the old "Showtime" format that Magic Johnson's Lakers used, they're slowing the whole team down, I guess so Shaq won't feel slighted. The entire format of the team changed in favor of a guy who's openly flirting with the Lakers for a return in two years. It's kind of like how the New York Jets fired Eric Mangini in favor of 38 year old Brett Favre, who might not even be back next season. It's almost like Steve Kerr manages both teams.
I guess I just take for granted that anyone working in sports knows to favor your young, up and coming stars, because the veterans are halfway out the door, anyway. Shaquille O'Neal is 36 years old and can't play back-to-back games without needing an IV. Steve Nash is 35 and can't even sit quietly on the bench without his back locking up. Stoudamire is 26 and is the only other star on the team, so logically, that's the guy Kerr islooking to trade. Of course. How'd this strategy work out for the Washington Wizards, when a 40 year old Michael Jordan did the exact same thing by trading 22 year old Rip Hamilton in favor of himself?
The Suns were already burned once by trading Marion, but since they didn't learn the lesson that only a third degree burn can provide, they're about to jam their hand in the fire one more time by shopping Stoudamire. I guess they want to see if there's such a thing as fourth degree burns, but let's face it: You're not getting anything back worth whatever Stoudamire provides. So what are you trying to prove? Are the Suns secretly filming a reality show that answers the question of how quickly one team can prod its own fanbase into rioting? Because the moves that have been made since Steve Kerr has come on board are really making me wonder.
In 1994, believe it or not, the Atlanta Hawks were major players in the NBA. They were in a neck-and-neck battle with New York and Chicago for the entire season and were expected to make some noise in the playoffs. Led by Hall of Famer Dominique Wilkins in his prime and a defensive focus, they started the season ending Houston's 15 game win streak and never looked back.
But there was talk of Dominique Wilkins' upcoming free agency and whether or not he would resign with Atlanta, the only team he'd ever played for. This was back in the days when it wasn't uncommon for a player to stay with one team for his entire career, so there was no reason to think he wouldn't resign. Still, the talk hung over the team for the entire season.
Well, not the entire season. See, then general manager Pete Babcock and his low 50s IQ was convinced that he couldn't resign Wilkins, so at the trading deadline, he shipped him off to the Clippers for Danny Manning, who also didn't resign with the Hawks. Even though the 57-25 Hawks earned the #1 seed in the playoffs, it took them all five games to put away Miami, before falling to the Indiana Pacers in six games. The Hawks were left with, literally nothing. The Wilkins-less, Manning-less team finished the next season at 42-40. All because Pete Babcock had no idea what he was doing.
The sports landscape is littered with stories like this. The 2006 San Diego Chargers firing Marty Schottenheimer after a 14-2 season, because general manager AJ Smith didn't like him. The 1997 Seattle Supersonics trading Shawn Kemp for Vin Baker. The 2004 Los Angeles Lakers trading Shaquille O'Neal for three loaves of bread and a set of steak knives. All of them dropped from championship level teams to struggling to make the playoffs overnight. Well, go ahead and write the Phoenix Suns down on that same list, because if the Shawn Marion for Shaq trade didn't convince anyone, shopping Amare Stoudamire will.
Not only are the Phoenix Suns considering trading Amare Stoudamire, they want to blame all their woes on him, because clearly, it was his decision to trade Shawn Marion, fire coach Mike D'Antoni, and hire Terry Porter to replace him. It couldn't have been because general manager Steve Kerr, who somehow qualified for being a general manager by color commentating at TNT, is about as good at his job as Pete Babcock was at his.
If the Marion trade was just plain stupid, then the idea of trading Stoudamire has to get a brand new word, because "more stupid" can't adequately describe how dumb you have to be to think this is a good idea. Amare Stoudamire is a 26 year old beast from anywhere on the floor who holds career averages of 21 and 9 who fought back from microfracture surgery to become one of the premier power forwards in the league. The knock on him is that he doesn't play defense, but no one on the Suns did when Mike D'Antoni was coach. Defense got in the way of scoring more points.
But instead of tweaking the run-first team that was on the floor and building around Stoudamire, Steve Kerr is determined to turn Phoenix into San Antonio by building around 36 year old Shaquille O'Neal, who can't run with Steve Nash and Stoudamire. Instead of using the old "Showtime" format that Magic Johnson's Lakers used, they're slowing the whole team down, I guess so Shaq won't feel slighted. The entire format of the team changed in favor of a guy who's openly flirting with the Lakers for a return in two years. It's kind of like how the New York Jets fired Eric Mangini in favor of 38 year old Brett Favre, who might not even be back next season. It's almost like Steve Kerr manages both teams.
I guess I just take for granted that anyone working in sports knows to favor your young, up and coming stars, because the veterans are halfway out the door, anyway. Shaquille O'Neal is 36 years old and can't play back-to-back games without needing an IV. Steve Nash is 35 and can't even sit quietly on the bench without his back locking up. Stoudamire is 26 and is the only other star on the team, so logically, that's the guy Kerr islooking to trade. Of course. How'd this strategy work out for the Washington Wizards, when a 40 year old Michael Jordan did the exact same thing by trading 22 year old Rip Hamilton in favor of himself?
The Suns were already burned once by trading Marion, but since they didn't learn the lesson that only a third degree burn can provide, they're about to jam their hand in the fire one more time by shopping Stoudamire. I guess they want to see if there's such a thing as fourth degree burns, but let's face it: You're not getting anything back worth whatever Stoudamire provides. So what are you trying to prove? Are the Suns secretly filming a reality show that answers the question of how quickly one team can prod its own fanbase into rioting? Because the moves that have been made since Steve Kerr has come on board are really making me wonder.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
$500,000? I can't buy a space yacht with this!
I really think the Republicans are just looking for things to be pissy about, kind of like when your girlfriend is in the mood to argue and chooses that moment to have a problem with the fact that you'd rather slit your own throat than to go the antique roadshow with her and her mother.
This week, they'd decided to be upset about President Obama's decision to put a cap on executive salaries, because those measures are only meant for professional athletes or government employees, not people that have actual responsibilities. They claim that it's a socialist measure, but conveniently leaving out the fact that they're getting their salaries from taxpayer funds. I figure since I had a less invasive background check getting into the IRS than single mothers have to suffer just to get food stamps, I'm not really concerned about the Republicans' opinion on this one. These are the same people who supported wiretapping the citizenry all willy-nilly, but won't subject our "social betters" to easier regulations than we give to welfare recipients.
Republican Senator James Inhofe asked, "Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?" And the answer to that question is yes, because just like the homeless guy who smoked up the five dollars you gave him for food, the financial sector is completely untrustworthy and irresponsible. After all, these are the minds that invented the adjustable rate mortgage and told everyone that it was a smart idea to get one, knowing full well that Americans aren't really known for their long attention span.
So it's not exactly the smartest move to give these people free reign to do whatever they want with this money. The previous president tried that and now, no one knows what they did with a single dime of it and in an unrelated story, 100% of American bank executives now own private jets made out of money. Thanks for justifying our faith in you, banks.
Besides, what makes these executives and their Republican friends think that they deserve their full salary after this? Did the captain of the Titanic get a bonus after he hit the iceberg? Republicans like to paint America as a meritocracy, but when it comes to actually applying that to people above a certain tax bracket, suddenly, they forgot what they just said.
It's like Bill O'Reilly getting on TV and saying that because they're not on public assistance, Sarah Palin's daughter's pregancy was none of America's business and none of us should be critical, but when that one lady had eight more babies on top of her six that she already had, suddenly he's got the right to say she's not a good mother, despite the fact that she also isn't on public assistance. Suddenly, Palin's situation is different, even though the only difference is Palin was a prominent Republican. Oh, and 13 extra kids.
So just because they're rich, powerful, and influential, they're above the watchful eye of the government (who doesn't actually have to give them anything)? Do you continue to give money to your cousin that has a gambling problem? These people are telling you that they just need a little money to break even, to keep their doors open and pay their employees, but we both know that the second our backs are turned, they're gonna be back at the track, betting on the greyhound that has the same name as the hooker that stole their wallet last week. Does that sound like a person you should trust with billions of taxpayer dollars?
It doesn't work that way. You can't take a handout, then spend it however you want to. If I lend you money to keep your lights on and you spend it on a clothes, you deserve a fresh shot in the teeth. Personally, I'm glad Obama's doing this. The country is tired of rewarding incompetence as well as the people who defend that system. And really, if you don't think a person can live off of $500,000 a year, I don't think you're the one who should be dictating anything about "fiscal conservatism."
This week, they'd decided to be upset about President Obama's decision to put a cap on executive salaries, because those measures are only meant for professional athletes or government employees, not people that have actual responsibilities. They claim that it's a socialist measure, but conveniently leaving out the fact that they're getting their salaries from taxpayer funds. I figure since I had a less invasive background check getting into the IRS than single mothers have to suffer just to get food stamps, I'm not really concerned about the Republicans' opinion on this one. These are the same people who supported wiretapping the citizenry all willy-nilly, but won't subject our "social betters" to easier regulations than we give to welfare recipients.
Republican Senator James Inhofe asked, "Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?" And the answer to that question is yes, because just like the homeless guy who smoked up the five dollars you gave him for food, the financial sector is completely untrustworthy and irresponsible. After all, these are the minds that invented the adjustable rate mortgage and told everyone that it was a smart idea to get one, knowing full well that Americans aren't really known for their long attention span.
So it's not exactly the smartest move to give these people free reign to do whatever they want with this money. The previous president tried that and now, no one knows what they did with a single dime of it and in an unrelated story, 100% of American bank executives now own private jets made out of money. Thanks for justifying our faith in you, banks.
Besides, what makes these executives and their Republican friends think that they deserve their full salary after this? Did the captain of the Titanic get a bonus after he hit the iceberg? Republicans like to paint America as a meritocracy, but when it comes to actually applying that to people above a certain tax bracket, suddenly, they forgot what they just said.
It's like Bill O'Reilly getting on TV and saying that because they're not on public assistance, Sarah Palin's daughter's pregancy was none of America's business and none of us should be critical, but when that one lady had eight more babies on top of her six that she already had, suddenly he's got the right to say she's not a good mother, despite the fact that she also isn't on public assistance. Suddenly, Palin's situation is different, even though the only difference is Palin was a prominent Republican. Oh, and 13 extra kids.
So just because they're rich, powerful, and influential, they're above the watchful eye of the government (who doesn't actually have to give them anything)? Do you continue to give money to your cousin that has a gambling problem? These people are telling you that they just need a little money to break even, to keep their doors open and pay their employees, but we both know that the second our backs are turned, they're gonna be back at the track, betting on the greyhound that has the same name as the hooker that stole their wallet last week. Does that sound like a person you should trust with billions of taxpayer dollars?
It doesn't work that way. You can't take a handout, then spend it however you want to. If I lend you money to keep your lights on and you spend it on a clothes, you deserve a fresh shot in the teeth. Personally, I'm glad Obama's doing this. The country is tired of rewarding incompetence as well as the people who defend that system. And really, if you don't think a person can live off of $500,000 a year, I don't think you're the one who should be dictating anything about "fiscal conservatism."
Friday, February 06, 2009
It's not just us; White people use fucked up names, too
I guess it's a little comforting to know that it isn't just Black people who give their kids fucked up names. Yes, white people do it, too. And while not too many things can compare with the secret shame that I feel when I see someone name their kid "Kayzeonte," the sting is taken out of it a little bit when I remember that one white woman named her kid "Trig," and they wanted her to be Vice-President. She might as well have named the boy "Math."
I just find it interesting how white people go about ruining their kids' lives. While Black people really go for the jugular, by making up names that only seem fitting when written in a police report, white people choose to name their kids by randomly picking words out of the dictionary. What's really sad is, even their trashy behavior requires more education.
But what is it that makes a white person think, "You know, I think 'Power' is a good name for a boy." It's not just famous white people doing this anymore. Kids named "Apple" or "Blade" or "Colt" are pretty normal among the Hollywood elite, but now, white people everywhere are naming their kids after random nouns. Even Michael Jackson, who's neither white nor elite, got into the act when he named his kid "Blanket," in a desperate attempt to shed his Blackness.
I don't know enough about Japanese or Indian names to know if they ever do things like this, but I'm pretty sure Arabs shy away from it. They're so sensitive that showing the bottom of your feet is considered offensive and they stone women for everything from not having dinner on the table fast enough to standing upright when men are as close as three blocks away. So naming your kid a name that isn't traditionally Arab probably just gets your house burned down.
It's a phenomenon that I just don't seem to understand. It's almost as if both Black and white people are trying to establish their kids' race through their name, instead of allowing their skin to do the talking for them. Look, there's no way that I'm going to think that a kid named "Sunbeam" is anything but white (or a hippie), just like I'm not going to think that a kid named "Zareontae" is anything but Black. But what if I want the mystery?
I'd rather not have a preconceived thought about a person before I even consider meeting them. I don't want to wonder how big of a space cadet Sunbeam is or how many liquor stores Zareontae is going to hold up. Unfortunately, that's what these weird names do to me, and I imagine, everyone else. People are going to automatically form an opinion of your kid before they walk in the room instead of letting their personality speak for themselves. And when Sunbeam opens the monkey cage at the zoo or Zareontae gets caught stealing from the gift shop, people are going to look at them and think, "See, I told you so."
But while both kids are going to be pre-judged based on their names, it's different with Black and white kids. Zareontae is going to be accepted by his friends, because let's face it; their names are just as fucked up. It's not like Nytron and LaKendrell can really say anything. But Sunbeam is gonna catch hell from their classmates, because a name like Sunbeam is like naming your kid, "I'm asking for a good beating." I don't care how much security he has, Trig is gonna catch it at some point. His only saving grace is that his mom is famous. That's the only thing saving Apple and Blade and Colt.
While Black kids have fucked up names, ultimately, they're just mishmashed syllables thrown together that mean nothing. We name our kids gibberish. White kids named after actual objects is probably worse, because what kid wants to be named "baby horse?" Hell, my name comes from one of Jesus's homeboys and I still didn't like it. I can only imagine how a kid would object to being named "Fruit."
So why not name them Melissa and Stephen and give them a chance to be regular people? We all know that kids are brutal creatures when deal with things like that, so instead of forcing them into therapy, let's realize that it's not all about us and give these kids regular names? Or at least a good nickname... and no, T-Mac doesn't count.
I just find it interesting how white people go about ruining their kids' lives. While Black people really go for the jugular, by making up names that only seem fitting when written in a police report, white people choose to name their kids by randomly picking words out of the dictionary. What's really sad is, even their trashy behavior requires more education.
But what is it that makes a white person think, "You know, I think 'Power' is a good name for a boy." It's not just famous white people doing this anymore. Kids named "Apple" or "Blade" or "Colt" are pretty normal among the Hollywood elite, but now, white people everywhere are naming their kids after random nouns. Even Michael Jackson, who's neither white nor elite, got into the act when he named his kid "Blanket," in a desperate attempt to shed his Blackness.
I don't know enough about Japanese or Indian names to know if they ever do things like this, but I'm pretty sure Arabs shy away from it. They're so sensitive that showing the bottom of your feet is considered offensive and they stone women for everything from not having dinner on the table fast enough to standing upright when men are as close as three blocks away. So naming your kid a name that isn't traditionally Arab probably just gets your house burned down.
It's a phenomenon that I just don't seem to understand. It's almost as if both Black and white people are trying to establish their kids' race through their name, instead of allowing their skin to do the talking for them. Look, there's no way that I'm going to think that a kid named "Sunbeam" is anything but white (or a hippie), just like I'm not going to think that a kid named "Zareontae" is anything but Black. But what if I want the mystery?
I'd rather not have a preconceived thought about a person before I even consider meeting them. I don't want to wonder how big of a space cadet Sunbeam is or how many liquor stores Zareontae is going to hold up. Unfortunately, that's what these weird names do to me, and I imagine, everyone else. People are going to automatically form an opinion of your kid before they walk in the room instead of letting their personality speak for themselves. And when Sunbeam opens the monkey cage at the zoo or Zareontae gets caught stealing from the gift shop, people are going to look at them and think, "See, I told you so."
But while both kids are going to be pre-judged based on their names, it's different with Black and white kids. Zareontae is going to be accepted by his friends, because let's face it; their names are just as fucked up. It's not like Nytron and LaKendrell can really say anything. But Sunbeam is gonna catch hell from their classmates, because a name like Sunbeam is like naming your kid, "I'm asking for a good beating." I don't care how much security he has, Trig is gonna catch it at some point. His only saving grace is that his mom is famous. That's the only thing saving Apple and Blade and Colt.
While Black kids have fucked up names, ultimately, they're just mishmashed syllables thrown together that mean nothing. We name our kids gibberish. White kids named after actual objects is probably worse, because what kid wants to be named "baby horse?" Hell, my name comes from one of Jesus's homeboys and I still didn't like it. I can only imagine how a kid would object to being named "Fruit."
So why not name them Melissa and Stephen and give them a chance to be regular people? We all know that kids are brutal creatures when deal with things like that, so instead of forcing them into therapy, let's realize that it's not all about us and give these kids regular names? Or at least a good nickname... and no, T-Mac doesn't count.
Rappers: Quit pretending you're friends
Am I the only person who's sick of the rappers who had beef last year making songs together and pretending to be friends this year? Like I'm supposed to believe that they're really enjoying each other's company. When Jay-Z and Nas made "Black Republicans," they both sounded so stiff that they I was almost certain that they were in the studio together. Ludacris and T.I. would have you believe that they were excited about the prospect of making "Wish You Would." I'm not saying that they should keep beefing, but just because they squashed the beef doesn't mean that their respective fans want them to get on a meaningless song together. No one was clamoring for a Jadakiss/Beanie Sigel song, trust me.
Did Kool Moe Dee and LL Cool J ever do a song together? 'Pac and Big (after the beef started)? Gangstalicious and Eat Dirt? Then why do all these rappers feel like they need to hold hands on wax to squash the beef, especially when we can all tell that they still don't like each other? The seventeen of you who saw "Belly" know that Nas isn't a very good actor, which is why he wasn't able to hide the fact he'd rather stab Jay-Z in the neck than rap with him. Nas was probably still mad that Jay-Z was his boss. It probably gave Jay-Z heartburn to defend Nas against the rumors that his album was late.
If they really want me to believe that they're cool, then how about a heartfelt apology instead of a generic song? I don't know what the fuck "Black Republicans" was supposed to be about, but I'm smart enough to understand Jay-Z saying, "Nas, I'm sorry that I ran all up in your baby mama, then made a song about it." I can understand LL Cool J saying, "Canibus, I'm sorry that I killed your career before your own subpar talent had a chance to." But instead of that, I gotta settle for Luda and T.I. pretending like they did something worthy of the history books by cranking out a song together.
Only rappers feel the need to make a statement like this, but I really wish they'd just stop. It's not like it's a real collaboration of any kind, because it's just rap music. It's not like the rappers are really combining their styles to create some hybrid form of music. I'm supposed to be impressed because one rapper decides to rap on two verses instead of three? You're not making any kind of statement. Hell, the artists on SoundClick do that and they don't even share studio time.
You know what would impress me? If Guns N' Roses got back together. If Dave Mustaine and Jason Newsted made another album with Metallica. Randy Savage and Hulk Hogan winning the tag team titles. Jay-Z and R. Kelly finishing their tour. Those things would require some repairing of a relationship, at the least. Two rappers pretending to like each other for a couple of hours in the studio means nothing because they've mastered the art of being fake. They've been pretending to be insane, crack smuggling, murdering crime bosses for years. For all we know, the label made them do it.
So just stop talking about each other if you want to end your beef. You're not thrilling anyone and we've got more than enough generic music. If that's the best you can do, I'd rather you kept on beefing with each other, because at least i know you'll come with your best instead of half-assing it like you're doing now.
Did Kool Moe Dee and LL Cool J ever do a song together? 'Pac and Big (after the beef started)? Gangstalicious and Eat Dirt? Then why do all these rappers feel like they need to hold hands on wax to squash the beef, especially when we can all tell that they still don't like each other? The seventeen of you who saw "Belly" know that Nas isn't a very good actor, which is why he wasn't able to hide the fact he'd rather stab Jay-Z in the neck than rap with him. Nas was probably still mad that Jay-Z was his boss. It probably gave Jay-Z heartburn to defend Nas against the rumors that his album was late.
If they really want me to believe that they're cool, then how about a heartfelt apology instead of a generic song? I don't know what the fuck "Black Republicans" was supposed to be about, but I'm smart enough to understand Jay-Z saying, "Nas, I'm sorry that I ran all up in your baby mama, then made a song about it." I can understand LL Cool J saying, "Canibus, I'm sorry that I killed your career before your own subpar talent had a chance to." But instead of that, I gotta settle for Luda and T.I. pretending like they did something worthy of the history books by cranking out a song together.
Only rappers feel the need to make a statement like this, but I really wish they'd just stop. It's not like it's a real collaboration of any kind, because it's just rap music. It's not like the rappers are really combining their styles to create some hybrid form of music. I'm supposed to be impressed because one rapper decides to rap on two verses instead of three? You're not making any kind of statement. Hell, the artists on SoundClick do that and they don't even share studio time.
You know what would impress me? If Guns N' Roses got back together. If Dave Mustaine and Jason Newsted made another album with Metallica. Randy Savage and Hulk Hogan winning the tag team titles. Jay-Z and R. Kelly finishing their tour. Those things would require some repairing of a relationship, at the least. Two rappers pretending to like each other for a couple of hours in the studio means nothing because they've mastered the art of being fake. They've been pretending to be insane, crack smuggling, murdering crime bosses for years. For all we know, the label made them do it.
So just stop talking about each other if you want to end your beef. You're not thrilling anyone and we've got more than enough generic music. If that's the best you can do, I'd rather you kept on beefing with each other, because at least i know you'll come with your best instead of half-assing it like you're doing now.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Is Kobe Bryant afraid of Paul Pierce?
Kobe Bryant is the best player in the NBA, completely unstoppable when he chooses to be. The only way he's not the most feared player on the court is if he's sitting on the bench. It's easier for him to drop 50 or 60 points than it is for the rest of us to throw two paper balls into the trash without missing. You're more likely to miss what you're pointing at than he is to miss an open jumper. He doesn't even look like he's even trying hard half the time.
Unless Paul Pierce is guarding him. Then, playing basketball becomes a Herculean task to Kobe Bryant, like Zeus is making him play with a boulder strapped to his back. It really makes no sense because Paul Pierce is a 6'7", 240 pound fat kid inside of an athlete's body. He's a skilled basketball player because he's not incredibly athletic. When he retires from the NBA, he's going to do what Charles Barkley did when he retired: Not give a damn about his physical appearance.
Don't get me wrong, Paul Pierce is a great player. He's one of my favorites. I love to watch Paul Pierce shoot someone's eyes out. But he's never shown an aptitude or even a willingness to play defense. In the past, Paul Pierce was more likely to help his opponent score just so he could get the ball back and shoot again. Yet, 11 years into his career, he discovered a hidden talent that none of us knew he had: Being able to stop Kobe Bryant. Paul Pierce must be one of the X-Men, because his mutant power is making Kobe Bryant's balls shrivel up.
And it's not like he knew he had it in him all along. He discovered he could do this back in June, during the Finals. It was almost a lucky break, because the Celtics really didn't have any other options. They knew that Ray Allen couldn't stop Kobe, because Ray had been getting lit up by Kobe for years back when he played in Seattle. So, they gambled on Pierce, because he's bigger and stronger.
Kobe's game disappeared like Ja Rule's comeback. The guy who would take anyone to the basket, the guy who would shoot in anyone's face, the guy who would shake any defender, was reduced to heaving up contested threes and hoping that they'd go in. And then, he tries to act bad when some of them do. But there was no driving, there was no juking, there was no posting up, you know, the main parts of Kobe's game. Just three pointers. And he was forcing those. Kobe Bryant was playing like the slow, white kid that you played 21 with in 8th grade. If he stands far enough from the basket, maybe no one will notice him heaving up that brick before it's too late.
It makes no sense. It's almost like he's not even trying to challenge Pierce out there. Kobe makes playing against other defenders look effortless, until Pierce is standing in front of him. It's almost like he forgot how to cross someone up or drive with his left hand. He looks so hesitant when he plays against Paul Pierce, like the first time you play against someone who's been to jail. Does he think that Pierce is gonna go to the trunk if he scores too many points? It's the only explanation I can come up with, because Paul Pierce turning into Scottie Pippen against Kobe when he can't even stop Joe Johnson doesn't make sense at all.
Unless Paul Pierce is guarding him. Then, playing basketball becomes a Herculean task to Kobe Bryant, like Zeus is making him play with a boulder strapped to his back. It really makes no sense because Paul Pierce is a 6'7", 240 pound fat kid inside of an athlete's body. He's a skilled basketball player because he's not incredibly athletic. When he retires from the NBA, he's going to do what Charles Barkley did when he retired: Not give a damn about his physical appearance.
Don't get me wrong, Paul Pierce is a great player. He's one of my favorites. I love to watch Paul Pierce shoot someone's eyes out. But he's never shown an aptitude or even a willingness to play defense. In the past, Paul Pierce was more likely to help his opponent score just so he could get the ball back and shoot again. Yet, 11 years into his career, he discovered a hidden talent that none of us knew he had: Being able to stop Kobe Bryant. Paul Pierce must be one of the X-Men, because his mutant power is making Kobe Bryant's balls shrivel up.
And it's not like he knew he had it in him all along. He discovered he could do this back in June, during the Finals. It was almost a lucky break, because the Celtics really didn't have any other options. They knew that Ray Allen couldn't stop Kobe, because Ray had been getting lit up by Kobe for years back when he played in Seattle. So, they gambled on Pierce, because he's bigger and stronger.
Kobe's game disappeared like Ja Rule's comeback. The guy who would take anyone to the basket, the guy who would shoot in anyone's face, the guy who would shake any defender, was reduced to heaving up contested threes and hoping that they'd go in. And then, he tries to act bad when some of them do. But there was no driving, there was no juking, there was no posting up, you know, the main parts of Kobe's game. Just three pointers. And he was forcing those. Kobe Bryant was playing like the slow, white kid that you played 21 with in 8th grade. If he stands far enough from the basket, maybe no one will notice him heaving up that brick before it's too late.
It makes no sense. It's almost like he's not even trying to challenge Pierce out there. Kobe makes playing against other defenders look effortless, until Pierce is standing in front of him. It's almost like he forgot how to cross someone up or drive with his left hand. He looks so hesitant when he plays against Paul Pierce, like the first time you play against someone who's been to jail. Does he think that Pierce is gonna go to the trunk if he scores too many points? It's the only explanation I can come up with, because Paul Pierce turning into Scottie Pippen against Kobe when he can't even stop Joe Johnson doesn't make sense at all.
Lebron and Kobe vs. Michael
Kobe dropped a Madison Square Garden-record 61 points on the Knicks. LeBron dropped 52 points as part of a triple double on them two nights later. Impressive feats? Of course they are, because as bad as the Knicks are, I don't see Rafer Alston or Brian Scalabrine lighting them up. But better than Michael Jordan's "double nickel" game back in 1995? Not even close.
Yeah, I know, Kobe scored 61 points and I know LeBron had a triple double. I don't care about who was more impressive between the two of them, because they were playing the Knicks. But when Michael Jordan did it, playing the Knicks meant something.
It was March 24, 1995. It was a rivalry game back in the days when the Knicks and Bulls genuinely did not like each other. It was Madison Square Garden and it was Michael Jordan's fifth game back after a 16 month layoff. The Knicks went 55-27 that season. Patrick Ewing's Knicks were no pushover back then, unlike the Knicks of today, who are soft like a stripper's backside. Michael Jordan dropped 55 points against THAT team, fighting his own broken jumpshot. Kobe and LeBron did their damage against a gyrating ass.
Not even Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game can say that. The Knicks team that he destroyed went 29-51...but he still scored 100 points. So I'll shut up on that, but let's keep Kobe and LeBron in perspective. It's impressive just from a sheer numbers standpoint, until you consider the competition. There wasn't any, at least not for them. Al Harrington? Tim Thomas? They might as well have been playing against their old high school teams, because they would have been just as effective.
So let's all just come back to reality before we start proclaiming these as more impressive performances.
Yeah, I know, Kobe scored 61 points and I know LeBron had a triple double. I don't care about who was more impressive between the two of them, because they were playing the Knicks. But when Michael Jordan did it, playing the Knicks meant something.
It was March 24, 1995. It was a rivalry game back in the days when the Knicks and Bulls genuinely did not like each other. It was Madison Square Garden and it was Michael Jordan's fifth game back after a 16 month layoff. The Knicks went 55-27 that season. Patrick Ewing's Knicks were no pushover back then, unlike the Knicks of today, who are soft like a stripper's backside. Michael Jordan dropped 55 points against THAT team, fighting his own broken jumpshot. Kobe and LeBron did their damage against a gyrating ass.
Not even Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game can say that. The Knicks team that he destroyed went 29-51...but he still scored 100 points. So I'll shut up on that, but let's keep Kobe and LeBron in perspective. It's impressive just from a sheer numbers standpoint, until you consider the competition. There wasn't any, at least not for them. Al Harrington? Tim Thomas? They might as well have been playing against their old high school teams, because they would have been just as effective.
So let's all just come back to reality before we start proclaiming these as more impressive performances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)