If I Did It: The Michael Vick Edition

Michael Vick is being paid $600,000 to appear in a documentary. There is also word that he wrote a book while he was in jail and he's looking for a publishing deal. There are those who will be upset that he's looking to bank on his misfortunes. Those people need to shut up, because it's not like PETA and the ASPCA didn't make a truckload of money off of him already.

Michael Vick is millions of dollars in debt, about to be released from jail, and resigned to working a $10 an hour construction job (cheap promotion for the company, because they're not putting a backhoe in his hands) because there's no guarantee that he'll be let back in the NFL. Roger Goodell said that Vick is "going to have to demonstrate to the larger community — not just to the NFL community and to me — that he has remorse for what he did and that he recognizes mistakes that he made," which is code for "I want to see this [expletive deleted] dance for the American public," because public admittance and jail time just isn't demonstration enough.

So the fact that Vick is going to do these things is fine by me. That construction gig isn't going to pay off anything, so why not do the documentary and book? If he's smart, he'll try for a reality show that shows him playing with dogs all the time. Puppies can rehab anyone's image and America's idiots still believe that reality shows are real. He's going to need something to do until the he lands that UFL contract.

Would they prefer that Vick get out there and sell drugs or steal cars, because selling his name and image and banking on the fact that controversy sells is the only way he's getting out of this. Does anyone have the number for the company that's selling the Michael Vick chew toy? Make sure you send it to him, because I'm sure he'd be willing to endorse it at this point.

I don't think anyone in America is going to pass up $600,000 for the opportunity to walk around all day and have people point cameras at them. Some people are worried about the harm this could do to Michael Vick's image, because chances are, he won't have final cut approval on the movie. He's already been to jail for killing dogs. He's inspired people to picket places where he wasn't even going to be (Falcons' training camp, the NFL offices). He's lost endorsements, houses, cars, and his job.

I really don't think that his image can take that much more of a hit. Unless the documentary exposes his reliance on the power of Satan, I don't think he'll drop down any further in the judgmental eyes of America. And really, is there anyone who's really planning to go see this? It's not like it's going to be the redemptive and heartwarming tale of a lovable loser on his way back up. If that were the storyline, I'd go buy my tickets now. Truth to tell, we could probably use a positive story like that right about now.

It's most likely going to be something that will allow PETA supporters to bask in his misery. Watching him get the run around from his parole officer or digging holes at work or stressing about his bills, because if we've learned nothing from any of this, it's that Michael Vick KILLED DOGS and we should never forget it. Grow up, people.

If I want to watch senseless negativity, I know where Fox News is on my cable rotation.

So let him do his movie and book. If rappers can build careers on pretending to be criminals, why not give an actual criminal a shot at it?

Plaxico Burress is not Michael Vick

If the "Pacman Jones Memorial Award for Moron Excellence" was a real award, then Plaxico Burress would be a lock for it in 2009. Someone needs to tell him that it isn't real, and even if it was, it's nothing that smart people want to have.

Plaxico Burress has been involved with the police at least seven times since August 2008. He's been sued at least nine times since 2000. He has gun-possession charges above his head right now. So a guy like him saying, "I know the sheriff personally," isn't exactly a good thing. All that means is, he's been involved in Plaxico's arrest enough times for them to have a deep conversation.

Yet, those are the words that he chose to throw at the Broward County Deputy Sheriff who stopped him for speeding on March 18th. I guess, in Plaxico's mind, his rapport with the sheriff is going to get that speeding ticket thrown out, because being cool with the sheriff clearly means that he can act an ass whenever he wants to. He doesn't have to obey traffic laws, which is why he's had five such violations in the past month.

You know, the Duke Boys knew Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane personally. Didn't stop him from trying to arrest them on bootlegging charges.

Kind of makes me wonder why Plaxico never got in good with the police in New York, since he was going to carry guns around in a city that has a mandatory three year sentence for carrying guns. Maybe if he had, they wouldn't have been so quick to arrest him, because everyone knows that cops that you know personally always cover for you. Even when he's living in a fantasy land, Plaxico is still really stupid.

That's what separates Plaxico Burress from Michael Vick. I've had people tell me that New York is going to make an example out of him because he's black. I've had people tell me that Plaxico is a victim. And we need to go on and kill all that noise right now.

Michael Vick committed a crime and deserved to be punished, however, the sentence he received was viewed by many (okay, by black people) to be excessive. He killed dogs, which set off a firestorm of outrage by dog lovers everywhere and unleashed that band of lunatics known as PETA upon the sane-thinking world. Meanwhile, Leonard Little killed another human being and not only was everyone okay with it, he never even missed any playing time. It was all so logical, because as we know, dogs are worth more to people than people are.

On the other hand, Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg in a nightclub with a gun that is illegal to have anywhere in the city, then tried to cover the whole thing up. Why he needed a gun in the club is irrelevant, because he was going to be in the VIP all night, anyway. So, unless he was afraid that the groupies that were joining him were actually terrorists, I think the bouncers at the door were enough security.

I believe that an example was made of Michael Vick and as a result, he lost everything. Plaxico Burress could have just hired bodyguards and none of this would have happened. He's had a long history of not being very bright, so let's not try to turn Plaxico into some kind of hero or political prisoner, when he's really just a guy who wasn't enough smart enough realize that sweatpants can't even hold up a cell phone, let alone a 10-pound gun.

He couldn't put out $90 for a holster. Plaxico's not gonna do three years because he's a victim; Plaxico's gonna do three years because he's simple.

No offense, Catholics. Honest.

Why am I glad I'm not Catholic?

I could never be associated with a religion that's sensitive enough to waste time boycotting movies. I really don't think "Angels and Demons" is going to affect your bottom line. If anything, you're just giving it free promotion. I didn't even know "Dogma" was out until the Church got involved.

I'd prefer my religion to tackle issues that were of some importance, like world hunger or anything that's not boycotting movies. Plus, my personal religion doesn't look nearly as evil as Catholicism does. I'm not saying that Catholicism itself is evil (although I'm certainly capable of doing it), but any church that has demons posted up on its houses of worship or uses models of its savior dying on a cross as it's symbol of worship doesn't really say to me, "God is Love." It says something more along the lines of "You don't want none of what I'm worshipping, bitch."

Not only that, this is the same church that kicked out a girl, her mother, and a doctor for aborting the girl's pregnancy. Now, that's not news because the Catholic Church generally frowns on this. What makes this exceptional is that the girl was two things, none of which were "loose." What she was was "12" and "raped." Oh, and the rapist got to keep being Catholic, because he only violated a girl and stole her innocence. It's not like he aborted a baby or used condoms or anything like that.

It just really seems like The Vatican's decisions aren't grounded in the real world at all, and what's scarier is that people still look to them for guidance. People didn't keep looking to Bush for guidance after it became clear that he was going to drive America off a cliff. That would be stupid, because if someone keeps giving you bad advice, generally you point out their historic battles with speaking English or swallowing pretzels.

But they don't do that for the Catholic Church. They just keep right on agreeing with the Pope, never questioning him when he says, "God doesn't want you to use condoms. He wants you to trust that you just won't get AIDS."

I know, he's supposed to preach abstinence and that's good. But in 2009 (or even 1984), it's just not realistic to expect that people are going to stay abstinent just because the Pope said so. If it were that easy, then "Just Say No" and tersely worded, non-binding resolutions would work. Besides, when the Pope was a kid, he was too busy harassing Jews to worry about pre-marital sex. Yet, his wealth of experience in the world of teenage sex is the basis for his argument.

Besides, when you take a leap of faith, you usually don't do that by doing something stupid. A leap of faith is something like, trusting that your business plan is going to work, not placing your genitals into a pot of boiling water and expecting God to turn it into ice.

Now, while Catholics don't seem to have developed the part of the brain that tells the difference between what's smart and what's ridiculous, they do understand how capitalism works.

If you frequent a business that historically picks the wrong side, despite what common sense is telling them to do (like not denouncing slavery or the Holocaust, for instance), generally, you don't go to those places anymore. Back in the 90s, the state of Georgia stopped flying the rebel flag on government buildings just because the NCAA said they weren't going to bring the tournament and it's hundreds of millions of dollars in windfall while those flags were up. It's just that simple, because money trumps all sorts of personal beliefs about Black people being three-fifths of one white man.

Well, why can't Catholics do that? Why can't Catholics go, "You know, God gave us brains so we could think, but why doesn't Holy Mother Church ever use them? Why do they keep making us look stupid? And what's with this ash on my forehead?" If more Catholics actually questioned their Church or left it for one that contained less halfwits, the Catholic Church would probably make some changes.

The Vatican understands that to keep it going, they have to have people coming and donating to the building fund (or is that just Black churches?). It's a business. And they know that their customers aren't going anywhere. They've been guilting Catholics into showing up for generations and because of that, it's okay for them to say "We'd rather keep the rapist around than the abortionist." Now, if they were saying that to a room full of empty pews, it might occur to them that people want their religious leaders to understand that the year is 2009, no 1409.

God wants you to think. That's why he gave the ability to do so. If he wanted you to blindly follow, he would have made you a dog. Or an angel. And I know you've grown attached to having genitals.

Why CBS shouldn't air sports

It's bad enough that CBS has the most boring NFL pregame show anywhere. Yes, even more boring than NBC, and they've got Bob Costas and Cris Collingsworth. I can't even name a prime-time show that CBS airs now that King of Queens is off.

Just being boring isn't enough, though. Now, they've got to show us that they're inept.

I don't know who the genius was who thought that one station could juggle two separate games and make everyone happy, but at some point, the intelligence that God gave birds has to kick in, right?

North Carolina had things with Gonzaga in hand, probably three...maybe four minutes into the game. Meanwhile, Kansas and Michigan State were close throughout. It hadn't occurred to me that I might want to see anything in the Kansas/Michigan State game in the first half, because I wanted to see North Carolina. I've been a Tarheels fan for a long time.

But when the second half started running down and Kansas and Michigan State were still tied up, I expected CBS to switch back over to their game, because it was coming down to a close finish. You know, the kind of situation where legendary highlights are made. Big shots, hustle plays, important rebounds; the stuff that they'll replay 20 years from now.

CBS chose to keep showing UNC/Gonzaga. UNC spent the whole second half leading by 20. I really don't think we were going to miss anything.

The six minute mark goes by in the Kansas/Mich. St. game. Four minutes. Two minutes. We're still looking at Carolina while the score is knotted at 60 in the other game. Finally, Michigan State goes up by two in a big play that I'll have to turn to ESPN to see. My bracket is taking another hit and I can't even see why.

It's not like Gonzaga had closed to within five points or the other game was the Grizzlies and the Clippers. It was another tournament game, and it had a better finish than the one that I was stuck with.

Finally, at the 36 second mark, CBS switches back to Kansas/Mich. St. Not only that, right when they switch, a timeout is called and they start to go to commercial. Thankfully, for us, they decide to let us watch the timeout. For those who were wondering about the nailbiter we switched from, Carolina's was still up by 20.

Kansas is at the line to shoot free throws. First free throw is good. Second free throw might have been good, but we'll never know, because CBS had to hurry up and get back to that back-and-forth UNC/Gonzaga game. That's right, they switched back in the middle of the free throws at brought Kansas to within one. Because CBS didn't want us to miss UNC closing in on a 30 point lead.

It doesn't even matter what happened next, because I'm fairly certain that CBS doesn't want me to see it anyway. I can't remember if I even saw the end of the game because I blacked out after those free throws. My brain was saving me from an anger stroke. Good look, brain.

I just know that in the end, Michigan State won. It would have been nice to see it.

I hate you, CBS. Next time, just play quietly in the corner while the big boys at ESPN or Fox do show you how to broadcast sports.

The Twitter Test Run

I know two people with diamonds in their teeth and neither of them are black.

NFL's "Increase the Peace" Movement

Because quarterbacks, not children, are our most delicate resource, the NFL owners have invented the Bradymobile to keep them safe from human contact. It's just like the Popemobile, except it's also safe from missile attacks and bad breath. (Pictured: Bradymobile prototype. Not pictured: Lost sense of athletic pride.)

Their efforts are aimed at making this violent, hard-hitting game safer. They have decided that it's not the intensity and hard hits that keep fans coming back, but instead the intellectualism. It's hard to appreciate the human chess on the field when the players keep hitting each other. In a similar story, the UFC decided to outlaw punching, kicking, and wrestling so cage-fighting isn't so rough on its fighters. Inspired by the movement, the US military is considering adding pillows to the inside of their bombs to make war safer.

And why this sudden focus on safety? Because the owners want to add two games to the season, believing that no place is safer for NFL players than being in the line of fire. Commissioner Roger Goodell said, "This game is entirely too dangerous and violent, so let's make them play it more." It's like giving out bulletproof vests so people can get shot in the chest more often.

I get some of the changes that have been made in the past, banning horse-collar tackles, shots to the head, not letting people drive trucks onto the field, the logical stuff. But if they ban the "wedge" of kickoff returns they might as well ban offensive linemen and fullbacks. And to say that defensive players can't lunge at quarterbacks when they're on the ground is just plain crazy. They might as well start saying that players can't use their legs to run, because that rule change goes against the defense's basic nature.

See, there's only three things that defensive players know how to do: "get the quarterback," "dive on the ball," and "turn your hips." Basically, this rule change is taking back 33% of everything defensive players know how to do. What are they supposed to fill that brain space with, "making it rain?" You're confusing them and it's not going to make anyone happy when defensive players start standing in front of the quarterback in a daze, because they can't decide whether to hit the guy or throw money at him.

There have already been instances where sacks were missed because the defensive player wasn't sure if he'd be penalized for making the play, and that was before the rule change. After the rule change, when a defensive player is blocked to the ground within a two feet of the quarterback, instead of making a play from his knees, he might as well take a leisurely nap on the field until the whistle is blown. The quarterback's knees are protected and the defensive player is refreshed for the next play.

The way they're headed, they might as well start having quarterbacks throw from behind a concrete wall. Soon, the owners are going to outlaw tackling and blocking and instead rely on a ornate system of verbal cues to trick opposing players into falling down. Maybe hypnotizing players into handing the ball over when the safe word is uttered. It's just a matter of time before a lineman snaps and starts running in circles because he doesn't know what to do.

Yeah, it's a moneymaking venture, and I understand that they want to keep the players safe, so as to better exploit them by adding games, but they also need to remember that it's football. It's a game that's dependent on hard-hitting, intensity, and physicality. The pattern of rule changes is taking all of that away. Take tackling, shoving, pushing, and hard glares away from football and what are you left with?

Catch.

And I don't think anyone will be willing to pay $40 to watch muscled-up men peacefully throw a ball to each other.

It's supposed to be violent. It's supposed to hurt. That's why people play it. If the owners don't want their players to get hurt, then they got into the wrong business. Maybe they should put their money into that professional curling league or try to get a TV deal for badminton. It would be worth it to see if the censors would allow them to say "shuttlecock" on television.

Why Barack-etology is a good thing

I really don't think that the free world is an anymore trouble than it already is if Barack Obama takes some time out to fill out a bracket for ESPN. Really, if some real damage was going to go down, it was going to happen regardless of that missing half hour. Hell, I bet he spends more time than that in the bathroom.

Actually, I'm more impressed that this man can find the time to be this knowledgable about college basketball while rebuilding the economy, getting us out of Iraq, curing cancer, walking on water, all the stuff that he does. It's not like he's falling behind on things. If he was turning in his budgets late and missing press conferences because he was copying someone else's notes at the last minute, the complainers might be onto something. But he's getting everything done, so why are we bothering him? If anything, we should be impressed with his time-management skills.

Most of us can't even make it to work on time every day and we're worried about what he's doing.

At the very least, this helps him relate to people more, because it shows that he's just as sports-crazy as the rest of us. The only difference between me and Barack Obama right now is that he has the respect and admiration of a nation and I picked California to beat Maryland against my better judgment. Really, at the time of this writing, I'm doing better than he is.

Republicans are just jealous they didn't think of this kind of thing first, because George W. Bush or Sarah Palin would kill for this kind of publicity. Barack Obama filling out his bracket on ESPN or actually getting upset that OUR Beloved Bulls were getting beat by the Washington Wizards are the kinds of things that will endear us to him. When he leaves office, assuming his presidency isn't a complete disaster, this sort of thing will make us think about him and smile. Truly the People's President, Barack Obama.

Bush, on the other hand, we forgot about him while he was still sitting the White House. And this guy owned the Texas Rangers once upon a time. But he was so busy clearing brush off of his ranch in Crawford that he forgot to show us what a real guy he was. People always talked about what a great guy he was, but we never saw it. Maybe if he had publicly done things like this, we would have looked at him a little differently. I'm not saying we would have supported all of his policies, because I just don't think that repealing our civil liberties was a smart idea. But maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't have looked at him like he had no idea what was going on in the real world.

Bush's friends always talked about Bush being "the kind of guy you could have a beer with," but we never really saw it. In one 10-minute segment, Barack showed us that he IS that guy, because even though he's meeting with the Prime Minster of Russia while we're breaking our back for some boss that we don't like, we know that at 11 PM, when SportsCenter comes on, our President is just another sports-obsessed boob. Just like us.

I'm still not calling him "Money."

Shocking news: Floyd Mayweather, Jr. is preparing for a return to boxing.

Really?

Like we didn't know this was coming. Floyd Mayweather, who retired in June 2008, is looking to make his return July 11 on HBO, according to sources close to the pint-sized pugilist. This is a complete shocker to people who believe there's a chance that the sun might not come up the next day or look for things to fall in other directions when they drop them. These are the people who were fooled by Michael Jordan's first retirement.

I'm not an expert on acting, but I'm pretty sure that he wasn't going to make a career of anything like that. He wouldn't have been able to handle the life of a wrestler, because that requires things like humility and doing what you're told and we know he's not built for that. And my knees are bruised from my nightly prayers that he wouldn't release a rap CD. I guess he could have been an analyst for one of the networks, but as we've seen from Roy Jones, Jr. over the years, it can be hard to stop talking about yourself.

So that just left a return to boxing, because, let's face it: He's only 32. He's still got a couple of years left before the hand speed and reflexes start to leave him and his last fight was only about 15 months ago, so he's still in good enough shape to get back in the ring. It's not like he's Evander Holyfield, inviting speculation that he's actually going to die in the ring (or maybe that's just my speculation).

Apparently, he's looking to face anyone out there, except Oscar De La Hoya, which makes me wonder. Yeah, he won the fight (split decision), but he retired before they could fight again. That sounds like fear to me. And since there's no chance that he'll fight Big Show for real, we'll have to settle for the rumors that he wants Manny Pacquiao. Good luck with that.

I'd say "welcome back," Floyd Mayweather, but that would mean that I believed you were gone.

Deconstructing Limbaugh's Fairy Tale Land

Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail.

Rush Limbaugh also claims that it's okay to make insane statements like that, because all of the Bush-haters wanted Bush to fail in Iraq.

The fact that Rush wants Obama to fail means that he wants the country to become flat broke. He wants the worst for all Americans. He wants us all, all races, parties, creeds, colors, and waist sizes, to eat dirtbombs for dinner from the underside of the overpass. Because that's the only thing that can happen if this President does fail. If Obama fails, we're pretty much screwed.

Well, most of us are. The ones who aren't screwed will most likely will be screwed as soon as the ones who are screwed realize that they've still got lights and food. Then, the words "Eat the rich" will re-enter our collective mindscape.

Well, we probably won't attack (all of) the rich, but why does he want Obama to fail? What could his motivation be for wanting something like that? It's simple, really. He wants a Republican to save us. Forget everything that he has to say about his reasons. That's all it is, partisan politics. Except he's not an elected official and no one with any good sense listens to him, anyway.

But it's just sour grapes because a Democrat won the Presidency and a Black one, at that. Because what Rush is saying is not even the same thing as everyone else being against Bush. For one, Obama was democratically elected.

Stealing the election was forgotten after 9/11, though. George W. Bush had the world on his side, simply by being an inept President. His historic unwillingness to read memos allowed him to fall face first into the goodwill of the entire planet. Except for the country that we were about to attack, understandably. It would have been really stupid if Afghanistan was inviting the ass-kicking. Or incredibly perverted, but some people are into that.

But then, he pissed it all away by saying, "No, wait. Let's go to Iraq, instead. It's an open and shut case because Iraq and Afghanistan are both, well, you know...turn around again, and that's why we Iraq is the greater threat." We were so baffled by how this man hadn't drowned himself in the toilet that we forgot to stop this from going down.

The thing about Iraq was, it's not that we wanted to LOSE in Iraq, it's that we wanted to LEAVE Iraq. That might be a failure for Bush, but who cares about his ego when 40,000 of our soldiers are walking around America alive and in one piece (4,000 killed, 36,000 injured). Maybe Bush should have tried fighting the war that we were willing to fight. Sorry that all Americans weren't so easily distracted by the endless oil profits that we weren't going to get a dime of. How selfish of us for not wanting to sacrifice our limbs for Halliburton's stockholders. All we were able to see was the futility in throwing lives and dollars at an unwinnable war.

Obama's not waging an ill-advised and unpopular war; Obama's trying to fix the economy, and I'm pretty sure that at least 90% of Americans and the rest of the world want the damn thing fixed. Yeah, Rush, it's exactly the same thing...like Fox News and actual news are exactly the same thing.

If he succeeds, if everything works out like he wants, the economy has a shot at working again. People will have jobs and money; the streets will flow with milk, honey, and the tears of the Republican faithful. So by saying that you don't want that to happen, that means you, Rush Limbaugh, don't want me personally to have a job. You're not even offering alternative or viable solutions, because if tax cuts were the answer, they would have worked when Bush was still spectacularly failing at being President. You're just being a dick and not even for a good reason.

Fuck you, Rush Limbaugh. I want for your show to get cancelled and for you to get lost in Southwest Atlanta. Clearly, we all can't all get what we want in life.

But feel free to keep attacking Michael Steele and Arlen Specter.

T.O. in Buffalo? Didn't see that coming

Wow. Buffalo. And don't be fooled by that fake smile over there, because he does not look happy about it. Might as well have exiled T.O. to Siberia. Or Kansas City. On the bright side, no one's going to see him screw up anything out there. No one saw that coming, mostly because no one even remembered that Buffalo had an NFL team.

So, yeah, Terrell Owens signed a one-year, $6.5 million deal with the Bills. The deal validates the wild claims that agent Drew Rosenhaus made when he said that T.O. would have a deal within the week, although, judging from the look on T.O.'s face during his press conference, I don't think either one of them would consider this a "win." Personally, I believed that Owens would be out of work for a few more months, at which point, teams would no longer be influenced by ESPN's "T.O. Hater Brigade", and realize that at least 15 of them had nothing to lose by signing Owens.

After all, Terrell Owens, love him or hate him, is still one of the NFL's best receivers. The people who dispute that are generally haters, like Bob Ryan or Skip Bayless. In 2008, Owens was 13th in yards (1.052), tied for 28th in receptions (69, with Randy Moss), and tied for 5th in touchdowns (10, with Tony Gonzales and Lance Moore). And that's with Tony Romo-Simpson as quarterback.

Conversely, the Bills had 14 passing TDs total.

But Terrell Owens isn't considered an "elite" receiver anymore. His critics claim that he has "lost a step," but Stephen A. Smith said it best this morning when he said that Owens "has lost a step for him," but he's still as good as everyone else. I really don't see how you can afford not to look at a guy like that, especially when your team had trouble scoring points like, say...the Rams or the Bengals. Because if your team is scoring less than the Lions did (27 TDs in 2008), you can't really be that choosy about who you have on your roster. If you were that particular, you'd probably have better players.

And as far as who's going to get the ball more, Lee Evans or Terrell Owens, let me say this: That's a problem most teams wish that they had. It's not the same thing as saying, who's going to get the ball more, Lee Evans or Josh Reed? If you don't know the answer to that quesiton, you're also too slow to realize that teams now have to change the way they defend this team. Yeah, the Bills are so stupid for signing T.O.

It's nice to know that your favorite team is taking a moral stand against hated NFL players, but most of those teams will be doing it in an empty stadium. That's one thing Buffalo won't have in 2009.

Rihanna and the online petitions that control her

Today, Rihanna told a judge that she didn't want a temporary restraining order against Chris Brown. Also, the rumor mill says that they are back together. This is proof that celebrities are just like regular people, because she's being just as stupid about all this is the trash you see on daily talk shows.

I don't say that to say that Rihanna is stupid, because those online ads say that her IQ is at least 119. But this is a stupid move and it puts her in the same category as other woman that we call "stupid" or "dumb bitch" when they choose to stay with the man who are beating them. And Rihanna didn't just get abused; people come out of bar fights with less damage than she got. She can never think she's better than anyone, because this proves that she's just like everyone else.

But, hey...if that's what she wants to do, she's mostly grown. You can't tell a 20 year-old anything, and having been 20, I can say that. When you're 20, you think you know everything, without remembering that your main barometer for intelligence is other 20 year-old kids who know just as little as you do. It's like saying you're more attractive than a room full of horribly disfigured people.

Overall, though, I think she'll be alright. I don't think Chris Brown is serial abuser, although I must admit that all I know about him is that he worked over Rihanna pretty good and that "No Air" was a terrible song. He might not hit her again, but why would you want to take that chance? Having said all of that, it's really none of my business, but you know how we loudmouths are: We just can't help ourselves.

I do know that ultimately my words won't mean anything, because Rihanna and Chris Brown don't know me and even if they did, I'm sure my opinion would rank somewhere after the guy who cleaned Rihanna's blood out of that rented Lamborghini. I'm sure she would agree when he says, "Damn, she got fucked up!" But since I'm out of the loop, my opinion simply doesn't matter to them. This is the attitude that the creators of Don't Do It Rihanna should keep in mind.

This is a real website that is built around the idea that the inner workings of Rihanna's life are subject to the same influences as "Dancing With the Stars." People who go here can sign a petition that believes itself to be a legally binding document that can keep Rihanna away from Chris Brown. The tagline actually says, "Sign the petition to keep Rihanna away from Chris Brown." It's great, really. You don't have to get manhandled by security in the VIP to know what's like to get brushed off by Rihanna. All of her disdain in the comfort of your very own home.

I understand the intent behind it, but maybe it's the firm language that makes me laugh. The site is determined to be taken seriously, but at the same time, online petitions aren't legally binding in any way and I don't even think one has ever been useful in a worthy cause. Let's face it: online petitions couldn't even get people to think about impeaching George W. Bush and he's, quite possibly, a war criminal and for at least four years, wasn't even the real President.

I understand that her fans want to show her some support, because as abuse victims can tell you, once you go back with a guy who's split your lip, it's just a matter of time before your forehead is going through the coffee table. You just never really know how these things will go. But this is a complete waste of time. She's not going to seriously consider the contents of this site. Her life, or anyone else's, is not up for public debate. If it was, we wouldn't have so many fat women in halter tops and visible thongs in the summertime. We all know that that there has been a ton of "public debate" on that, and it hasn't changed anything, despite the benefits for the "greater good."

If you really want to help Rihanna, knowing her on a personal level would help. And seeing how she doesn't seem to even be listening to people close to her on this, what good is the petition going to do? It's a deeply personal matter and I don't remember any part of her public statements that said, "I welcome your unsolicited advice on how I should handle this situation." I know people care, but the reality is that all we can do is pray for her, if you're a spiritual person. Do that instead, so you can get back to getting laid off from your jobs with a clear mind.

Overre-Shaq-ting

Everyone has that friend who can't take it when someone calls them out. Everyone has that friend who takes it too far after someone dared be critical of them, whether it's good-natured teasing or pointing out a mistake they've made. Usually, this friend gets abandoned at some point, because it's no fun having that person around. Or, one of his friends might pull him to the side and say, "Is your period over yet, sweetie?"

The problem with Shaquille O'Neal is, he's 7'1" and 350 lbs. If he ever had a friend who was that brave, that friend is probably no longer with us. But just because that friend was obliterated by Shaq's gargantuan rage doesn't change the fact that Shaq is as sensitive as most men right after your girlfriend brings on that "special feeling."

When Shaq starts overreacting like he did, it makes me forget that he's a grown-up, because he lalways crosses the line. He can't just do "verbal jousting," or even admit that he had it coming. No, his pride is wounded, so he responds to the criticism of his flop from Stan Van Gundy by essentially saying, "You contribute nothing to conversations and no one will miss you when you die." Couldn't he have just pointed out that he looks like Ron Jeremy like the rest of us do? Was all of that really necessary?

Good thing Stan didn't say anything about free throws. Shaq probably would have run him over with the team bus.

I heard what SVG said and to me, it all sounded like he was just ribbing Shaq, anyway. But you know what? SVG was 100% right, because everytime Vlade Divac would flop against Shaq, here goes Shaq complaining about floppers again. He can't be mad because people want to talk about it. After all, it's not every day that a 350-pound man goes flying like that outside of a wrestling ring. But instead of Shaq just taking it on the chin, he got personal.

And stupid, because I don't know what being a "frontrunner" has to do with anything. LeBron James' love of the Yankees and Cowboys when he's from Ohio is "frontrunning." I don't know what the hell Shaq was talking about. When people stop making sense, that means they're on the verge of a temper tantrum.

Then, he tried to say that what he did wasn't actually flopping, before getting up the next day to talk to Michael Wilbon for an hour about how it still wasn't flopping. "I was just trying to take a charge...and sell it a little bit, so the ref would be sure to call it." Shaq sold the thing so well, I thought he was back in WCW. But that's not flopping, right? It's "embellishing." Oh, I'm sorry. "Embell-Shaq-ing."

But because Shaq is so beloved (I actually do like Shaq) and can do no wrong, people have tried to make excuses for him by saying that SVG questioned his manhood, as if that justifies the things that he said in response. But let's just say that SVG did question Shaq's manhood, for the sake of argument. Didn't Shaq just do the same thing to Chris Bosh on Friday night, or did I miss the part where calling a man "RuPaul" turned into a compliment suggesting "masculinity?" And how can anyone forget the "Sacramento Queens" comment? Comparing Penny Hardaway to Fredo Corleone? "Kobe, tell me how my ass tastes?" Really, with that last one, maybe we need to question your manhood, Shaq.

And the questioning starts with this: Are you a grown-up, Shaq? Because grown-ups don't react that way to what's clearly a joke. Sometimes, you just have to take it, not fly off the handle like Tommy from "Goodfellas." Will it help if we just start calling him "Spider Van Gundy?" Emptying a clip into him for getting in a good shot on you? Wow, Tommy, you really showed him.

I hope Shaq doesn't get mad at me for writing this. I'd hate for him to respond by burning my house down.

Terrell Owens: Cut by the Cowboys

At 12:05 AM, ESPN reporter Michael Smith broke the news that the Dallas Cowboys were releasing Terrell Owens.

Terrell Owens has been the NFL's most polarizing figure not named Michael Vick in a long, long, time. His talent can't be denied, but it doesn't stop people from begging for him to stop acting like a little girl who's not getting the prettiest dress for Easter services.

So where does he go from here? Popular wisdom would probably say the Oakland Raiders, because they take everybody that no one else wants. Truthfully, it's too rough of an economy to have a reputation like he does and to be jobless at the same time. The news just broke a half hour ago, so it's really too soon to predict where he'll wind up, if anywhere.

The man can still play, though. Word is that he's faster now than he's ever been. And he still racked up 1,052 yards and 10 TDs in 2008 at age 35. Like Shaquille O'Neal did for two days this week, the man is defying Father Time. Still, he's been a headache over the years.

Not being able to find a taker wouldn't surprise me, but at the same time, some half-wit GM taking a chance on him wouldn't shock me, either.

My prediction, though? The first team that he's telling Drew Rosenhaus to call: The Washington Redskins. Baltimore wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility, either. Either way, I'm sure Cris Carter is dancing in the streets right now.

Jay Cutler: It could also be a girl's name

So Jay Cutler is upset because the Denver Broncos entertained the idea of trading him. In other news, Jay Cutler believes that the entire city of Denver is resting on his shoulders and that trading him is such utter folly that even to discuss it is laughable.

Jay Cutler should just quit crying and act like a man about this. It's the nature of the business he chose to be in. You think old people cry just because their kids put them in a home? Of course not, because they knew that this was part of the deal when they decided to beat their kids for not mowing the lawn in a checkerboard fashion like they were told. It's just something that comes with the situation, like tiger trainers losing limbs.

You don't get mad at the hooker for burning you, do you? After all, you were the one that chose to sleep with her. You knew the risks when you decided to get involved with her in the first place. And since you've already gotten burned once, you might as well go ahead and keep sleeping with her on Sunday afternoons like you'd been doing.

I don't know why he was looking at a business organization for loyalty, because those are the same organizations that mysteriously "reorganize" when it's time for a large group of people to hit retirement age. There is no loyalty in big business. And now that the Broncos have a new coach who worked with the quarterback that they were trying to get, it only made sense to try to see what they could do about getting Matt Cassel. Sorry about your feelings, Jay Cutler; we thought you were a man.

And what was Jay Cutler's logical follow-up to these actions? In a fit of rage, he decided that he wanted to be traded because they were looking to trade him. I guess because he looks like a seven-year old, he decided to act like a seven-year old, too. Does he drop out of kickball when he doesn't get to go first?

The idea of getting traded is just something that happens unless your name is on this recently invented list: LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Adrian Peterson, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning. Not even LaDainian Tomlinson is on here, and he's way better than Jay Cutler is. So just take it all in stride, Jay. There are way worse situations than this one, like no one wanting you at all or having to backup Matt Leinart. They didn't disrespect you. They didn't say that your mother has a glass eye with a fish in it or a wooden leg with a kickstand. They just talked about trading you, and they have every right to do that.

The Broncos discussed trading John Elway once, too and all it did was make him a better player. I know you don't think you're better than John Elway. Just be glad that you're in the situation you're in, because no one at all has to pay you millions of dollars to throw a dead pig at other grown men.

Is the old Shaq back?

Shaquille O'Neal is about to be 37 years old and in the past two games he's scored about 800 points and grabbed 500 rebounds. Have we seen a resurgence of the Diesel? Of course not, because the man is 37 years old and the last time an elite-level athlete fought off Father Time and returned to a prior level of greatness, the world said he was on steroids.

What really happened in these past two games? All I know is that he had a really good two games against a pair of centers that weigh 300 pounds between them. It's not like he played two games against real centers and not tall small forwards masquerading as centers. If this was 1993, neither of these guys would even be centers. Yet, in 2008, I'm supposed to be impressed that Shaq dominated them? It's like Shaq dominating Scottie Pippen: It's what he's supposed to do.

So it's not surprising that he played this way against guys who'd get muscled around trying to stop Arvydas Sabonis. What will be surprising is if he can keep up this level of play until the end of the season. And I don't think he can, unless he's discovered a real-life Lazarus Pit. He's prone to injury right now, because the older you get, the easier it is to break a hip and the alleged steroid use I just made up makes him susceptible to muscle tears and lactation.

Seems to me that he's in a healthy stretch and he's just really good against teams that don't have real centers. And his total domination of Milwaukee's Francisco Elson and Dan Gadzuric (avg. 32 ppg, 9.5 rpg this season) backs that up.

The end of the "Iverson Experiment"

Pistons 105, Celtics 95. That right there should put the "Iverson experiment" to rest.

It wasn't Iverson's fault, because he's not coaching the team. I don't know what Michael Curry's reasoning was for benching Richard Hamilton because Larry Brown was the last Pistons coach worth listening to. It could have been because he looked into Iverson's soul and saw angels flying in itl. It could have been because he was afraid Iverson would have thrown a chair at him for the demotion. Either way, it didn't do anything to improve chemistry on the floor.

The Pistons roster is one that's capable of winning a championship, which we know, because for the most part, they already did it. The main pieces of this team were on the 2004 championship team, so they've been maintaining their chemistry for five years. They know each other's strengths and weaknesses and every time they come down the floor, they already know what they want to do. Really, they're wasting money on a coach's salary, because they're doing the exact same things they were doing when Larry Brown was coach.

Allen Iverson, on the other hand, hasn't played on a team that's even been organized since he played at Georgetown. He never understood what practice was for, because what was the point? Eric Snow and Aaron McKie weren't going to get any better whether Iverson was at practice or at the strip club. Being on an organized team was going to take some getting used to.

So, because the city of Boston is now the example of how to do everything from "popularizing an annoying accent" to "buying a championship team," let's let look to them for examples on how to bring a superstar into an already-established roster. As you can see, they didn't start Stephon Marbury over Rajon Rondo, because, even though Rondo has been a pro for three years and still can't shoot, they started him anyway, because Marbury just met most of these guys in the tunnel into the arena.

Iverson should have been coming off the bench from the start. Why mess up good chemistry with a wild card? It's not like Iverson went to the Bucks, where he could shoot until his arm cramped up because no one was watching anyway. This is a team that can still contend for a title. It's going to take some time for him to find his role. Personally, I think that God caused Iverson's phantom back injury, because he was tired of watching Iverson force up shots like Derrick Coleman was next to him instead of Rasheed Wallace.

This whole thing can eventually work out, but it's just gonna take time to work Iverson in. This injury might be the best thing to happen to the Pistons, because it gives them a chance to get going in the right direction again and gives Iverson a chance to learn that their offense is more complex than just "pass it to Iverson."

Believe it: Tracy McGrady is done

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

$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."

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.

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.

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.

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.