I've recently become a Craigslist junkie. I mean seriously, for someone who had a loose understanding of the concepts of the site, I've hit it's services pretty hard over the last week or so. No, seriously, it's like my cocaine. How so? Let's just say that if my addiction persists at the hardcore level it's at now, I'm one step away from bottoming out. Not unlike a coke-head snorting lines off a hooker's ass.
Anyway, I bring up Craigslist because I stumbled upon a post that gave me an idea for a new feature on the site: 'Found on Craigslist.' Basically, I clicked on an ad with a description so inconceivable, I decided I had to incorporate it's shocking unintentional humor (do I need to give credit for 'unintentional humor' to Bill Simmons?) into the blog. Here, in its entirety, is 'Found on Craigslist, Volume 1.' Let's pop the cherry on this baby:
IVE GOT HERE A NINTENDO WII. INCLUDES 2 CONTROLLERS AND ALL THE WIRING FROM THE ORIGINAL BOX BUT NO GAMES. THIS HAS BEEN PLAYED SO THERE'S SOME NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR AND SOME SEMEN STAINS ON THE TOP OF THE UNIT DON'T EXPECT LIKE OUT OF THE BOX MINT CONDITION BUT ITS NOT BROKEN. IT IS STILL HOOKED UP SO IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PICKUP I CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT IT STILL WORKS FINE (JUST REMEMBER YOU WONT GET THE GAMES) CONTACT FOR MORE INFO.
Did you catch it? Why not take another gander at the third sentence? Yes, you read it correctly, someone busted a load all over his Wii. Now don't get me wrong, I really like video games. However, I have never had the urge to physically prove my love to a console. Of course, maybe I should give this guy the benefit of the doubt--he could have just been making the cliche 'hey, look, I'm playing with my Wii, ha ha!' (We all thought we were geniuses when they first unveiled the name 'Wii,' didn't we), it's just that he got confused and things got out of hand (or in hand, I guess).
What I love is how candid he is about it. Maybe that's his trick. He just wants to matter-of-factly slip it by potential buyers. Yeah, system is in great shape, it's got a couple controllers, a game, some dried up semen, all the hook-ups, and the original box and instructions. You would think that if you are going to own up to the gizz, you'd specify things a little more clearly. Like, it should read thusly: all the information and contact info, line break, and finally, THERE IS SOME DRIED UP CUM ON TOP OF THE SYSTEM! I REPEAT, THINGS GOT A LITTLE WILD ONE NIGHT IN THE MIDST OF SOME WII SPORTS, AND I BUSTED MY JUNK ALL OVER THIS BABY'S SHIT!
Taking all of this into consideration, I'm prompted to ask two questions:
1) Could he not clean it off? Which branches off into some sub-questions:
a) Even in the bizarre event of bricking on your Wii, don't you think your first impulse would be holy shit, I've got to clean this baby off! Was this guy so engrossed in his game that he decided he could only take a break to orgasm and not actually tidy up his mess? 'Ohhhhhh....that's good.....Smash Brothers.'
and
b) Is dried up semen that hard to clean up? Not to the point that you could deceive a forensic scientist, but at least clean enough that you could keep a potential customer blissfully ignorant.
2) Wouldn't it be better if he either omitted any mention of the semen or claimed that it was some other substance? If I bought a video game system that had a stain on it, I would be grossed out, but my first thought wouldn't be 'that son of a bitch had a romance explosion (that term, courtesy of Borat) on my Wii.' Or, the guy could have said something like 'my son was working on a project for school and spilled some white out on the Wii, I tried cleaning it but there are a few persistent spots.'
At any rate, I have to applaud the guy for his honesty. I can confidently say that if I were ever involved in a bizarre series of events that resulted in reproductive fluid encrusting itself on my Nintendo Wii, that story is going into the vault forever. Thank God that there are certain people whose lives are open books. Because without people like this man, I would never have been able to create 'Found on Craigslist.' Thank you, sir. You sick bastard.
Monday, March 31, 2008
We've Got A Legitimate Reader!
Well, I have officially had my blog read by someone other than close friends and imaginary guests. That's right, the "You Know What, After This, I'm Glad Butler Lost in the NCAA Tournament" struck a chord with at least one person. Unfortunately, I received negative feedback, but at least "Joe" had some input:
"How can you possibly base your judgement on Butler University by what 1 student (of 4400) says? That's pretty sad. Keep up the blogging, you might have a newsworthy story some day. Until then, keep reading 'Kissing Suzy Kolber'. It might be your only brush with literary greatness if your story lines continue to read like this."
Okay, first off, the anti-Butler title I chose was a poor attempt at humor. And for the record, Joe, I actually cheered the Bulldogs on during their game against Tennessee. But there is a problem with your claim: I never made a judgement about Butler anywhere in the post. The closest I came was proclaiming my support for Neal Boortz critical comments of Evan Strange. I will concede that I should have made it clear that while I supported Boortz general argument and found humor in his ripping of Strange, he definitely went too far in criticizing the young man.
But aside from the title of the article, could you point out where I made a judgment call on the university as a whole, Joe? I will keep reading 'Kissing Suzy Kolber,' and I'll also make a point not to comment on their, or anyone else's, articles until I read more than just the title.
Also, as far as my storylines go, I'm curious if you've read more than the Butler post. If you have, I want to thank you (no sarcasm, honestly), but if you haven't, I'd appreciate it if you would at least give a few of them a look-see. I'll even welcome inflammatory comments, because:
1) Many are just random thoughts slopped together in haphazard fashion.
and
2) I kind of want to make polarizing posts, because I love arguing differing views.
Many thanks for the input and I hope you continue reading future posts.
"How can you possibly base your judgement on Butler University by what 1 student (of 4400) says? That's pretty sad. Keep up the blogging, you might have a newsworthy story some day. Until then, keep reading 'Kissing Suzy Kolber'. It might be your only brush with literary greatness if your story lines continue to read like this."
Okay, first off, the anti-Butler title I chose was a poor attempt at humor. And for the record, Joe, I actually cheered the Bulldogs on during their game against Tennessee. But there is a problem with your claim: I never made a judgement about Butler anywhere in the post. The closest I came was proclaiming my support for Neal Boortz critical comments of Evan Strange. I will concede that I should have made it clear that while I supported Boortz general argument and found humor in his ripping of Strange, he definitely went too far in criticizing the young man.
But aside from the title of the article, could you point out where I made a judgment call on the university as a whole, Joe? I will keep reading 'Kissing Suzy Kolber,' and I'll also make a point not to comment on their, or anyone else's, articles until I read more than just the title.
Also, as far as my storylines go, I'm curious if you've read more than the Butler post. If you have, I want to thank you (no sarcasm, honestly), but if you haven't, I'd appreciate it if you would at least give a few of them a look-see. I'll even welcome inflammatory comments, because:
1) Many are just random thoughts slopped together in haphazard fashion.
and
2) I kind of want to make polarizing posts, because I love arguing differing views.
Many thanks for the input and I hope you continue reading future posts.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
My Philosophy on Philosophy
I've just recently been paying for a grave mistake I made over Christmas Break. I scheduled an Intro to Philosophy class for the last eight weeks of the semester. At the time it seemed like a grand idea: It fit my schedule perfectly. But now, I realize that I have severely underestimated just how boring the class is. To make matters worse, the fact that it's an eight week course means that I go four days a week in order to get a sufficient amount of credits.
I realize that most lecture classes have a pretty simple format: Important guy talks, impressionable minds write notes. But Philosophy really tweaks the formula quite a bit. Whereas in other classes the professor talks, Philosophy profs talk and talk and talk and talk. Likewise, while students generally write notes, Philosophy students write and write and write a ridiculous amount of notes. Somehow, in this orgy of note-taking, I am able to write down the information while daydreaming about something else. Just recently, I spent an entire class period living Philosophy, because I passed the hour by pondering what exactly it is a person with a philospher degree does.
When someone decides that Philosophy is the major that they must pursue and he or she graduates, what happens next. The only thing I could think a Philosophy degree would lead to is a teaching job--in Philosophy! Is their some sort of conspiracy? Have an underground society that worships Plato infiltrated colleges and created a disturbing cycle that creates no progress? Let's teach Philosophy so the pupils can teach Philosophy...the works of Plato can not die!
Either a philosopher teaches Philosophy or he sits around all day pondering the complexities of his life: "I live in my parents' basement, therefore, I am." I honestly can't think of anything else that a Philosophy degree could help you pursue. Have you ever heard of a philosophy firm? Me either.
Update: Evidently you can get jobs as a consultant with a corporation or law firm, or you could pursue higher education, like law school. Not only does this knowledge make this post not as funny anymore, but it also points out how much of a dumbass I am.
I realize that most lecture classes have a pretty simple format: Important guy talks, impressionable minds write notes. But Philosophy really tweaks the formula quite a bit. Whereas in other classes the professor talks, Philosophy profs talk and talk and talk and talk. Likewise, while students generally write notes, Philosophy students write and write and write a ridiculous amount of notes. Somehow, in this orgy of note-taking, I am able to write down the information while daydreaming about something else. Just recently, I spent an entire class period living Philosophy, because I passed the hour by pondering what exactly it is a person with a philospher degree does.
When someone decides that Philosophy is the major that they must pursue and he or she graduates, what happens next. The only thing I could think a Philosophy degree would lead to is a teaching job--in Philosophy! Is their some sort of conspiracy? Have an underground society that worships Plato infiltrated colleges and created a disturbing cycle that creates no progress? Let's teach Philosophy so the pupils can teach Philosophy...the works of Plato can not die!
Either a philosopher teaches Philosophy or he sits around all day pondering the complexities of his life: "I live in my parents' basement, therefore, I am." I honestly can't think of anything else that a Philosophy degree could help you pursue. Have you ever heard of a philosophy firm? Me either.
Update: Evidently you can get jobs as a consultant with a corporation or law firm, or you could pursue higher education, like law school. Not only does this knowledge make this post not as funny anymore, but it also points out how much of a dumbass I am.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Why Deny The Raja Bell!? Beast?
You weren't aware of it, but you were robbed of NBA history this past Friday. A perfect storm of factors presented the ideal forum for Kobe Bryant to showcase his superior basketball talents to the world. Just a couple of nights earlier, Bryant received his fourteenth and fifteenth technical fouls on the season. The following morning, anyone and everyone in the media decided that the technicals would derail his MVP campaign. This brings us to reason number one why Friday night should have been one of the five greatest performances in NBA history:
1) Kobe was mighty pissed.
You could tell by the look on his face that tonight was the night he was going to prove himself yet again to his many detractors. However great an angry Kobe may be, this season has been the ultimate display of team basketball for the Los Angeles Lakers. So much so that we only see Kobe unleash his "I'm gonna score on anyone and everyone" powers (here-to-fore known as the Raja Bell!? Beast) for brief stretches of the game and usually only in clutch situations. This leads us to reasons two, three, and four that Friday night should have been one of the five greatest performances in NBA history:
2) The Lakers have been playing short-handed for most of the season, glaringly so over the past two weeks; Kobe could take over during games where the team is undermanned.
3) In Friday's game, Lamar Odom played, but did so with an alleged case of the flu.*
4) Also playing in Friday's game, Derek Fisher, complete with a torn tendon in his foot.**
Now, what other reason could there be for Kobe Bryant to post one of the five greatest performances in NBA History. Oh, yeah! Maybe because...
5) The Lakers were playing against the lowly Memphis Grizzlies.
Don't get me wrong, the Grizzlies would not detract from a dominant performance by Kobe, but it would provide a good excuse for him to go for the solo kill: 'Our team was flat and I didn't want to lose to Memphis, so I took over.' That's all Kobe would have needed to say. And it looked for a while like Kobe might have been able say it after the game, but his teammates had other ideas.
You see, Kobe came out of the box hot. He scored 18 of the team's first 23 points. He had notched 34 by halftime, but his teammates decided to deny him the ball in the final two minutes.*** Initially, I consoled myself by thinking 'hey, they are just trying to make sure that the ball movement stays key.' My level of happiness rose again in the third quarter when the Raja Bell!? Beast came out to play. However, midway through the period, his teammates decided that feeding the hot hand was not the wise thing to do. Ultimately, he spent the last few minutes of the third on the bench, but not before tallying up 47 through three quarters.
Still, history was slipping away. It was apparent that Kobe was on all night, and there is no excuse for him not having sixty heading into the fourth. But again, his teammates seemed to have other ideas. Maybe they were punishing him now for all the drama stirred up at the beginning of the season. Who knows? The problem now was not the lack of touches for Kobe, but rather that they needed to keep up with Memphis. It's ironic, but I spent the first 5/8 of the game rooting for Memphis to keep it close so Kobe would stay in. Now, it got to the point that I needed anyone to score to notch the 'W.'
And apparently, the mindset of the Lakers was that they needed anyone but Kobe to score to garner the win. He ended up with just 53 points (further proof that he deserves the MVP this year: there is no other player in the league who would end up with just 53 points), but at least the Lakers wised up during the game-deciding possession.
With 0.9 seconds remaining in the game, the lakers faced a 114-111 deficit. Luke Walton, he of the multiple boneheaded last-second inbound plays, was set to throw it in. With all four players on the floor swarming in and out traffic, Walton decided to hold the ball until the last possible second, lobbing a weak pass into Kobe's direction--unfortunately Kobe found himself draped by two Grizzlies at that particular juncture. The Lakers fell to the Grizzlies by a final of 114-111 in a loss that taught us two things:
1) Don't ever deprive Kobe of the ball whenever the Raja Bell!? Beast is on the prowl.
and
2) NEVER LET LUKE WALTON INBOUND PASSES IN CLUTCH SITUATIONS...EVER!!!
Maybe I'm being too melodramatic, but if Kobe scored 53 with a somewhat limited shot selection, just imagine the havoc he could have wreaked were his teammates open to deferring to him. This post started out strong, but kind of turned into drivel. Nevertheless, the basic idea remains true: Kobe was denied one of the five greatest performances in NBA history on Friday night.
*Ever since Michael Jordan's flu game, I have made a point out of being very, very suspicious about any player who claims they are playing with the flu. I've had the flu before and even if a person is tough enough to play in a basketball game, I think the activity would stimulate some purging, if you know what I mean. In actuality, I envision a player walking into a coach's office and saying "I got the sniffles real bad, coach;" with the coach responding "fuck that, son, you have the flu!"
**Torn tendons, on the other hand, are very believable ailments.
***For those keeping score at home, Kobe had 36 at the half of the 81 point game.
1) Kobe was mighty pissed.
You could tell by the look on his face that tonight was the night he was going to prove himself yet again to his many detractors. However great an angry Kobe may be, this season has been the ultimate display of team basketball for the Los Angeles Lakers. So much so that we only see Kobe unleash his "I'm gonna score on anyone and everyone" powers (here-to-fore known as the Raja Bell!? Beast) for brief stretches of the game and usually only in clutch situations. This leads us to reasons two, three, and four that Friday night should have been one of the five greatest performances in NBA history:
2) The Lakers have been playing short-handed for most of the season, glaringly so over the past two weeks; Kobe could take over during games where the team is undermanned.
3) In Friday's game, Lamar Odom played, but did so with an alleged case of the flu.*
4) Also playing in Friday's game, Derek Fisher, complete with a torn tendon in his foot.**
Now, what other reason could there be for Kobe Bryant to post one of the five greatest performances in NBA History. Oh, yeah! Maybe because...
5) The Lakers were playing against the lowly Memphis Grizzlies.
Don't get me wrong, the Grizzlies would not detract from a dominant performance by Kobe, but it would provide a good excuse for him to go for the solo kill: 'Our team was flat and I didn't want to lose to Memphis, so I took over.' That's all Kobe would have needed to say. And it looked for a while like Kobe might have been able say it after the game, but his teammates had other ideas.
You see, Kobe came out of the box hot. He scored 18 of the team's first 23 points. He had notched 34 by halftime, but his teammates decided to deny him the ball in the final two minutes.*** Initially, I consoled myself by thinking 'hey, they are just trying to make sure that the ball movement stays key.' My level of happiness rose again in the third quarter when the Raja Bell!? Beast came out to play. However, midway through the period, his teammates decided that feeding the hot hand was not the wise thing to do. Ultimately, he spent the last few minutes of the third on the bench, but not before tallying up 47 through three quarters.
Still, history was slipping away. It was apparent that Kobe was on all night, and there is no excuse for him not having sixty heading into the fourth. But again, his teammates seemed to have other ideas. Maybe they were punishing him now for all the drama stirred up at the beginning of the season. Who knows? The problem now was not the lack of touches for Kobe, but rather that they needed to keep up with Memphis. It's ironic, but I spent the first 5/8 of the game rooting for Memphis to keep it close so Kobe would stay in. Now, it got to the point that I needed anyone to score to notch the 'W.'
And apparently, the mindset of the Lakers was that they needed anyone but Kobe to score to garner the win. He ended up with just 53 points (further proof that he deserves the MVP this year: there is no other player in the league who would end up with just 53 points), but at least the Lakers wised up during the game-deciding possession.
With 0.9 seconds remaining in the game, the lakers faced a 114-111 deficit. Luke Walton, he of the multiple boneheaded last-second inbound plays, was set to throw it in. With all four players on the floor swarming in and out traffic, Walton decided to hold the ball until the last possible second, lobbing a weak pass into Kobe's direction--unfortunately Kobe found himself draped by two Grizzlies at that particular juncture. The Lakers fell to the Grizzlies by a final of 114-111 in a loss that taught us two things:
1) Don't ever deprive Kobe of the ball whenever the Raja Bell!? Beast is on the prowl.
and
2) NEVER LET LUKE WALTON INBOUND PASSES IN CLUTCH SITUATIONS...EVER!!!
Maybe I'm being too melodramatic, but if Kobe scored 53 with a somewhat limited shot selection, just imagine the havoc he could have wreaked were his teammates open to deferring to him. This post started out strong, but kind of turned into drivel. Nevertheless, the basic idea remains true: Kobe was denied one of the five greatest performances in NBA history on Friday night.
*Ever since Michael Jordan's flu game, I have made a point out of being very, very suspicious about any player who claims they are playing with the flu. I've had the flu before and even if a person is tough enough to play in a basketball game, I think the activity would stimulate some purging, if you know what I mean. In actuality, I envision a player walking into a coach's office and saying "I got the sniffles real bad, coach;" with the coach responding "fuck that, son, you have the flu!"
**Torn tendons, on the other hand, are very believable ailments.
***For those keeping score at home, Kobe had 36 at the half of the 81 point game.
You Know What, After This, I'm Glad Butler Lost in the NCAA Tournament
Kudos to Neal Boortz. The man, a harsh critic of Bill and Hillary Clinton and host of a right-wing talk show, came to the defense of Chelsea Clinton. It's been making waves over the past week, and as you probably know, the former (and potential) First Daughter was part of some controversial banter at Butler University.
Campaigning at Butler on behalf of her mother, Chelsea held a question and answer session where she received a query on whether or not her mother showed leadership during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The Butler student was cut off mid-sentence by Clinton, as she flatly told the young man that it was none of his business (she also gave some curt background data: according to her, this student was the first to ever ask her this type of question in over 70 college visits). Her response has been getting her killed on various news outlets, but in at least one of these instances a savior spoke on her behalf: Neal Boortz.
Boortz was part of a three man panel on CNN that handled an interview with the Butler student (Evan Strange). The panel had mixed reviews on Strange's controversial question. Two found it to be fair, but there opinions varied on just how fair. Boortz aligned himself of the opposite end of that spectrum and he let Strange know just exactly how he felt about it. While reminding everyone that he is far from a spokesman for the Clintons ("Bill doesn't deserve that kind of daughter," in reference to Chelsea), he proceeded to tear the young student a new one on national television.
In addition to reiterating just how over the line he felt the question was, Boortz also claimed that asking it should get Strange a failing grade in his mass communications class (the very class that enabled him to attend the Chelsea Clinton forum). He also implied that it might serve better interests to kick Strange out of the university. Participating in the debate via live satelite feed, the student could only watch as Boortz delivered these blows and then the condescending death knell: Boortz sarcastically crucified the notion that college students possess minds that are viable to his and his contemporaries.
To his credit, Strange remained poised throughout the public reaming. But, it seemed apparent that the calm was merely a facade and deep down, the young man wanted to react. Following some additional banter between Strange, the moderator, and the rest of the panel, the interview was over an instant and, in keeping with the frenetic pace of 24 hour news television, another, unrelated issue was brought forth for discussion.
However, unlike the panel, I don't want to move on from this issue and discuss the legacy of Viagra (perhaps showing that 24 hour news television often finds itself strapped for content). I would much rather applaud Boortz for his actions. I will readily admit, when I saw "right-wing radio host and frequent Clinton critic," I expected a jerk who was ready to take potshots at Chelsea Clinton. To my delight, he did not. Furthering my delight, he chose to rebuff Evan Strange for asking a question that should be off limits. Would you find it appropriate to ask the child about his or her parents' affair, even if you used the guise that it is a valid question given her parents place in the public spotlight? I would hope not. It matters not that Chelsea is now 28 years old, this question crossed a big line. And I think the fact that a right-wing Clinton critic agrees with me speaks volumes for this line of thinking.
Campaigning at Butler on behalf of her mother, Chelsea held a question and answer session where she received a query on whether or not her mother showed leadership during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The Butler student was cut off mid-sentence by Clinton, as she flatly told the young man that it was none of his business (she also gave some curt background data: according to her, this student was the first to ever ask her this type of question in over 70 college visits). Her response has been getting her killed on various news outlets, but in at least one of these instances a savior spoke on her behalf: Neal Boortz.
Boortz was part of a three man panel on CNN that handled an interview with the Butler student (Evan Strange). The panel had mixed reviews on Strange's controversial question. Two found it to be fair, but there opinions varied on just how fair. Boortz aligned himself of the opposite end of that spectrum and he let Strange know just exactly how he felt about it. While reminding everyone that he is far from a spokesman for the Clintons ("Bill doesn't deserve that kind of daughter," in reference to Chelsea), he proceeded to tear the young student a new one on national television.
In addition to reiterating just how over the line he felt the question was, Boortz also claimed that asking it should get Strange a failing grade in his mass communications class (the very class that enabled him to attend the Chelsea Clinton forum). He also implied that it might serve better interests to kick Strange out of the university. Participating in the debate via live satelite feed, the student could only watch as Boortz delivered these blows and then the condescending death knell: Boortz sarcastically crucified the notion that college students possess minds that are viable to his and his contemporaries.
To his credit, Strange remained poised throughout the public reaming. But, it seemed apparent that the calm was merely a facade and deep down, the young man wanted to react. Following some additional banter between Strange, the moderator, and the rest of the panel, the interview was over an instant and, in keeping with the frenetic pace of 24 hour news television, another, unrelated issue was brought forth for discussion.
However, unlike the panel, I don't want to move on from this issue and discuss the legacy of Viagra (perhaps showing that 24 hour news television often finds itself strapped for content). I would much rather applaud Boortz for his actions. I will readily admit, when I saw "right-wing radio host and frequent Clinton critic," I expected a jerk who was ready to take potshots at Chelsea Clinton. To my delight, he did not. Furthering my delight, he chose to rebuff Evan Strange for asking a question that should be off limits. Would you find it appropriate to ask the child about his or her parents' affair, even if you used the guise that it is a valid question given her parents place in the public spotlight? I would hope not. It matters not that Chelsea is now 28 years old, this question crossed a big line. And I think the fact that a right-wing Clinton critic agrees with me speaks volumes for this line of thinking.
Friday, March 28, 2008
ASS Stamp All-Star
Much like the Trouble Brewing post, today was a day that having an easily accessible camera would have been a blessing. As it stands, I can only describe what I saw, but damn if it did not piss me off. I'm crusing through the parking lot of Old Navy, looking for a space (driving my 1998 camera, henceforth known as The Copulation Wagon). It wasn't as if they were impossible to come by, but I think this is still galling: I pull into a new row of spaces and see a car occupying three spaces. Times like this, I wish I had a custom "ASS" stamp made up so I could just let the owner of the car how I and 99.9% of society feels. But I didn't. And all I have is a blog with no readers to seek my retribution on this dick hole. Unfortunately, I don't have a license number, description of the driver, or specific model. All I know is that it was a new looking Dodge. And it was a car, not a truck (although experience has proven to me that truckers aren't above doing the dick hole parking maneuver), if that matters.
Oh, and I almost forgot the best detail of all. The front of the car had a New York Yankees license plate. Now that's a tasty, ironic cherry on top of the sundae.
Oh, and I almost forgot the best detail of all. The front of the car had a New York Yankees license plate. Now that's a tasty, ironic cherry on top of the sundae.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
A Conan O'Brien Double-Take
Fully aware that watching this program while a hotly contested NCAA tournament game was taking place might be considered blasphemy to some, I proudly proclaim (nice alliteration!) that I saw Conan O'Brien being interviewed by Jay Leno on The Tonight Show. Needless to say, it was bizarre. I flipped to NBC, saw that beautiful, Irish god, and thought to myself 'but...Conan?...it's not 12:37...'
And it wasn't 12:37.
But it was good.
And I was happy for two reasons:
1) I got to see Conan twice tonight.
and
2) Considering how tense the Leno-to-Conan Tonight Show takeover has been described through the media, it was nice to see these two men sharing a lighthearted moment. To some, it may have been a chubby guy with a big chin interviewing a goofy bastard, but to me, it represented a television legend passing the torch on to his successor in a delicate fashion.
And it wasn't 12:37.
But it was good.
And I was happy for two reasons:
1) I got to see Conan twice tonight.
and
2) Considering how tense the Leno-to-Conan Tonight Show takeover has been described through the media, it was nice to see these two men sharing a lighthearted moment. To some, it may have been a chubby guy with a big chin interviewing a goofy bastard, but to me, it represented a television legend passing the torch on to his successor in a delicate fashion.
More MVP Talk
--Sportscenter featured an "evening version" of First and 10 today, pitting Rob Parker and Skip Bayless against one another in a debate to decide who should win the NBA MVP. Parker opted for Chris Paul while Bayless stuck with the easy choice, Kevin Garnett. I really don't have a problem with either of those picks, if not for the fact that Kobe Bryant is having a 'Michael Who?' year (much like his 2006 season, where he proved that no one in the world could stop him should he choose to play one-on-five). But, the two esteemed panelists decided that Kobe Bryant and his fifteen technicals were too immature to win the MVP.
First off, these two gentlemen discussed Bryant as if he had already been suspended a game for his technicals. You see, the NBA has a rule that 16 regular season technical fouls result in one regular season game suspension. But, Kobe has fifteen, and these two men spoke as if he had already received his sixteenth. To say that Kobe is a smart player would be an understatement. I have complete faith in him that he will hold his tongue over the next couple of weeks and avoid his sixteenth technical. What happens if Kobe does avoid the suspension? Unfortunately, these two geniuses neglected to cover that issue. Ah, ESPN.
As far as the rest of the debate played out, how about we take a look-see at the arguments for each writer's respective candidate. Rob Parker selected Chris Paul; his reasoning, aside from some admittedly monster stats, "how many people expected the Hornets to be in first place in the West, especially at this time of year. The fact that they are in first gives them the nod."
Hmm, I am not sure if Parker is aware of this, but no one out West has led the conference for more days after the all-star break than the Los Angeles Lakers. Given the fact that this includes a few games without Pao Gasol and no games with Andrew Bynum, should this not also bolster Kobe's cause. More so than Chris Paul? Using Parker's logic, how many people expected L.A. to be in first place at this time of year. Granted, as of today, they are no longer tied atop the standings with New Orleans, but they have played a tougher schedule thus far. Let's just check how the standings shake out at the end of the year, okay Rob?
On the other hand, Skip chose Kevin Garnett, another valid choice. My only beef with the MVP for KG is this: everyone gives the same tired argument that 'Garnett has changed the landscape of basketball in Boston.' I have a few problems with this thought-process:
--I won't deny that Boston wouldn't have the best overall record in the league without KG, but there are much more important factors to Boston's dramatic turnaround this season:
1) Paul Pierce was injured and milked his injuries because he realized that there was no reason to bust his ass to earn the right to be swept by Detroit in the first round.
2) Boston was not as bad as their record indicated last year due to the fact that they tanked games in hopes of getting Greg Oden or Kevin Durant.
3) Um, was there not another all-star traded to the team that didn't play in Boston last year?
4) All that ra-ra, prototypical leader bull shit does not make as much difference in helping young talent as sticking the inexperienced players in a lineup with three all-star veterans. Do you think things would be drastically worse for the Celtics if KG was an introverted asshole to his teammates?
In predictable Skip fashion, Bayless used this argument for Garnett's MVP candidacy. He then made the fatal mistake that should have allowed Parker to go in for the kill. Skip said that these intangibles made up for the fact that KG likes to defer to Paul Pierce or Ray Allen in tense moments that require clutch play. Oh really, Skip, you think that emphatically cheering on your teammates from the sideline makes up for answering the call during big moments? That's why you work a morning talk show on ESPN 2.
I alluded to the fact that Parker had a golden opportunity to rip Skip a new one. And if he chose anyone other than Chris Paul he could have. As it stood, he still tried to detract Skip for having that argument: (paraphrase)"...that's why I'll take Chris Paul, he'll score or come up with the big assist when it counts."
Or come up with the big assist?
Um, Rob, I think that means that he defers the big spotlight, too. And it the timing could not have been worse for this argument, because just one night earlier, Chris Paul dished the game-winning pass to David West. Now, I think the assist is a cheap, misleading stat anyway, but never more than in this instance: getting props for a game-winning assist is like hooking a buddy up with a girl and then acting like you are the one that got laid. Now I'm not saying that Paul isn't deserving, but I can name two candidates that would not shy away from the spotlight: Kobe Bryant and LeBron James. And considering the fact that LeBron plays in an easier conference and his team's record wouldn't qualify for the playoffs in Kobe's conference, I think I'd cast my vote for the Mamba. Of course, you already knew that. Besides, if it would come down between Kobe and LeBron, I'll stick with what Kobe said about himself:
"...Stick me in the East and see what happens."
Bottomline: this is Kobe's award, they can't take it away from him again.
First off, these two gentlemen discussed Bryant as if he had already been suspended a game for his technicals. You see, the NBA has a rule that 16 regular season technical fouls result in one regular season game suspension. But, Kobe has fifteen, and these two men spoke as if he had already received his sixteenth. To say that Kobe is a smart player would be an understatement. I have complete faith in him that he will hold his tongue over the next couple of weeks and avoid his sixteenth technical. What happens if Kobe does avoid the suspension? Unfortunately, these two geniuses neglected to cover that issue. Ah, ESPN.
As far as the rest of the debate played out, how about we take a look-see at the arguments for each writer's respective candidate. Rob Parker selected Chris Paul; his reasoning, aside from some admittedly monster stats, "how many people expected the Hornets to be in first place in the West, especially at this time of year. The fact that they are in first gives them the nod."
Hmm, I am not sure if Parker is aware of this, but no one out West has led the conference for more days after the all-star break than the Los Angeles Lakers. Given the fact that this includes a few games without Pao Gasol and no games with Andrew Bynum, should this not also bolster Kobe's cause. More so than Chris Paul? Using Parker's logic, how many people expected L.A. to be in first place at this time of year. Granted, as of today, they are no longer tied atop the standings with New Orleans, but they have played a tougher schedule thus far. Let's just check how the standings shake out at the end of the year, okay Rob?
On the other hand, Skip chose Kevin Garnett, another valid choice. My only beef with the MVP for KG is this: everyone gives the same tired argument that 'Garnett has changed the landscape of basketball in Boston.' I have a few problems with this thought-process:
--I won't deny that Boston wouldn't have the best overall record in the league without KG, but there are much more important factors to Boston's dramatic turnaround this season:
1) Paul Pierce was injured and milked his injuries because he realized that there was no reason to bust his ass to earn the right to be swept by Detroit in the first round.
2) Boston was not as bad as their record indicated last year due to the fact that they tanked games in hopes of getting Greg Oden or Kevin Durant.
3) Um, was there not another all-star traded to the team that didn't play in Boston last year?
4) All that ra-ra, prototypical leader bull shit does not make as much difference in helping young talent as sticking the inexperienced players in a lineup with three all-star veterans. Do you think things would be drastically worse for the Celtics if KG was an introverted asshole to his teammates?
In predictable Skip fashion, Bayless used this argument for Garnett's MVP candidacy. He then made the fatal mistake that should have allowed Parker to go in for the kill. Skip said that these intangibles made up for the fact that KG likes to defer to Paul Pierce or Ray Allen in tense moments that require clutch play. Oh really, Skip, you think that emphatically cheering on your teammates from the sideline makes up for answering the call during big moments? That's why you work a morning talk show on ESPN 2.
I alluded to the fact that Parker had a golden opportunity to rip Skip a new one. And if he chose anyone other than Chris Paul he could have. As it stood, he still tried to detract Skip for having that argument: (paraphrase)"...that's why I'll take Chris Paul, he'll score or come up with the big assist when it counts."
Or come up with the big assist?
Um, Rob, I think that means that he defers the big spotlight, too. And it the timing could not have been worse for this argument, because just one night earlier, Chris Paul dished the game-winning pass to David West. Now, I think the assist is a cheap, misleading stat anyway, but never more than in this instance: getting props for a game-winning assist is like hooking a buddy up with a girl and then acting like you are the one that got laid. Now I'm not saying that Paul isn't deserving, but I can name two candidates that would not shy away from the spotlight: Kobe Bryant and LeBron James. And considering the fact that LeBron plays in an easier conference and his team's record wouldn't qualify for the playoffs in Kobe's conference, I think I'd cast my vote for the Mamba. Of course, you already knew that. Besides, if it would come down between Kobe and LeBron, I'll stick with what Kobe said about himself:
"...Stick me in the East and see what happens."
Bottomline: this is Kobe's award, they can't take it away from him again.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
More Rants and Ramblings
In keeping with the tradition of this blog over the past month or so, this post will feature no coherent writing, but rather, a couple of tidbits that have been floating around in my mind. So, while you will have to be patient for another month or so for actual, solid writing (or you can head over to sega-16.com...), enjoy these thoughts and rants for what they are.
--I hate the Phoenix Suns with a passion, but I must admit that I am kind of glad to see Shaq's mini-resurgence. It was depressing to see the big man play like a shell of his former self in Miami, so it's nice that he still has some basketball left in him.
--I was watching the film Let It Be the other day, and when Paul McCartney began playing the title track, a thought popped into my head: 'Did The Beatles create Christian Rock?' Admittedly, I have no idea how and when Christian music intended to appeal to mainstream listeners originated, but it surely could not have been too much earlier than 1969. And if Let It Be did indeed pre-date this music, it certainly poses an interesting question. Granted, the lone setback to this theory is that McCartney has made it clear that the Mary discussed in this song was his mother, not the Blessed Virgin. But, no one can deny that the song resembles a church hymn. And it starts with a piano, then organ, but finally kicks in with some electric guitar. Are you with me yet? Well, just look at the lyrics, specifically the first few lines:
"When I find myself in times of trouble, Mother Mary comes to me, speaking words of wisdom, let it be."
or
"And in my hour of darkness, there is still a light that shines on me, shine until tomorrow, let it be."
and let's not forget
"For though they may be parted, there is still a chance that they will see, there will be an answer, let it be."
All of the lyrics seem to have that inspirational 'everything will be all right' theme; does that not at least resemble, albeit subtly, today's poppy Christian music? Now, chances are that this theory of mine could have a large hole put in the middle of it thusly: Let It Be is simply a subconscious plea by Paul McCartney to the rest of the band to stay together. If you consider the problems the band was going through at this time (George Harrison, like Ringo Starr during the White Album sessions, actually quit the band, prompting this nonchalant, drug-induced quip from John Lennon: "...fuck him, we'll get [Eric] Clapton."), this just might be the case. Still, I like to at least entertain the possibility that, like music videos, hip-hop, and the concept that rock and the rock album could be art, among many other things, The Beatles created Christian rock.
--A post like this wouldn't be complete without a rant, would it? Well, you are in luck, because I have one prepared. It may seem a bit dated, but I have felt this way for quite some time, I just never have had a chance to record my thoughts. My beef stems from perusing a friend's Facebook page. While listing her interests in music, she listed that she likes "Old Green Day." Do you know how many times I have heard people voice this or similar though processes? Guess what? Now is the time the gloves come off:
I do not understand why people have such a beef with the album American Idiot. Oftentimes, I'll hear people complain "radio stations just overplayed it, so I don't like it anymore." Well, maybe you should have stopped calling in and asking them to play Boulevard of Broken Dreams, you stupid bitch! I would actually understand your point if over half the airplays weren't preceded by a bunch of giggly teenage girls screaming "play Wake Me Up When September Ends again!"
Then of course, you have the drunk/stoner/wish they were drunk or stoners crowd who try and pretend like they are cool by liking things that aren't "mainstream." Yeah, as if old Green Day didn't get lauded with sales and awards (they had a song featured on the last episode of Seinfeld for crying out loud, I don't think that they represent the 'cool, garage band' you so badly want them to) prior to their meisterwerk. Come to think of it, has there ever been another case where a person or group created a masterpiece, only to have it criticized only a few years down the road? You don't hear people whining about the airplay of Sgt. Pepper's, do you? This leads us to the next part of the equation:
The dumbass factor.
Bear with me on this one, but if critics still hold American Idiot in such high esteem, yet the public chastises it, what can you discern. Let's also consider that most of the anti-AI sentiment comes from my home area, a rural, Southern Indiana location. I draw two conclusions:
1) American Idiot is a very left-leaning album that is critical of President Bush and the Iraq War. Maybe this tramples on the feelings of his mindless automatons that roam rural America?
or
2) While people enjoyed American Idiot when pop-radio told them to, now that the novelty has worn off, all that is left is the music. And it's pretty obvious that in an age where emo and scream music are at the top of the rock charts, American Idiot is a cut above and might be too advanced for the musical palate of these listeners.
Oh, and let's add the 'I wish I were cool so I am going to say I hate new Green Day because I think that they are more mainstream than old Green Day even though I'm a fucking douchebag who needs to be slapped in the face" factor to this list.
The bottomline is this: Green Day is the one band I can see while viewing today's musical landscape that has the possibility to reach legendary status. U2 rose to prominence in the eighties and are now considered rock elite in the 2000s. I predict similar things for the 90s-riser Green Day in the next decade. I really can't say that for any other band at this juncture. So, please idiots, stop hating on American Idiot, because it just might be the album of the decade.
--I hate the Phoenix Suns with a passion, but I must admit that I am kind of glad to see Shaq's mini-resurgence. It was depressing to see the big man play like a shell of his former self in Miami, so it's nice that he still has some basketball left in him.
--I was watching the film Let It Be the other day, and when Paul McCartney began playing the title track, a thought popped into my head: 'Did The Beatles create Christian Rock?' Admittedly, I have no idea how and when Christian music intended to appeal to mainstream listeners originated, but it surely could not have been too much earlier than 1969. And if Let It Be did indeed pre-date this music, it certainly poses an interesting question. Granted, the lone setback to this theory is that McCartney has made it clear that the Mary discussed in this song was his mother, not the Blessed Virgin. But, no one can deny that the song resembles a church hymn. And it starts with a piano, then organ, but finally kicks in with some electric guitar. Are you with me yet? Well, just look at the lyrics, specifically the first few lines:
"When I find myself in times of trouble, Mother Mary comes to me, speaking words of wisdom, let it be."
or
"And in my hour of darkness, there is still a light that shines on me, shine until tomorrow, let it be."
and let's not forget
"For though they may be parted, there is still a chance that they will see, there will be an answer, let it be."
All of the lyrics seem to have that inspirational 'everything will be all right' theme; does that not at least resemble, albeit subtly, today's poppy Christian music? Now, chances are that this theory of mine could have a large hole put in the middle of it thusly: Let It Be is simply a subconscious plea by Paul McCartney to the rest of the band to stay together. If you consider the problems the band was going through at this time (George Harrison, like Ringo Starr during the White Album sessions, actually quit the band, prompting this nonchalant, drug-induced quip from John Lennon: "...fuck him, we'll get [Eric] Clapton."), this just might be the case. Still, I like to at least entertain the possibility that, like music videos, hip-hop, and the concept that rock and the rock album could be art, among many other things, The Beatles created Christian rock.
--A post like this wouldn't be complete without a rant, would it? Well, you are in luck, because I have one prepared. It may seem a bit dated, but I have felt this way for quite some time, I just never have had a chance to record my thoughts. My beef stems from perusing a friend's Facebook page. While listing her interests in music, she listed that she likes "Old Green Day." Do you know how many times I have heard people voice this or similar though processes? Guess what? Now is the time the gloves come off:
I do not understand why people have such a beef with the album American Idiot. Oftentimes, I'll hear people complain "radio stations just overplayed it, so I don't like it anymore." Well, maybe you should have stopped calling in and asking them to play Boulevard of Broken Dreams, you stupid bitch! I would actually understand your point if over half the airplays weren't preceded by a bunch of giggly teenage girls screaming "play Wake Me Up When September Ends again!"
Then of course, you have the drunk/stoner/wish they were drunk or stoners crowd who try and pretend like they are cool by liking things that aren't "mainstream." Yeah, as if old Green Day didn't get lauded with sales and awards (they had a song featured on the last episode of Seinfeld for crying out loud, I don't think that they represent the 'cool, garage band' you so badly want them to) prior to their meisterwerk. Come to think of it, has there ever been another case where a person or group created a masterpiece, only to have it criticized only a few years down the road? You don't hear people whining about the airplay of Sgt. Pepper's, do you? This leads us to the next part of the equation:
The dumbass factor.
Bear with me on this one, but if critics still hold American Idiot in such high esteem, yet the public chastises it, what can you discern. Let's also consider that most of the anti-AI sentiment comes from my home area, a rural, Southern Indiana location. I draw two conclusions:
1) American Idiot is a very left-leaning album that is critical of President Bush and the Iraq War. Maybe this tramples on the feelings of his mindless automatons that roam rural America?
or
2) While people enjoyed American Idiot when pop-radio told them to, now that the novelty has worn off, all that is left is the music. And it's pretty obvious that in an age where emo and scream music are at the top of the rock charts, American Idiot is a cut above and might be too advanced for the musical palate of these listeners.
Oh, and let's add the 'I wish I were cool so I am going to say I hate new Green Day because I think that they are more mainstream than old Green Day even though I'm a fucking douchebag who needs to be slapped in the face" factor to this list.
The bottomline is this: Green Day is the one band I can see while viewing today's musical landscape that has the possibility to reach legendary status. U2 rose to prominence in the eighties and are now considered rock elite in the 2000s. I predict similar things for the 90s-riser Green Day in the next decade. I really can't say that for any other band at this juncture. So, please idiots, stop hating on American Idiot, because it just might be the album of the decade.
Banner Difficulties
As you can see, I've been getting in touch with my inner scrapbooker. I've been trying to perfect a collage of pop culture pictures, but it is A LOT tougher than you'd think when doing so in Microsoft Word (I tried using MS Paint, but it refuses to cooperate). Things still aren't perfect (note the size distortion), but they are getting better. I've toyed with the notion of just using the four large pictures as the backdrop, but I like the collage look. Still, as far as how things look before blogger.com distorted the banners, I prefer the original one I did; maybe that's a sign that the multiple pictures is a bad idea. I'll get it figured out soon, so enjoy the distortion for now.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Trouble Brewing
Driving home from IU this past Thursday, I came across a peculiar sight. About 25 miles south of Bloomington lies Bedford. I bring Bedford up, because as you probably do not know, this small town is considered the limestone capital of the world. Indeed, while traveling on the highway, drivers find themselves moving past rocky embankments (complete with "Beware of Falling Rock" signs) in disturbingly close proximity to the road.
On this particular afternoon, I happened upon a sight that perplexed me at first, ultimately making me laugh outloud a few moments later. As I mentioned, the embankments on the side of the road are complete with warnings of falling rock. Driving through one of these rocky areas, I noticed a couple of families who committed two potential mistakes.
First, they parked on the side of the interstate not because of an emergency, but because they needed access to the rock for recreation--always a recipe for disaster. However, the second boner pulled by these geniuses provided the comic relief that kept me entertained on the ride home. These people were actually using picks to chip away at the base of the embankment. I haven't yet mentioned that the this chiseled out cliff, which again warns of FALLING ROCK, has a base that juts in an almost exaggerated fashion. Now let's see, I think the whole situation resembles a math problem: Two Familes X A Case of Obliviousness + Falling Rock = Tragedy.
I just wish I had a camera with me, because I swear to you that I would have turned around and snapped a polaroid of these folks in action. What would I do with that picture? I would label it with the caption "Trouble Brewing," a la the recurring comics in Gary Larson's classic strip The Far Side.
If this doesn't provide a sense of hilarity, here is an example of one of these "Trouble Brewing" comics from The Far Side:
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Oh Charles, Thy Make Me Laugh, Sir
In case you have not watched much television as of late, a new Charles Barkley/Dwyane Wade "Fave Five" spot has been airing. In the latest chronicle of Chuck's escapades, the Round Mound of Rebound interrupts Wade during a press conference to ask the Heat guard to pick him up some socks.
Here's why I am even bringing the commercial up:
At this point, Barkley can make me laugh by doing anything. The latest ad features a terrible combination of cheese and plot (I know, it sounds funny to talk about a commercial's plot). But it doesn't matter. As long as you have Chuck sitting on his ass and inconveniencing Wade, I'm going to laugh. In just a few short years working for TNT, Barkley has elevated himself into the elite group of people who can laugh by doing anything (joining such notable alums as Will Ferrell; that's right, bitches, I loved "Semi-Pro"). And if you've seen the latest spot, I do mean anything.
I am of the opinion that TNT could send the ol' Chuckster over to Darfur to cover the genocide and Sir Charles would still have me laughing my ass off:
(And I like to picture this scenario taking place over a satelite phone with a very grainy feed; and let's not forget Barkley looking around all over the place)
"Hey Ernie, I just stepped over a ditch filled with three, month-old corpses...and every single one of 'em is better lookin' than you. Oh, and Kenny, I just ran into a little kid; I couldn't understand a damn word he said, he seemed awful hungry, but I'll be damned if he wasn't funnier than you."
...
I assure you, this is a lot funnier by word of mouth.
Here's why I am even bringing the commercial up:
At this point, Barkley can make me laugh by doing anything. The latest ad features a terrible combination of cheese and plot (I know, it sounds funny to talk about a commercial's plot). But it doesn't matter. As long as you have Chuck sitting on his ass and inconveniencing Wade, I'm going to laugh. In just a few short years working for TNT, Barkley has elevated himself into the elite group of people who can laugh by doing anything (joining such notable alums as Will Ferrell; that's right, bitches, I loved "Semi-Pro"). And if you've seen the latest spot, I do mean anything.
I am of the opinion that TNT could send the ol' Chuckster over to Darfur to cover the genocide and Sir Charles would still have me laughing my ass off:
(And I like to picture this scenario taking place over a satelite phone with a very grainy feed; and let's not forget Barkley looking around all over the place)
"Hey Ernie, I just stepped over a ditch filled with three, month-old corpses...and every single one of 'em is better lookin' than you. Oh, and Kenny, I just ran into a little kid; I couldn't understand a damn word he said, he seemed awful hungry, but I'll be damned if he wasn't funnier than you."
...
I assure you, this is a lot funnier by word of mouth.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Like School on Sunday...
I realize that it's only spring training, but has anyone been keeping up with the Devil Rays (oops, check that, Rays)/Yankees feud? What in the hell is up with Joe Girardi. I can kind of see being upset with his catcher's wrist injury (a Rays player barreled into a Yankee, breaking his wrist in the process...if you didn't know), but did he seriously just launch a cavalcade of retaliation on the Tampa Bay Rays? Listen Joe, you guys are the NEW YORK YANKEES! You don't even acknowledge the Rays' existence, much less go out of your way to inflict harm on them.
Maybe the aforementioned Ray who ran over the catcher should not have been going balls out. But keep in mind, he's trying to put it in fourth gear to look good for his manager. Do you think half-assing it in front of the guy who decides if you are good enough for a roster spot will keep you in the majors? To once again quote my favorite crack-addicted, pop-singing sensation: "Hell to the hell to the hell to the NO!" And what if he is hyper-competitive? As long as he channels that energy within the rules of the game, he's fine. And knocking the catcher on his ass at home plate is within the rules. Do you expect him to round third and think to himself "you know what, this is a spring training game; maybe I'll just turn around to avoid confrontation with the catcher--no, that would be stupid; hmm, what to do, what to do; I know, I'll just jump over the catcher and slap home plate as I land; yeah, that's the ticket, I mean, it works in the movies," do you?
Puh-lease. The guy went balls out because he is playing for his major league life, yet somehow, you feel that this is an affront to the all-powerful New York Yankees. Well, guess what Girardi, you're full of shit, you punk. Even former Yankee Don Zimmer thinks you're nuts, and that crazy bastard charged after Pedro Martinez during a nationally televised playoff game...with hilarious results (followed by a tear-soaked, apologetic press conference...with increasingly hilarious results). So now, a legend (ish?) thinks you are making mountains out of mole hills, what do you do? Oh, that's right, you make an ass out of yourself.
In yesterday's spring training game, again featuring the Yankees and Rays (obviously), a Yankees pitcher just happens to plunk a Ray. The pitcher was predictably tossed, but it's all over and we are moving on, right? Of course not, this is Joe Girardi we're dealing with (the man who makes us remember why we hate the Yankees--before his first regular season game as manager, the cock). Later, a Yankees player (of course, it has to be spring training! Now, I have to refer to these scrubs as "pitcher," "player," and any other generic title you can give them) drills a ball into left field and, as he slides for a double, comes in spikes up.
Okay, now this is ridiculous. I understand that it sucks that your catcher broke his hand, I really do. And I dig that you go to great lengths to defend your player. But, when you chastise another team's runner (ha! A new title) for giving "too much" effort, even though the injury he caused was permissible in the rules, and then order another player to attempt to inflict injury with an illegal move, you get the "ASS" stamp (as made famous by Conan O'Brien).
There were, however, two things I loved about the spikes-up slide:
1) The Rays right-fielder who ran in and tackled said spiker (now that's a teammate!)
and
2) The fact that the spiker (the responsible thing would be to look up the names of these players...but, I'm tired) defended his move after the game by claiming he was aiming his cleats at the glove to knock the ball loose. Uh-huh, sure. Tool.
What's obvious about this situation is Girardi's involvement. He will probably (or maybe he already has) plead ignorance to the retaliation, but it seems clear that he was the mastermind. Especially after the bitch-fit he threw following Saturday's game. It is doubtful if we will ever know for sure, but one thing is certain: Any semblance of class within the Yankees organization left with Joe Torre*.
*Even if he did enjoy populating his roster with a rogue's gallery of steroids users, I personally don't give a crap.
Maybe the aforementioned Ray who ran over the catcher should not have been going balls out. But keep in mind, he's trying to put it in fourth gear to look good for his manager. Do you think half-assing it in front of the guy who decides if you are good enough for a roster spot will keep you in the majors? To once again quote my favorite crack-addicted, pop-singing sensation: "Hell to the hell to the hell to the NO!" And what if he is hyper-competitive? As long as he channels that energy within the rules of the game, he's fine. And knocking the catcher on his ass at home plate is within the rules. Do you expect him to round third and think to himself "you know what, this is a spring training game; maybe I'll just turn around to avoid confrontation with the catcher--no, that would be stupid; hmm, what to do, what to do; I know, I'll just jump over the catcher and slap home plate as I land; yeah, that's the ticket, I mean, it works in the movies," do you?
Puh-lease. The guy went balls out because he is playing for his major league life, yet somehow, you feel that this is an affront to the all-powerful New York Yankees. Well, guess what Girardi, you're full of shit, you punk. Even former Yankee Don Zimmer thinks you're nuts, and that crazy bastard charged after Pedro Martinez during a nationally televised playoff game...with hilarious results (followed by a tear-soaked, apologetic press conference...with increasingly hilarious results). So now, a legend (ish?) thinks you are making mountains out of mole hills, what do you do? Oh, that's right, you make an ass out of yourself.
In yesterday's spring training game, again featuring the Yankees and Rays (obviously), a Yankees pitcher just happens to plunk a Ray. The pitcher was predictably tossed, but it's all over and we are moving on, right? Of course not, this is Joe Girardi we're dealing with (the man who makes us remember why we hate the Yankees--before his first regular season game as manager, the cock). Later, a Yankees player (of course, it has to be spring training! Now, I have to refer to these scrubs as "pitcher," "player," and any other generic title you can give them) drills a ball into left field and, as he slides for a double, comes in spikes up.
Okay, now this is ridiculous. I understand that it sucks that your catcher broke his hand, I really do. And I dig that you go to great lengths to defend your player. But, when you chastise another team's runner (ha! A new title) for giving "too much" effort, even though the injury he caused was permissible in the rules, and then order another player to attempt to inflict injury with an illegal move, you get the "ASS" stamp (as made famous by Conan O'Brien).
There were, however, two things I loved about the spikes-up slide:
1) The Rays right-fielder who ran in and tackled said spiker (now that's a teammate!)
and
2) The fact that the spiker (the responsible thing would be to look up the names of these players...but, I'm tired) defended his move after the game by claiming he was aiming his cleats at the glove to knock the ball loose. Uh-huh, sure. Tool.
What's obvious about this situation is Girardi's involvement. He will probably (or maybe he already has) plead ignorance to the retaliation, but it seems clear that he was the mastermind. Especially after the bitch-fit he threw following Saturday's game. It is doubtful if we will ever know for sure, but one thing is certain: Any semblance of class within the Yankees organization left with Joe Torre*.
*Even if he did enjoy populating his roster with a rogue's gallery of steroids users, I personally don't give a crap.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
I'm So Tired
This epitomizes the "throwaway post," but I just have to rant about something. When I first got my laptop, I was unsure of how I would ever be able to get used to the keyboard. And I finally had to force myself to adapt otherwise any work I attempted to do would suffer. Now, I'm writing some things on a desktop keyboard at home, and it feels like I'm exercising. I did not think Carpal Tunnel was something you could get in one sitting, but now I'm not so sure. You probably do not understand, but right now, as I type, I'm sweating profusely and losing my breath. I just do not think that I can g--................
Burns' (Mailbag) Baby Burns' (Mailbag)
Upon reading SI.com writer Marty Burns’ mailbag column (which featured backlash from LeBron James supporters crying foul at Burns’ choice of Kobe Bryant for MVP), I had a great idea. How about I take comments from his readers and rebut them in the way I see fit? This works in two ways, one, because I agree with Burns, and two, because I do not have any readers, thus, no mailbag. Let’s get to it:
Ryan Jay Pacuma from the Philippines summed up the feelings of many LeBron James backers when he asked, "How is Kobe ahead of LeBron, when Kobe has more help and James has only himself?"
Valid point, Ray (this is fun, I feel like I have a reader-base now). Perhaps it would have provided a valid point over the last two seasons as well, when LeBron had a better supporting cast than Kobe AND played in a much weaker conference.
Brian from Cleveland echoed that sentiment, while adding a plug for LeBron's leadership qualities: "Who had his team in the Finals last year?!"
And who got swept by a team representing the conference that Kobe’s team must play against to compete for playoff positioning?!
Then there was a lengthy missive from Jonathan of Queens, N.Y., who quibbled with my contention that Kobe does more on the defensive end. "Can we stop the Kobe-as-great-defender and Lebron-as-a-poor-one myth yet?" he wrote. "Lebron averages just as many steals, twice as many blocks and more defensive rebounds."
I’m going to put forward a theory right now: LeBron James gets more credit than he deserves thanks to the rise in popularity of fantasy sports. And I realize that stats are a key aspect of the game, but everyone throws out the “look at LeBron’s rebounds and assists” card, which I found particularly maddening (especially since LeBron goes out of his way to pad stats; you know it’s true). For starters, the Triangle Offense does not allow one to put an emphasis on individual stats. Often times the player responsible for a great play set off a chain reaction of passes, but does he get the assist? No. And if anyone watches the Lakers play, you can see many instances of Kobe managing games in ways that do not show up in the stat book. (‘What about the Triangle when Kobe dropped 81?’ You may ask. It did not exist. Kobe carried the team while the younger players tried to learn the system.) As for rebounds, you never see LeBron (or Kobe for that matter) banging the boards on a consistent basis. Generally, you see these guys swoop in for a shot that clangs far off the rim. It isn’t as if LeBron is going toe-to-toe with Dwight Howard to reel in his rebounds.
As far as blocks go, that 1.0 per game average really puts Kobe in his place. Checkmate.
…
I kid.
But in all seriousness, if you want to argue that LeBron touches Kobe as a defender (especially after Kobe’s rededication at the end of the floor this season [when he was already playing at an All NBA Defensive level]—at Phil Jackson’s insistence), go ahead. Just don’t expect me to dignify that line of thinking with a response.
Ryan Jay Pacuma from the Philippines summed up the feelings of many LeBron James backers when he asked, "How is Kobe ahead of LeBron, when Kobe has more help and James has only himself?"
Valid point, Ray (this is fun, I feel like I have a reader-base now). Perhaps it would have provided a valid point over the last two seasons as well, when LeBron had a better supporting cast than Kobe AND played in a much weaker conference.
Brian from Cleveland echoed that sentiment, while adding a plug for LeBron's leadership qualities: "Who had his team in the Finals last year?!"
And who got swept by a team representing the conference that Kobe’s team must play against to compete for playoff positioning?!
Then there was a lengthy missive from Jonathan of Queens, N.Y., who quibbled with my contention that Kobe does more on the defensive end. "Can we stop the Kobe-as-great-defender and Lebron-as-a-poor-one myth yet?" he wrote. "Lebron averages just as many steals, twice as many blocks and more defensive rebounds."
I’m going to put forward a theory right now: LeBron James gets more credit than he deserves thanks to the rise in popularity of fantasy sports. And I realize that stats are a key aspect of the game, but everyone throws out the “look at LeBron’s rebounds and assists” card, which I found particularly maddening (especially since LeBron goes out of his way to pad stats; you know it’s true). For starters, the Triangle Offense does not allow one to put an emphasis on individual stats. Often times the player responsible for a great play set off a chain reaction of passes, but does he get the assist? No. And if anyone watches the Lakers play, you can see many instances of Kobe managing games in ways that do not show up in the stat book. (‘What about the Triangle when Kobe dropped 81?’ You may ask. It did not exist. Kobe carried the team while the younger players tried to learn the system.) As for rebounds, you never see LeBron (or Kobe for that matter) banging the boards on a consistent basis. Generally, you see these guys swoop in for a shot that clangs far off the rim. It isn’t as if LeBron is going toe-to-toe with Dwight Howard to reel in his rebounds.
As far as blocks go, that 1.0 per game average really puts Kobe in his place. Checkmate.
…
I kid.
But in all seriousness, if you want to argue that LeBron touches Kobe as a defender (especially after Kobe’s rededication at the end of the floor this season [when he was already playing at an All NBA Defensive level]—at Phil Jackson’s insistence), go ahead. Just don’t expect me to dignify that line of thinking with a response.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Damn, Jim Nantz
Again, I'm working on a better post, but for now I'll just impart another few random thoughts:
--I'm wondering when the Houston Rockets are supposed to show that the loss of Yao will hurt them.
--I really do not like LeBron James.
--I wish that ESPN could have devoted a little more coverage to the Brett Favre retirement situation...
--How's about Hillary Clinton? I'd really love to see her call a press conference, have all the doubters in the media who questioned the stamina left in her campaign attend, and then grab her crotch area (as a symbol of her having more power than the journalists, not that she is manly) and scream "YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING NOW, BITCHES!?"
--As much as I hope Hillary gets the nomination, I do honestly like Barack Obama. I especially enjoyed the exchange of words he had with John McCain last week. It all started with a question in the latest Democratic debate. The moderator asked Senator Obama if he were elected president, and troops were pulled out of Iraq, what course of action would he take if the taliban (I'm not sure if it should be capitalized, but let's not dignify these people by doing so) occupied the area once America's presence was gone. Obama replied that we should deal with the situation when the time comes. A day or two later, McCain told an audience at a campaign rally that "I've got news for Senator Obama, the taliban are already there!" Later, at an Obama rally, the Illinois senator retorted "I've got news for Senator McCain, the taliban were not in Iraq until we went over there in the first place."
--I really do not like LeBron James.
--I will now channel my inner Jim Rome and burn on something that really gets me going. First, whenever Barack Obama claims that "I didn't vote to go into Iraq," he should preface his comments with the fact that HE WAS NOT IN CONGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE! Furthermore, let's look at the situation with Senator Clinton voting for the war in Iraq. First off, let's remember the patriotic fervor in the country at the time. What do you think would happen if she voted against it? It's like cultural consensus in journalism; if a great majority feels strongly on an issue, it's okay to be biased (a la racism). The consensus was that we should go in, and she acted on behalf of the citizens that elected her as their representative. Secondly, there are no greater fear-mongerers than high-ranking members of the Republican Party. If Hillary voted against the war, imagine the backlash from the GOPs (Greedy Old Pricks?): they would have painted her as an anti-American, terrorist sympathizer. Maybe, although it's doubtful since she is a Clinton, she even would have lost her seat in the Senate come next election to another Republican automaton. They could manipulate people into thinking she did the wrong thing, replace her with another rank-and-file member of their machine, and continue their quest towards an American dictatorship. Okay, so maybe I'm getting a little carried away, but you know what I'm getting at. And you might be thinking, "David, if Hillary felt that voting no on the war was the right thing to do, she should have overruled her constituents for the good of the country." And you would probably be right. Well, except for...the fact...that...CONGRESS VOTED ON THE WAR BASED ON COMPLETELY FABRICATED EVIDENCE OF WMDs IN IRAQ AND A LINK BETWEEN AL QAEDA AND THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT! How can they be held accountable for something that was the right decision based on the evidence presented to them at that time. Are they supposed to assume that their COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF is lying to them? I mean, don't get me wrong, he did lie, but in that situation, Clinton made the right call. And now she, and other Democrats who voted for the war (if I ever hear anyone call John Kerry a flip-flopper again, I'm going to have an aneurism), is getting taking to task for it. This still does not make sense to me.
--Have you ever noticed that Taco Bell is basically "White Castle: The Next Generation?"
--I am absolutely loving the fact that winter is not petering out at the end of February this year.
--I really do not like LeBron James.
--I have heard the backwards Beatles clues multiple times, but I had never heard Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" backwards until last night. From a broadening my horizons standpoint, it was a good thing. But, on the downside, I could not get the bit out of my head. So, I was walking around today catching myself mumbling "Here's to my sweet satan..."
--Do you ever stay up so late that you lose any and all rational thought? I was watching a UFO documentary (a guilty pleasure of mine; and, there are bound to be aliens out there somewhere) on the History Channel. When they reached the obligatory abduction portion of the program, I began to think 'maybe I should just pull an all-nighter; if the aliens saw me watching this, they might decide to get me now; plus, what if this induces one of those dreams where you wake up in a semi-conscious state of paralysis. Yeah, such is my brain at four in the morning.
--That LeBron James? Not my favorite guy in the entire world.
--I can't take credit for this (I unearthed the idea on sportsjournalists.com's forums), but I saw an interesting question: Brett Favre says that he knows he can "still play," but is mentally tired. Interesting, he comes back when his team is in the crapper and whines about not having the personnel to reach an elite level. Yet, this year he breaks all sorts of individual records en route to a great season with a promising young team, but retires? Let's get this straight, he'll play through mediocrity when he is on pace to break records, but retires in the midst of greatness after he breaks said records. And he is positive he never returned to break individual records? Furthermore, why was this question not asked at the press conference.
--I would love to make fun of Brett Favre for tearing up at his press conference, but since Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith both did the same, I thought I'd back off.
--Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Asante Samuel is prime to be a bust for the Eagles?
--More proof that I jinxed the Patriots bid for a perfect season: my August t-shirt purchase while vacationing in Boston stated "I Hate Peyton Manning" on the front, and then the afterthought insult "Eli Sucks, Too" on the back. You can't hear it, but I am doing the Sideshow Bob shudder right now. Also, why not take a peek into the archives and notice the blog post I wrote about moderately enjoying the Giants success. I need to make a list some day which compiles every single way I jinxed New England.
--Will I get grilled for wearing said anti-Manning shirt presently (since Eli did win the Super Bowl)? Or should I just wait until Week 6 of next season when everyone in New York hates him again following another three touchdown performance? Book it, bitches!
--The San Antonio Spurs are really scaring me right now.
--That being said about San Antonio, I still am happy with the Lakers right now. They've played terribly in their last two outings but still managed to pull out the victories.
--Is there a more screwed up scenario than Brad Daugherty covering NASCAR as an analyst for ESPN? That's the equivalent of sending Charles Barkley out on the course to cover a golf tournament...
"Hell no, I ain't gonna lower my voice! Aw, hell, it's only the third hole, it ain't gonna matta if he make no birdie or not. Damn, Jim Nantz, what's wrong wit you? These guys say they professional ath-uh-letes, let 'em prove it under pressure. (leans out of tower and yells toward green) Hey! Yeah you, what's your name? Phil tickled whose son, now? Don't talk gibberish to me! Mickelson? Who cares, just slap that ball in the hole already, son. (putt lips out) That was turrible! I mean, turrible! Tigah gonna make that putt all day."
(Note: the Barkley-isms make this thought look bad, but I'm pointing out the irony of basketball players calling these sports, not black people. Honest.)
--I had my Hooters cherry popped the other day, and not by choice. Let's just say, I was less than impressed.
--Guess who I don't like?! That's right, Peyton Manning! Oh, yeah and LeBron.
--A quick note: I'm going to begin writing reviews and articles for SEGA-16.com, so if you are interested, check it out (my first piece to be posted is a review of College Slam).
--Nothing intrigues me more than the enigma that is the ego of a seasoned message board poster.
--I think George W. Bush is losing his mind. I mean, I know he lost his soul when he sold it to the devil all those years ago, but I mean his mind. Have you seen his goofy press conferences lately. I watched the McCain/Bush press conference and was not sure if I should laugh or be mortified.
--My brain is completely tapped for now, so, until next time...
--I'm wondering when the Houston Rockets are supposed to show that the loss of Yao will hurt them.
--I really do not like LeBron James.
--I wish that ESPN could have devoted a little more coverage to the Brett Favre retirement situation...
--How's about Hillary Clinton? I'd really love to see her call a press conference, have all the doubters in the media who questioned the stamina left in her campaign attend, and then grab her crotch area (as a symbol of her having more power than the journalists, not that she is manly) and scream "YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING NOW, BITCHES!?"
--As much as I hope Hillary gets the nomination, I do honestly like Barack Obama. I especially enjoyed the exchange of words he had with John McCain last week. It all started with a question in the latest Democratic debate. The moderator asked Senator Obama if he were elected president, and troops were pulled out of Iraq, what course of action would he take if the taliban (I'm not sure if it should be capitalized, but let's not dignify these people by doing so) occupied the area once America's presence was gone. Obama replied that we should deal with the situation when the time comes. A day or two later, McCain told an audience at a campaign rally that "I've got news for Senator Obama, the taliban are already there!" Later, at an Obama rally, the Illinois senator retorted "I've got news for Senator McCain, the taliban were not in Iraq until we went over there in the first place."
--I really do not like LeBron James.
--I will now channel my inner Jim Rome and burn on something that really gets me going. First, whenever Barack Obama claims that "I didn't vote to go into Iraq," he should preface his comments with the fact that HE WAS NOT IN CONGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE! Furthermore, let's look at the situation with Senator Clinton voting for the war in Iraq. First off, let's remember the patriotic fervor in the country at the time. What do you think would happen if she voted against it? It's like cultural consensus in journalism; if a great majority feels strongly on an issue, it's okay to be biased (a la racism). The consensus was that we should go in, and she acted on behalf of the citizens that elected her as their representative. Secondly, there are no greater fear-mongerers than high-ranking members of the Republican Party. If Hillary voted against the war, imagine the backlash from the GOPs (Greedy Old Pricks?): they would have painted her as an anti-American, terrorist sympathizer. Maybe, although it's doubtful since she is a Clinton, she even would have lost her seat in the Senate come next election to another Republican automaton. They could manipulate people into thinking she did the wrong thing, replace her with another rank-and-file member of their machine, and continue their quest towards an American dictatorship. Okay, so maybe I'm getting a little carried away, but you know what I'm getting at. And you might be thinking, "David, if Hillary felt that voting no on the war was the right thing to do, she should have overruled her constituents for the good of the country." And you would probably be right. Well, except for...the fact...that...CONGRESS VOTED ON THE WAR BASED ON COMPLETELY FABRICATED EVIDENCE OF WMDs IN IRAQ AND A LINK BETWEEN AL QAEDA AND THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT! How can they be held accountable for something that was the right decision based on the evidence presented to them at that time. Are they supposed to assume that their COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF is lying to them? I mean, don't get me wrong, he did lie, but in that situation, Clinton made the right call. And now she, and other Democrats who voted for the war (if I ever hear anyone call John Kerry a flip-flopper again, I'm going to have an aneurism), is getting taking to task for it. This still does not make sense to me.
--Have you ever noticed that Taco Bell is basically "White Castle: The Next Generation?"
--I am absolutely loving the fact that winter is not petering out at the end of February this year.
--I really do not like LeBron James.
--I have heard the backwards Beatles clues multiple times, but I had never heard Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" backwards until last night. From a broadening my horizons standpoint, it was a good thing. But, on the downside, I could not get the bit out of my head. So, I was walking around today catching myself mumbling "Here's to my sweet satan..."
--Do you ever stay up so late that you lose any and all rational thought? I was watching a UFO documentary (a guilty pleasure of mine; and, there are bound to be aliens out there somewhere) on the History Channel. When they reached the obligatory abduction portion of the program, I began to think 'maybe I should just pull an all-nighter; if the aliens saw me watching this, they might decide to get me now; plus, what if this induces one of those dreams where you wake up in a semi-conscious state of paralysis. Yeah, such is my brain at four in the morning.
--That LeBron James? Not my favorite guy in the entire world.
--I can't take credit for this (I unearthed the idea on sportsjournalists.com's forums), but I saw an interesting question: Brett Favre says that he knows he can "still play," but is mentally tired. Interesting, he comes back when his team is in the crapper and whines about not having the personnel to reach an elite level. Yet, this year he breaks all sorts of individual records en route to a great season with a promising young team, but retires? Let's get this straight, he'll play through mediocrity when he is on pace to break records, but retires in the midst of greatness after he breaks said records. And he is positive he never returned to break individual records? Furthermore, why was this question not asked at the press conference.
--I would love to make fun of Brett Favre for tearing up at his press conference, but since Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith both did the same, I thought I'd back off.
--Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Asante Samuel is prime to be a bust for the Eagles?
--More proof that I jinxed the Patriots bid for a perfect season: my August t-shirt purchase while vacationing in Boston stated "I Hate Peyton Manning" on the front, and then the afterthought insult "Eli Sucks, Too" on the back. You can't hear it, but I am doing the Sideshow Bob shudder right now. Also, why not take a peek into the archives and notice the blog post I wrote about moderately enjoying the Giants success. I need to make a list some day which compiles every single way I jinxed New England.
--Will I get grilled for wearing said anti-Manning shirt presently (since Eli did win the Super Bowl)? Or should I just wait until Week 6 of next season when everyone in New York hates him again following another three touchdown performance? Book it, bitches!
--The San Antonio Spurs are really scaring me right now.
--That being said about San Antonio, I still am happy with the Lakers right now. They've played terribly in their last two outings but still managed to pull out the victories.
--Is there a more screwed up scenario than Brad Daugherty covering NASCAR as an analyst for ESPN? That's the equivalent of sending Charles Barkley out on the course to cover a golf tournament...
"Hell no, I ain't gonna lower my voice! Aw, hell, it's only the third hole, it ain't gonna matta if he make no birdie or not. Damn, Jim Nantz, what's wrong wit you? These guys say they professional ath-uh-letes, let 'em prove it under pressure. (leans out of tower and yells toward green) Hey! Yeah you, what's your name? Phil tickled whose son, now? Don't talk gibberish to me! Mickelson? Who cares, just slap that ball in the hole already, son. (putt lips out) That was turrible! I mean, turrible! Tigah gonna make that putt all day."
(Note: the Barkley-isms make this thought look bad, but I'm pointing out the irony of basketball players calling these sports, not black people. Honest.)
--I had my Hooters cherry popped the other day, and not by choice. Let's just say, I was less than impressed.
--Guess who I don't like?! That's right, Peyton Manning! Oh, yeah and LeBron.
--A quick note: I'm going to begin writing reviews and articles for SEGA-16.com, so if you are interested, check it out (my first piece to be posted is a review of College Slam).
--Nothing intrigues me more than the enigma that is the ego of a seasoned message board poster.
--I think George W. Bush is losing his mind. I mean, I know he lost his soul when he sold it to the devil all those years ago, but I mean his mind. Have you seen his goofy press conferences lately. I watched the McCain/Bush press conference and was not sure if I should laugh or be mortified.
--My brain is completely tapped for now, so, until next time...
Monday, March 3, 2008
The MVP Race Thus Far
Okay folks, there is going to be a bit of a delay for the next post. I realize it has been a few days since I've written anything, but I had a very busy weekend and now I am faced with a slate of mid-term exams. So, in lieu of writing a full-length column about my chosent topic (the NBA MVP race), I am simply going to list my top five candidates right now and follow it up with a detailed post some time this weekend. Sorry for the delay and enjoy this morsel:
1. Kobe Bryant
2. LeBron James
3. Kevin Garnett
4. Chris Paul
5. Manu Ginobli
(This list is also subject to change, not only by this weekend, but at the end of the year.)
One final note: since I only consider this a preview of a larger post yet to come, there will not be a creative, classic rock-inspired title.
1. Kobe Bryant
2. LeBron James
3. Kevin Garnett
4. Chris Paul
5. Manu Ginobli
(This list is also subject to change, not only by this weekend, but at the end of the year.)
One final note: since I only consider this a preview of a larger post yet to come, there will not be a creative, classic rock-inspired title.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)