I woke up on Saturday morning to a winter wonderland. The ground was covered with snow, my car was covered with frost, and I was cold, literally and figuratively (as in, the numbness in my outer extremities was outdone only by the numbness of my summer-lusting soul). We do live in Minnesota, so such weather occurrences are to be expected. But it’s the end of April. And I was promised global warming.
Scientists have been telling us for years that the arctic ice is melting, polar bear habitats are disappearing, penguins are sipping Mai Tais while lounging in Tommy Bahama cabana wear. The warming trend is now reaching catastrophic proportions. Stronger weather systems are creating increasingly destructive tropical storms. Lengthy droughts are leading to widespread famine. Aforementioned melting ice is leaving elevated water levels. The apocalypse is nigh.
But really, April 26 and I can’t get a barbeque worthy day? I want explanations, damnit.
I’m no scientist and on the facts I’m sketchy at best, but I can’t help but suspect that global warming is a whole heap of rubbish. Throughout the history of the planet Earth there have been countless climactic shifts. These are well documented and scientifically accepted.
What caused the ice age? Methane emanating from Mammoth asses? And what about the warming that inevitably arrived with the end of the ice age? Would today’s scientists have spurred a panic then? New research reveals that 70,000 years ago the human race nearly went extinct due to a massive drought. The entire species was confined to small pockets of Africa. Did this die-off coincide with the discovery of fire?
No. These shifts were the result of the ebb and flow of the planet’s climate. Natural causes. Unfortunately, a focus on long-term patterns doesn’t win grants, voices of reason don’t get air time on the evening news. So even in the world of science we’re left with fear-mongering and panic-jockeying.
I’m not suggesting that global warming is pure fiction, but I am suggesting that it’s far too soon for us to fully understand the repercussions of our beloved chlorofluorocarbons, and it’s awfully presumptuous of us to believe we fully understand the whims and subtleties of our 4.5 billion year old planet.
The basis for global warming theory is the idea that “greenhouse gases” prevent warm air from dissipating in the atmosphere, leading to a rise in temperatures globally. But why do we assume that greenhouse gases trap warm air in? Couldn’t they just as plausibly keep the sun’s heat out? Could global warming be explained, at least partially, by the booming population? I’ve got to believe that billions of extra sweating, farting human beings heats things up pretty quick. Would scientists then advocate mass executions (won’t somebody show a little mercy for the polar ice caps)? Hell, maybe Mother Earth is trying to reduce us to ashes because she’s tired of our egoism.
It’s a poignant demonstration of our self-important, narcissistic nature to believe that our actions can irrevocably alter the course of the planet, while in ages past dramatic events (obscene, inexplicable climate changes, mass extinctions) were completely attributed to natural causes. We’re so refined and sophisticated and smart that our insignificant little deeds must have some impact. Right?
This, in my opinion, remains to be seen.
But really, what difference does it make? Stewardship of the planet is a shared responsibility that we are born into. We all know that pollution is a problem. The smog that hangs over major cities is real, as is the startling asthma rate. The extinction of species caused by blatant disregard hurts us all, and deprives future generations of their right to live a fully realized life. There’s no excuse for lining the ocean floor with plastic grocery bags and dirty diapers.
Why is this not enough to shake us from apathy? Why do I need a cataclysmic event to spur me into action? Threats of incineration shouldn’t be necessary to convince me that I should ride a bike every once in a while.
But truth be told, even such outlandish threats prove insufficient. You could tell the general population that they would die immediately if they neglected their environmental responsibilities, and I’m betting a quarter would still refuse to walk 50 extra feet to find a recycling can. We are an odd species.
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
BitterClingElitistGate
Last week Barack Obama violated fundamental political law. In a speech given to already smug San Franciscans, Barack denigrated voters in Pennsylvania which the following, deliciously repeatable sound bite:
“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years, and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
In a mere three sentences he offended, with a jaw-droppingly precise combination of blatant and implied generalizations, an entire state a mere week before they held a crucial primary. The most offensive part of the statement can be debated ad infinitum. Maybe it was the (hopefully unintended) implication that religion is a negative force that serves as a crutch to the weak (a la Jesse Ventura). Maybe it was that he reinforced the stereotype that Pennsylvanians (and all working class states by association) are gun-toting psychopaths. Or maybe when he insinuated that they’re racist isolationalists.
I don’t personally believe Obama intended any of these negative connotations; call me delusional or hopelessly naïve (or how about hypocritical – would I show such grace towards Clinton or McCain? Hard to say). He made the mistake of forgetting his role as Barack Obama, public official in the spotlight of a vigilant media, and slipping into his role as Professor Obama. He’s done it before (which explains his largely unsuccessful history on the debate circuit) and will undoubtedly do it again. In this instance, he was lecturing as a detached, disinterested anthropologist assessing the struggles of a beleaguered people. He was speaking as if they were a historical case study, long ago undone by economic forces and internal strife. This approach has worked when he has spoken of the African American community, but there is a major difference: his identity is linked with the black community, and when he offers assessments of the tribulations they face he speaks as an insider. When he philosophizes on rural Pennsylvania, he becomes an outsider judging their values and lifestyle (never mind that he is just as much Kansan as he is Kenyan).
But in the end, Barack Obama was merely being honest. He was giving his Harvard educated opinion of an important voting bloc. Unfortunately, in our leaders we rarely desire honesty. We want to be placated, justified. We want leaders to have a beer with us while they tell us who to blame. We want leaders to suffer with us as members of the proletariat, not leaders who deign to step in front and (image that) lead.
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on perspective), Barack’s blunder had seemingly minimal effect on the Pennsylvania voters (the primary went largely as predicted, with Clinton riding a wave of old people and uneducated people to a 55% to 45% victory).
The real story here is that Obama’s speech unmasked him as (spoiler alert!) somewhat of an elitist.
And I say: Of course he is. What of it?
All presidential candidates are, by necessity of the position they put themselves in, elitists. They need to believe that they know what’s best for you and I, that they understand our interests better than we do (whether they actually do or not is another issue). They have spent years in high government having their egos inflated by pushy lobbyists and spineless yes-men. Did you know that Senators don’t even pay for postage? Don’t get me started on the postal service, an obsolete, archaic organization that should be done away with, but still, they don’t pay for postage! How bourgeoisie is that? These people are pomp-machines kept afloat on delusions of grandeur. As much as I hate to be the one to shatter any perceptions of the politician-next-door: they think that they’re better than you.
What’s sad is not that our politicians are elitists who think we’re dumb and need to be pandered to. The real tragedy is that (warning: generalization) we ARE dumb and DO need to be pandered to. So Hillary Clinton shot a gun once as a child and Barack Obama spent some time living in Kansas and John McCain served in the Navy. Does this really qualify any one of them as an “everyman?” Do we imagine they can connect with the average American because they go to church sometimes (when the media is present) or have visited a farm in Iowa or because they held a baby in the projects on a press junket and can honestly say that they went slumming once too?
Look at the numbers: McCain’s wealth is somewhere in the $25 million range, and this doesn’t include his wife’s estimated $100 million fortune. The Clintons pulled in $20 million in 2007, and have an accumulated estate of $50 million. The Obamas, poverty stricken by comparison, made $4 million in 2007 alone. These people will never understand what it means to live without medical insurance or worry about paying $4 a gallon for gas. Yet we allow them to commiserate with us.
We’re fools for buying into it time and again. The biggest knock on Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 was perceived elitism. Their values were out of touch with America. They were incapable of speaking to the masses. Never mind that Bush was an oil-baby and Yale graduate. His muddled thinking and tenuous grasp of the English language were proof enough that he was our buddy, our pal.
This is the game the Republicans understand so much better than the Democrats. They recognize that we don’t want a well-spoken, privately warm but publicly unapproachable aristocrat. No, we want someone who will show us where to point the finger, someone who will arouse our greatest fears, someone who will get our blood boiling.
As a result, the Republican Party has hijacked the vote of a group of people that they (by all reasonable measures) despise. The Republicans are the elitists offering tax breaks to the uber-wealthy and asylum to major corporations, denying health care to the masses, exporting jobs, throwing our hard-earned money at unwinnable wars. Yet they dominate the southern blue-collar belt. They oppress, and the people love them for it.
I liked Cassel’s summation in last week’s post: “It's not that Republicanism or Conservatism is such a horrible ideology. It's that those who represent this ideology (the current admin.) have failed miserably to manifest the foundations of the politically Conservative ideal that it is supposed to stand for!” Speaking personally, the liberal revolution I underwent over the course of several years could be fairly judged as reactionary. I was simply tired of the Republicans so smugly taking my vote (along with the votes of my family, friends, etc.) for granted while doing everything in their power to deprive me of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
I by no means believe the Democratic Party has all the answers. They promise new programs without offering any plan on how they’re going to pay for them, showing themselves to be either A) delusional or B) lying, pandering snakes. They see American opinion has turned against the war in Iraq, so they threaten to immediately withdraw our troops with nary a thought to global consequences. They show their extreme, inexplicable hypocrisy by decrying capital punishment while supporting the termination of unborn children. How can you claim injustice when a psychopathic criminal is executed, yet be perfectly comfortable “executing” an unborn baby that has not even had a chance to sully its innocence? I’m not advocating a stance on either issue; I’m just saying it’s inconsistent.
I freely admit these criticisms; now let’s admit that the Republican Party is not what it claims to be. If they stand for less government, why do they push so hard to regulate abortion and homosexual marriage? (again, not espousing a position one way or the other on the issues; I’m just saying it’s, once again, extremely hypocritical) They say they’re about conservative spending, but let’s talk about the costs of multiple wars and pork-barrel projects (Ted Stevens’ “Road to Nowhere” and Don Young’s “Coconut Road” to name two recent examples). And as with the democrats, they’re stance on the sanctity of life is wildly inconsistent.
Cassel suggests that “The right is simply not working, so let’s try the left.” But what if that’s not good enough? Why will politics as usual be any better?
So I propose a third party. A party that is actually in touch with American values and concerns, a party that follows a consistent ideology and works tirelessly to realize a vision of global peace, prosperity and enlightenment. I submit to you, dear readers, the Zizzle-Zotian United People's Party (ZZUPP).
As the first order of business, I’d like to announce my candidacy to become the President of the United States of America. Unfortunately, there’s some silly, arbitrary rule that I need to be 35 to become president, so I’ll spend the next 12 years launching ruthless smear campaigns against every American born man, woman and child. By the time 2020 rolls around, I’ll be the only viable candidate.
Applications for Vice President will be taken immediately.
Thanks for reading
“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years, and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
In a mere three sentences he offended, with a jaw-droppingly precise combination of blatant and implied generalizations, an entire state a mere week before they held a crucial primary. The most offensive part of the statement can be debated ad infinitum. Maybe it was the (hopefully unintended) implication that religion is a negative force that serves as a crutch to the weak (a la Jesse Ventura). Maybe it was that he reinforced the stereotype that Pennsylvanians (and all working class states by association) are gun-toting psychopaths. Or maybe when he insinuated that they’re racist isolationalists.
I don’t personally believe Obama intended any of these negative connotations; call me delusional or hopelessly naïve (or how about hypocritical – would I show such grace towards Clinton or McCain? Hard to say). He made the mistake of forgetting his role as Barack Obama, public official in the spotlight of a vigilant media, and slipping into his role as Professor Obama. He’s done it before (which explains his largely unsuccessful history on the debate circuit) and will undoubtedly do it again. In this instance, he was lecturing as a detached, disinterested anthropologist assessing the struggles of a beleaguered people. He was speaking as if they were a historical case study, long ago undone by economic forces and internal strife. This approach has worked when he has spoken of the African American community, but there is a major difference: his identity is linked with the black community, and when he offers assessments of the tribulations they face he speaks as an insider. When he philosophizes on rural Pennsylvania, he becomes an outsider judging their values and lifestyle (never mind that he is just as much Kansan as he is Kenyan).
But in the end, Barack Obama was merely being honest. He was giving his Harvard educated opinion of an important voting bloc. Unfortunately, in our leaders we rarely desire honesty. We want to be placated, justified. We want leaders to have a beer with us while they tell us who to blame. We want leaders to suffer with us as members of the proletariat, not leaders who deign to step in front and (image that) lead.
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on perspective), Barack’s blunder had seemingly minimal effect on the Pennsylvania voters (the primary went largely as predicted, with Clinton riding a wave of old people and uneducated people to a 55% to 45% victory).
The real story here is that Obama’s speech unmasked him as (spoiler alert!) somewhat of an elitist.
And I say: Of course he is. What of it?
All presidential candidates are, by necessity of the position they put themselves in, elitists. They need to believe that they know what’s best for you and I, that they understand our interests better than we do (whether they actually do or not is another issue). They have spent years in high government having their egos inflated by pushy lobbyists and spineless yes-men. Did you know that Senators don’t even pay for postage? Don’t get me started on the postal service, an obsolete, archaic organization that should be done away with, but still, they don’t pay for postage! How bourgeoisie is that? These people are pomp-machines kept afloat on delusions of grandeur. As much as I hate to be the one to shatter any perceptions of the politician-next-door: they think that they’re better than you.
What’s sad is not that our politicians are elitists who think we’re dumb and need to be pandered to. The real tragedy is that (warning: generalization) we ARE dumb and DO need to be pandered to. So Hillary Clinton shot a gun once as a child and Barack Obama spent some time living in Kansas and John McCain served in the Navy. Does this really qualify any one of them as an “everyman?” Do we imagine they can connect with the average American because they go to church sometimes (when the media is present) or have visited a farm in Iowa or because they held a baby in the projects on a press junket and can honestly say that they went slumming once too?
Look at the numbers: McCain’s wealth is somewhere in the $25 million range, and this doesn’t include his wife’s estimated $100 million fortune. The Clintons pulled in $20 million in 2007, and have an accumulated estate of $50 million. The Obamas, poverty stricken by comparison, made $4 million in 2007 alone. These people will never understand what it means to live without medical insurance or worry about paying $4 a gallon for gas. Yet we allow them to commiserate with us.
We’re fools for buying into it time and again. The biggest knock on Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 was perceived elitism. Their values were out of touch with America. They were incapable of speaking to the masses. Never mind that Bush was an oil-baby and Yale graduate. His muddled thinking and tenuous grasp of the English language were proof enough that he was our buddy, our pal.
This is the game the Republicans understand so much better than the Democrats. They recognize that we don’t want a well-spoken, privately warm but publicly unapproachable aristocrat. No, we want someone who will show us where to point the finger, someone who will arouse our greatest fears, someone who will get our blood boiling.
As a result, the Republican Party has hijacked the vote of a group of people that they (by all reasonable measures) despise. The Republicans are the elitists offering tax breaks to the uber-wealthy and asylum to major corporations, denying health care to the masses, exporting jobs, throwing our hard-earned money at unwinnable wars. Yet they dominate the southern blue-collar belt. They oppress, and the people love them for it.
I liked Cassel’s summation in last week’s post: “It's not that Republicanism or Conservatism is such a horrible ideology. It's that those who represent this ideology (the current admin.) have failed miserably to manifest the foundations of the politically Conservative ideal that it is supposed to stand for!” Speaking personally, the liberal revolution I underwent over the course of several years could be fairly judged as reactionary. I was simply tired of the Republicans so smugly taking my vote (along with the votes of my family, friends, etc.) for granted while doing everything in their power to deprive me of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
I by no means believe the Democratic Party has all the answers. They promise new programs without offering any plan on how they’re going to pay for them, showing themselves to be either A) delusional or B) lying, pandering snakes. They see American opinion has turned against the war in Iraq, so they threaten to immediately withdraw our troops with nary a thought to global consequences. They show their extreme, inexplicable hypocrisy by decrying capital punishment while supporting the termination of unborn children. How can you claim injustice when a psychopathic criminal is executed, yet be perfectly comfortable “executing” an unborn baby that has not even had a chance to sully its innocence? I’m not advocating a stance on either issue; I’m just saying it’s inconsistent.
I freely admit these criticisms; now let’s admit that the Republican Party is not what it claims to be. If they stand for less government, why do they push so hard to regulate abortion and homosexual marriage? (again, not espousing a position one way or the other on the issues; I’m just saying it’s, once again, extremely hypocritical) They say they’re about conservative spending, but let’s talk about the costs of multiple wars and pork-barrel projects (Ted Stevens’ “Road to Nowhere” and Don Young’s “Coconut Road” to name two recent examples). And as with the democrats, they’re stance on the sanctity of life is wildly inconsistent.
Cassel suggests that “The right is simply not working, so let’s try the left.” But what if that’s not good enough? Why will politics as usual be any better?
So I propose a third party. A party that is actually in touch with American values and concerns, a party that follows a consistent ideology and works tirelessly to realize a vision of global peace, prosperity and enlightenment. I submit to you, dear readers, the Zizzle-Zotian United People's Party (ZZUPP).
As the first order of business, I’d like to announce my candidacy to become the President of the United States of America. Unfortunately, there’s some silly, arbitrary rule that I need to be 35 to become president, so I’ll spend the next 12 years launching ruthless smear campaigns against every American born man, woman and child. By the time 2020 rolls around, I’ll be the only viable candidate.
Applications for Vice President will be taken immediately.
Thanks for reading
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Don’t Get Me Wrong, Kobe Bryant’s Still a Boob: Thoughts on the NBA
In recent weeks we’ve all read articles ad nauseam by basketball analysts, pundits, bloggers, personalities (all self-proclaimed “experts”) on the resurgence of the NBA, due in large part to the unpredictably of the Western Conference playoff push. Sports writers have latched onto the punny potential of the western theme with stories titled “The Wild Wild West” and “How the West Was Won.” Casual fans have jumped on the bandwagon, donning replica jerseys and foam figures as their home teams battle for a spot amongst the elite. And, I must admit, after going through several years of finding the prospect of watching a televised, regular season game completely unpalatable, I have been drawn into the excitement. That’s right, I’m once again a fan of the NBA.
It’s unfortunate that this is the first season in my NBA memory in which star players are giving their top efforts on a daily basis, but I’m thankful for the show. The offseason trades by the Celtics for Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, which essentially restructured the league by establishing a legitimate powerhouse in the East, has spurred a veritable arms race by competitive teams to acquire top-flight talent.
In the East this has resulted in a magnificent class separation between the haves (Celtics, Pistons) and the have nots (pretty much everyone else). The top two teams are also the top teams in the entire NBA (the Celtics and Pistons currently have the best records), while at least two teams below .500 will make the playoffs. The lowly Hawks, hopeless underachievers and perennial losers, have earned themselves the noble task of being manhandled by KG and the Irish in the first round. The Pacers are 11 games below being OK, and consider the season a success. To summarize, the good teams are very good, and the bad teams are just gross.
But in the West we have ourselves a dogfight (don’t tell Michael Vick). The migration of superstars (Pao Gasol, Shaq, Jason Kidd*, Kyle Korver…fine, not a superstar, but look at the numbers and you’ll see he pushed the Jazz from good to great), coupled with the maturation of up-and-comers (Chris Paul, Deron Williams, David West) has created an atmosphere of super-competitive superstars.
Every playoff team is a likely 50 game winner. The Warriors, last year’s Cinderellas, won’t even make the big show despite a record that would put them ahead of King James and the Cavs for the fourth seed in the East. Every game is war. One win or one loss completely redefines the playoff picture.
Pay attention, because never again will you see a rejuvenated Shaq diving into the stands for a loose ball. Never again will you hear both Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony talk about the game in terms of “we” instead of the preferred “I.” And take advantage now, because never again will you see Tracy McGrady play defense.
This is a season ripe with bewilderments. How did the ragtag Rockets win 22 straight games AFTER losing superstar Yao Ming to a season ending injury? How did the Hornets jump from an obscurity with literally no fan base to the force that will save New Orleans? How are the Heat so bad? (OK, so this one’s easy: they’re purposely tanking to secure the number one draft pick. A middle lineup of Wade at shooting guard, Marion at small forward, and Michael Beasley at power forward will be fierce, and B-Eazy will look good in black and red.)
Or perhaps the greatest mystery of all: How did Kobe Bryant morph from disgruntled child demanding a trade to messiah demanding MVP consideration? It fills me with an indescribable sadness that he’s my favorite player to watch, for both his athletic skill and his competitive nature, and yet he’s such a jackass. It’s a dichotomy: the Lakers have a real shot at becoming NBA champions, and Kobe has led them there. This makes him the MVP. On the other hand: he nearly destroyed the team in the offseason, ridiculed his teammates on a national stage, and put his heart into the game only after the Lakers started winning. Not behavior you’d expect, or would want, out of an MVP.
This year four players have a legit claim to the award. Chris Paul is a floor general solely responsible for the success of the Hornets (and is indisputably the best PG in the league). Lebron James has an improbable stat line (impossible for mere mortals) and will once again carry a team of bottom-feeders into the playoffs. Kevin Garnett (though this is not his best year statistically) has managed to convince Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and the rest of the Celts that defense IS important. Whatever the results, the battle has been a pleasure to watch.
On a side note, I’ve also enjoyed watching the sinking of the SS Timberwolves. They’ve finally escaped the clutches of mediocrity and find themselves in a hard fought contest for the toilet bowl. It’s refreshing.
* A disclaimer about Jason Kidd: I hated everything about this trade. It was a huge downgrade for the Mavs, who gave up a young playmaker that could create for himself and score in the lane (a rare skill in Dallas) in exchange for an egomaniac that shoots 30% from the field, averages about four turnovers a game, and is expecting his first social security check in the mail any day. On the other hand, it fills me with great joy when I look at the Dallas boxscore and see this stat line: 7 points on 2-11 shooting, 6 assists, 5 rebounds, 5 turnovers. Ha.
Thanks for reading.
PS I’m sure many of you were expecting a reaction to the Barack Obama “bitter” explosion. To be perfectly honest, I’m not yet certain what to say. Give me some time to percolate, and I’m sure I’ll devise a perfectly reasonable deconstruction of Obama’s comments. He’s come too far to commit political suicide just as a Hillary comeback seemed impossible. Gulp…
PPS A “reaction” post has gone from likely to pending to imminent, and it may (or may not) be a doozy. Just call me the spin doctor and sign me up for a think tank.
It’s unfortunate that this is the first season in my NBA memory in which star players are giving their top efforts on a daily basis, but I’m thankful for the show. The offseason trades by the Celtics for Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, which essentially restructured the league by establishing a legitimate powerhouse in the East, has spurred a veritable arms race by competitive teams to acquire top-flight talent.
In the East this has resulted in a magnificent class separation between the haves (Celtics, Pistons) and the have nots (pretty much everyone else). The top two teams are also the top teams in the entire NBA (the Celtics and Pistons currently have the best records), while at least two teams below .500 will make the playoffs. The lowly Hawks, hopeless underachievers and perennial losers, have earned themselves the noble task of being manhandled by KG and the Irish in the first round. The Pacers are 11 games below being OK, and consider the season a success. To summarize, the good teams are very good, and the bad teams are just gross.
But in the West we have ourselves a dogfight (don’t tell Michael Vick). The migration of superstars (Pao Gasol, Shaq, Jason Kidd*, Kyle Korver…fine, not a superstar, but look at the numbers and you’ll see he pushed the Jazz from good to great), coupled with the maturation of up-and-comers (Chris Paul, Deron Williams, David West) has created an atmosphere of super-competitive superstars.
Every playoff team is a likely 50 game winner. The Warriors, last year’s Cinderellas, won’t even make the big show despite a record that would put them ahead of King James and the Cavs for the fourth seed in the East. Every game is war. One win or one loss completely redefines the playoff picture.
Pay attention, because never again will you see a rejuvenated Shaq diving into the stands for a loose ball. Never again will you hear both Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony talk about the game in terms of “we” instead of the preferred “I.” And take advantage now, because never again will you see Tracy McGrady play defense.
This is a season ripe with bewilderments. How did the ragtag Rockets win 22 straight games AFTER losing superstar Yao Ming to a season ending injury? How did the Hornets jump from an obscurity with literally no fan base to the force that will save New Orleans? How are the Heat so bad? (OK, so this one’s easy: they’re purposely tanking to secure the number one draft pick. A middle lineup of Wade at shooting guard, Marion at small forward, and Michael Beasley at power forward will be fierce, and B-Eazy will look good in black and red.)
Or perhaps the greatest mystery of all: How did Kobe Bryant morph from disgruntled child demanding a trade to messiah demanding MVP consideration? It fills me with an indescribable sadness that he’s my favorite player to watch, for both his athletic skill and his competitive nature, and yet he’s such a jackass. It’s a dichotomy: the Lakers have a real shot at becoming NBA champions, and Kobe has led them there. This makes him the MVP. On the other hand: he nearly destroyed the team in the offseason, ridiculed his teammates on a national stage, and put his heart into the game only after the Lakers started winning. Not behavior you’d expect, or would want, out of an MVP.
This year four players have a legit claim to the award. Chris Paul is a floor general solely responsible for the success of the Hornets (and is indisputably the best PG in the league). Lebron James has an improbable stat line (impossible for mere mortals) and will once again carry a team of bottom-feeders into the playoffs. Kevin Garnett (though this is not his best year statistically) has managed to convince Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and the rest of the Celts that defense IS important. Whatever the results, the battle has been a pleasure to watch.
On a side note, I’ve also enjoyed watching the sinking of the SS Timberwolves. They’ve finally escaped the clutches of mediocrity and find themselves in a hard fought contest for the toilet bowl. It’s refreshing.
* A disclaimer about Jason Kidd: I hated everything about this trade. It was a huge downgrade for the Mavs, who gave up a young playmaker that could create for himself and score in the lane (a rare skill in Dallas) in exchange for an egomaniac that shoots 30% from the field, averages about four turnovers a game, and is expecting his first social security check in the mail any day. On the other hand, it fills me with great joy when I look at the Dallas boxscore and see this stat line: 7 points on 2-11 shooting, 6 assists, 5 rebounds, 5 turnovers. Ha.
Thanks for reading.
PS I’m sure many of you were expecting a reaction to the Barack Obama “bitter” explosion. To be perfectly honest, I’m not yet certain what to say. Give me some time to percolate, and I’m sure I’ll devise a perfectly reasonable deconstruction of Obama’s comments. He’s come too far to commit political suicide just as a Hillary comeback seemed impossible. Gulp…
PPS A “reaction” post has gone from likely to pending to imminent, and it may (or may not) be a doozy. Just call me the spin doctor and sign me up for a think tank.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Hillary Clinton Eats Baby; Does Other Bad Stuff Too
A shocking photograph taken over the weekend and released late Monday has caught Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton in the act of devouring a still living, too cute baby, hat and all. The picture, taken at a Pennsylvania family restaurant as Clinton was campaigning across the state, confirms long-held suspicions that not only is she a terrible candidate, but is, in fact, a monster (as has been alleged by former Obama advisor Samantha Power) and a baby-eater.
Reports indicate that Clinton and her team stopped at a busy Big Al’s Family Diner Saturday afternoon for a late lunch. When the complimentary bread had been consumed and the harried waitress was slow to refill the basket, the noticeably hungry Clinton snatched the baby from his screaming mother’s arms and bit the precious child’s head off even as the boy’s distraught father attempted to rescue his son from the junior senator’s surprisingly strong grip. Horrified onlookers rushed from the scene in a frenzied panic, many slipping on the way out in a large pool of accumulated blood and vomit as several patrons lost their barely digested lunches.
Shortly after swallowing the last morsel of baby, Clinton perceived the hubbub engulfing Big Al’s Family Diner and grew visibly embarrassed as she realized the magnitude of her error. Quickly regaining her composer, Clinton stood and offered the few remaining diners a ghastly, blood stained smile: “Ladies and gentlemen, we need a leader who is ready on day one. A leader who is strong and tough and will eat a baby if that’s what’s necessary to quell her hunger. I am that candidate. Yes I am! Yes I am!” Clinton continued the chant as an aide quickly escorted her out of the restaurant to a waiting vehicle.
In an interview later that day, the boy’s mother stated: “Until today my husband and I were undecided. Yes Clinton has lied, stolen and cheated, but today she ate my baby, and that is unforgivable.”
This latest gaff comes on the heels of a scandal involving (now former) chief strategist Mark Penn and a trade agreement with Colombia, which he lobbied on behalf of. Details of the agreement are still sketchy, but it can only be assumed that he was acting as an intermediary between American cocaine dealers and Colombian drug lords, offering the Clinton campaign fund as a laundering service. Penn has stepped down as a result of the incident, but will continue to oversee Clinton’s “Procurement of Shady ‘Donations’ Committee.”
In a related story, an insider in Clinton’s camp has accused Barack Obama of “waving to a street vendor known to have sold fresh produce to a guy whose wife is the housekeeper of the brother of a well-known Al Qaeda operative.” The incident, reportedly occurring during Obama’s brief stint in Indonesia as a child, could not be confirmed by secondary sources, but the Clinton staffer cites Obama’s “alarming fondness for fresh produce” as conclusive evidence.
On the Republican side, John McCain, bored by months of uncontested campaigning, has apparently sought to engage in a ruthless smear campaign against John McCain. When early attempts to display complete ignorance concerning Middle Eastern foreign policy (he still doesn’t know the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni…maybe he should read this: http://erikgruber.blogspot.com/2007/04/very-brief-history-of-middle-east.html) proved too subtle for the average American voter, McCain lowered his aim to a more common denominator by unleashing a barrage of “John McCain is so old…” jokes.
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
So Tired...
Sorry I haven’t responded to any comments yet. I’ve been out of town for a while, and haven’t checked in for some time.
Chris, I agree that you should definitely reply to old posts. I guess there are three ways to do it. One option is to reply on the original post, and like P Corcs said just let us know so people will go back and look. Another option is to let us know which post specifically you want to talk about again, then write your comments in the most recent post (since this is the one people will most likely be checking). Or you could send me your comments and I can add them as an entirely new post.
Like I said, I’ve been gone for a while and now I have some catching up to do, so whether or not there will be a post this week remains to be seen. Stay tuned…
Chris, I agree that you should definitely reply to old posts. I guess there are three ways to do it. One option is to reply on the original post, and like P Corcs said just let us know so people will go back and look. Another option is to let us know which post specifically you want to talk about again, then write your comments in the most recent post (since this is the one people will most likely be checking). Or you could send me your comments and I can add them as an entirely new post.
Like I said, I’ve been gone for a while and now I have some catching up to do, so whether or not there will be a post this week remains to be seen. Stay tuned…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
