What will happen first
A. The Olsen twins will star in a porn
B. One of the twins will be pregnant
C. One of the twins will be in rehab (alcohol or drugs)
D. One of the twins will have an eating disorder
Looks like the 18 year old questions has finally been answered.
CNN.com has an article about a baby that has a rare gene mutation in which his muscles are abnormally large. While it's a pretty interesting article, one part struck me.
The kid is German, and his mother was a 24 year old German sprinter. She had 1/2 of the gene mutation, and the baby has the full mutation. It makes me think about all the steroids the East Germans used to use for the Olympics, if that has something to do with this mutation. I mean, she was a sprinter, and maybe she got the mutation from her mom who did something similar, or maybe she got it herself from Steroid use.
"Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., introduced a "Bad Boys Are Back" resolution in the House of Representatives congratulating the Pistons. It might be the first time the words "Fear the 'Fro" were uttered in the chamber."
Taken from here.
I was tempted to make a joke about how this sounds like something MSA would do, but I eventually decided I thought it was cool that Miller brought did this.
Based on what Nick wrote I am unsure that I linked to the correct article about Moore. I felt that the article I read had some definite criticism for Moore's movie and what he choose to put in/leave out. The entire article directly criticizes the movie, am I wrong? My problem with M&M is that his movies are classified as documentaries yet he is clearly being very manipulative. From what I remember from my Film Appretiation class I think that directors of documentaries are generally discouraged from distorting facts and misleading viewers. Moore treats film making like a cat herder, constantantly moving the herd from town to town. I was going to point out a direct example of Hitchens criticizing the misleading content of F-9/11, but there are so many examples I simply could not have picked one.
Nick, I truly have no idea what you were talking about in your criticism of Hitchens.
Also, Rich said he sometimes thought about being a cconservative. The extra C stands for BYOB.
Rich, so I summed it up. I'm not saying I agree with it. But hey, it's modern politics, not modern liberalism. If you think that conservatives don't do it too then... well... i feel bad for you.
Come on, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Moore uses contradictory arugments to show his disapproval with a course of action or policy, while also not offering an alternative. Thats the beauty of being someone like Michael Moore, the decisions aren't up to you, but you can critique them anyways.
Wow. In about 50 words, you just summed up everything that is wrong with modern liberalism. It doesn't matter if what you are saying makes sense, it doesn't matter if it is the exact opposite of what you said 15 minutes ago, it doesn't even matter that you don't have any better ideas. All that matters is that you make the other side look bad.
Some days, I am tempted to become a cconservative.
After reading Hitchens' review of Moore's Farenheit 9/11 I've come a conclusion, much like he continually likes to do. Christopher Hitchens is stupid.
Wait, Michael Moore is making contradictory arguments, to articulate a point that he doesn't like a policy? Wow. Thats different from Roger & Me, or Bowling for Columbine.
Come on, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Moore uses contradictory arugments to show his disapproval with a course of action or policy, while also not offering an alternative. Thats the beauty of being someone like Michael Moore, the decisions aren't up to you, but you can critique them anyways.
Thats basically the jist of Hitchens' article, but I was uninmpressed with what I thought was going to be an actual attack on the movie and instead became about attackin Michael Moore.
With Rich acting as the watch dog of the left I think it is fair to let the good people at Fox news take a day off.
Since I no longer have access to the Michigan Delay I can only comment on what you posted, but it was amazing what the Daily is saying. First off they mention that political power comes with higher social standing - which is true, though this seems to be the antithesis of that very problem. With direct democracy you have the people actually creating initiatives rather than the politician who raised the most money (contributed by people from high social standings).
This is a perfect example of why the Daily should never be taken even remotly seriously. In fact, I am now regretful for all the hairs I pulled our while reading their propaganda rag. The paper should start getting signatures themselves for a "Liberal Only" proposal for November. In it they could suggest that only ultra-liberal items be put into law since all of the others are clearly unfair in some fact (oops, I meant facet - cue the blooper reel).
WARNING: obscure Arrested Development reference contained above
I know I promised, but ...
Christopher Hitchens tears apart Michael Moore. Of course, Hitchens was for the war with Iraq, so you would expect him to disagree with MM. But this seems like a well thought out, and totally devestating case he presents.
Okay, just one more, I promise.
Ari Paul describes Zoolander with these words:
"There is much to be learned from Zoolander, especially the imperfections of the modeling industry, the anti-sweatshop movement, and a revisionist history of political assasinations over the past two centuries.
Come, learn, laugh, and enjoy."
Normally, I would attribute a statement like that to sarcasm. But I it is Ari, so it is hard to tell.
I know I should not take the Michigan Daily seriously, but sometimes I am just overwhelmed by their stupidity. Today's editorial (unfortunately not online yet) on the partial-birth abortion law recently passed is a perfect example. The law was passed through "direct democracy," which means that it was put before the legislature by getting 400,000 signatures. This means that Governer Granholm cannot veto it. According to the Daily, this is a "loophole in the (sic) Michigan legislative system."
There are some amazing quotes though:
[The legislation] exposes a weakness in the Michigan legislative system that has the potential to be seriously taken advantage of. This new abortion ban reveals the devious manner in which a few select members of the population can successfully enact legislation that affect the entire state.
I don't know how, when 400,000 people sign the initiative, and both houses of congress vote for it, anyone could claim that "a few select members ... enact legislation."
There is more:
The circumventing of Granhold's authority is an unnecessary step that makes a mockery of the democratic process that elected her. When a few elite members of society can subvert the authority of a democratically elected oficial, it is in effect an example of the larger population being disenfranchised.
I am not sure what exactly makes 400,000 people into "a few elite members of society," but I am pissed off, becuase I didn't sign the petition, so I guess I am not an "elite member of society."
The editorial concludes with this:
It is an undeniable truth that political representation more readily comes to those with higher social standing, but hopefully a measure intended to empower the common man can be eventually crafed to actually do so.
I have no idea what higher social standing has to do with this, but I think what the Daily meant in the last sentence was "hopefully a measure intended to empower the common man, as long as he has liberals views that agree with us, can eventually be crafted.
Nick,
Watch American Beauty and drink a beer in the shower if you are not sure how much beauty is around us.
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote, 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for.' I agree with the second part."
-Seven
About 2 weeks ago I was bored at work and picked up the Ann Arbor Current (at least thats what I believe it was), and fliped through it. Amidst a series of lesser serious articles I came accross an editorial written about a topic as vague as they come. It was about "the world today." The author was writing about his introduction to morality and about how he learned of the horrors of the holocaust, and how his childhood taught him the morality he needed to get through life. He was wondering how it was he was going to explain to his daughter the horrors of the modern world.
It was a well written article, and I made sure to grab a copy, but I did little more than that. Yesterday I opened up my browser to find another horrific news story in front of me. CNN.com reported the beheading of Paul Johnson by militant rebels.
It seems as though the world around us is rapidly changing, and we might not realize it until the worst is upon us. The horrors humankind saw in Nazi Germany and in Manchurian camps were a new kind of evil. The mechanization that had sped up everyday life also sped up death. Evil now had a systematic face.
But the world adapted. The United Nations, and the blocs of alliances that formed after the Second World War helped stave off any more such international horrors. While it was not able to solve all of the problems (internal political strife was the cause of much death), it did remove much of the horror that had been reaped upon mankind in the 30s and 40s.
Yet, the fragile system that helped stabilize the world in the Post WWII era is now incapable of dealing with the terrors of the modern world. 9/11 was most likely only the first in what will become an ever more greusome trend. While the enemies do reside in certain countries, they wear no Iron Cross or other symbol of allegiance. Our attempts to solve the problem only seem to lead to more violence. And more random violence. The targets are military instalations, and political powers, but their victims are innocent Paul Johnson was doing his job in a foreign country and because he was an American, he paid the price for his country's answer to a horiffic event.
But how do we explain all this? We can't just write it away as a change in the way terrorists work. It's a change in evil. And I don't know how years from now when I need to explain to my kids why such a horrible thing has happend if I even will be able to. I want to be able to say that maybe it won't be so bad, maybe the world will be an okay place, and all the violence that happens between man will slowly fade away. But I can't. I can't understand what makes people do such things. Why do you kill an innocent man? Under what religion is that justifiable? Under what political cause? Or moral doctrine?
And what would make it change? If there's no explanation then there's no reason. And thats what so incomprehensible about it. There is no rationality, no reason, no logical system that makes such actions justified.
And thats the scariest thing of all.
The fall of LA has already begun. According to ESPN, Phil Jackson will not return, and Shaq has requested to be traded away. With Kobe likely opting out to become a Free Agent, and Malone having already done so, it looks as if the Lakers as we knew them are finished. Good thing the signed Devean George to that big deal. Wait...
I have said this before, but I thought it again yesterday as I enjoyed an adult beverage in the shower. Nothing in the world is more relaxing than enjoying an icy cold beer in a steamy hot shower. If you have never had a beer in the shower you really should try it right away. I tell you, all the troubles and cares and worries you have just drip away with every gulp of beer (and I don't mean that you're getting drunk). When you drink beer in the shower you can only think about 2 things - A how great the current song is (note: you need a shower radio for this) B How great life is.
Conclusion: if everyone drank beer in the shower there would be no terrorism because you couldn't possibly stay that upset.
Check out this story in the Free Press from last year. Basically Phil Jackson said he thought it was a mistake for LB (pound for pound) to take the Detroit coaching job.
"This is a team that has overachieved, it's not a team that you would say is on the threshold of being a great team. It's a team that really had to push itself right to its limits to achieve what it has done."
"I don't know how far forward Detroit can get."
So now we are sitting here one year later and LB has a Larry O'Brein trophy and Phil is gonna have to figure out where the unemployement office is. Detroit Basketball!
Or as Bill Davidson would say - Bullshit!
Who am I to question the New York Times and all, but I just do not believe that story. Here are my thoughts (turn back before its too late)...
This quote really bothered me "Managers, who tend to work for corporations, brokerage houses, real estate firms and banks, tend to vote Republican. Thanks to their numbers, George Bush still won the overall college-educated vote. " I mean maybe I am not understanding something, but it seems like there would be less managers than professionals - they do have to manage someone after all, right? If 52% of the professionals vote democratic and only 40% vote Republican (leaving 8% that can't figure it out) and then you take blue collar workers - I'll go out on a limb and say that more than 50% would vote Dem... Add to that Seniors and the unemployeed - clearly donkeys, or asses I suppose. So anyhow, the only 2 demographic that tends to vote Republican would be managers and super-billionaires?
It seems silly to me that they elections could be so close if this is true? Am I crazy here? I would like to see the results of the study which lead to these numbers, but I bet it was 18-25 year old female professionals in New York City's West Village that were surveyed.
Rich, you should check your holier than thou attitude at the door. Really, the people that you meet are all students or employees at the University of Michigan. Not only are both of those demographics extremelly liberal - but UofM is also an extrememly liberal school. Its like liberal squared. Further, the professionals you would have met were either young or in california (new mexico liberals would admitadly surprise me a bit).
I can tell you that my midwest/northeast professional interactions have lead me to the exact opposite beliefs - the only liberal people I come in contact with are people with labor union ties. Just about every person I deal with (almost all >28) are overwhelmingly conservative. Further, the people I deal with have real jobs, make real products and actually affect the world every day (rather than sitting in labs) - they create value, rather than create nuclear weapons which we never use.
On the science front, it looks like two science fiction staples are set to become reality:
2) Scientists are able to teleport atoms.
Okay, they specifically say that it doesn't look like it will ever be possible to teleport a human, but we can apply Sagan's Law here: "When a respected scientists says that something will be possible, he is almost certaintly right. When a respected scientist says that something will never be possible, he is almost certaintly wrong".
Okay, a brief return to politics: David Brooks writes a fascinating article about the distinction between "professionals" and "managers". Apparently, professionals, such as engineers, lawyers, doctors ... tend to vote Democratic, whereas managers, which basically means businessmen (and businesswomen, I guess), tend to vote Republician.
I don't know why this trend exists, but it explains two things to me
1) Why I so rarely meet people who are convervative, even though I am surrounded by people who, based on most socio-ecomonic considerations, should be very conservative.
2) Why I have such a fundamental dislike of those who earn money without creating value - it turns out that those people are the conservatives.
Rich,
Memo could easily be protected in the expansion draft. Each team gets 8 slots(im sure it is actually much more complicated than that) to protect people - and free agents may not even need to be protected - BUT, simplest case, lets say they arent. So Detroit protects...
1. Ben
2. Chauncy
3. Tayshaun
4. RIP
5. Sheed
6. Darko
7. Corliss
8. Memo
I don't think they have to protect Delfino and honestly I dont think Memo or Sheed need to be protected either (though I am no expert). The latest rumor I have heard is that Detroit will have Charlotte take Elden for $3million and a first round pick in the future - this will clear up cap spaec for Memo.
The only concern Detroit has of losing Memo is that he wants more playing time (i think this is probable). he is a restricted free agent so Detroit can match any offer. After the championship he did say that he would like to play for a championship in Detroit every season - hopefully that is a good sign.
Apparently, nine.
In a move that may challenge Nate Newton for stupidest action by a football player in the last three years, 924 Oakland was consumed by fire last night (Watch the video here).
While it's still under investigation as to the cause of the fire, it apparently started from a couch on the porch and spread the house. So, it's undecided if they are actually to blame, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they were at fault. Now this might seem a little rash, but because Garret Rivas (read: dumbass) lives in the house, I'm pretty certain I'll turn out right. (Lets just say this isnt the first time the police have had a meeting with Rivas, although this one was remarkably under better circumstances. i.e. - He didn't threaten to shoot people).
But, what really sucks is that a group of my friends were going to live there next year. And, unless some kind of miracle happens, I highly doubt they will be able to.
Also, ironically, multiple articles report that, "The students reportedly lost all of their possessions, including books, computers and clothing. The school is reportedly looking to assist the victims with their loss." It amazes me to find out that the football players actually had books! I was in more shock about that then the fire (I'm actually convinced it was comic books, or Playboys). But it's ok, the University's going to pay for them. As if they don't get enough.
I only kid, it sucks that they lost everything, I just can't help but think Garret "I'm gonna shoot you" Rivas is somehow to blame.
Actually, Larry Brown seemed to use Memo very little as the series went on. He played one quarter in game 5, and I don't think he played at all in game 4. I can think of three reasons to do this:
1) Because it actually made sense basketball-wise. This is probably the correct reason, but it doesn't lead to a conspiracy, so I will ignore it.
2) Because he wanted to prepare the team for playing without Memo - planning on losing him in the expansion draft.
3) Because if Memo had a huge finals, he would be nearly guaranteed to get chosen in the expansion draft, so not playing him increases the chance that the Pistons will be able to hang on to him.
Being a life long Detroit homer I've obviously rooted for all of our local champs (I even followed the 84 Tigers when I was 4 years old) but I have never been close to feeling so much pride any team as I feel for the Pistons right now. To do what they did and absolutly dominate the Lakers for 4.75 games is mind blowing. I just hope that every game next year when people see Shaq playing all alone (without Kobe, without Phil) on the Lakers that people remember that Detroit cracked that dynasty.
I was really pleased to see Chauncy talk about how he wished he could cut his MVP trophy into pieces because the whole team deserved it. That honestly seems to be the attitude with this team and it is mutually exclusive from how professional athletes act.
Lets resign Sheed and Memo and go back to back to back to....
Well, all of the pledge stuff is settled (at least for now). This just goes to show you that Joel Wollborg is always right. Always.
Yesterday Magic Johnson heavily criticized the Lakers at a news conference to promote his basketball camp:
"I think the Lakers had a mind-set that was disrespectful to the Pistons. They thought it was going to be easy. That is not the case.Unless they come out and play very hard, with the same level of intensity as the Pistons, this series will be over."
On Malone's poking a fan:
"You don't put your finger in a fan's face. That's unacceptable. Lakers don't do that,"
on GP:
"Gary Payton has had a lot of great, wide-open looks and hasn't knocked them down. That doesn't change if you're in the triangle or a 1-4 or what. Wide-open looks are wide-open looks. He shot an airball just the other day, wide-open. Hell, nobody was 10 feet from him. He got it, caught it, wide-open, airball. You've got to make that shot. You've got to make plays. Gary's problem isn't on offense. It's on defense. Billups is using him up."
Wow. I never thought I'd see the day. Eric Neel wrote a positive article about the Pistons. For those of you who don't know, he was still singing the praises of the Lakers after Game 1, convinced after Game 2 that the Lakers would win it in 6, and has never (at least in any article I've read) given the Pistons much credit for any of their wins. While he did expect them to make series tougher than most "experts," he still was caught up in Lakerdom.
But that article brought tears to my eye. It was amazing, and really brings a rush to you.
Here on ESPN's page 2. He is sooo right when he talks about how the noise at the Palace gets the old heart beating a little bit faster. I have been to 6 playoff games over the last 2 years and every game has been 10 times louder and crazier than the one before it - I can only imagine what games 4 and 5 will be like.
Well, its gameday for Game 3 tonight, and ESPN is running a vote of the best coaches (all time, and in their own sports). Phil Jackson's up there all time, but in the just NBA one he ranks second to, thats right, Larry Brown.
But as ESPN writes, in a great article about Phil Jackson, he's not comparable to Red Auerbach. The logic is pretty simple, while their numbers are similar, Red made his acquisitions before Free Agency, when it was much harder to build a solid team to make runs at the championships, and when player acquisitions said more about the coach then they did about the size of the contract. However, after stepping down from coaching, Auerbach also was GM of the team and got another 2 titles. Not to mention the 1980s with the Celtics.
Also, I think the best analysis of Phil Jackson is that he's an excellent manager of personel. He has the ability to get his players to play, even when things might not be perfect. But he comes to ready made teams. He's never drafted the way Auerbach has (Russel, Bird), or build the team from the ground up.
(What they'll remember about Jackson is that he was the great manager of personalities, the great stabilizer on turbulent teams. This was an important talent, but managing talent isn't coaching it.)
The article even talks about Brown for a while:
What Jackson has done with the Lakers and Bulls is truly remarkable, but let Larry Brown beat him in these Finals and then Brown's coaching résumé can hold against anybody in history.
Anyways, we'll see. Go Pistons!
As ESPN.com reports Game 2 recieved a rating which was over double that Game 2 last year.
With all the people who were trashing the Pistons for their style of play, which many thought would be boring and bring down the league, I think its time the stats speak for themselves:
The two-game ratings average is ... 78 percent higher than last year's...and 4 percent higher than the two-game average for the 2002 finals between the Nets and the Lakers...
It doesn't surprise me though, as despised as the Lakers are, people will tune in to watch them get a good challenge from the Pistons. Hell, I think the NBA should be thanking the Pistons.
First, the crowd is ridicluous. I think it's better than just a sixth man. Like you said, it's awesome because you really can't hear interviews at times or courtside reporters, which makes me happy. Its an even bigger contrast in this series where in LA its more important to just go to the game, and be seen, while eating your Caviar and sipping your Cris.
Game 3 was amazing because the Lakers weren't even it. Not at one point. Not only did they give them their franchise playoff low, but Rip outscored O'Neal and Bryant combined. Tayshaun put up as many points as Kobe did... but the best stat to me is on rebounds. Shaq pulled down a whopping 2 offensive rebounds. That same number was posted by Rasheed, Ben, and Elden, and topped by Tayshaun and Rip. If you look at total boards its just as awesome.
Personally, Joel, I like that sign idea, or something about it at least. You could do something about Tayshaun and going home (he's from Compton). Or you could make a Kobe Bryant rape joke. Those are always funny. I still suggest someone buys Kate Faber a courtside ticket right next to the Lakers bench. Think Tayshaun's throwing off Kobe's shot? Wait til she's right there, his head won't even be in the game. Oh, I should make another suggestion for a sign. Something involving Shaq Fu (worst video game ever), one of his many horrible rap albums, or the "Steel" or Kazaam. Both of those last ones have HUGE potential.
The Pistons crowd this season has been amazing. Every time they interview the Detroit players they always mention that they have the best fans in the world, every time they show a game on TV you can see the commentators struggling to hear one another over the sound and now even Kobe Bryant is talking about the Detroit fans... "This is a good crowd, and they feed off of that a lot." Sure, he didn't admit that we are the best ever, but this is the same guy that can't seem to grasp the fact that the Pistons are whipping his bottom right now.
I'm going to game 4 and I think it is time for me to bust out a sign. The best one I can think of right now is "My ticket to LA is refundable." Anyone have any suggestions????
Damn straight Larry Brown has more surprises left if the Lakers start to counter. For example, Brown has already told Darko to get ready.
Now I don't want to jump ahead (I'm not a frog after all), but Nick makes a great point. If the Pistons keep winning games and eventually win this series the "real story" will be that the Lakers lost, rather than the Pistons won. But I guess that is what you get for slaying a dragon.
In Page 2 today Eric Neel finally gave the Pistons some credit. While it takes a while to get to the point, I think he opens properly.
If the Pistons sweep this thing, the story will be, "What happened to the Lakers?"
But after rambling on about adjustments and about the Lakers for a while he comes to an end in the article:
Game 1 was no fluke. Prince on Kobe is the real deal. He's the skinniest, gangliest son of a gun you're ever going to see, but he plays defense like a fly flaps its wings -- quickly, constantly. Hamilton is going to play better than he did Sunday night, because he couldn't play worse. Fisher and Payton are going to have their hands full with Billups every night. He's strong in the shoulders. He creates gaps.The Pistons have a great rep for defense and Larry Brown is well respected by the officials. There won't be many cheap calls for the favorites. The underdogs can afford to play straight up.
Unlike the Sixers in '01, Detroit's team is healthy and deep. They'll come in waves and they'll keep coming. And unlike the Lakers now, Detroit's been playing hounding defense all year, so the fitness advantage has got to be theirs.
Los Angeles is going to come strong tonight. No doubt. Payton and Malone will bring more energy. Guys will cut to their spots harder and cleaner .... They'll move the ball. They'll find ways to get Kobe some space. They'll make a point of feeding Shaq in the second half this time.
But the question is, will it be enough?
My reaction to the article is: ITS ABOUT DAMN TIME.
I'm fed up with the media coverage. The story is still all about the Lakers. Not that I expected anything different. But it's "the Lakers didn't come to play," "Phil Jackson needs to adjust," "the Lakers came out flat," "they weren't ready for Game 1," "what can the Lakers do to adjust," "how can the Lakers correct," and so on. If this were a movie it would have a horribly telegraphed and cliched ending.
Its time to give credit where credit is due. The Pistons are the best defensive basketball team in the NBA. Without a doubt. And they're doing things right. They're making the Lakers play a half-court offense, they're suffocating and closing on shots quickly, and playing their tempo of offense. It's no coincidence that the teams they play against shoot poorly, it's not just luck (and if it was, Ben Wallace would be playing Black Jack not basketball).
And the Pistons strategy for Game 1 was amazing. Let Shaq get his 30 or 40 points, let Kobe get 20 or 30. Make everyone else beat them. And it worked. Almost to perfection. Their defense was so hounding many possessions were shots with under 3 seconds left on the shotclock, and thats with little or no ball movement too. The Pistons are really here. They are real, and they can compete. Tayshaun can get Kobe off his game. Shaq can be covered in 1 on 1, you just can't give everyone else the easy points that Shaq is bound to get (its what happens when an offensive lineman plays basketball).
Don't get me wrong, the Lakers will come out stronger in Game 2. The media had it somewhat right, they weren't ready for Game 1. But the question is does being ready really make all the difference? Rip Hamilton had possibly his worst playoff game of this year, and the Pistons still won by 12. Imagine if he had shot better from the floor, and ran Kobe around a little more. What then? Would it matter if the Lakers were ready then? They'll come out to play tonight, for sure, and Game 2 won't look much like Game 1 I'm sure of it, but I don't believe that Phil Jackson has some magical powder that can just turn the Lakers on (Col. Sanders 12 herbs and spices, maybe, but magical winning power, no). And even if the Lakers do make adjustments, whats to stop the Pistons from making counter adjustments. It's not as if Larry Brown is inexperienced or won't know what to do.
I guess it's just more frustrating than anything else. Perhaps we'll see after Game 2 tonight. But I have the feeling that if the Pistons do take the series it will be covered as more of a "what went wrong" than a "what went right." And that disappoints me. Still, I'll take it.
I think that everyone agrees that Tay should cover Kobe - unless Kobe's conditioning or first step prove too much for Tayshaun, in which case Rip should take over. More importantly, Memo better start picking up some serious minutes so we can try and get Shaq in early foul trouble.
Montana is a chump. Don't believe me? Lets look at it mathematically. Montana does Kohl's commercials. Anyone that does Kohl's commercials is a chump. Connect the dots.
The official on the Dan Patrick show said that the referees actively discuss the number of fouls that superstars have, so calling it an unspoken would be inaccurate.
First, that virtual world thing 1) Doesnt surprise me (its like Everquest only for bigger dorks, right?), 2) is pathetic. One of the markets was called "Ultima Online." I don't mind online games, even ones you pay for, but this is just dumb (speaking of which, my new obsession is Day of Defeat - awesome.)
Secondly, the ref on the Dan Patrick show said its an unwritten rule for refs to make sure superstars don't foul out on a call that isn't extremely clear. I.e. - it needs to be obvious that it was a foul for someone like Shaq or Kobe to foul out.
Finally, I still contend that Tayshaun should cover Kobe.
And Joel, Marino better than Montana? In the words of his co-star in Ace Ventura "nonsense poopypants!"
When asked if the Pistons would be intimidated by the Lakers Rasheed Wallace said this
"Look at Michael Jordan," Wallace said. "He was the most dominating player of his time. Was Joe Dumars scared of him? It's all on the character of that person. If you got a punk dude guarding him, he's going to be scared. If you got a dog with heart, you got to go out there and get him."
I just thought it was awesome that he threw the Dumars-Jordan stuff in there. This whole Detroit-Sheed thing is looking like a match perfect enough to be on the Bachelor.
Rich, the guy that was on Dan Patrick was a former ref of 20 years - I don't remember his name. I was listening to ESPN radio today and they played the sound byte from the show, unfortunatly I do not remember exactly what he said. Basically he just said that NBA refs don't want superstars to foul out with cheap calls.
Jonah Goldberg writes about the Greatest Show Ever on TV: Buffy the Vampire Slayer. For once, a conservative gets something right.
Another article about the NBA referee fiasco. This one doesn't seem to have much information, but it does say that an NBA official went on ESPN radio. It doesn't mention what he said though.
A former Microsoftie write a nice long rant about what is wrong with Microsoft.
I disagree with a lot of his complaints, but he makes a good point: Microsoft has failed to use their monopoly to make peoples lives better. They have done a good job at improving how we use computers, but they have not innovated outside the office suite and desktop area. It has taken a small upstart, Google, to present a bold vision for using technology to improve our lives. I hope he is right on that aspect.
This is the greatest idea ever: selling virtual property for real money. In the {game, virtual world} Second Life, you buy virtual property with real money. You can even resell the property, and hopefully make a profit.
At first, the whole idea seems incredible to me: people are spending actual money on something that doesn't actually exist. But in a way, it sort of makes sense. Money itself has no intrinsic value - it is just useful to exchange for goods. Trading your money for virtual land is simply trading one representation of value for another one. They are both imaginary - it is just that more people accept the idea that money has value than the idea that virtual property has value.
Anyway, there has to be a way to make money off this idea. I can't believe that this company has already caught all the suckers out there.
A: Rich, has too much time on his hands. See exhibit A where he wrote his own fake CNN story and posted it on his web site.
ESPN readers seem to agree with you, Joel: SportsNation Poll
More importantly, how come nobody is talking about the referee fiasco? The only article I can find about it is this one in USA Today, which seems to explain it away. I could have sworn that Sportscenter said it was a NBA official who made the talk radio comments, but USA Today says it was just a former ref who's previous claim to fame was making a bad call agains the Bulls (#7).
It might not be pretty, heck, the left coast of the USA might call it downright ugly, but the Pistons are heading back to the Finals - and I think the country is gonna be surprised at how well the Pistons can hang. If you look at the matchups...
Billups vs Payton
Rip vs Kobe
Prince vs George
Sheed vs Malone
Ben vs Shaq
... I like the Pistons 3 to 2, of course those 2 are Kobe and Shaq... scary thought. None the less, I say the Pistons push this to 6 for sure, and very possibly to 7. If Detroit can go back to LA up 3-2, you just never know what can happen.
Well, I think a law that allows the government to secretly perform searches on people is, technically, fascist.
The statement you quoted was overly broad, but it would be fair to change it to:
Currently, the ACLU is the only thing standing between us and this fascist law.
It is, of course, silly to call the government fascist, even if you agree with me that this one aspect of one law is fascist. It makes a legitimate complaint sound like a conspiracy theory.
Reposted from The Corner, which reposted from the Wall Street Journal:
Heading: "Do as He Does, Not as He Says"
"A job is a human right? A living wage is a human right? In response to the May 19 feature "Moore of the Same," let us pay less attention to what Michael Moore utters, or displays in his films, than to how he actually has conducted his life. Here is a man who was down and out in a Michigan town that was down and out, reeling from the domestic auto industry's 1980s retrenchment. Did Michael Moore whine and mew to the government, railing that a job is a human right? Did he protest on the street, demanding a living wage?
"Indeed not. Mr. Moore got off his (ample) derriere, employed his personal energy and creativity, and founded his own film company. He made a successful documentary-style movie about the situation in Flint -- "Roger and Me" -- reaping critical praise and surprising commercial success.
"Building on this achievement, with absolutely no assistance from taxpayers, Mr. Moore expanded his operations and made additional films and TV shows. Eventually he concocted a film that garnered an Academy Award.
"Michael Moore in action is an exemplary entrepreneur and free-market capitalist, a sterling example of the American way. He independently produces a commodity that people purchase voluntarily, everyone going away happy from the trade. He operates not with funds confiscated from the citizenry, but with money generated by pleasing his customers.
"If everyone in the world would follow the principles underlying Mr. Moore's actual behavior, and completely ignore his inane nitwit clacking, our planet would run in greased grooves and prosperity would be universal.
"J. Reynolds
"Houston, Texas"
I am surprised to hear that Mike Moore made the correct decision when presented a choice between controversy/money and doing the Right thing. Not that it matters too much at the end of the day - Moore already won Cannes and will probably win an Oscar for best Propaganda film next year if Hollywood has its way.
Rich,
What are you doing posting your unpopular views on this website - if you don't shut your cry hole we're all gonna be branded freedom fighters.
FBI,
Please understand that Richard does not speak for the rest of us. If you decide to get into his digital life because of his communist leanings then please let the rest of us be.
My favorite line of the article was...
"Clearly, it is the only thing standing between us and our fascist government."
I mean clearly every person in America is so dumb that if it were not for the ACLU we would just accept fascism. If only Nazi Germany had been lucky enough to have their own four letter acronym to watch out for them.