This somehow makes me feel even less safe.
Friday, July 10, 2009
cleanliness is next to godliness.
My brother sent me this picture. Apologies for the small size, but it was snapped with a camera phone, and his intentions were pure.
This somehow makes me feel even less safe.
This somehow makes me feel even less safe.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
artest v. wallace.
I'm not going to get into this with the Artest vs. Ariza argument that's been going on in every Lakers fan's mind for the last week or so since this deal went down. Suffice it to say that I loved Trevor. I thought he was a solid piece of the team, and I would have been perfectly content to bring him back for a good amount of money, and that I would have hoped Lamar Odom would have been all right with taking a little less, for the good of the team. But from what I've read, it's not Trev's fault, but rather his agent's and that's a damn shame. So, what's done is done, Trevor Ariza is no longer a Laker and Ron Artest is one.
And then, over the course of the weekend, we started to hear that Rasheed Wallace would become a Boston Celtic. This, to me, is a good move. It's a good place for Rasheed, it's a good fit with the Big Three, and Wallce will do the work there that makes him so unique, contributing to the team in ways that have been well-documented. But with all the love for Rasheed heading over to Team Green, I can't understand the ambivalence toward Artest in LaLa.
Let's look at things just a little bit: Ron's involvement in the Brawl at the Palace was absolutely a shame. It was black mark on basketball in general, and it did terrible things not only to his reputation, but to a Pacers team that honestly seemed like they were this close to greatness. But...has he really gone off the deep end since then? His relationship with the Pacers deteriorated and there were some sad things said. He played well for the Kings, transforming what had been a lackluster team effort into a focused intensity. He went to the Rockets and, again, everyone was worried: "Will he be able to co-exist? Will he flip out?" And, of course, he didn't. He was fine. He brought a great, semi-veteran maturity to the team, and, let's not forget, his presence got them out of the first round for the first time in the T-Mac era. (I know it wasn't solely due to him, but his contributions shouldn't be overlooked.) I'm not even thinking about denying that Ron Artest is a little bit odd. But I find it baffling that people think he's not a winner.
On the other hand, we have Rasheed Wallace. Don't take this the wrong way. I love Rasheed. I love his fire, I love the fact that he delivered a championship to a Pistons team that seemed like it was destined to be great but never the greatest. (I don't love the fact that they beat the Beatles Lakers team.) However, all I can think of when it comes to Rasheed is what Joey said. Roscoe is a monster. No doubt. But he's nothing compared to what he could have been. But, seemingly, everyone and their mother seems to think that the Wallace deal makes the Celtics the faves in the East, while the Artest deal might be bad for the Lakers.
Does the addition of Wallace (with Garnett being healthy) mean that the Celtics get past the Magic this time? I honestly don't know. The Magic are a lot thinner without Hedo, but the addition of Vince shouldn't be overlooked. What about the Cavs? I don't think the Shaq deal was a huge plus for them, but it can't be denied that Shaq is a monster upgrade over (other) Wallace and Pavlovic. I mean, no doubt. The East, suddenly, has a little bit of stackedness going on for it.
Meanwhile, on the left coast, Artest is a more polished version of Ariza. (Let's keep in mind already that I said I love Ariza! I would not have given him up. But business people have to make these tough decisions and I'm glad that I'm not in their shoes.) I mean, what can Trev do that RonRon can't? Artest is a lockdown defender and strokes the three to a dirty degree. His two-point shooting percentage might leave a little to be desired, but at least the dude can create his own shot, to a reliable degree.
I'm sad to lose Ariza. No ifs, ands or buts about it. But if we had to lose him, I'm OK with getting Artest in return. Meanwhile, I'm not sure that Wallace signing with the Celtics improves them (even with Garnett!) enough to get them over the hump of a sizable Big Two (Cavs and Magic are nothing to scoff at) opposition, both of whom went further than them last year.
And then, over the course of the weekend, we started to hear that Rasheed Wallace would become a Boston Celtic. This, to me, is a good move. It's a good place for Rasheed, it's a good fit with the Big Three, and Wallce will do the work there that makes him so unique, contributing to the team in ways that have been well-documented. But with all the love for Rasheed heading over to Team Green, I can't understand the ambivalence toward Artest in LaLa.
Let's look at things just a little bit: Ron's involvement in the Brawl at the Palace was absolutely a shame. It was black mark on basketball in general, and it did terrible things not only to his reputation, but to a Pacers team that honestly seemed like they were this close to greatness. But...has he really gone off the deep end since then? His relationship with the Pacers deteriorated and there were some sad things said. He played well for the Kings, transforming what had been a lackluster team effort into a focused intensity. He went to the Rockets and, again, everyone was worried: "Will he be able to co-exist? Will he flip out?" And, of course, he didn't. He was fine. He brought a great, semi-veteran maturity to the team, and, let's not forget, his presence got them out of the first round for the first time in the T-Mac era. (I know it wasn't solely due to him, but his contributions shouldn't be overlooked.) I'm not even thinking about denying that Ron Artest is a little bit odd. But I find it baffling that people think he's not a winner.
On the other hand, we have Rasheed Wallace. Don't take this the wrong way. I love Rasheed. I love his fire, I love the fact that he delivered a championship to a Pistons team that seemed like it was destined to be great but never the greatest. (I don't love the fact that they beat the Beatles Lakers team.) However, all I can think of when it comes to Rasheed is what Joey said. Roscoe is a monster. No doubt. But he's nothing compared to what he could have been. But, seemingly, everyone and their mother seems to think that the Wallace deal makes the Celtics the faves in the East, while the Artest deal might be bad for the Lakers.
Does the addition of Wallace (with Garnett being healthy) mean that the Celtics get past the Magic this time? I honestly don't know. The Magic are a lot thinner without Hedo, but the addition of Vince shouldn't be overlooked. What about the Cavs? I don't think the Shaq deal was a huge plus for them, but it can't be denied that Shaq is a monster upgrade over (other) Wallace and Pavlovic. I mean, no doubt. The East, suddenly, has a little bit of stackedness going on for it.
Meanwhile, on the left coast, Artest is a more polished version of Ariza. (Let's keep in mind already that I said I love Ariza! I would not have given him up. But business people have to make these tough decisions and I'm glad that I'm not in their shoes.) I mean, what can Trev do that RonRon can't? Artest is a lockdown defender and strokes the three to a dirty degree. His two-point shooting percentage might leave a little to be desired, but at least the dude can create his own shot, to a reliable degree.
I'm sad to lose Ariza. No ifs, ands or buts about it. But if we had to lose him, I'm OK with getting Artest in return. Meanwhile, I'm not sure that Wallace signing with the Celtics improves them (even with Garnett!) enough to get them over the hump of a sizable Big Two (Cavs and Magic are nothing to scoff at) opposition, both of whom went further than them last year.
Monday, July 6, 2009
why did sarah palin resign?
Well. What a wacky weekend. It all started on Friday, when Sarah Palin announced, quite unexpectedly, that she was resigning from the office of governor for the great state of Alaska. Seeing as (quite possibly literally) no one in the world saw this coming, it was a big topic on the talk shows. There have been a lot of people to weigh in with their views (including Rove, who says the move is a 'risky strategy') but I think we all know, the person I'm most interested in reporting on: John Green. Of course, John had some things to say about Palin's resignation. Let's let him say those things.
Yep. He's pretty smart. However, let me disagree with him just briefly. While I agree that she obviously didn't resign for the reasons she gave (which, as an aside, were even more convoluted than John makes it seem...) I really do think that she resigned because she thinks it's a good move in her jockeying for position in regards to a Presidential run in 2012. (This being said, I'm not comforted [if that's even the right word] by the FBI's recent denial of their investigating Palin for corruption charges. If they were, they'd certainly deny it. If they weren't [or aren't], I guess it's good of them to deny they are. But the denial itself means nothing to me. It's still open as a supremely distinct possibility. And, as John said, if I turn out to be wrong about this, and there is some huge scandal that's brewing and ready to explode, I won't mind apologizing for being wrong.)
Here's why I think Sarah Palin did this and why I think she thinks it's a good move for 2012:
Sarah Palin has never, not once, not one single time, done what we'd expect out of a smart, expedient, traditional politician, when faced with a choice. (OK, maybe once. When John McCain offered her the chance to be his running mate, she took it. That was the smart and politically advantageous thing to do.) But seriously. And I'm not trying to be super-liberal guy here, bashing on Palin. I'm just trying to look at her record and call it like I see it. I've never seen her make a choice that another politician would. From her debate prep to her post-election comments, from the corruption trial that involved her husband to the ways in which she interacted with the special needs community, I've never seen or heard of Sarah Palin doing what advisers would say is the right or smart or politically correct (not as in P.C. but as in politically advantageous) thing to do. That's not an aspersion, necessarily, and, again, I'm not trying to play politics (no pun intended) with the labels of 'right' or 'smart' - I just think that she's untraditional. (And, since I've gone out of my way to clear myself of any bias previously, let me say now, I don't care for those positions that she's taken.)
Palin is now (or will be at the end of July) in position to make a lot more money, as John noted for point two in his video. I think she's going to use that advantage to push her agenda and remain in affluent political circles, despite the fact that, as of August 1, 2009, she has no real place in those circles. I think that if an ordinary politician looked at the calendar and saw that the Presidential race of 2012 was, in fact, more than three years away, they would keep the political job they have as of this moment, and, perhaps, serve out its full term. I think that this would be a smart move on a politician's part. However, I think that Sarah Palin thinks she's gotten too big for Alaska. The key line to read in her Facebook address is this: "How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it’s about country." That seems to me as clear an indication as anything that she views her resignation as a step forward in serving the country.
I can't imagine anyone else doing this or seeing it that way. To Palin, that previous sentence, if uttered by someone in the mainstream media as opposed to here on my smalltime blog, would be picking on her, or applying a double standard. To me, she's the one who's doing so.
Post-Script
I do want to append this video that I ganked from the boys at Live From APT (which is a killer blog, add it to your roll if you haven't already) wherein Anderson Cooper tries to make sense of this move with Palin's Communications Director on the phone. The key line to take is a direct quote: "She has no plans for anything at this particular time." Truer words have never been spoken.
Yep. He's pretty smart. However, let me disagree with him just briefly. While I agree that she obviously didn't resign for the reasons she gave (which, as an aside, were even more convoluted than John makes it seem...) I really do think that she resigned because she thinks it's a good move in her jockeying for position in regards to a Presidential run in 2012. (This being said, I'm not comforted [if that's even the right word] by the FBI's recent denial of their investigating Palin for corruption charges. If they were, they'd certainly deny it. If they weren't [or aren't], I guess it's good of them to deny they are. But the denial itself means nothing to me. It's still open as a supremely distinct possibility. And, as John said, if I turn out to be wrong about this, and there is some huge scandal that's brewing and ready to explode, I won't mind apologizing for being wrong.)
Here's why I think Sarah Palin did this and why I think she thinks it's a good move for 2012:
Sarah Palin has never, not once, not one single time, done what we'd expect out of a smart, expedient, traditional politician, when faced with a choice. (OK, maybe once. When John McCain offered her the chance to be his running mate, she took it. That was the smart and politically advantageous thing to do.) But seriously. And I'm not trying to be super-liberal guy here, bashing on Palin. I'm just trying to look at her record and call it like I see it. I've never seen her make a choice that another politician would. From her debate prep to her post-election comments, from the corruption trial that involved her husband to the ways in which she interacted with the special needs community, I've never seen or heard of Sarah Palin doing what advisers would say is the right or smart or politically correct (not as in P.C. but as in politically advantageous) thing to do. That's not an aspersion, necessarily, and, again, I'm not trying to play politics (no pun intended) with the labels of 'right' or 'smart' - I just think that she's untraditional. (And, since I've gone out of my way to clear myself of any bias previously, let me say now, I don't care for those positions that she's taken.)
Palin is now (or will be at the end of July) in position to make a lot more money, as John noted for point two in his video. I think she's going to use that advantage to push her agenda and remain in affluent political circles, despite the fact that, as of August 1, 2009, she has no real place in those circles. I think that if an ordinary politician looked at the calendar and saw that the Presidential race of 2012 was, in fact, more than three years away, they would keep the political job they have as of this moment, and, perhaps, serve out its full term. I think that this would be a smart move on a politician's part. However, I think that Sarah Palin thinks she's gotten too big for Alaska. The key line to read in her Facebook address is this: "How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it’s about country." That seems to me as clear an indication as anything that she views her resignation as a step forward in serving the country.
I can't imagine anyone else doing this or seeing it that way. To Palin, that previous sentence, if uttered by someone in the mainstream media as opposed to here on my smalltime blog, would be picking on her, or applying a double standard. To me, she's the one who's doing so.
Post-Script
I do want to append this video that I ganked from the boys at Live From APT (which is a killer blog, add it to your roll if you haven't already) wherein Anderson Cooper tries to make sense of this move with Palin's Communications Director on the phone. The key line to take is a direct quote: "She has no plans for anything at this particular time." Truer words have never been spoken.
Friday, July 3, 2009
more quotable goodness.
In Pittsburgh, there's this extremely famous sandwich shop called Primanti Brothers. Nice name, right? A little culture, good food. Except...they pronounce it here puh-manny. It was so bizarre that when we got there, I asked Kat if she was taking me to a knockoff place. Regardless, the food is exactly what they say it is and it's the perfect place to go at the end of a night of tying on a good drunk, as many Yinzers told me. All this goodness, however, doesn't save them from being exhibited in this spot of shame for my most well-documented pet peeve.
I really was tempted to try for some pun on fresh and delicious, but I'll let it speak for itself.
I really was tempted to try for some pun on fresh and delicious, but I'll let it speak for itself.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
we need to build coalitions!
As news started building this morning that Norm Coleman would be conceding and that Al Franken would finally be seated as Minnesota's second Senator, I was overwhelmed with happiness. I know there's a lot else going on in the world, with the SCOTUS, with Afghanistan, and he myriad sex scandals that will always serve to distract people, but with this news, and Arlen Specter's recent refusal of the Republicans, if not the right wing in general, we would finally have our oh-so-coveted 60. The legendary filibuster-proof number. The number that so many Republicans refer to in their fear-mongering campaigns. The number that would allow us to do great things.
And yet...
There's something wrong with the picture. To imagine that obtaining the (not-so anymore) mythical number of 60 left-leaning Senators in the Senate would enable us to do whatever we want is foolhardy at best and downright naive at least. To imagine such a thing would require from us an effort that Democrats have almost never exhibited: we would need to build a coalition, a single organization with one mind and one will, focused on pushing through certain legislation.
The simple fact is that this will never happen.
Whereas Republicans have settled on their message (or at least they had, until major news organizations declared their party dead, and the survivors starting battling for the crown) and moved forward with that message with a Borg-like certainty, Democrats have never had that laser-like precision. There are too many disparate factions within the larger tent pole of quote-unquote Democrats. This is actually kind of a point of pride for many left-leaners and something I tend to agree with them on: we shouldn't need (or even want) a hive-mind when our party is supposed to be about the individual and celebrating diversity and tolerating all kinds of differences.
However, when it comes to the dirty business of politics, sometimes that kind of group think is not only advantageous, but every once in a while, it can be seen as necessary. And even when it's not necessary, there's a reason we have sides. If the pitcher for the Pirates suddenly started playing for whatever team they were playing against, it would be very hard for the Pirates to win any games. (Granted, the pitcher is super important in baseball and there's no one person in the House of Reps or the Senate who has that much power, but the analogy can be [hopefully obviously] extended to any player, in any position, on any team.) Even the least important member of your team can be incredibly damning to the end results if he or she starts playing for the other team. (Plus, to further the sports analogy, this dependence on 60 relies on Joe Lieberman, who has a less than stellar record when it comes to supporting the Democrats. He's a bad team player.)
For some perspective, let's look at the recently celebrated passage of H.R. 2454 (also known as ACES) through the House of Representatives. While Democrats control about 59% of the House, with 255 members in total, Republicans have a mere 178 members, for 41% control. Based on those numbers, the total number of Reps is 433, which means if every member votes on any given bill, a simple majority can be had with 217 votes. Since the Republicans have only 178 Reps, that means if they hope to affect any vote, they have to peel off a minimum of 39 Democrats. With such an overwhelming majority, we'd be expected to lose a grand total of zero votes, right? Well, let's take a look at the breakdown for ACES. Disgustingly, 44 Democrats voted against the bill! Since the Republicans only need to peel 39, they would have won this vote, had we not peeled 8 from their side, for a slim margin of victory of 219-212, with three voters not present. (Just as a sidenote, I'd be very interested in finding out where Jeff Flake, Alcee Hastings and John Sullivan were on the day of this vote. Were they there and abstained? Were they elsewhere? I hope their constituents know. It's also worth noting that amongst those three, two are Republicans and one is a Democrat. This vote could have been even closer.) Given the fact that we control more of the territory of the House than do the Republicans, it can be expected that more of us would defect than would they. (Just like, since there's more white people in the United States, we would expect more of them to be in jail than any other ethnic grouping. Except that's not true as well.) However, more than five times as many Democrats voted against their side than did the Republicans.
For this reason, and many more, I am not hopeful about the status of ACES when it gets to the Senate. If you are interested in getting this bill passed when it gets there, I'd urge you to follow Al Gore's Twitter account or do a good job monitoring Thomas.gov which is a great resource. Write not just an email but a snail mail letter to your Senator when it gets time to vote. If you live in Minnesota, this is tremendously important, as Mr. Franken certainly has a lot of ground to make up. (Not that his delay is, in any way, his own fault.)
If there's more interest in finding out the specifics of ACES, we can get into that, but I figure you're all way more than capable Googlers at this point in the 21st century.
The important thing to remember is that we have the numbers to push through important legislation, and we're not going to have these numbers forever! It would be a fool's errand to waste the opportunities we have, when we know that they didn't in the past and they won't in the future. They are an organized front, they move with precision in the direction they want to go, and we must be unafraid to match them.
And yet...
There's something wrong with the picture. To imagine that obtaining the (not-so anymore) mythical number of 60 left-leaning Senators in the Senate would enable us to do whatever we want is foolhardy at best and downright naive at least. To imagine such a thing would require from us an effort that Democrats have almost never exhibited: we would need to build a coalition, a single organization with one mind and one will, focused on pushing through certain legislation.
The simple fact is that this will never happen.
Whereas Republicans have settled on their message (or at least they had, until major news organizations declared their party dead, and the survivors starting battling for the crown) and moved forward with that message with a Borg-like certainty, Democrats have never had that laser-like precision. There are too many disparate factions within the larger tent pole of quote-unquote Democrats. This is actually kind of a point of pride for many left-leaners and something I tend to agree with them on: we shouldn't need (or even want) a hive-mind when our party is supposed to be about the individual and celebrating diversity and tolerating all kinds of differences.
However, when it comes to the dirty business of politics, sometimes that kind of group think is not only advantageous, but every once in a while, it can be seen as necessary. And even when it's not necessary, there's a reason we have sides. If the pitcher for the Pirates suddenly started playing for whatever team they were playing against, it would be very hard for the Pirates to win any games. (Granted, the pitcher is super important in baseball and there's no one person in the House of Reps or the Senate who has that much power, but the analogy can be [hopefully obviously] extended to any player, in any position, on any team.) Even the least important member of your team can be incredibly damning to the end results if he or she starts playing for the other team. (Plus, to further the sports analogy, this dependence on 60 relies on Joe Lieberman, who has a less than stellar record when it comes to supporting the Democrats. He's a bad team player.)
For some perspective, let's look at the recently celebrated passage of H.R. 2454 (also known as ACES) through the House of Representatives. While Democrats control about 59% of the House, with 255 members in total, Republicans have a mere 178 members, for 41% control. Based on those numbers, the total number of Reps is 433, which means if every member votes on any given bill, a simple majority can be had with 217 votes. Since the Republicans have only 178 Reps, that means if they hope to affect any vote, they have to peel off a minimum of 39 Democrats. With such an overwhelming majority, we'd be expected to lose a grand total of zero votes, right? Well, let's take a look at the breakdown for ACES. Disgustingly, 44 Democrats voted against the bill! Since the Republicans only need to peel 39, they would have won this vote, had we not peeled 8 from their side, for a slim margin of victory of 219-212, with three voters not present. (Just as a sidenote, I'd be very interested in finding out where Jeff Flake, Alcee Hastings and John Sullivan were on the day of this vote. Were they there and abstained? Were they elsewhere? I hope their constituents know. It's also worth noting that amongst those three, two are Republicans and one is a Democrat. This vote could have been even closer.) Given the fact that we control more of the territory of the House than do the Republicans, it can be expected that more of us would defect than would they. (Just like, since there's more white people in the United States, we would expect more of them to be in jail than any other ethnic grouping. Except that's not true as well.) However, more than five times as many Democrats voted against their side than did the Republicans.
For this reason, and many more, I am not hopeful about the status of ACES when it gets to the Senate. If you are interested in getting this bill passed when it gets there, I'd urge you to follow Al Gore's Twitter account or do a good job monitoring Thomas.gov which is a great resource. Write not just an email but a snail mail letter to your Senator when it gets time to vote. If you live in Minnesota, this is tremendously important, as Mr. Franken certainly has a lot of ground to make up. (Not that his delay is, in any way, his own fault.)
If there's more interest in finding out the specifics of ACES, we can get into that, but I figure you're all way more than capable Googlers at this point in the 21st century.
The important thing to remember is that we have the numbers to push through important legislation, and we're not going to have these numbers forever! It would be a fool's errand to waste the opportunities we have, when we know that they didn't in the past and they won't in the future. They are an organized front, they move with precision in the direction they want to go, and we must be unafraid to match them.
Friday, June 26, 2009
mock drafts are for chumps.
The NBA Draft occurred last night. There's been a lot of talk about this draft as being the worst since the infamous 2000 Draft (which was immortalized in the FreeDarko book) and I can't help but think at this point that all that talk was right.
Blake Griffin was taken number one by the LA Clippers. I'm not sure that I need to say anything about the Clippers, but suffice it to say that Blake Griffin will not be happy there, the Clippers will not improve (beyond marginally) and that Blake Griffin might do amazing things in the NBA...once he leaves the Clippers. The Clippers are where All-Stars go to die. A rookie is not going to be able to save them.
Hasheem Thabeet went second to the Grizzlies, whom I believe are building a young team, with an emphasis on young. With OJ Mayo and Rudy Gay (and since their trade last night, Quentin Richardson) they've got some athletic guys. Marc Gasol shows promise and I think Thabeet is going to be a winner in the league, even if he's never going to be a dominant center on both ends.
The Thunder took James Harden, but since I'm still boycotting the non-Sonics, I'm not going to talk about this, other than to say: Kevin Durant deserves better than to play in not-Seattle.
The Kings took Tyreke Evans, whom I'm not sure why everyone's hating on. (Other than, you know...the obvious stuff...) I think he'll make a fine addition to the Kings, playing alongside Kevin Martin. However, the fact of the matter is Sacramento needed a pure point guard! Which Evans is not. Look for trades to occur with the Kings. (Also, upon looking at their roster, it was revealed to me that Kenny Thomas is still [only technically?] on the team. Who knew?)
At long last, the kid everyone was talking about, both positively and negatively, Ricky Rubio, was taken by the Minnesota Timberwolves. TrueHoop had written about how Minny was in sore need of some guards and Ricky's got tons of potential, so this kind of made sense. However, there was tons of talk, almost immediately, about how this might be a pick for a trade (with New York) and then a little while after, about how Ricky might not come to America just to play for Minnesota. I'm not sold on Rubio either way - I think it's clear that he's got potential, and he's going to be fun to watch, but he's only a kid. He'll need time to learn the American game (I know he's been playing in Europe since ages ago) and he needs some more bulk.
However...the rest of the draft contained some very weird things. Minnesota also had the sixth pick (the very next one) as well as the 18th and they took two more point guards. They traded one to Denver, but still. Three picks in the 1st round and they're all point guards? Kevin Love was freaking out. Very strange. Curry at seven to the Warriors is baffling to me, until I read about the Amare trade rumors. Makes sense for Golden State, but the Suns are losing a lot of their fun. Cycles are a drag.
The big news was Brandon Jennings at 10 to the Bucks. I'm not as gaga over him but I know that a lot of serious-minded basketball folks think that he's going to be the one. He showed up late, which was weird, but totally his style. The Bucks, at this point, are in an odd spot, though. They have some undeniable talent, but they haven't been able to put it together, at any point, during the course of last year. They were significantly under 500, and only managed to string together two three-win streaks. They play in the Central division, so it's not like they're going to get over the Cavs, but the Bulls had their mini-implosion last year, and the Pacers are falling off, and Detroit, well, who knows about Detroit. I'm just worried that this move with Jennings is going to merely make them stand pat as opposed to growing.
Next, I'm skipping a lot of picks to shout out my man from Gonzaga, Austin Daye. He went to the Pistons with the 15th pick, and I'm happy for him. I honestly didn't think he'd be picked this high, and with Detroit, as I mentioned above, in a crazy transition phase, I hope that he'll get some minutes as a part of a second unit.
And finally, the Lakers had the 29th pick in the first round, but it was clear from the moment that we won the Larry O'Brien trophy that we'd be doing nothing with that pick. We sold the rights to Toney Douglas to the Knicks, whom I'm sure will be happy with their new shooting guard.
The draft this year was weird. I'm not sure if we'll look back and say, "Oh, how could so-and-so fall to such-and-such position?! I can't believe Team X didn't draft him when they could have!" as much as we'll look back and say, "Damn. That was a pretty weak class." Not that this is a revelation. Plenty of people knew this coming into the draft. But what is a revelation is that it's useless to try to prognosticate what's going to happen on the night of the draft. With all the trades that occurred in the days leading up to the draft and the seemingly-incomprehensible actions of the Wolves, I hope that next year, we won't have to listen to the so-called experts trotting out mock draft after mock draft trying to tell us what's going to happen; I'd much rather just have some seriously solid post-draft analysis.
Blake Griffin was taken number one by the LA Clippers. I'm not sure that I need to say anything about the Clippers, but suffice it to say that Blake Griffin will not be happy there, the Clippers will not improve (beyond marginally) and that Blake Griffin might do amazing things in the NBA...once he leaves the Clippers. The Clippers are where All-Stars go to die. A rookie is not going to be able to save them.
Hasheem Thabeet went second to the Grizzlies, whom I believe are building a young team, with an emphasis on young. With OJ Mayo and Rudy Gay (and since their trade last night, Quentin Richardson) they've got some athletic guys. Marc Gasol shows promise and I think Thabeet is going to be a winner in the league, even if he's never going to be a dominant center on both ends.
The Thunder took James Harden, but since I'm still boycotting the non-Sonics, I'm not going to talk about this, other than to say: Kevin Durant deserves better than to play in not-Seattle.
The Kings took Tyreke Evans, whom I'm not sure why everyone's hating on. (Other than, you know...the obvious stuff...) I think he'll make a fine addition to the Kings, playing alongside Kevin Martin. However, the fact of the matter is Sacramento needed a pure point guard! Which Evans is not. Look for trades to occur with the Kings. (Also, upon looking at their roster, it was revealed to me that Kenny Thomas is still [only technically?] on the team. Who knew?)
At long last, the kid everyone was talking about, both positively and negatively, Ricky Rubio, was taken by the Minnesota Timberwolves. TrueHoop had written about how Minny was in sore need of some guards and Ricky's got tons of potential, so this kind of made sense. However, there was tons of talk, almost immediately, about how this might be a pick for a trade (with New York) and then a little while after, about how Ricky might not come to America just to play for Minnesota. I'm not sold on Rubio either way - I think it's clear that he's got potential, and he's going to be fun to watch, but he's only a kid. He'll need time to learn the American game (I know he's been playing in Europe since ages ago) and he needs some more bulk.
However...the rest of the draft contained some very weird things. Minnesota also had the sixth pick (the very next one) as well as the 18th and they took two more point guards. They traded one to Denver, but still. Three picks in the 1st round and they're all point guards? Kevin Love was freaking out. Very strange. Curry at seven to the Warriors is baffling to me, until I read about the Amare trade rumors. Makes sense for Golden State, but the Suns are losing a lot of their fun. Cycles are a drag.
The big news was Brandon Jennings at 10 to the Bucks. I'm not as gaga over him but I know that a lot of serious-minded basketball folks think that he's going to be the one. He showed up late, which was weird, but totally his style. The Bucks, at this point, are in an odd spot, though. They have some undeniable talent, but they haven't been able to put it together, at any point, during the course of last year. They were significantly under 500, and only managed to string together two three-win streaks. They play in the Central division, so it's not like they're going to get over the Cavs, but the Bulls had their mini-implosion last year, and the Pacers are falling off, and Detroit, well, who knows about Detroit. I'm just worried that this move with Jennings is going to merely make them stand pat as opposed to growing.
Next, I'm skipping a lot of picks to shout out my man from Gonzaga, Austin Daye. He went to the Pistons with the 15th pick, and I'm happy for him. I honestly didn't think he'd be picked this high, and with Detroit, as I mentioned above, in a crazy transition phase, I hope that he'll get some minutes as a part of a second unit.
And finally, the Lakers had the 29th pick in the first round, but it was clear from the moment that we won the Larry O'Brien trophy that we'd be doing nothing with that pick. We sold the rights to Toney Douglas to the Knicks, whom I'm sure will be happy with their new shooting guard.
The draft this year was weird. I'm not sure if we'll look back and say, "Oh, how could so-and-so fall to such-and-such position?! I can't believe Team X didn't draft him when they could have!" as much as we'll look back and say, "Damn. That was a pretty weak class." Not that this is a revelation. Plenty of people knew this coming into the draft. But what is a revelation is that it's useless to try to prognosticate what's going to happen on the night of the draft. With all the trades that occurred in the days leading up to the draft and the seemingly-incomprehensible actions of the Wolves, I hope that next year, we won't have to listen to the so-called experts trotting out mock draft after mock draft trying to tell us what's going to happen; I'd much rather just have some seriously solid post-draft analysis.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
demanding the right to burn books.
A long time ago, when I would have hung such a poster up in my room with tacks, instead of preferring to have framed art hanging around my house, I thought this was the best print I'd ever seen in my entire life:
I don't know why censorship has always been such a big deal to me. (I mean, aside from the obvious left-leaning mother who raised me.) I've never been censored in an extravagant manner, as far as I can remember. I'm sure there were times in high school when I felt like the teachers who were lording over me, or even just society in general, were censoring me to an unbearable degree, but years removed from those situations, I can't even remember what my complaints would have been which, to me, means they were probably not extraordinary.
I remember learning about Tienanmen Square and that having a big effect, as it should, clearly, but I do think the thing that got my goat the most, and continues to do so today, was the censorship of books. The idea that someone would find a book offensive and thus, through their personal discomfort, think that book should be removed from everyone's viewpoint...this, to me, was unbearable. As though people cannot possibly fathom that the world is slightly larger than just them! (I seriously have to stop with this paragraph now or else this will just turn into another rant of a blog entry that can never be taken seriously. But really, I think people who understand already do and those who don't probably never will. Which is super unfortunate.)
Regardless, when I read about Robert C. Braun seeking the right to publicly burn a book that he finds offensive (and also demanding $30,000 per plaintiff "for being exposed to the book in a library display") it makes me alternately nauseous and aggressively angry.
I'm worried a lot of times about preaching to the choir here. It's not like there's a lot of need to convince anyone who actually reads this of much of what I'm saying, but I think it's worth echoing once again. The strength of a democracy, in my opinion, can be determined by how we treat our weakest links. A library is one of the tangible signs of that treatment. A place where knowledge (which truly is power) is free for all. There has to be a cornucopia of options for all people at all times in order for a society to be truly free. Otherwise, what's the point?
Recommended listening for this entry: Kleptones - Question.
I don't know why censorship has always been such a big deal to me. (I mean, aside from the obvious left-leaning mother who raised me.) I've never been censored in an extravagant manner, as far as I can remember. I'm sure there were times in high school when I felt like the teachers who were lording over me, or even just society in general, were censoring me to an unbearable degree, but years removed from those situations, I can't even remember what my complaints would have been which, to me, means they were probably not extraordinary.
I remember learning about Tienanmen Square and that having a big effect, as it should, clearly, but I do think the thing that got my goat the most, and continues to do so today, was the censorship of books. The idea that someone would find a book offensive and thus, through their personal discomfort, think that book should be removed from everyone's viewpoint...this, to me, was unbearable. As though people cannot possibly fathom that the world is slightly larger than just them! (I seriously have to stop with this paragraph now or else this will just turn into another rant of a blog entry that can never be taken seriously. But really, I think people who understand already do and those who don't probably never will. Which is super unfortunate.)
Regardless, when I read about Robert C. Braun seeking the right to publicly burn a book that he finds offensive (and also demanding $30,000 per plaintiff "for being exposed to the book in a library display") it makes me alternately nauseous and aggressively angry.
I'm worried a lot of times about preaching to the choir here. It's not like there's a lot of need to convince anyone who actually reads this of much of what I'm saying, but I think it's worth echoing once again. The strength of a democracy, in my opinion, can be determined by how we treat our weakest links. A library is one of the tangible signs of that treatment. A place where knowledge (which truly is power) is free for all. There has to be a cornucopia of options for all people at all times in order for a society to be truly free. Otherwise, what's the point?
Recommended listening for this entry: Kleptones - Question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
