For fans of The Wire

During the past few weeks, I took the little breaks in work that I had to re-watch certain seasons of--why, yes--The Wire (hey, how'd you guess?) I watched most of Seasons 2, 3 and 5. I think re-watching The Wire is maybe just as important as an initial viewing, if not more so. It is only upon repeat viewings that you truly get an appreciation for the masterpiece that has been created by David Simon, et al (raise your hand if you get the "et al" reference).

More than any other series in the history of television, The Wire was laid out from the beginning to be a televised novel so it lends itself to much better viewing as something that can be watched multiple episodes at a time rather than in a weekly serialized format. This was especially true for me in watching Seasons 2 and 5 because it was the first time I had actually re-watched them. That allowed me a chance to get a better grasp on characters and their motives, as well as observe how intricately the stories were planned by the writing staff. It amazes me how a comment or action that might have seemed like a throwaway in an early season episode develops ramifications toward the end of the series.

Also more than any other show, The Wire creates in its fans a need to seek out other fans of the show for discussion. This is not the same thing as the watercooler talk about how Jack and Sawyer are fighting over Kate, or how Agent Bauer rescued yet another President. When fans of this show discuss, it deals more with the social issues that we have been forced to ponder throughout the run of the show. One critic I have heard says that years from now people will look back and regard The Wire the same way that we look back and regard the novels of Charles Dickens (which is just another reason why the show never attained mass popularity--how many people today can actually have a discussion about David Copperfield or A Tale of Two Cities?). Re-watching the show has only caused me to more strongly believe that.

Anyway, because of my need to find out other people's thoughts on The Greatest Television Show to Ever Air, I took to the web to quench my thirst and found a lot of great stuff. I decided to post links in case anyone else might also be interested. Be warned: most of these links assume that the reader or listener has already watched the entire series so there are spoilers galore.

Alan Sepinwall's wrapup of the series

Alan Sepinwall's interview with creator David Simon
Has some really good stuff from the mind of the man who brought us the series, including why he does not think that he will ever revisit the world of The Wire, although he does not completely dismiss the idea.

Maureen Ryan's final thoughts

What real thugs thought about The Wire
Sudhir Venkatesh, a sociology professor at Columbia, watched the final season with some actual leaders of drug gangs (Venkatesh had built up street cred by spending seven years observing and living with drug gangs in Chicago for his PhD program) to get their take on the show. I was actually introduced to this blog by my friend Jason during the original run of Season 5. It is probably more effective to read these posts right after you have watched the concurrent episode but it is entertaining nonetheless.

/Film podcast goes in depth
/Film brought together some critics to discuss The Wire in general, and then each season in depth. It's over three hours long but you can either listen to it at this page or download the mp3.

Harvard University panel discussion
Harvard University's Institute of Politics brought together a panel of speakers, including David Simon and Professor Venkatesh, to discuss the decay of the American city, with The Wire serving as the catalyst for discussion. This is the video of that discussion, which is about an hour and a half long.

*************

Most of these sites allow comments from readers/listeners/viewers. Of course, anytime that anyone wants to discuss The Wire, I am definitely interested.

For whenever you need a "pick me up"

If watching this doesn't inspire you to do something...I'm guessing that you're dead.

(link from Facebook)

The BCMess

(Note: normally I wouldn't write about college football until after the regular season ends this Saturday. But so much interesting stuff has happened that I have to write it all down before I forget.)

To paraphrase some of my neighbors here in Austin, it's 2008...and the BCS still sucks. No one should be surprised that there is controversy in the BCS. As I pointed out last year, it happens 70% of the time. From where I sit, there are two major controversies in this year's edition, one of which has garnered quite a bit of attention and one which has slipped under the radar. I'll examine both.

*****

The big thing that everyone has been talking about is the fact that Oklahoma passed Texas in the BCS polls which allowed the Sooners to win out in the three way tie they shared with the Longhorns and the Texas Tech Red Raiders to win the Big XII South. Texas fans are irate that they now have to watch two teams that their team beat play for their conference championship, while their Oklahoma counterparts are pointing out that head to head results don't factor in when there is a three way tie. I can see both sides.

(Full disclosure: I live in Austin and my brother is a Texas Ex, as are many of my friends. However, there are actually more people in my extended family who attended or currently attend OU. I am an alumnus of a school that receives annual beat downs from both the Longhorns and the Sooners so I think that I'm as impartial as can be expected.)

I figure that the arguments for each school can be boiled down as such:

In favor of Texas

- beat OU head to head on a neutral field (I think it was funny that many OU fans were trying to make the claim that the Cotton Bowl isn't really a neutral site since it's in Dallas; um...just because the players were breathing oxygen within the Texas borders does not erase the fact that 45,000 fans in the stadium were cheering for the Sooners or that the Cotton Bowl is actually six miles closer to Norman than it is to Austin)

- beat the best team from the Big XII North in Missouri

- has the "best loss" on a last second TD to Texas Tech.


In favor of Oklahoma

- has the best win between the three schools in the win over Tech

- has the best road win over Oklahoma State

- has better out of conference wins over Cincinnati and TCU (although it should also be pointed out that no team on Texas' OOC schedule is anywhere near as bad as Chattanooga or Washington).

Texas fans were pointing to the head to head win as the ultimate decider. Oklahoma fans were (correctly, in my opinion) arguing that you cannot point to head to head wins in the event of a three way tie. You need to dig deeper and that's where the drama begins (and she be like...).

I think most people outside of Lubbock acknowledged that Texas Tech was definitely the third dog in this race. No football team that wants to consider itself a champion of anything should EVER get blown out by 44 points. Period. However, that didn't mean that we simply ignore the fact that the Red Raiders were actually tied with the Longhorns and Sooners . After all, if Oklahoma had lost its last game Tech would have advanced to the championship game regardless of how much it lost to OU. So that brought us to the fifth tiebreaker used by the Big XII, in which case the highest ranked BCS team wins out. I have three main problems with this.

In and of itself, the fact that the BCS standings are used to break ties is not that big a deal. Every conference that hosts a championship game uses them to break ties at some point. The issue is with the way the Big XII applies it. There is a calculated reason for why the conference picks the highest ranked BCS team--it gives it a better chance to send two teams to BCS bowls, which of course means more revenue. This year is a perfect example. Texas is currently third in the BCS and the only team behind it that has any chance of surpassing is Florida. That means Texas is a lock to finish in the top four of the BCS standings, which is an automatic berth in a BCS bowl. Then you add in the automatic berth that will go to either Missouri or Oklahoma for winning the Big XII Conference and you have two big paydays for the conference. However, there's a question there: is that the fairest solution? I think it's worth noting that, of the five conferences that do host championship games, the Big XII is the ONLY one that would have allowed Oklahoma to win out over Texas. In some variation, the others would have first eliminated the third place team according to the BCS (in this case, Texas Tech) and then used the head to head to determine the division winner. That would mean that on field play would be a stronger factor in deciding the outcome.

The second issue I have is that OU was correctly ranked higher by the computers due to having beaten Big East champ Cincinnati as well as 10-2 TCU. But here's my question: why should out of conference play have any bearing on who wins one division of the Big XII Conference? That doesn't make much sense to me.

And the third concern I have is with voter fraud. Two thirds of the BCS is decided by human voters. One of those thirds is by the coaches, and they do not have to reveal their votes until after the last game of the regular season. That can lead to all kinds of voter manipulation. There was evidence of that in the most recent human polls when Oklahoma was ranked ahead of Texas previous to this past weekend's games but then Texas jumped ahead of them afterward, despite both teams winning. That doesn't necessarily mean that there was an intentionally nefarious plot to have Texas move ahead of Oklahoma. It could simply mean that more voters were trying to take into account the entire season (and specifically the Saturday when Oklahoma and Texas met on the field) and deciding that Texas had the better body of work. But again, that is voters wielding a little bit too much power. I mentioned this last year, there needs to be an established understanding in the ways voters make their selection. If, at the end of the season, voters are deciding to take into account the entire season for their votes, that needs to be done each and every week of the football season instead of moving teams around based primarily on the most recent weekend's outcomes.

At the end of the day, Oklahoma won the division because of the rules that had been set in place before the season. Based on their play, the Sooners deserve the chance to play in the conference championship. The problem is that so do the Texas Longhorns. On si.com, Stewart Mandel wrote, "All I see are two extremely deserving teams with no discernible separation between them." I couldn't agree more.

*****

It is also interesting how the above situation will affect the Heisman race. It's pretty much come down to either Sam Bradford from Oklahoma or Colt McCoy of Texas. The significance is that, in my mind, they are almost at a dead heat but now Bradford gets one more game to try to influence voters.

In some ways, this race reminds me of 2005 when Vincent Paul Young, Jr of Texas finished a distant second to Reggie Bush from USC. I didn't have a problem with Bush winning because the Heisman is supposed to go to the Most Outstanding Player in college football and every time he stepped onto the field Bush was a highlight reel waiting to happen. However there is no question that if the Heisman was supposed to go to the Most VALUABLE Player in college football, Young would have won it handily. No player meant more to his team that year.

Colt McCoy is that same caliber MVP this year. No player is more invaluable to the success of his respective team than he is. Bradford isn't necessarily more outstanding in the same vein as Bush but he is the trigger man for probably the most explosive offense in the nation. I'm very interested in seeing how this ends.

*****

There is another controversy in the BCS that is not being discussed as much but should upset fans of both Texas and Southern California. The SEC championship has essentially become a semifinal game for the national championship since the winner between Alabama and Florida is pretty much assured of finishing in the top two of the BCS. But upon closer examination, I don't know if that is quite fair.

Alabama is currently the number one ranked team in the nation. It's hard to argue with that since the Crimson Tide is the only undefeated BCS conference team in the nation. Florida, with an 11-1 record, is the number four team and has looked extremely impressive since losing to Ole Miss two months ago. But I think that both Longhorn and Trojan fans have a legitimate gripe in knowing that one of those teams is almost certainly guaranteed to make it to the championship game while their teams are just as almost certain to NOT make it.

The biggest reason given for the higher rankings of Alabama and Florida is that their schedules are among the most difficult due to playing in the SEC. Looking more closely, there are some serious flaws in that logic. Take a look at the respective resumes of each team:

Alabama (12-0)
- No losses
- Wins over teams currently ranked in the BCS, #16 Georgia

Florida (11-1)
- One loss to Ole Miss
- Wins over teams currently ranked in the BCS, #16 Georgia, #24 Florida State

Southern California (10-1)
- One loss to Oregon State
- Wins over teams currently ranked in the BCS, #10 Ohio State, #19 Oregon

Texas (11-1)
- One loss to #7 Texas Tech
- Wins over teams currently ranked in the BCS, #2 Oklahoma, #14 Oklahoma State, #20 Missouri

Texas has the biggest gripe. Not only have the Longhorns beaten better teams than Alabama or Florida, they've beaten as many ranked teams as the Crimson Tide and Gators COMBINED (or more, if you don't count Georgia as two separate teams). But USC has a legitimate complaint as well. The Trojans resume is slightly better than Florida's but they are essentially shut out of playing in the championship game. Now, it should be pointed out that whoever does win the SEC championship will have defeated another ranked team but you have to wonder if the rankings of those schools are somewhat built upon a house of cards. That is especially true of Alabama. Again, you cannot discount the fact the team is undefeated but it is worth noting that out 12 wins, only four have come against BCS conference schools that have a winning record. One message board post I saw made the comparison between this year's Alabama team and last year's Kansas Jayhawks team. That is, they both achieved a lofty record due to playing in the weaker division of a relatively strong conference and a soft out of conference schedule. Truth be told, it is not difficult to argue that Utah deserves to be ranked ahead of Alabama. The Utes are also undefeated and have beaten TWO teams currently ranked in theBCS (#11 TCU and #18 BYU). I can begrudgingly accept that Alabama should be ranked #1 but they are nowhere near the best team in the nation, in my opinion.

*****

Last year I said that college football needs to figure out some sort of playoff. Most fans, including President Elect Barack Obama, want one. I think I've come up with the fairest solution, which of course means that it will never be adopted.

The first thing that college football fans need to realize is that the BCS is necessary. In a sport that features 119 teams playing 12 game schedules, there is absolutely no way to choose a champion in a completely objective manner. So there has to be some sort of way to narrow down those teams into a group that most people will reasonably accept as the best (the same way the selection committee in college basketball chooses the field of 64). That's where the BCS comes in. The problem with the BCS isn't the BCS itself; it's that it tries to find the two best teams and almost never does that in an acceptable manner.

Second, automatic berths for certain conferences is ridiculous. There is no way of knowing which conference in any given year are going to be better than others. This year, the Mountain West Conference is probably better overall than any other conference except the Big XII and SEC. Yet four other conferences, the ACC, the Big East, the Big Ten and the Pac 10 have guaranteed berths while the MWC had to have one of it's teams go undefeated before it was considered.

Third, give slightly more weight to the computers. Right now the humans account for 2/3 of the BCS while computers are 1/3. I think that should be more like 60:40. As described above, it is far too easy for human voters (and specifically coaches) to manipulate the polls. Giving more weight to the computers will negate that to some extent while still giving human voters the final word.

Fourth, preseason polls need to be eliminated. As much as polls are guesswork, preseason polls are utter shots in the dark. Check out the rankings of these teams before the season started compared to where they are now (using the Coaches Poll):

Georgia- Preseason #1; Currently #19
LSU- #6; unranked
Missouri- #7; #17
West Virginia- #8; unranked
Clemson- #9; unranked
Auburn- #11; unranked
Wisconsin- #12; unranked
Kansas- #13; unranked
Virginia Tech- #15; unranked
Arizona State- #16; unranked
Tennessee- #18; unranked
Illinois- #19; unranked
South Florida- #21; unranked
Penn State- #22; #6
Wake Forest- #23; unranked
Michigan- #24; unranked
Fresno State- #25; unranked
Ole Miss- unranked; #25
Oregon State- unranked; #24
Pittsburgh- unranked; #23
Northwestern- unranked; #22
Michigan State- unranked; #21
Boston College- unranked; #20
Oklahoma State- unraned; #15
Ball State- unranked; #13
Cincinnati- unranked; #12
TCU- unranked; #11
Boise State- unranked; #9
Utah- unranked; #7

That is a list of 29 teams that are either 10 poll positions away from where they were in the preseason, dropped from the rankings completely, or entered the rankings after not being ranked in the preseason. TWENTY-NINE. That's more teams than are ranked in the first place. And that's with the prejudice of preseason polls! Why is it such a difficult thing for voters to watch a few games before deciding which team should be ranked where? I understand that fans want to have an idea (however false that idea might be) of how good their team is going to be but leave the speculation to Athlon and Street & Smith. If we want to have a sport be as objective as possible, there is simply no reason to have premature guesswork be an official factor.

Ultimately, I'd like to see the BCS used to determine the best eight teams in the nation and then have them play it out on the field. Some critics of a playoff think that it would ruin the regular season, which 1) is hogwash and 2) can already be ruined in the current system (ask any Burnt Orange fan today). These critics point to college basketball as proof that a playoff renders the regular season less interesting. To those people, I would like to say, "Congratulations on making an apples to oranges comparison." College basketball's regular season is not as meaningful because there are nearly 400 teams that play close to 30 games per season. Additionally, many of these games are played during the week. Of course they get less attention than the football games. I promise you this: 119 school trying to make it into eight slots will not make for boring games. The difference is that one loss will not necessarily knock a team out of contention and losing late in the season will have no more of an impact than losing early. And that's how it should be.

*****

Finally, I would like to announce the pride I have in my Baylor Bear cubs. Yeah, the 4-8 record is only one game better than we finished last year but there is a palpable difference in the team this year. The Bears played hard in every single game. In fact we lost by a touchdown or less to Connecticut, Missouri and Texas Tech. Had me managed to win those three games, we'd be 7-4 and headed to a bowl. I wouldn't even care which one, I'd be going. The improvement in this team is a direct result of the attitude instilled by first-year coach ArtBriles and the leadership of freshman quarterback Robert Griffin III (whom I sometimes refer to as Moses, because he will lead us to the promised land). Other than maybe Terrelle Pryor of Ohio State and Jacquizz Rodgers of Oregon State, Robert Griffin III has easily been the most impressive freshman player in NCAA Division I football this season. He set a school record for most rushing yards in a game (in his second game as a starter) and an NCAA record for most passes attempts at the beginning of a career without an interception. And on the side he just earned a 3.7 GPA in his first semester in college and almost qualified for the Olympic team in the 400 meter hurdles. If I had a daughter I'd be trying to gather up a dowry to bring HIM into the family. I'm definitely looking forward to the next three years.

-30-

Just because...

...I'm an old fool from the old school (click here if you're reading this from Facebook).

Al B. Sure, "Off On Your Own (Girl)"
(check out the unibrow)




Candyman, "Knockin' Boots"




Mellow Man Ace, "Mentirosa"




The Boys, "Dial My Heart"




Troop, "Spread My Wings"

First Writing Since

Suheir Hammad wrote this in the aftermath of 9/11.  Given much of the rhetoric that has been spewed at some of the McCain/Palin rallies, I think these words are just as important right now.

(In case you're reading this from Facebook, please click this link: http://www.magusisoup.com/2008/10/first-writing-since.html)

Is Barack Obama a Real Life Tommy Carcetti?

I'm wondering if that might be the case...

For those of you who may not get the reference, Tommy Carcetti is a character from the greatest show in the history of television, The Wire. In order to better explain why I'm asking the question, I should probably elaborate on the character.

In The Wire, Tommy Carcetti is a councilman in the city of Baltimore. He loves his city and is frustrated by the negative cycle in which it has become ensnared. He tries to do what he can from his position of councilman, even getting the ear of both the mayor and the police commissioner. However, the former makes empty promises while the latter refuses to do anything outside the chain of command (he reports to the mayor only). After continuing to get rebuffed in his efforts to change the city, Carcetti makes a drastic decision: he is going to run for mayor.

The problem is that Tommy Carcetti lives in Baltimore, Maryland, a city where two out of three people are Black. And he is White.

However, Carcetti is determined that he is the right man for the job. He eventually wins the election and becomes the mayor of Baltimore. Upon entering office, Carcetti makes good on his campaign promises and immediately begins to institute changes for the good of the citizens of Baltimore:

• He orders the police department to stop juking stats and instead focus on actually maintaining peace in the city;
• He personally visits the heads of various city departments and finds creative ways to make sure that they are staying on top of their responsibilities;
• He tries to bring various--often opposing--city leaders together in an effort to improve the lives of everyone in Baltimore.

Carcetti proves himself to be a tireless worker who is truly interested in making sure that his city rises from the depths into which it has fallen. His charm and the fact that he is not a part of the traditional political system are seen as refreshing changes from previous administrations.

Then one day Tommy Carcetti comes across a problem that cannot be solved simply by his work ethic and charm. When he learns that Baltimore city schools are facing a $52 million deficit, he is left with no choice but to go and ask the Governor of Maryland for financial help. The problem is that the Governor is a member of the opposing political party and sees Carcetti's popularity in Baltimore. He knows that Carcetti has a very real chance at unseating him as the Governor. Thus he makes the smart political move. He is willing to assist the Baltimore schools with their financial struggle...but only if Carcetti is willing to publicly accept the aid at a press conference that would humiliate the mayor.

Carcetti refuses. And at that precise moment, Tommy Carcetti becomes a part of the political machine.

--

I find the similarities between Barack Obama and Tommy Carcetti striking. Obviously, Obama is a real person pursing a much more significant goal. However, like the fictional character, he is a refreshing change from the traditional political system who has founded his campaign on the concept of making a change in his home. He is a minority candidate who faces an uphill battle due to racial prejudice. The question I have now is this: what will Obama do when the political machine attempts to swallow him whole?

In November, I will be going to the polls and I will be casting my vote for the next President of the United States. My vote will be going to Barack Obama. Since I live in Texas, that ultimately means very little. However, I still have a voice and will most definitely make sure that it is heard. My choice for Obama as President is indeed based on his catchphrase: hope. My hope is that this man can take over the White House and institute the changes for the common man that are sorely needed at this time. But my hope is also that the man that I vote for in November will be the same man who who will be making the executive decisions throughout the entire term of his presidency.



Indeed.

The Black Man's Burden b/w A Lesson From Hip Hop

With so much drama in the ATX

It's kinda hard living as the O-Mayg-U-S
But, somehow, someway
I keep writing funky, dope blogs like every single day.

Well..not EVERY day. But you know what I mean.

I was recently accused of being a racist. If you really want to know how this came to be, you can see it here. But in summation:

I regularly post on the NBA boards at FOX sports. At one point we started talking politics (I know, I know...talking politics on a sports website is just a disaster waiting to happen) and someone accused Barack Obama of being racist due to his association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I disagreed and added what I thought was an offhand comment about Wright not being completely off-base. This kick-started a campaign by two other posters who said that by agreeing with Wright in this matter that I must also be racist. This completely confused me and we went back and forth for quite a while until I realized that there had been a miscommunication almost from the get go. The person who had initially mentioned Jeremiah Wright claimed that the reverend had said that White people attempted to commit genocide against Black people in this United States. When I responded with the "he's not completely off-base" comment, what I had in mind was what Wright actually said, which was the United States government had attempted to commit genocide against Black people in the U.S., with the "not off-base" part being a reference to the Tuskegee Experiments.

Whether or not that actually got cleared up is not entirely clear to me. It's possible that the two other posters might still think that I am racist. I don't find that to be a particularly big deal. I know that I'm not. Or at least I don't think that I am; it's probably better to ask people who know me to get a more accurate answer. But that conversation has caused me to start thinking...what exactly is racism?

At one point during the debate at FOX sports, I tried to explain the difference between individual racism and socialized racism, which seemed to fall on deaf ears. That frustrated me but I am not at all surprised. In modern day America, I think we've done a fairly decent job of vilifying the racism that is part of the nation's historical make up. No sane person today thinks that slavery or the decimation of the Native American nations were good things. Most people realize that the government-sanctioned treatment of non-White (and specifically Black) people as recently as the middle of the 20th century was appalling. Today, it's pretty hard to find a group of people who are more commonly reviled than the Ku Klux Klan or neo-Nazis. These are good things.

However...

We have done ourselves a disservice here because we've gotten to the point where the above situations are now how we define racism, completely leaving out so many other things that need to be addressed. On FOX sports, I think I had a pretty simple way of showcasing what institutionalized racism is. When someone asked me to explain it, I wrote the following:

Do you believe that all races in the United States are today treated equally? Does the average Black child born in America today have the exact same chances of failure or success as the average White child? If your answer to either of those questions is "no" then you have already acknowledged what institutional racism is.

If your answer to either of those questions is "yes," then let's discuss this: according to the Human Rights Watch, Black people make up 12.32% of the United States population. Yet they make up 43.91% of the population that is in prison. If all races are treated equally, then why is there such an enormous discrepancy in those two numbers? There are only two possible explanations. One, Black people are inherently more likely to commit crimes. Two, different races are not treated the same. There are no other possible reasons. You tell me which one is the answer.

When you look at it that way it becomes a bit clearer why socialized racism isn't discussed as much. Protesting individual racism is easy. Anyone who discriminates against someone else because of his or her skin color or ethnic background is wrong. That is simple and straightforward. As individuals we can examine our own actions, and if we know that we don't do that, then we can feel good about ourselves. But how do you solve a problem that is beyond what you as an individual can control? The answer, obviously, is that we cannot. And in a society in which we have been conditioned into thinking of racism as being just about an individual's choice, it is difficult to get people to pursue a line of thinking that points to a broader picture that is outside the realm of control of any one person, or even multiple people.

That brings me to the big question: what are we supposed to do about this? Is it an unsolvable problem? I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, it IS possible for people of various ethnic backgrounds to coexist without the racial tension prevalent throughout the US. I used to work with someone who grew up in Puerto Rico before moving to the mainland. I remember him telling me how shocked he was to observe the casual racism he encountered here. He told me that there was nothing of that sort in Puerto Rico. According to him, because there is no historical dominance of one ethnic group over the others, as there is in the United States, people don’t look at one another as different races. They simply see each other as Puerto Ricans. Now, I’ve never even visited Puerto Rico, much less held residence there, so I have no idea how realistically he portrayed his island; nevertheless, until someone can definitively prove that this is not the case, I will hold on to hope.

However, it is what is in the other hand that causes my pessimism. While I believe in the viability of harmonious ethnic coexistence, I question how possible it is in the United States. When my friend described his shock at observing racism for the first time, the sad thing is that what he described were things that I had come to accept as matters of fact. There are multiple reasons that cause me to question if things will ever really change:

• The belief that nothing needs to change. It is very much tied in to the lack of understanding what institutional racism is. I tend to hear this from White people more than anyone else. The general rationale behind it goes along the lines of, “Minorities are better off than they were 40 years ago. They get special consideration for colleges and jobs. Why do they still complain?”
  
  
• The undiscussed reality of the situation: in order for people who have been disenfranchised to ever gain equal footing in a society, the group that has served as the ruling class will have to give up some of its power/status. It is unlikely that that will be done willingly.
  
  
• The transformation of EVERYTHING into a racial issue. I most often hear this from Black people and it is championed by guys like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Anything that can be even remotely tied into race is. A recent example of this is the whole unnecessary uproar about the Vogue cover that featured LeBron James and Giselle.

• The influx of new racism. Historically, racism in the United States has been tied into the relationship between White Americans and Black Americans because that allows us to examine the most egregious examples. But more recently, more varied examples have reared up due to the increasing mixture of different races and ethnicities. The 9/11 attacks fueled a sentiment against anyone from the Middle East or even India. Additionally, as more and more people immigrate to the US from other countries, they bring with them their own prejudices. As I have witnessed first hand, someone who grew up in Nigeria, surrounded by other Nigerians, is much more likely to be suspicious of people “not like them” than someone like me who, at various times in my life, has lived in White neighborhoods, African-American neighborhoods and Mexican-American neighborhoods.
  
  The interesting thing about this one is that it goes beyond people dividing themselves by color. Instead the boundaries are determined by common heritage. There is a member of my extended family who has said that she cannot support Obama. Her reason? She doesn't think that the first president of the United States who is of recent African decent should be from Kenya, he should be from Nigeria. I don't know how seriously she means that but the fact that she even thought of it is interesting. It doesn't stop there, however. The most disparaging remarks I’ve heard about African-Americans haven’t come from White people, they’ve come from African immigrants. Of course, the vice versa is also true. That isn’t a particularly new phenomenon in American history. Early British-Americans were prejudiced against Irish-Americans who in turn were prejudiced against Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans, Jewish-Americans, etc. I guess differences aren’t that big a deal as long a there is another group that can commonly be hated.

So what does this all mean? In 1899, British writer Rudyard Kipling penned his poem, "The White Man's Burden." Almost since its first publication, readers have debated as to whether Kipling intended this poem to be literal or if it were meant to be satirical in nature, a la Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." In summary, Kipling's poem is an exhortation of cultural imperialism and explains to the White race that it has an obligation to rule over all other races and help them evolve from their barbaric ways. You probably won't find too many people today who will publicly express that same viewpoint. However, it does bring up an interesting question: do certain races have certain obligations?

There is one thing that I am 100% certain of, and that is that racial reconciliation will NEVER happen without open communication. Some people don't want to talk about it because they feel that we are past that. Other people are all too willing to talk about it but only in terms of how they can benefit. Both of those are wrong. Racism still exists. Most Black people in the United States could lay testament to that. Here's my question though: is it wrong for a White person to not see that? Should Black people expect White people to see racism just because we do? Is that fair?

I don't know if it is. I don't know if it is fair for a population to be expected to see slights that are never used against them. I don't know if it is fair for White people to be expected to apologize for atrocities that were committed by their forefathers or by their less intelligent brethren. I know that I don't want to have to always apologize for other Black people who suffer from "nigga syndrome." So I wonder if that is the Black Man's Burden. Do Black people have an obligation to teach and explain what racism in the modern day is? And if so, how should that be accomplished? Personally, I'm sick and tired of seeing protests. They have their place but when every single thing that is perceived as a slight results in Jackson or Sharpton jumping on a soapbox, exactly how much effect can protests be expected to have when it comes to racial reconciliation? The Jena Six? Protest worthy. LeBron James on a magazine cover? Not so much. Again, racial reconciliation will not happen without frank and open discussion and such discussion will not and cannot happen with protests occurring over every little slight.

--

The interesting thing about the original accusation that kick started this whole line of thinking is that the timing of it was juxtaposed next to an annual hip hop event in Austin, B-Boy City. While I wasn't able to attend all the events that I wanted to, I did manage to hang out with some b-boys during a practice session as well as attend what was supposed to be an emcee battle and ended up just being a bunch of hip hop fans hanging out.

Something that struck me about these moments was the diversity in the ethnic makeup of the people who were there. There were literally people there from every imaginable ethnicity. But here's what I noticed even more: nobody talked about it. Not once did I hear anyone mention race or ethnicity. And the reason it was never mentioned is because nobody cared. In the world of underground hip hop there is only one thing that ever matters: skills. If you have skills then you will earn respect and that's it. No one care about what color you are, what part of the world gave birth to your ancestors, how much money you have or anything of the sort. You earn respect by proving that you belong. And you prove that you belong by demonstrating your talent--end of story. What a fascinating concept.

One of my favorites songs is "If You Can't Say Love" by the Visionaries. During his verse, LMNO drops this line:

"Embrace grace, cut the chase, know our place:
In a world of anger with piles of waste
We're some do-gooders with the filteration
We're Mexican, Islander, Euro, African, Asian
Celebrate Creator before creation
Division we're erasing."

He's speaking specifically about his crew, which is a group of six guys with a multi-ethnic background.

(L-R: Lord Zen, Dannu, 2Mex, Key Kool, Rhettmatic, LMNO)

However, every time I hear those words, I can't help but think how
much better off we ALL would be if we took heed of them.

One day we all will be able to say "love."

NBA Final Four

So we're down to that last four teams in the NBA season. Last night the Celtics continued to protect their home floor by beating the Pistons and I am currently watching the Lakers try to do the same against the Spurs. There's really no surprise that these are the teams left. Excluding the Celtics, the remaining teams have combined to win all but one NBA title in the post-Michael Jordan era. And Boston had the most wins of any team this season.

I find it interesting that, even this late in the season, the Finals could result in completely different scenarios. The NBA is no doubt hoping for a Lakers/Celtics Finals. That would provide a series that features two number one seeds that have a historical rivalry and have the most championships in NBA history. Additionally, it would have two of the biggest stars in basketball; one of whom is its most charismatic (Kevin Garnett) and the other who is its most notorious (Kobe Bryant). Perhaps more importantly, from the NBA's perspective, they have arguably the largest fan bases of any two teams in the league which, combined with the presence of these two aforementioned players, of course means ratings...which of course means mo' money.

On the other end of the spectrum would be the Spurs vs. the Pistons. No one in the NBA's front office would admit to it but they are absolutely praying that this doesn't happen. This Finals scenario would draw little more than apathy for anyone outside of San Antonio, Texas and Detroit, Michigan. Two teams that focus on defense and ball control, are from relatively small markets and features only one real superstar. And that superstar, Tim Duncan, happens to be the most boring superstar in the NBA. To make NBA executives even more wary, they already KNOW that this series would draw low ratings because these exact same teams met in the Finals in 2005 and that series had the second lowest ratings ever for an NBA Finals.

I can't say that I blame the NBA for being nervous about that. As much as I love basketball, I have to admit that I don't know how much I'd watch a Spurs/Pistons rematch, especially the first few games. I'd probably tune in whenever it got to the point when one team was in danger of being eliminated but even then I don't know how excited I could get.

As far as the games go, there is still some intrigue left in the Conference Finals. The Celtics have yet to lose at home and yet to win on the road. They were able to get away with that against their first two opponents but I don't know if that can work against the Pistons, who are more disciplined and play better as a team than either the Hawks or the Cavs. Technically, the Celtics don't have to win a single road game to claim the title. However, if Detroit wins one in Boston, the fact that the Celtics are 0-6 on the road during these playoffs can really come back to haunt them.

In the West, the Lakers and Spurs continue their rivalry. These two teams have absolutely dominated the conference for the past decade. Other than 2005, one of them has represented the Western Conference in the Finals every year since 1999. I'm really curious to see how this series plays out. This is the best team the Lakers have had since they traded away Shaquille O'Neal and seeing how they match up with their nemesis will prove quite interesting, I think. As good as Pau Gasol is, he's not a great defender and thus the Lakers have no one who can stop Tim Duncan. And as great a defender as Bruce Bowen has been over his career, he's 36 years old and thus the Spurs really have no one who can consistently guard Kobe Bryant. So which superstar will be able to lead his team to the Finals?

While I can't make that prediction, I'll make this one: barring injury, the NBA champion is coming from the West. That became a foregone conclusion once the Spurs defeated the New Orleans Hornets. There is absolutely NO CHANCE that either Flip Saunders or Doc Rivers outcoaches Phil Jackson or Gregg Popovich.

Mavericks season wrap up

[I've pretty much been meaning to write this for a while. I started thinking about what I would write here while I was watching Game 4 of the Mavericks-Hornets series and I saw something that I had never, ever seen before: Mavs fans walking out of the American Airlines in the middle of their team getting blown out. That signified something to me. It wasn't just fans giving up on the game or even the series. It seemed that many fans were tired of this era of the team. But before I actually started writing, I wanted the outcome of the series to be made official, which I felt would probably happen in Game 4 (even as die-hard a Mavs fan as I am, I pretty much watched the entirety of that game because Pam Oliver was the sideline reporter and I was hoping that some cameraman might get lucky). However, for some reason the higher ups at work actually expected me to...work. So I've been kind of busy and am just now getting a chance to actually put all this down. So without further ado...]

For the second straight year, the Dallas Mavericks' season is over without seeing the second round of the NBA playoffs. For the third straight year, all Mavs fans are left to spit up the bile of disappointment. This season is different though. The way the last two years ended was shocking, to be sure. But they also came upon us suddenly. We didn't know how bad they would be until those respective playoff series actually started. This year's ending was something else. In both of the last two seasons, we Mavs fans grew to expect a strong run out of our team and were eventually disappointed. But at the very least, those disappointments were contained to the playoff series in which the Mavericks lost. This season was more painful, for me at least, because that disappointment was prolonged over the entire season.

Last season, after a 67-15 Dallas squad was upset in the first round, I wondered how the team was supposed to react. I felt that you shouldn't gut a team that had just won 67 games in the regular season (tied for sixth most all time). However, because of the way the Golden State Warriors exposed the weaknesses of the team, changes did have to be made. My thinking was that the Mavericks should keep their core but bring in role players who could provide toughness, leadership, a locker room presence and playoff experience. When the 2007-08 season started and that wasn't done, I started feeling at that time that the season would be less than memorable.

There were a lot of possible blockbuster moves that the Mavericks could have potentially made. For the first time ever, Kevin Garnett seemed ready to leave Minnesota and Dallas was mentioned as a possible destination. Kobe Bryant shook up the basketball world by publicly demanding a trade, with the Dallas Mavericks being one of the three teams (along with the Chicago Bulls and the Phoenix Suns) for which he would waive his no-trade clause. But both of these seismic moves that likely would have required moving Dirk Nowitzki (although I suspect that Kobe wouldn't have accepted a trade to Dallas that didn't allow him to team with Dirk). Those wouldn't be the type of moves to progress the team enough to merit doing them.

KG ended up going to Boston, where he infused that team with a passion that led them to the best record in the league. Meanwhile, Kobe stayed with the Lakers, decided to keep his mouth shut and was rewarded when the his team was able to steal Pau Gasol from the Memphis Grizzlies and ended up with the best record in the West.

Meanwhile, to try and keep up with these movements (along with the Suns' midseason acquisition of Shaquille O'Neal), in February the Mavs gave up their starting point guard, starting center (the two of whom happened to be the team's best defensive players), two first round draft picks, depth and future for a soon-to-be 35 year old point guard who had lost his speed and was never an ideal fit for Avery Johnson's offense to begin with. I've made my thoughts on the Jason Kidd trade abundantly clear from the very beginning, so I won't rehash them. Now is the time to look at what the team has and face the future.

A day after the Mavericks were bounced from the playoffs, coach Avery Johnson was fired. There were two very clearly divided sides in the public reaction to this. One side couldn't believe that Avery was being used as the scapegoat while the other was glad to see him go. Personally, I think that not only did the firing have to happen but it was the best thing that Mark Cuban could do to Avery. Of course, the pro-Avery camp brought out all the statistics:

• he's never won fewer than 51 games in a season
• he has a career winning percentage of 73.5%
• he was the fastest coach to reach 50/100/150 wins and has the best record of any coach over his first 82 games

These things are all well and good but they mask one important thing: Avery Johnson became progressively worse as a coach each of his three full years in Dallas. Of course, some people will say, "Wait, how? He went from 60 wins in his first full season to 67 wins in his second. How did he get worse?" Because the team that won 67 games wasn't as good as its record. As John Hollinger points out, if you really want to gauge how good a team is, win-loss record isn't as important a factor as margin of victory and recent performance. And the fact is that the Mavs victory margin wasn't that great (meaning they were coming up lucky in a lot of close games) and the teams play down the stretch wasn't as strong as it had been earlier in the season (they weren't heading into the playoffs with the necessary momentum). When you factor in all the things the Warriors had going for them, it was just a disaster waiting to happen from Dallas' perspective.

But none of those things indicate that Avery was losing his acumen as a coach. However, what happened in the playoffs did. The reason he'd been lauded as a great coach was not because of the 60 games he won as a first-year, full-season coach. It was because he accomplished something that no other coach in team history had been able to do: he beat the San Antonio Spurs in a playoff series. What's more, he did it by outcoaching the Spurs' veritable genius, Gregg Popovich. After Game 1, when it became apparent that his team wouldn't be able to beat the Spurs at their own game, he took advantage of the Mavericks' main advantage over the Spurs: speed. This pushed the Spurs back on their heels, and even though they came back to force it to seven games, the Mavericks were able to prevail.

However that proved to be the zenith of Avery's coaching tenure. It's well documented how the Mavericks gave up a two games to none lead against the Miami Heat in the Finals. But what was not mentioned very much was how Avery simply could not make the adjustments needed to stop, or at least slow down, Dwyane Wade. It could be overlooked at the time because of the horrendous officiating and Wade looking like he was turning into Michael Jordan-lite. But then next year, Avery again showed an ability to make adjustments to the match ups that Don Nelson threw at him. And then this year, it seemed that--to some extent at least--he had somehow lost the ability to properly guide the team. Both sides needed a new direction; and by Cuban letting go so quickly after the playoff loss, it gives Avery the best chance at finding a good fit for his next job.

So now the big question for the Mavericks is: what happens next? For the first time in over 10 years, I find myself thinking that the team needs to be blown up. But...what exactly does that mean? At its most extreme it means completely rebuilding the team. That could prove difficult though. Most of the key players on the team have the long term, relatively large contracts that would make them difficult to move. And that's just the financial aspect of it. During the past off-season, Josh Howard was being discussed as the centerpiece in a potential package deal to bring Kobe Bryant to the Mavericks. That seems laughable now. After having stunk up his playoffs (highlighted by a memorable 3 for 16 shooting performance in Game 4) and his frank discussion about his marijuana use.

(I'm sorry, I have to follow this lead for a moment. Now, I'm pretty liberal. I think that the fact that alcohol is legal in this country while marijuana isn't is one of the biggest hypocrisies that I can imagine. Marijuana needs to be legalized. Like...30 years ago. But WTF was Josh Howard thinking? He called up 103.3 ESPN radio in Dallas HIMSELF and--unprompted--disclosed that he smokes weed because it's his "personal choice and opinion." Josh, homie, smoking is indeed your personal choice. But, uh...it's probably not a good idea to voluntarily disclose that you use an illicit substance when your team is in the midst of getting smacked around in the playoffs for the third straight year. And what the heck is up with you throwing a party just a few hours after a drubbing by the Hornets? Especially since Avery specifically said no partying? SMH. Orale, homes.)

The status of Jason Kidd is also intriguing. During his run in Dallas, it became painfully obvious that he no longer had the physical talents that had made him arguably the best point guard of the past 15 years, especially on the defensive end. I can't imagine that there will be too many teams eager to trade for a player who averages 10 points, shoots 40% from the field and is owed nearly $20 million next season. However, it will be the last season of his contract so some teams may be willing to get him just to get that expiring contract.

That brings us to Dirk Werner Nowitzki. He has been the face of the franchise for much of the past decade. He's an MVP winner, a perennial member of All-Star and All-NBA teams, arguably the most uniquely talented 7-footer ever and possibly a future Hall of Fame inductee. I personally do not want to ever see him in another team's uniform. However, if the Mavericks choose to rebuild, I think that he should be treated honorably and moved to a team that has a chance to compete for a title sooner rather than later. Dirk's mentality and style of play could easily fit onto a team with an established star. He'd fit nicely on the Cavaliers, for example. His game complements LeBron James' perfectly. On top of that, because his game is not based on athleticism and because he is an almost freakishly fast healer, I suspect that he can still play at a relatively high level for maybe another four or five years.

Actually, that's what annoyed me the most about the Kidd trade (I know I said I would leave it alone but I have to vent). Team management acted like a move needed to be made right away when nothing of the sort was the case. Dirk, Howard and Harris could have been a solid core to build around for several years. But now that's all gone and retooling has to be done. I'm still curious about something though: when was the last time anyone heard from Donnie Nelson? I mentioned it in my post after the Kidd trade that it was odd that he hadn't said anything at all about it. Well, it seems that Donnie hasn't said much of anything for a long time. Where is he? I'm wondering if the feud between Mark Cuban and Don Nelson, Sr has gotten so heated that Cuban has locked away Donnie, Jr as sort of a ransom or something.

Of course, there is always the option of trying to sort out this mess. That wouldn't be unprecedented in Dallas. It kind of gets glossed over because the end results have been largely similar but the Mavericks have had to reinvent themselves a few times over the past several years. What was once a freewheeling offense-focused system coached by Don Nelson and triggered by Steve Nash has turned into a half-court game centered around the match-up problems caused by Dirk. Mavs fans have said hello and goodbye to quite a few players in that time. There's no reason to think that it can't still happen, especially in light of how the Lakers and Celtics were able to jump back to the top of the league. The question there is how. Even though there are will be quite a few quality free agents available this upcoming off-season, with the Mavericks being WELL over the cap, it will be nearly impossible to sign any of them. Another solution would be to figure out some sign and trade deals but that requires other teams agreeing to participate.

*sigh*

What exactly does the future hold for my Mavericks? I really have no idea. But by now I am used to the pain.

NBA 2007-08 Regular Season Wrap Up

It's the eve of the NBA playoffs and I cannot be more excited. This has quite possibly been the most exciting regular season in my lifetime. 2000-01 was exciting because I got to see my Mavericks make it to the playoffs for the first time in 11 years. Last year was also great because they tore it up with one of the best regular seasons ever. But as a basketball fan, and not just a Mavericks fan, it's hard to say that any regular season has been better than the one that just ended.

Obviously, I'm really only talking about the Western conference. The East really hasn't been compelling since Michael Jordan was a Chicago Bull. Since then (10 years), the NBA champ has only come from that conference twice, Detroit in 2004 and Miami in 2006. And both of those times, the story has been as much as the team from the West (LA Lakers and Dallas Mavericks, respectively) losing the title as it was the Eastern team winning. Basically, the East just isn't as interesting to watch as the West. I'm not particularly sure why that is, but it is nevertheless.

In the West, every playoff team had at least 50 wins and winning record of .600 or better. That's ridiculous! A grand total of seven games separates the 1-seed (the Lakers with 57 wins) from the 8-seed (the Denver Nuggets with 50 wins). To put that in perspective, that's the same number of games that separates the 1-seed in the East (Boston Celtics, 66 wins) from the 2-seed (Detroit with 59 wins). To further illustrate the discrepancies between the two conferences, the Golden State Warriors won 48 games. In the West, that was only good enough for ninth place and not making it into the playoffs. Had they been in the East, they would have been the fourth seed and had home court advantage in the first round. There's absolutely no question as to which conference race will be more exciting.

Anyone can come out of the West. Anyone. The Lakers are playing great basketball and seem to be firing on all cylinders at the right time. But would anyone really be shocked if a Nuggets team that features Allen Iverson, Carmelo Anthony, Kenyon Martin, J.R. Smith and Marcus Camby caught fire for six or seven games and upset Los Angeles? The New Orleans Hornets are the 2-seed and will go up against my seventh-seeded Mavericks. Coincidently, those two teams also happened to meet on the last day of the regular season. It was the Mavericks who came out with a relatively easy 13 point win (and that was with Dirk Nowitzki having a subpar game). The 4/5 match up pairs the Utah Jazz and the Houston Rockets, who met in the first round last year in a series that went seven games. And the 3/6 match up is the San Antonio Spurs vs the Phoenix Suns, who had a pretty heated series in the semifinals a year ago. Anything can happen in the West. Anything.

Again, the East isn't as compelling but there are still some interesting plots. Can the Celtics close out what they've made their mission to be all year? And what if they make it to the Eastern Conference Finals and face the Pistons? Wouldn't it be hugely ironic if a team led by Kevin Garnett has to face a team coached by Flip Saunders for the right to go to the Finals when the two failed to do so for so many years in Minnesota? And what about the Cleveland Cavaliers? A year ago LeBron James expanded his legend when he pretty much single handedly led to the Finals a team that had absolutely no business being there. Can he possibly match that again this year? Then there's the Orlando Magic. I, for one, am ecstatic that Stan Van Gundy led a team to the playoffs while his snake of a former boss, Pat Riley, presided over the team that ended up with the worst record in the league. I am also rather intrigued to see what the man-beast known as Dwight Howard will be unleashed. Then there's the Raptors, Sixers and Hawks who...ok, so there's pretty much nothing interesting about those three teams.

There's only one thing more interesting than the playoffs right now and that is the race for this year's MVP. However, before I get into the discussion about this year's MVP, I want to say a few things about the reigning one.

***
I am glad that the Dallas Mavericks have Dirk Nowitzki on their team. Other than maybe Kobe Bryant, there is not another top 10 player who routinely gets more criticized by fans. He gets criticized for being a seven footer who shoots from the outside; never minding that he's one of the most uniquely gifted players in the history of the NBA and that he's playing to his strengths. Would he get more props if he were a mediocre-average center?

He gets criticized for not being tough. But I saw very few of those critics praise him for returning to the court 11 days after suffering a high ankle sprain. That's an injury that usually keeps people out for weeks if not months. Daniel Gibson suffered the exact same injury and was out for six weeks.

He gets criticized for not being clutch. You know what? Dirk (along with his entire team) has stunk in his last two playoff series, a grand total of 12 games. Other than that, he has over 800 regular season and playoff games where he's proven himself clutch. But I don't see the critics ever bringing up those times. Let me point something out: for his career, Dirk is averaging 22.1 points and 8.5 rebounds per game. In the playoffs, his averages are 25.2 and 11.1. That means that when the game gets tougher, when the stakes are higher and when the competition is constantly better, Dirk has consistently elevated his game. 82games.com has created a statistic called "clutch stats" which measures which players perform the best in the fourth quarter or overtime with less than five minutes remaining and neither team ahead by more than five points. You know who's third on that list behind LeBron James and Kobe Bryant? That's right, the Big German named Dirk Werner Nowitzki.

I am tired of the unfair criticism he gets. You want to talk about the times he's fallen short over the last couple of years. Fine. But be fair about. Talk about how he led his team past the Spurs in an overtime Game 7 on the road in 2006. Talk about how he was the only player on his team that showed up against the Spurs in the 2002 Western Conference semifinals when he he dropped 42 points, 18 rebounds and six steals against All-NBA defender Tim Duncan in the closing Game 5. Talk about how he is one of only two players in the history of the NBA to have a season where he averaged 24 points and nine rebounds while shooting 50% from the floor, 40% from beyond the arc and 90% from the line (the other one to do so was some guy named Larry Bird). Criticize him when he's down if you want. But be fair and give him props when he comes through (which happens much more often).

***

Ok, now back to the current MVP race. This is easily the greatest MVP race of my adult life. It might be the greatest of my life period, but for now I will agree with Bill Simmons and say that the races in 1987 (between Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan) and 1993 (between Charles Barkley, Michael Jordan and Hakeem Olajuwon) are probably better. But this year's is still a great one. So who is the MVP?

First, let me restate the rationale I use in deciding the MVP, as I first stated last year:

1. It's a regular season award. What happens/happened in the playoffs shouldn't affect the voting. Additionally, all 82 regular season games are equal. If you come on strong at the end, that shouldn't automatically bump you ahead of someone who has played well all season long.
2. History should not help to determine who wins this year's award. The season should be looked at in a vacuum.
3. Making the argument that Player A is more valuable than Player B because Player A's team would lose more without him than Player B's team is stupid. ALL teams get worse without their best player. Player B shouldn't be docked because he has a smarter coach and/or GM.
4. What does the "valuable" part of "Most Valuable Player" really mean? The most important statistic in any and all sports is the number of wins you have. Thus, more than anything, how a player contributes to providing those wins should trump all else.

Dwight Howard is currently the best center in the league. If he ever learns to add post moves to his overpowering presence in the post, he can become historically good. Tracy McGrady took his team on his shoulders when the franchise center went down and led them to the second longest winning streak in league history. Manu Ginobili strengthened his argument as perhaps the greatest sixth-man in the history of the NBA and this season took over from Tim Duncan the mantle as the Spurs' best player. But none of them deserve this year's MVP.

LeBron James is the most talented player in the NBA, maybe ever. This year he showed that he's perhaps the best player in the league in terms of taking over a game. It's rare that you can say that one player is almost entirely responsible for an entire team's success but that is exactly what we have with James and the Cavaliers. Unfortunately, that success isn't quite enough; 45 wins in the weaker conference just isn't going to cut it. If he had managed to lead his team to a division title--not impossible if he hadn't had to sit out a stretch in the middle of the season--his claim would be much higher. (Let me add this though: remember after the 2006 Finals when people were saying that maybe Dwyane Wade was as good as LeBron? You don't hear anyone else saying that again, do you?)

Kevin Garnett is the biggest head-scratcher in this year's race. His team has the best record, they are the best defensive unit and they are the prohibitive favorites to make it to the Finals. However, two things hurt him: 1) his numbers pale in comparison to the other people in the running and 2) it can be argued that he's not even the most valuable player on his own team (Paul Pierce led the Celtics in minutes and scoring), much less the entire league. On top of those things, the Celtics still won at the same clip even during the 11 games KG had to miss. That's rather unfortunate because I do think that the Celtics' success this year can be attributed mostly to him. KG brought an attitude and intensity that fed his new team and fueled them to where they are now. But the fact that his team could still win without him seems to indicate that he is not quite as valuable on the court as a couple of other guys, and that costs him in this year's race.


Which brings us to the two most worthy MVP candidates in the NBA this year: Kobe Bryant and Chris Paul. The interesting thing about these two guys is that when you ask their fans to give reasons as to why their player deserves the MVP, they will inevitably start to give you reasons why the other guy doesn't deserve it. Lakers fans are the funniest. Ask them why their team should be favored to win it all and they'll mention things like having the best front court, having the deepest bench, etc. Ask them why Kobe deserves the MVP and they'll talk about how bad his supporting cast is compared to Chris Paul's. Um...you can't have it both ways.

The biggest argument I hear by Kobe backers against Paul is that Paul has an All-Star teammate in David West or that he has a quality double-double guy in Tyson Chandler. Both of these things are true. However, what is not ever mentioned is that it is very likely that these guys are playing so well because they're playing with Chris Paul. West just had his best year ever in the NBA. Didn't play as well before having CP3 as a teammate. This is Chandler's seventh season. He never averaged a double-double before he had Chris Paul running the show. Paul does that one thing that all great point guards do: he makes his team better. And he's playing the point guard position better than it's been played in years. He led the league in assists and steals (something that hasn't been done since John Stockton did it in the 1991-92 season, and Stockton never averaged as many as 20 points per game). He averaged over 20 points and 10 assists per game (last accomplished by Tim Hardaway in 1992-93, and Hardaway never led the league in assists). He led a team that no one expected much out of to winning the toughest division in the NBA and, as late as the last week of the season, still had a chance to win the conference's best record. I think it's also worth mentioning that he shot better than Bryant in all three shooting categories.

Kobe Bryant, on the other hand, finally became the leader that his team needed. Despite the fact that he tried everything he could to get traded prior to the season, once the games started his wiring wouldn't allow him to not go out and give his all. And then he noticed that his team wasn't half bad. Midway through the season the Memphis Grizzlies gift-wrapped Pau Gasol to the Lakers. Some people are saying that Kobe doesn't deserve MVP because of that, which I say is hogwash. The Lakers have been in the top 4 of the West all season, even before Gasol got there. Also, in a season where superstars like KG, LeBron and Dirk have all missed games with injuies, Kobe has played most of the season with broken bones in his finger. Kobe isn't necessarily having his best season. He isn't even really having his most valuable season (that would be 2005-06 when he averaged 35 point per game and led the Lakers to 45 wins even though they had no business having a winning record). But he is having an MVP campaign this year.

The question is whether or not his campaign is better than Paul's. I honestly don't know. At the end of the season, I think it's pretty much a coin flip. Although if I were flipping that coin I'd kind of be hoping that it landed Paul side up.

I'm Tombout

I’m tombout always being there no matter how far I roam
I’m tombout a place that I call my home
I’m tombout dudes getting whiplash cause of girls with that junk
I’m tombout bass in the trunk and music that funks
I’m tombout CDs going platinum at gas station pumps
I’m tombout riding around in cars that lay low
I’m tombout billboards for movies that opened ten months ago
I’m tombout Big D and H-town, S.A. and Au-Tex
But I’m thinking Eff Dub cause that’s where I rep
I’m tombout Rosedale and Allen and Hemphill and Berry
I’m tombout the changes you see from West to East Seminary
I’m tombout Sundance Square
I’m tombout American Air
I’m tombout Radio Shack and the Tandy Center and all of that there
I’m tombout churches in English and more again in Spanish
I’m tombout trees uprooted from tornado damage
I’m tombout Panthers and Raiders, Wildcats, Chaparrals
I’m tombout kids on schoolbuses watching dudes puffing L’s
I’m tombout the Stockyards and
I’m tombout Ridgmar
I’m tombout heading east to see the Mavs, 'Boys and Stars
I’m tombout Kirk Franklin
I’m tombout the Bass family banking
I’m tombout the Water Gardens
I’m tombout...Kelly Clarkson?
I’m tombout trips to the Zoo
I’m tombout Pimpsta’s "Dickies and Houseshoes"
I’m tombout the Toadies and Rubberneck
I’m tombout TCU kids cashing daddy’s checks
I’m tombout the good and the ills
I’m tombout the differences between Forest and Westover Hills
I’m tombout Sid Rich and Amon Carter
I’m tombout Casa Manana and Will Rogers
I’m tombout hoopties and brand new cars
I’m tombout Epatomed, RIP Saahir Allah
I’m tombout Funkytown
I’m tombout Panther City
I’m tombout Cowtown
I’m tombout where the West starts really
I’m tombout always coming back no matter how far I roam
I’m tombout the city that I call my home.

(Fort Worth! The Fort Fort Worth!)

What happened in Vegas

I just got back from Vegas yesterday. It was the third time in six months that I've gone, all for work. Before getting my current job I had never previously been there. I understand the appeal of Sin City but it's just not for me. Other than playing Texas Hold 'Em with friends, I'm not into gambling. The whole "what happens here stays here" mystique has never been particularly compelling for me. And while it'd be cool to check out some of the shows they always have going on, I really have to wonder if it's actually worth the time and expense it takes to go out there.

I went to Vegas for CTIA. These conventions/trade shows are interesting to me. Not just because I'm a gadget freak and they are always full of new toys (in all honesty, between meetings and all the running around I have to do to actually get to meetings, I don't have much time at all to really see them) but because of the people. They are fascinating to observe during these kinds of things. My favorite part is watching what I like to call "badgerism." Different badges are given out to people depending on why you're there. That allows security to know who can go where and when they can go there. But the interesting part is the way people react to them. They essentially turn the entire convention into Animal Farm, with your badge signifying your class. Any time someone pases by you, the first thing they do is look to see what kind of badge you have and quite often, that determines how they treat you.

For some reason, being a market analyst falls under the category of "press" so I get a press badge. Those pretty much allow me to go anywhere at anytime. But the interesting thing is watching people as they look at my badge and then look at me. I can see it in their faces as they try to work out who I am and how I can help them. It's quite fascinating, really.

Another thing about these conventions: they tend to be very male-dominated, so it's always fun to observe the women. Specifically, the hot ones. There are two kinds of hot women at these things. The first are the professional ones. They know what they're doing at these shows. They'll wear blouses that have just a little bit more cleavage than would be appropriate at the office. Or they'll wear the pantsuits where the jacket is just short enough to show off the pants that are just tight enough to accentuate the curves that are in the right places. Women. I love 'em.

Other than the professionals, the other kind of hot women are the professionally hired ones. These are the ladies that vendors hire to "work" at their booths. Apparently, research has shown that tech geeks are more likely to visit a booth if it's being manned by young, beautiful women in tight and/or revealing clothes. Who knew? Ok, I have to admit: the tactic does kind of work. They couldn't get me to visit any booth that I didn't already intend to visit but I did find myself taking certain, longer routes on occasion because I knew that the scenery would be more appealing.

It's funny how these shows turn me back into who I was in college. Between sessions or meetings, I'd have on a backpack (containing my laptop and/or various folders for the meetings) and my ears would be plugged up with my headphones. The difference between college and now is that 1) I'm not quite as snobbish a backpacker as I was then and 2) I'm a lot less self-conscious. Especially since I was around a bunch of strangers whom I would most likely never see again. So sometimes, when I was walking through the convention center, my iPod would find itself playing an uptempo funky joint. At these times, my body couldn't help but react. I mean seriously, there's no way I could listen to "Always Fine Tuning" without a reaction. So I know there were some people thinking, "Who's that Black press guy over there dancing?"

Erosion

Born b-boy before breaking was invented
Although I don't contort my limbs, I represent it
Tagging my name to gain fame, unprecedented
Self-expression through spray paint, I represent it
Originally intended to fluently speak
The language of two 1210 Technics, I represent it
Dizzy with dialect, my rep is always presented
In the poetic fashion of emcees, I represent it
With these elements combined
I paint cerebral images on the canvas within your frame of mind
Depicting hip hop with beats compelled to manhandle the mic
But ultimately...I represent the Christ-like

-bTwice

Magusi Soup: it's not for kids

So I usually visit magusisoup at work. Today [the school district where I teach] has deemed your blog unacceptable by district standards and has put a nice block on it. It states the block is up for "adult lifestyle and language."

- TaKiyah Zai

Baylor's going dancing!!! Baylor's going dancing!!! Baylor's going dancing!!!

Yes, indeed. My Baylor Bears are going to the Big Dance. A couple of weeks ago it looked like a foregone conclusion that they'd make it in the NCAA Tournament but they sure did make it nerve-wracking. They lost eight of the last 13, including becoming the first team ever to have a first round loss to a 12-seed in the Big XII tournament.

But even with that, they made it in. We're an 11th-seed with our first game up against Purdue. I think that's a winnable game. Why can't we be this year's George Mason? It'd be bittersweet for me if they made it to the Final Four though. Sure, I'd be excited and proud. But the Final Four is in San Antonio...just an hour south of me...and I'll be out of the country on business that weekend. Like I said: bittersweet.

One interesting side note: my alma mater, as well as both my sister's and brother's all made it into the Dance this year. My sister's University of Texas-Arlington Mavericks get the good fortune of being the first victims of the Memphis Tigers. Meanwhile, my brother's University of Texas Longhorns are the 2-seed in the South.

***

The Kansas-Texas Big XII final was a great game. Kansas ended up winning but I think that was actually better for Texas. If they had won, there's a good chance that they would have been a 1-seed. But they would have been the fourth 1-seed and likely been playing pretty far from home. By losing, they became the best 2-seed out there, which puts them in the South region, which will be in Houston. That's as good as it gets to playing near home. And if they can make it to San Antonio...thing look pretty good for the Longhorns. They also look good for Bill Simmons' Ewing Theory.

***

The Houston Rockets have won 22 games in a row. That's incredible. They've won more consecutive games than the Miami Heat will win in total this season. During this stretch they've gone from 10th in the Western Conference to first. Watching them against the Lakers today showed what makes them such a good team. Tracy McGrady had a bad game, but a role player stepped up for them. Today it was Rafer Alston who hit eight three-pointers. Also, Shane Battier played incredible defense on Kobe Bryant, which reinforced why he's one of only two Duke alums (Elton Brand being the other) for whom I root.

Actually, that's an interesting thing about this season. I'm actually rooting for two division rivals of my Mavericks: the Rockets and the Hornets. I'm rooting for the Rockets because I'd really like to see T-Mac win a first round series, Battier plays the game the right way, coach Rick Adelman is one of the most underrated coaches in the league and deserves more, and it never gets old watch Dikembe Mutombo wave his finger.

I'm rooting for the Hornets because of Chris Paul. Other than LeBron James, I think he's the player for whom I would pay the most to see live. This is premature but if he plays the way he's played this season for the rest of his career he enters the discussion of best point guard of all time. Besides, if people can talk about Kobe being the next Jordan, I can talk about CP3 being the next Isiah Thomas. Just keep it on the court, Chris. Please don't become a coach/GM and ruin proud franchises or get accused of sexual harassment.

NBA Observations

I haven't written anything about the NBA since the season started. I was planning on waiting until the end of the regular season but too much has gone on for me to ignore so I have to drop some thoughts here.

- First up, of course, is the Jason Kidd trade.

From the moment Bobby Perez sent me a link at work describing the original trade, I was against it. In fact, I was so against it that I created a Facebook group urging the Mavericks to keep Devin Harris. For a brief time, I thought that Devean George and Jerry Stackhouse had saved management from itself but alas, my hopes were still shattered (although the trade that DID go down was better for the Mavs than the original proposal, albeit more expensive for Mark Cuban). There were several reasons that I was not in favor of the trade: we were giving up our depth and our future, Harris is a better deal than Kidd when you factor in their contracts, by losing Diop we'd be depending on Eric Dampier to man the middle by himself (gulp!), Kidd's style of play did not mesh with Avery Johnson's offense, etc. But here's the key reason that I was against it: bringing in Jason Kidd did not make the Mavericks the prohibitive favorites in the Western Conference and that is the ONLY reason this trade would have made sense.

The Mavs were not going to win the title this year. That wasn't going to change by bringing in Kidd. I thought that the team would be better (although considering that the team has gone 5-6 since Kidd's arrival, looks like I was wrong about that) but this was not the move to make and, more importantly, this was not the time to make it. Look, Jason Kidd is a great player. He'll be in the Hall of Fame one day. But I guarantee you that when Tony Parker, Chris Paul and Deron Williams all heard that Devin Harris was being sent to the other conference they were all doing Cousin Balki's Dance of Joy. Harris may not be as good a point guard as Kidd but right now he's a far better defender. In fact, I'd be willing to say that he's probably the best defensive point guard in the league. That point was just further driven home with Kidd's first games as a Maverick against Paul (who went for 31 points, 11 assists and nine steals), Williams (17 points and 20 assists) and the fact that he was famously left out of the final half minute against the Spurs.

One other thing that I don't understand is the sentiment that Jason Kidd would help the Mavericks by being a leader. That he would help heal the fractured locker room. My response was a definite, "Huh?" When has Kidd EVER been a good locker room guy? The guy has whined and complained at every NBA stop he's ever made, including HIS VERY FIRST TEAM: THE DALLAS MAVERICKS!!!!! I have absolutely no idea where the notion that Kidd could be of help in the locker room originated but it is completely misguided. And I briefly mentioned this before but since I'm here I'll continue...

Kidd is wrong for Dallas because his style of play doesn't mesh with Avery's offense. Hmmmm, if only we had an example of Jason Kidd playing in an offense that he didn't like. Oh wait, we do. How about when Kidd first entered the NBA and his style didn't suit the offense of then-coach Jim Cleamons, who was trying to institute the triangle in Dallas. You mean to tell me that no one in the Mavericks' organization thought of this? Actually, I'm sure at least one did. And here's the most telling sub-story about the entire trade situation: Donnie Nelson never talked about it. Nelson has one of the shrewdest minds in the NBA and over the years he's made many outstanding moves for the team. He got Dirk Nowitzki for Robert Traylor, he brought in Steve Nash, he got rid of the contract of both Raef LaFrentz AND Antoine Walker. Yet whenever someone from the organization discussed this trade, it was always either Mark Cuban or Avery Johnson. That leads me to believe that Nelson was not in favor of it. Very telling indeed.

Finally, I don't understand why the Mavericks had to give up so much. It was well-documented that Kidd wanted out of New Jersey and that Dallas was his primary preference. Shouldn't that have made it a buyer's market? Shouldn't the Mavs have been able to dictate the terms of the trade? Were any other teams even remotely in the running for Kidd? Ok, LeBron wanted him in Cleveland. What did the Cavs have to offer that the Mavs couldn't top? And if worse comes to worst, couldn't they have simply waited until the off-season to make a better trade AND to allow Jason Kidd and Avery Johnson a full training camp to become acclimated with one another? Why can I think of these things when management cannot?

Now, not only have the Mavericks lost two solid young players in Harris and DeSagana Diop, but we've lost our draft picks for this year (when there's still a very real chance that we can miss the playoffs and end up in the lottery) and 2010. Great.



- Over the past few days, I've become aware of something. In a league that has produced high fliers like Dr. J and Michael Jordan, agile behemoths like Wilt Chamberlain and Shaquille O'Neal, 6'9 point guards and seven footers who can drain three-pointers, LeBron James is the most talented player in the history of the league. Think about this for a second: LeBron is 6'8 3/4 and weighs 260 pounds. That's the same size as Karl Malone. He can pass like Magic Johnson, has the athleticism of Michael Jordan and is possibly the fastest player in the league. The NBA has NEVER experienced a player with his combination of physical talents.

That's not to say that he's the best player in the league. Personally, I still bestow that title to Kobe Bryant. But the fact that LeBron can even be considered as one of the best when he isn't even close to reaching the height of his potential is just downright scary. He's already impossible to guard one on one. What if he adds a mid range jumper? And a low-post game? And continues to improve his defense? And let's keep in mind that he is only 23 years old (supposedly). How enormous are the possibilities? Fairly or unfairly, he won't be considered among the greats unless he wins multiple championships. Jordan is often mentioned as the GOAT in large part because of the six pieces of bling he has. But as phenomenal a player, and as driven a competitor he was, we have to keep in mind that Jordan was also given the best possible coach (for him) and the best possible sidekick (again, for him). We know for sure that LeBron doesn't have the right sidekick and I would argue that he probably doesn't have the right coach either. Can you imagine if he gets them? LeBron still doesn't have the killer instinct of a Jordan or Kobe, or even a Magic, Isiah or Hakeem. But he's getting there. I'm still impressed by the way he shut down Kobe in crunch time on national television. And let me just add that he averaging 42 points per in the last three games.



- There are two exciting races going on in the NBA right now: the race to see which 50-win team from the West will get left out of the playoff while two sub 40-win teams from the East get in; and who is going to win MVP. Quite frankly, the former pisses me off and I'd rather not talk about it. Suffice it to say that I think David Stern should find a way to fix that particular problem before worrying about expansion into Europe.

The second, however, is quite interesting. Last year, I was quite happy that a player from my hometown team won the MVP. But even I have to admit that Dirk was the weakest MVP in a long time (even if there wasn't really anyone more deserving). This year we have the exact opposite situation. There are four players who could legitimately lay claim to being this year's Most Valuable Player: Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James and Chris Paul. Of that list, the first person I'd have to knock off is KG. As much as he means to the Celtics, and despite the infectious passion that he's infused onto that team, two things cannot be denied. One, the fact that his numbers are not as good as his competition and two, the fact that the C's were still a pretty good team even when he was out. LeBron would also have to be docked points for playing in the East. I'm obviously a fan of the guy but I cannot deny that Mamba and CP3 constantly have to play against tougher competition. Personally, if I were voting at right this moment, my vote would go to Kobe because the Lakers are on top of the conference. But with the playoff race in the West being so tight, a lot can change between now and the end of the season.

Femi, the Daydreamer

(All props and respect to Pigeon John and bTwice...10 years since The Rise and Fall of...)

Now here we go, he sees me coming late into the office
And I know Mr. Weightman takes no excuses
So I open up Excel so I can start my call list
And he asks if we can talk inside his corner office
I said, "Sure" but wasn't feeling sure at all
I was feeling Magusi Soup, thinking about new blogs
He sat me down, sat in front and asked me what was up
I said, "Gift of Gab was in town, I stayed up late and stuff."
He said, "Femi, why do you do this? This is your full time."
I said, "Please forgive me, but I NEED to hear rhymes
But I will try my best, give me another merit
And I promise I'll mention you inside my first book credit."

16...uh, 17 Reasons Why 1994 was Awesome

1-15) Listed below.

Debuts:

The Notorious B.I.G., Ready to Die
"Juicy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noTvdpAYeHE

Nas, Illmatic
"The World is Yours" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYZ_RD--Lpg

OutKast, Southernplayalisticadillacmuzik
"Southernplayalisticadillacmuzik" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T0SorIk3n0

Fugees, Blunted on Reality
"Nappy Heads (remix)" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD_Enr3Ea1w

Kurious, A Constipated Monkey
"Walk Like a Duck" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tmzwEp8cQ4

Jeru the Damaja, The Sun Rises in the East
"Come Clean" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B5dOCSBBEI

*Wu-Tang Clan, Enter the 36 Chambers
"Protect Ya Neck" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GDPZpRmTg0



We also got:

Common, Resurrection
"I Used to Love H.E.R." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y12YgEIFcAY

The Roots, Do You Want More?!!!??!
"Proceed" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPepJ43SqJY

Scarface, The Diary
"I Seen a Man Die" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQeN-OXZrLo

Gang Starr, Hard to Earn
"DWYCK" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRNT_t0-miQ

Organized Konfusion, Stress: The Extinction Agenda
"Stress" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbFVp6ifTOw

Pete Rock and CL Smooth, The Main Ingredient
"I'll Take You There" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5-g5vZHqKY

*A Tribe Called Quest, Midnight Marauders
"Award Tour" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iTfrmhDdFA

**Da Youngstas, No Mercy
"Hip Hop Ride" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCB578HoF54



(*Technically, this album dropped in late 1993 but got most of its play in 1994.)

(**Not only did teenagers have mic skills, they actually understood and respected the culture.)


16) I got my driver's license.

EDIT:

17):

Ahmad, Ahmad
"Back in the Day" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4irQa0Ig7tU