- On the craziness of the media apologist for the crazies in Iran (he links the same Michelle Malkin piece I link below)
- On the relative silence regarding the Chemical Ali trial
- On an interesting quote from Sen. Barack Obama comparing himself to a teenager.
- On the extreme hotness of Tammy Bruce's latest photos up on her website (I know she's not 'in' to my kind, but I can still admire her combination of beauty, brains and firepower)
- On The Intellectual Heavyweight Champion of the World's recent piece comparing the far right crazies of yesteryear to the crazies on the other end today
- On the absurdity of Pinch Sulzberger accusing anybody else of using their media empire to invidiously push a political agenda
- On the related fiscal collapse of the NYT since Pinch has been running things into the ground
24 June 2007
Ed Driscoll On a Roll . . .
Ed Driscoll's been busy today, and nearly every post is something I was thinking of commenting on, but he's already done it, and better than I could have, so I'll just link:
Photos That the Ahmadinejad Administration (and Their Mad Mullah Enablers) Show With Pride . . .
The state run news agency in Iran posted a bunch of photos showing how they treat folks they deem not Islamic enough.
Michelle Malkin puts together the photos along with many links, YouTube footage and commentary. She can be strident and shrill, but in this case her target deserves all the anger she can generate.
I would love to see Hollywood make a picture about a dystopian big brother government running rough shod over the lives of their citizenry and not set it in the United States or Great Britain.
Here we have a real life 1984 society that has exhibited many of the Freedom is Slavery and War is Peace virtues that so many like to accuse our society of having.
That picture won't ever get made, instead we get the Flood tale turned into a eco-friendly bumper-sticker message movie. Or you get the beheading of a journalist turned into a moral-relativist tale about how we just need to understand each other better.
I can enjoy pictures where the politics don't match my own. The current run of Dr. Who throws in digs against the U.S from time to time and I'll let it slide cause it's entertaining. Listening to the director's commentary of Pan's Labryinth and while watching it completely passed me by that it was all really about Boooosh and the evils he unleashed since 9/11. I still love that show, and the director's personal political idiocy won't prevent me from thinking or saying that Pan's Labryinth was the best film of 2006 by far. Where I take exception with the politically correct nonsense and groupthink endemic in Hollywood is when it leads them to make bad narrative and artistic decisions in the service of making a stupid political point, or worse yet, where they forget that they are primarily artist and just pound home their stupid politics without offering any entertaiment in exchange.
We've got everything Orwell ever warned about in Iran, and they're pursuing nuclear weapons on top of that, but it will be a snowy day at Hollywood and Vine (and not just a few flakes which happens once or twice a century, but I'm talking a foot of snow in a day) before they make a dystopian picture set in any of the modern day countries that see 1984 as a blueprint for governance.
Michelle Malkin puts together the photos along with many links, YouTube footage and commentary. She can be strident and shrill, but in this case her target deserves all the anger she can generate.
I would love to see Hollywood make a picture about a dystopian big brother government running rough shod over the lives of their citizenry and not set it in the United States or Great Britain.
Here we have a real life 1984 society that has exhibited many of the Freedom is Slavery and War is Peace virtues that so many like to accuse our society of having.
That picture won't ever get made, instead we get the Flood tale turned into a eco-friendly bumper-sticker message movie. Or you get the beheading of a journalist turned into a moral-relativist tale about how we just need to understand each other better.
I can enjoy pictures where the politics don't match my own. The current run of Dr. Who throws in digs against the U.S from time to time and I'll let it slide cause it's entertaining. Listening to the director's commentary of Pan's Labryinth and while watching it completely passed me by that it was all really about Boooosh and the evils he unleashed since 9/11. I still love that show, and the director's personal political idiocy won't prevent me from thinking or saying that Pan's Labryinth was the best film of 2006 by far. Where I take exception with the politically correct nonsense and groupthink endemic in Hollywood is when it leads them to make bad narrative and artistic decisions in the service of making a stupid political point, or worse yet, where they forget that they are primarily artist and just pound home their stupid politics without offering any entertaiment in exchange.
We've got everything Orwell ever warned about in Iran, and they're pursuing nuclear weapons on top of that, but it will be a snowy day at Hollywood and Vine (and not just a few flakes which happens once or twice a century, but I'm talking a foot of snow in a day) before they make a dystopian picture set in any of the modern day countries that see 1984 as a blueprint for governance.
The Nominations for Best Use of a Geoffrey Rush Still Are As Follows . . .
The first nominee, is this Kat Dennings video from a month ago, don't know how I forgot to embed this here, must be slipping.
Who am I kidding? There will never be a better use of a Geoffrey Rush still in all of human existence.
So will skip the pretense of any other nominees and just give the award now and forever to Kat Dennings, you've earned it.
(and people who pretend to be other people on the internet do seriously suck)
If You Can't Beat Them, Join Them . . .
You can't beat the Boomer Generation at the nostalgia game, so I won't even try. Let's return again to 25 years ago and check out one of my favorite local bands that went big from back in the day.
The Bangles rocked. Energy, harmonies, performance, they had it all. In this clip you get lead vocals from Susannah Hoffs, Vicky Peterson, and Debbie Peterson. As they got more polished, they kind of lost some of this early magic. Wish I had seen them more often when they were at this stage, only caught them once during their earliest days (I have an excuse, I was 13 at the time).
That was then, this is now, but turns out, they can still put on a pretty good performances. Above is a clip shot in Alhambra just last year. They look good, sound great, still trade off on the vocals, and do a strange Walk Like an Egyptian/Mrs. Robinson medley (don't ask), it works, though.
(and Susannah, if you ever tire of that director hubby of yours, call me . . .)
(hell, if either Peterson sister reads this, you can call me, too, I'm not picky, I had a crush on all of you back in the day . . .)
The Bangles rocked. Energy, harmonies, performance, they had it all. In this clip you get lead vocals from Susannah Hoffs, Vicky Peterson, and Debbie Peterson. As they got more polished, they kind of lost some of this early magic. Wish I had seen them more often when they were at this stage, only caught them once during their earliest days (I have an excuse, I was 13 at the time).
That was then, this is now, but turns out, they can still put on a pretty good performances. Above is a clip shot in Alhambra just last year. They look good, sound great, still trade off on the vocals, and do a strange Walk Like an Egyptian/Mrs. Robinson medley (don't ask), it works, though.
(and Susannah, if you ever tire of that director hubby of yours, call me . . .)
(hell, if either Peterson sister reads this, you can call me, too, I'm not picky, I had a crush on all of you back in the day . . .)
23 June 2007
Saturday Whatever Lyrics: Steely Dan --- Deacon Blues
Fridays were for funk lyrics, and I think I've already mined most of the good lyrical content available, you can only wax poetic about P-Funk so many times. But Saturday's a different day, so until I bore of this project, Saturday will be Saturday Whatever Lyrics.
The main thing will be the YouTube link. I'll only do songs that have something interesting on YouTube available.
Fagen and Becker discuss the song's structure at length in the segment, it's interesting watching the sausage get made. The video of this is a bit jarring at first, as it uses establishing shots of NYC, and the usual establishing shot of peering through the Brooklyn Bridge peering back at Manhattan is used (which means the main thing you see in the shot is the WTC). This song should be everything I hate. It's deeply cynical, over produced, and very, very late '70s
But just cause I hate everything this song represents doesn't mean I hate the song. The craft is too good, the song is light and lush (still very chordally and rythmically complex), yet the lyrics are deeply bitter, not bittersweet, the only sweetness in the song is musically, lyrically there's only bitter.
Here's another clip of just the song, played underneath a slide show of Renoir paintings. I don't get the connection, either, but it looks good, so I include it. Really, the styles couldn't be more different, Renoir's visual style doesn't seem a good fit for a deeply bitter cynical song, but the discordance between sight and sound becomes something either separately wouldn't be, so I heartily approve. Here's a video that uses images keyed to the lyrical content, it's way too literal for my taste.
But, back to those deeply cynical lyrics:
The main thing will be the YouTube link. I'll only do songs that have something interesting on YouTube available.
Fagen and Becker discuss the song's structure at length in the segment, it's interesting watching the sausage get made. The video of this is a bit jarring at first, as it uses establishing shots of NYC, and the usual establishing shot of peering through the Brooklyn Bridge peering back at Manhattan is used (which means the main thing you see in the shot is the WTC). This song should be everything I hate. It's deeply cynical, over produced, and very, very late '70s
But just cause I hate everything this song represents doesn't mean I hate the song. The craft is too good, the song is light and lush (still very chordally and rythmically complex), yet the lyrics are deeply bitter, not bittersweet, the only sweetness in the song is musically, lyrically there's only bitter.
Here's another clip of just the song, played underneath a slide show of Renoir paintings. I don't get the connection, either, but it looks good, so I include it. Really, the styles couldn't be more different, Renoir's visual style doesn't seem a good fit for a deeply bitter cynical song, but the discordance between sight and sound becomes something either separately wouldn't be, so I heartily approve. Here's a video that uses images keyed to the lyrical content, it's way too literal for my taste.
But, back to those deeply cynical lyrics:
This is the day
Of the expanding man
That shape is my shade
There where I used to stand
It seems like only yesterday
I gazed through the glass
At ramblers
Wild gamblers
That's all in the past
You call me a fool
You say it's a crazy scheme
This one's for real
I already bought the dream
So useless to ask me why
Throw a kiss and say goodbye
I'll make it this time
I'm ready to cross that fine line
CHORUS:
I'll learn to work the saxophone
I'll play just what I feel
Drink Scotch whisky all night long
And die behind the wheel
They got a name for the winners in the world
I want a name when I lose
They call Alabama the Crimson Tide
Call me Deacon Blues
My back to the wall
A victim of laughing chance
This is for me
The essence of true romance
Sharing the things we know and love
With those of my kind
Libations
Sensations
That stagger the mind
I crawl like a viper
Through these suburban streets
Make love to these women
Languid and bittersweet
I'll rise when the sun goes down
Cover every game in town
A world of my own
I'll make it my home sweet home
CHORUS
This is the night
Of the expanding the man
I take one last drag
As I approach the stand
I cried when I wrote this song
Sue me if I play too long
This brother is free
I'll be what I want to be
CHORUS
22 June 2007
Film Geek Showdown
Inspired somewhat by Prof. Althouse posting on the subject, decided to cross reference Academy Awards with the latest AFI list. The results are interesting (in my opinion).
That was more work than it was worth. Gandhi shows up a lot, 1982 was a good year for pictures and a bad year for the Academy. The Academy made a run of really lousy decisions from 1979 through 1985. Seems the Academy loves the biopic a lot more than the AFI. And Forrest Gump, winning an Oscar and making this list ?!?
Also, back in the late 30s through 1943 a lot more films were nominated, so that skews some of those years. If there's any mistakes you catch, let me know, I was getting a bit cross-eyed bouncing back and forth between the AFI list, a list of Academy winners, and typing up this list, so I wouldn't be surprised if error crept in along the way.
In conclusion, both the AFI and the Academy aren't all that good at picking really good films. I agree with some, disagree with others, and awhile ago posted my own idiosyncratic list of films I like (not exactly a best list, just films that mean something). I didn't limit my list to American films, but I'd still re-watch the 54 films on my list before trying to tackle all the Academy Award Best Pictures or the 100 films on the AFI list.
1. Citizen Kane, nominated, How Green Was My Valley (off list)
2. The Godfather, won
3. Casablanca, won
4. Raging Bull, nominated, ORDINARY PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (way, way off the list)
5. Singin' in the Rain, not even nominated for Best Picture, From Here to Eternity (off list)
6. Gone With the Wind, won
7. Lawrence of Arabia, won
8. Schindler's List, won
9. Vertigo, not nominated, Gigi (off list)
10. The Wizard of Oz, nominated, Gone With the Wind (#6)
11. City Lights, not nominated, Grand Hotel (off list)
12. The Searchers, not nominated, Around the World in Eighty Days (off list)
13. Star Wars, nominated, Annie Hall (#35)
14. Psycho, not nominated, The Apartment (#80)
15. 2001: A Space Odyssey, not nominated, Oliver! (off list)
16. Sunset Blvd., nominated, All About Eve (#28)
17. The Graduate, nominated, In the Heat of the Night (#75)
18. The General, not nominated, Sunrise (#82*see entry for special note)
19. On the Waterfront, won
20. It's a Wonderful Life, nominated, The Best Years of Our Lives (#37)
21. Chinatown, nominated, The Godfather Part II (#32)
22. Some Like It Hot, not nominated, Ben Hur (#100)
23. The Grapes of Wrath, nominated, Rebecca (off list)
24. E.T., nominated, Gandhi (off list)
25. To Kill a Mockingbird, nominated, Lawrence of Arabia (#7)
26. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, nominated, Gone With the Wind (#6)
27. High Noon, nominated, The Greatest Show on Earth (off list, but managed to come in last on this list)
28. All About Eve, won
29. Double Indemnity, nominated, Going My Way (off list)
30. Apocalypse Now, nominated, Kramer vs. Kramer (off list)
31. The Maltese Falcon, nominated, How Green Was My Valley (off list)
32. The Godfather Part II, won
33. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, won
34. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, not nominated, The Life of Emile Zola (off list)
35. Annie Hall, won
36. The Bridge on the River Kwai, won
37. The Best Years of Our Lives, won
38. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, nominated, Hamlet (off list)
39. Dr. Strangelove, nominated, My Fair Lady (off list)
40. The Sound of Music, won
41. King Kong, not nominated, Calvacade (off list)
42. Bonnie and Clyde, nominated, In the Heat of the Night (#75)
43. Midnight Cowboy, won
44. The Philadelphia Story, nominated, Rebecca (off list)
45. Shane, nominated, From Here to Eternity (off list)
46. It Happened One Night, won
47. A Streetcar Named Desire, nominated, An American in Paris (off list)
48. Rear Window, not nominated, On the Waterfront (off list)
49. Intolerance --- pre-Oscars
50. LOTR: Fellowship, nominated, A Beautiful Mind (off list)
51. West Side Story, won
52. Taxi Driver, nominated, Rocky (#57)
53. The Deer Hunter, won
54. M*A*S*H, nominated, Patton (off list)
55. North by Northwest, not nominated, Ben-Hur (#100)
56. Jaws, nominated, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (#33)
57. Rocky, won
58. The Gold Rush --- pre-Oscars
59. Nashville, nominated, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (#33)
60. Duck Soup, not nominated, Cavalcade (off list)
61. Sullivan's Travels, not nominated, How Green Was My Valley (off list)
62. American Graffiti, nominated, The Sting (off list)
63. Cabaret, nominated, The Godfather (#2)
64. Network, nominated, Rocky (#57)
65. The African Queen, not nominated, An American in Paris (off list)
66. Raiders of the Lost Ark, nominated, Chariots of Fire (off list)
67. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, nominated, A Man for All Seasons (off list)
68. Unforgiven, won
69. Tootsie, nominated Gandhi (off list)
70. A Clockwork Orange, nominated, The French Connection (#93)
71. Saving Private Ryan, nominated, Shakespeare in Love (off list)
72. The Shawshank Redemption, nominated, Forrest Gump (#76, inexplicably)
73. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, nominated, Midnight Cowboy (off list)
74. The Silence of the Lambs, won
75. In the Heat of the Night, won
76. Forrest Gump, won (really, really, inexplicably)
77. All the President's Men, nominated, Rocky (#57)
78. Modern Times, not nominated, The Great Ziegfeld (off list)
79. The Wild Bunch, not nominated, Midnight Cowboy (off list)
80. The Apartment, won
81. Spartacus, not nominated, The Apartment (#80)
82. Sunrise, won (received "Best Picture" while Wings received "Best Production")
83. Titanic, won
84. Easy Rider, not nominated, Midnight Cowboy (off list)
85. A Night at the Opera, not nominated, Mutiny on the Bounty (off list)
86. Platoon, won
87. 12 Angry Men, nominated, The Bridge on the River Kwai (#36)
88. Bringing Up Baby, not nominated, You Can't Take It with You (off list)
89. The Sixth Sense, nominated, American Beauty (off list)
90 Swing Time, not nominated, The Great Ziegfeld (off list)
91. Sophie's Choice, not nominated, Gandhi (off list)
92. Goodfellas, nominated, Dances with Wolves (off list, and some kind of sick joke, right?)
93. The French Connection, won
94. Pulp Fiction, nominated, Forrest Gump (#76, no really, how did this picture win an Oscar or make this AFI list, what dope are those folks smoking?)
95. The Last Picture Show, nominated, The French Connection (#93)
96. Do the Right Thing, not nominated, Driving Miss Daisy (off list)
97. Blade Runner, not nominated, Gandhi (off list)
98. Yankee Doodle Dandy, nominated, Mrs. Miniver (off list)
99. Toy Story, not nominated, Braveheart (off list)
100. Ben-Hur, won
That was more work than it was worth. Gandhi shows up a lot, 1982 was a good year for pictures and a bad year for the Academy. The Academy made a run of really lousy decisions from 1979 through 1985. Seems the Academy loves the biopic a lot more than the AFI. And Forrest Gump, winning an Oscar and making this list ?!?
Also, back in the late 30s through 1943 a lot more films were nominated, so that skews some of those years. If there's any mistakes you catch, let me know, I was getting a bit cross-eyed bouncing back and forth between the AFI list, a list of Academy winners, and typing up this list, so I wouldn't be surprised if error crept in along the way.
In conclusion, both the AFI and the Academy aren't all that good at picking really good films. I agree with some, disagree with others, and awhile ago posted my own idiosyncratic list of films I like (not exactly a best list, just films that mean something). I didn't limit my list to American films, but I'd still re-watch the 54 films on my list before trying to tackle all the Academy Award Best Pictures or the 100 films on the AFI list.
21 June 2007
Mommy, Make the Bad Men Stop Saying All That Mean STUFF . . .
(via Drudge)
[The embedded version that was above has been taken down, but the content seems to still be available at the "video presentation" link I've added below]
Take with a grain of salt. At Breitbart.tv they've got a video presentation of a John and Ken (libertarian leaning (and not social conservative) right wing talk show hosts who have the primo drive time slot at KFI 640am in Los Angeles) segment with Sen. James Inhofe where he claims to have overheard Sen. Clinton and Sen. Boxer agreeing to try and administer a 'legislative fix' for the scourge of the vast conspiratorial right wing talk radio.
Think Progress is pushing this idea after a report (pdf at link) from the pretentiously titled THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS AND FREE PRESS.
Think Progress is a rather ironic name for that website as the ideas put forth require little thought and the 'progressive' ideology they advocate is remarkably primitive and collective.
Another front in the battle between individualist versus collectivist.
I'm no fan of the stuff, though I do like some of the voices on the radio, Tammy Bruce, Larry Elder, Dennis Miller, and Al Rantel come to mind as 'right wingers' who are good at what they do. Any legislative fix would chill not just the Rushs and Hannitys and Michael Savages of the world, but would attack the smaller fish who offer up a non-sanitized NPR approved 'voice of reason'.
One of the complaints in the report is that talk radio ownership is too white, too conservative, and too male. Let's look at the authors of this piece, there's John Halpin, James Heidbreder (probably the same guy as the fella with the bad hair cut in these pictures), Mark Lloyd, and Paul Woodhull.
After an unprecedented survey of all the people with authorship credit for this report, I've come to determine that nearly 100% of the authors are male, and at least 75% of them are white. Though it couldn't be confirmed from the initial survey, I suspect that 100% of those involved in this study would be best described as politically 'progressive'. Shocking results, I know.
One of my favorite suggestions from this bulky 40 page document is that stations that don't meet enforceable goals on viewpoint diversity must be required to pay a penalty to local public radio stations, since everybody knows public radio is a bastion of fair minded, unbiased and completely viewpoint neutral reportage.
But why stop with radio, I say all future surveys that involve political and sociological issues must be required to balance the make up of the authorship of the studies. The truth is viewpoint neutral, afterall, so if the truth is what they're after, then the good folks at THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS AND FREE PRESS wouldn't mind the folks at the Manhattan Institute sending some folks with like areas of expertise over and help co-author any future reports. It's the only fair thing to do. That's there only goal afterall, they say so over and over again. They're not interested in stiffling conservative voices, they just want to bring balance back to the airwaves. I'm all for balance, but let's start small with the think tanks, then we'll worry about radio and TV.
UPDATE: Flacks for both Senator Clinton and Senator Boxer deny the conversation having taken place. But, a statement issued through a flack isn't a direct denial, and Sen. Inhofe stands by his claim. The denial isn't a complete denial anyway. They don't say a new 'fairness doctrine' is a bad idea that they'd never support. They only say the conversation, as outlined by Sen. Inhofe didn't take place. I was already skeptical of the initial report in the first place, so I don't want to engage in 'fake but accurate' thinking. But, I think it's telling that in their denial they don't mention anything regarding the merits of a new 'fairness doctrine'. They may be testing the wind to see how adamant 'progressives' are about killing right wing talk radio, they may also put feelers out to Republicans like Trent Lott who have no love for a medium he views as out of control. One thing Congress seems capable of finding bi-partisan agreement on is limiting people's access to their decisionmaking and limiting the venues where criticism can be voiced. I wouldn't be surprised to see a bill that attacks radio and blogs in the works. The congressional Goliath hates all these Davids running around, and they may work across party lines to do something about it.
[The embedded version that was above has been taken down, but the content seems to still be available at the "video presentation" link I've added below]
Take with a grain of salt. At Breitbart.tv they've got a video presentation of a John and Ken (libertarian leaning (and not social conservative) right wing talk show hosts who have the primo drive time slot at KFI 640am in Los Angeles) segment with Sen. James Inhofe where he claims to have overheard Sen. Clinton and Sen. Boxer agreeing to try and administer a 'legislative fix' for the scourge of the vast conspiratorial right wing talk radio.
Think Progress is pushing this idea after a report (pdf at link) from the pretentiously titled THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS AND FREE PRESS.
Think Progress is a rather ironic name for that website as the ideas put forth require little thought and the 'progressive' ideology they advocate is remarkably primitive and collective.
Another front in the battle between individualist versus collectivist.
I'm no fan of the stuff, though I do like some of the voices on the radio, Tammy Bruce, Larry Elder, Dennis Miller, and Al Rantel come to mind as 'right wingers' who are good at what they do. Any legislative fix would chill not just the Rushs and Hannitys and Michael Savages of the world, but would attack the smaller fish who offer up a non-sanitized NPR approved 'voice of reason'.
One of the complaints in the report is that talk radio ownership is too white, too conservative, and too male. Let's look at the authors of this piece, there's John Halpin, James Heidbreder (probably the same guy as the fella with the bad hair cut in these pictures), Mark Lloyd, and Paul Woodhull.
After an unprecedented survey of all the people with authorship credit for this report, I've come to determine that nearly 100% of the authors are male, and at least 75% of them are white. Though it couldn't be confirmed from the initial survey, I suspect that 100% of those involved in this study would be best described as politically 'progressive'. Shocking results, I know.
One of my favorite suggestions from this bulky 40 page document is that stations that don't meet enforceable goals on viewpoint diversity must be required to pay a penalty to local public radio stations, since everybody knows public radio is a bastion of fair minded, unbiased and completely viewpoint neutral reportage.
But why stop with radio, I say all future surveys that involve political and sociological issues must be required to balance the make up of the authorship of the studies. The truth is viewpoint neutral, afterall, so if the truth is what they're after, then the good folks at THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS AND FREE PRESS wouldn't mind the folks at the Manhattan Institute sending some folks with like areas of expertise over and help co-author any future reports. It's the only fair thing to do. That's there only goal afterall, they say so over and over again. They're not interested in stiffling conservative voices, they just want to bring balance back to the airwaves. I'm all for balance, but let's start small with the think tanks, then we'll worry about radio and TV.
UPDATE: Flacks for both Senator Clinton and Senator Boxer deny the conversation having taken place. But, a statement issued through a flack isn't a direct denial, and Sen. Inhofe stands by his claim. The denial isn't a complete denial anyway. They don't say a new 'fairness doctrine' is a bad idea that they'd never support. They only say the conversation, as outlined by Sen. Inhofe didn't take place. I was already skeptical of the initial report in the first place, so I don't want to engage in 'fake but accurate' thinking. But, I think it's telling that in their denial they don't mention anything regarding the merits of a new 'fairness doctrine'. They may be testing the wind to see how adamant 'progressives' are about killing right wing talk radio, they may also put feelers out to Republicans like Trent Lott who have no love for a medium he views as out of control. One thing Congress seems capable of finding bi-partisan agreement on is limiting people's access to their decisionmaking and limiting the venues where criticism can be voiced. I wouldn't be surprised to see a bill that attacks radio and blogs in the works. The congressional Goliath hates all these Davids running around, and they may work across party lines to do something about it.
Noticing the Primitivism and Collectivism of the Greens . . .
(hat tip Classical Values)
I'm not the only one who noticed. The President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus wrote in the Financial Times on the subject.
He knows the dangers of collectivism first hand, and now that they've prospered under individualism for nearly two decades, he's wise enough to warn his people against the leaner, greener collectivist threatening European prosperity.
The Greens are really just another shade of red, it's obvious to anybody willing to pay attention, but only cranky paleo-conservatives and people who lived under the communist boot are willing to state the obvious.
Collectivism is appealing on a gut level, individualism is frightening at that same primal level. Collectivist offer the state as permanent (s)mother, individualists are the father who tells you, 'you're grown now kid, go out there and build yourself your own life'.
The greens want to (s)mother the world to save it. Beware of folks who want to (s)mother grown ass adults.
Maybe I'll live blog the insanity that will be the 7.7.07 big green collectivist fest. I might be able to endure it, given enough alcohol.
Visited the website devoted to the event and did their "carbon footprint calculator". I'm ashamed to say that my carbon footprint is less than 2 tons per year. The national average is 7.5. I'm Mr. Green and didn't even know it (helps that I haven't been on a plane since I was eight, drive a Honda, don't have a commute, and don't live in a house with AC).
I'm not the only one who noticed. The President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus wrote in the Financial Times on the subject.
He knows the dangers of collectivism first hand, and now that they've prospered under individualism for nearly two decades, he's wise enough to warn his people against the leaner, greener collectivist threatening European prosperity.
The Greens are really just another shade of red, it's obvious to anybody willing to pay attention, but only cranky paleo-conservatives and people who lived under the communist boot are willing to state the obvious.
Collectivism is appealing on a gut level, individualism is frightening at that same primal level. Collectivist offer the state as permanent (s)mother, individualists are the father who tells you, 'you're grown now kid, go out there and build yourself your own life'.
The greens want to (s)mother the world to save it. Beware of folks who want to (s)mother grown ass adults.
Maybe I'll live blog the insanity that will be the 7.7.07 big green collectivist fest. I might be able to endure it, given enough alcohol.
Visited the website devoted to the event and did their "carbon footprint calculator". I'm ashamed to say that my carbon footprint is less than 2 tons per year. The national average is 7.5. I'm Mr. Green and didn't even know it (helps that I haven't been on a plane since I was eight, drive a Honda, don't have a commute, and don't live in a house with AC).
Blurring the Lines . . .
Where do you put Apple fanatics within the primitive versus individualist continuum?
On the one hand, they're worshipful to the point of irrationality. On the other hand, they seem to feel their collective love for all things Apple as the ultimate marker of their extreme individuality.
Likewise, the corporation they adore would seem to be more individualistic than their rival Microsoft, yet it's the Wintel alliance that allowed the PC revolution to flourish in such a chaotic manner whereas Apple maintained a stranglehold on hardware.
But regardless where they sit on the continuum, I think all non-Apple fanatics can agree, hey folks, it's just a PHONE!!!
On the one hand, they're worshipful to the point of irrationality. On the other hand, they seem to feel their collective love for all things Apple as the ultimate marker of their extreme individuality.
Likewise, the corporation they adore would seem to be more individualistic than their rival Microsoft, yet it's the Wintel alliance that allowed the PC revolution to flourish in such a chaotic manner whereas Apple maintained a stranglehold on hardware.
But regardless where they sit on the continuum, I think all non-Apple fanatics can agree, hey folks, it's just a PHONE!!!
First, Choose An Enemy . . .
(hat tip Instapundit)
Irshad Manji has an excellent opinion piece in The Australian. It nicely illustrates the differences between the primitive-collectivist versus the liberal-individualist. The way Islam is taught in many places, is exceedingly primitive and collectivist. Manji has rejected this primitivism, but not Islam.
Being muslim need not be synonymous with primitivism. One doesn't need to parade around like good old Akthar Butt and scream for the murder of somebody you disagree with. No need to run around like good old Ahmed Angerpuss (remember him?) every time you perceive somebody insulting your religion.
You'd think these rent-a-mobs would show more anger towards people who actually kill tons of muslims like Hamas, Fatah or Al Qaeda in Iraq, but instead they'd rather demonstrate their anger with Queen Elizabeth II by destroying KFCs in Pakistan (that will show her!!).
Countries have pulled themselves out of primitivism in the not so recent past. Look at Japan. In 1852-4 they were humbled by a few American warships and were forced to open up their ports. Their leaders reacted by trying to keep to their collectivist ways while copying the technology of more individualist societies. They made massive strides in a very short time (within 50 years they went from nothing to having the 3rd or 4th best navy in the world), but the militarism and collectivism at the core of their national identity lead to decisions that amounted to mass homocide/suicide. Their attempts to dominate the Pacific lead to an equal and un-opposite reaction killing millions. But the utter defeat of the militarist and the occupation after WWII sowed the seeds for Japan to match their penchant for technology with a government system that maintained an essential Japanese-ness while embracing individual rights and freedoms. They've succeeded wildly since, managing to create an economic giant from the rubble of WWII in a matter of decades.
Can muslim countries in South and Southwest Asia avoid being reduced to rubble before embracing individualism? We would have let Japan keep China, Malaysia and Indochina had they not also attacked Hawaii and the Philippines. Their dictators believed the United States would tire of war quickly, a few large scale engagements where lots of Americans died, and America would retreat to their own borders leaving the Pacific to Japan. They miscalculated. The various jihadis and dictators today in the opposite end of Asia are making the same miscalculation. Maybe we can wear them down before we have to kill them in massive numbers. That would be the preferred path for the next 50 years. But, when push comes to shove, we'll slaughter them with less discrimination if that's the only way to preserve ourselves. You hear it often repeated by some over there that they will win because they love death more than we love life. But they forget, you don't have to love death to be really, really good at killing, you just have to threaten us on an existential level and we will embrace our artfulness.
Individualists in the 20th century have won two world conflicts by out killing the other guys, and one world conflict (the Cold war has mostly been won, still not completely over, though) by out prospering the enemy. The path the defining conflict of the 21st century takes is up to the enemy. We'd prefer to slow bleed them while the populations that give them support realize the primitive path is no fun. But, we still have the best toys, and those toys can lay waste to millions if we choose. The leaders of the enemy are hellbent on choosing the suicidal path of maximum destruction. Their people need to wise up or suffer the consequences. Collectivist need enemies to thrive. But, call us an enemy for long enough and often enough, and we'll get the hint and start really acting like one.
Irshad Manji has an excellent opinion piece in The Australian. It nicely illustrates the differences between the primitive-collectivist versus the liberal-individualist. The way Islam is taught in many places, is exceedingly primitive and collectivist. Manji has rejected this primitivism, but not Islam.
Being muslim need not be synonymous with primitivism. One doesn't need to parade around like good old Akthar Butt and scream for the murder of somebody you disagree with. No need to run around like good old Ahmed Angerpuss (remember him?) every time you perceive somebody insulting your religion.
You'd think these rent-a-mobs would show more anger towards people who actually kill tons of muslims like Hamas, Fatah or Al Qaeda in Iraq, but instead they'd rather demonstrate their anger with Queen Elizabeth II by destroying KFCs in Pakistan (that will show her!!).
Countries have pulled themselves out of primitivism in the not so recent past. Look at Japan. In 1852-4 they were humbled by a few American warships and were forced to open up their ports. Their leaders reacted by trying to keep to their collectivist ways while copying the technology of more individualist societies. They made massive strides in a very short time (within 50 years they went from nothing to having the 3rd or 4th best navy in the world), but the militarism and collectivism at the core of their national identity lead to decisions that amounted to mass homocide/suicide. Their attempts to dominate the Pacific lead to an equal and un-opposite reaction killing millions. But the utter defeat of the militarist and the occupation after WWII sowed the seeds for Japan to match their penchant for technology with a government system that maintained an essential Japanese-ness while embracing individual rights and freedoms. They've succeeded wildly since, managing to create an economic giant from the rubble of WWII in a matter of decades.
Can muslim countries in South and Southwest Asia avoid being reduced to rubble before embracing individualism? We would have let Japan keep China, Malaysia and Indochina had they not also attacked Hawaii and the Philippines. Their dictators believed the United States would tire of war quickly, a few large scale engagements where lots of Americans died, and America would retreat to their own borders leaving the Pacific to Japan. They miscalculated. The various jihadis and dictators today in the opposite end of Asia are making the same miscalculation. Maybe we can wear them down before we have to kill them in massive numbers. That would be the preferred path for the next 50 years. But, when push comes to shove, we'll slaughter them with less discrimination if that's the only way to preserve ourselves. You hear it often repeated by some over there that they will win because they love death more than we love life. But they forget, you don't have to love death to be really, really good at killing, you just have to threaten us on an existential level and we will embrace our artfulness.
Individualists in the 20th century have won two world conflicts by out killing the other guys, and one world conflict (the Cold war has mostly been won, still not completely over, though) by out prospering the enemy. The path the defining conflict of the 21st century takes is up to the enemy. We'd prefer to slow bleed them while the populations that give them support realize the primitive path is no fun. But, we still have the best toys, and those toys can lay waste to millions if we choose. The leaders of the enemy are hellbent on choosing the suicidal path of maximum destruction. Their people need to wise up or suffer the consequences. Collectivist need enemies to thrive. But, call us an enemy for long enough and often enough, and we'll get the hint and start really acting like one.
Did He Get That Backwards On Purpose?
Right, left - the terms are useless nowadays anyway. There are statists, and there are individualists. There are pessimists, and optimists. There are people who look backwards and trust in the West, and those who look forward and trust in The World. Those are the continuums that seem to matter the most right now
I agree with most of what's up there, pulled from Today's Bleat from James Lileks.
But there's a part that's exactly backwards. Those that look forward are the ones who trust "the West", and the ones looking backwards are the One World types.
Just look at the upcoming 7.7.07 concert for example. That's a 'One World" event if there ever was one. But is that really a forward looking event? Hell, no. It's just another goddamn smelly hippie jam they hope to kick in full gear. My inner Cartman would love to plow through the crowds, but instead I'll just ignore the whole sad event. Any event organized by Al Gore is automatically, and by definition, a product of retrograde thinking. The globalist of the world are just a new flavor of Marxism, and these new Marxist have collectively decided (MARXIST DO IT COLLECTIVELY would make a great bumper sticker) to replace red with green as their new favorite color. Same crap, different shade of stain it leaves on the wall. One World types are against individualism, innovation, and choice. Those concerts will be all about indoctrination, and heartfelt pleas getting 'youth' more 'involved' to 'take action' and 'be the change you seek'.
Nope, it's "The West" that's looking forward, if you define "The West" as those that still cling to a Burkean notion of liberalism. Free trade, freedom to fail, freedom of religion, freedom from religion, freedom from tyranny, freedom of choice, are all part of the bargain in "The West", and those will now and forever be the most forward thinking and cutting edge ideas out there. It was true a couple of centuries ago, and it will be true centuries hence. All the different outposts that make up "The West", and the places that aspire to join the club are successful and free at different levels and in different dimensions. No place is perfect, that's why Utopia means literally, "no place". But the countries that maintain an allegiance to the concepts of Burkean Liberalism are the places that will bring about the future.
China with all its size and potential will be hamstrung as long as it continues to look backward and avoid acceptance of the whole package of liberalizing freedoms. India, even with its corruption, religious and regional strife, will surpass China within a few decades so long as they stay on a more liberalized path.
It would be nice if we could just let the backward thinking backwaters of the world stew in their own primitivism, but unfortunately even a primitive can press a button on a very big and devastating bomb. It would also be nice if we could ignore the globalist and the gaiaist and let them shriek about the falling sky, except those folks want put an end to many of the freedoms crucial to liberalism just as much as the primitives.
It may seem counter intuitive that the 'globalist' are the primitives, but a unifying theme amongst global movements is that difference and freedom are dangerous and whether the controlling impulse is to submit all to one faith, or submit all to a shrunken economy to save the planet, the goal is the same, control. Another seemingly strange ally for the primitivist would be academia. Yet, postmodern and post colonial theory helped laid the groundwork for primitivism to flourish. The first notion was that everything is subjective. From that came the notion that nobody can judge another (due to subjectivity). From the inability to judge 'the other' came the strong determination to judge only those like ourselves most harshly. From there it doesn't take long till you have prominent academics, newspapers and NGOs who see no evil when committed by Hamas, but see every evil imaginable (even all sorts of imagined evils) when discussing the U.S. government. So we live in a strange state where the biggest advocates for the new primitivism, the biggest critics of classical liberalism, and those most resistant to progress are those who've made education, news reporting, and 'protecting the weak' their careers.
I'd much rather throw my lot in with those who look to Burke, Hayek and Popper than those that look to Marx, Chomsky, and Lennon. With all its problems, even a country as screwed up as France has more in common with Burke than Marx as the election of Sarkozy shows. Likewise, despite some attempts to paint a happier face on their primitivism, the Chinese government is still hostile towards accepting all the fruits of classical liberalism, and still insists that a vast number of their populace remain in a primitive state.
But I'm still optimistic, progress is too addictive, and technological innovation has reached a self-perpetuating critical mass (hopefully) where the primitives won't be able to do irreparable damage to the non-primitives. But that doesn't meant they won't throw a wooden shoe (sabot) into the machinery from time to time, and it doesn't mean that neo-primitives like the Gaiaist won't be able to do some damage too.
I'm not purely a materialist, either. "The West" is also morally superior to the various primitive tribes. Faith is not a primitive concept, but coercive faith is. National pride is not a primitive concept, but blind hatred against those under a different flag is. Protecting the environment isn't a primitive concept, but using the environment as a tool for exerting collective control is. Longing for a world where more people live under better governments is not a primitive concept, but thinking that can be accomplished by a stern scolding is exceedingly primitive.
There will be steps backwards along the forward march to the point where speaking of "The West" is synonymous with speaking about "The World", but that day will come. It won't mean every place will look like the United States, it won't mean everybody will be secularized. But it will mean that every place will be basically at peace with each other, and it will mean that every one will tolerate each others differences. In the mean time, there will be some asses that need kicking, and some bad guys that need killing. From time to time, those bad guys will get lucky and do horrible things to innocent people, but I think "The World" is going to be a remarkably better place in 2100 than it was in 2000, shame I probably won't see it.
In the end, we in "The West" will win, we have the better toys.
20 June 2007
Chris Cooley, Taking His Job Title To Heart
It's never too early to talk about the NFL. Today the focus is on the 'Skins (emphasis on 'skin')
In this photo essay at Hogs Heaven, we have photographic proof that Tight End Chris Cooley takes his job title very seriously.
(guess you can't be a "tight end" unless you put your end on full display)
(thank Morgan Freeman (or God, whichever), that no interior linemen donned those shorts)
(I can just see him getting a Nair endorsement deal out of this, bring back those commercials)
And Woohoo! a ten post day, don't know what got in me, maybe just looking forward to summer.
Also, if you don't follow the Hogs Heaven link then the video below won't make any sense.
In this photo essay at Hogs Heaven, we have photographic proof that Tight End Chris Cooley takes his job title very seriously.
(guess you can't be a "tight end" unless you put your end on full display)
(thank Morgan Freeman (or God, whichever), that no interior linemen donned those shorts)
(I can just see him getting a Nair endorsement deal out of this, bring back those commercials)
And Woohoo! a ten post day, don't know what got in me, maybe just looking forward to summer.
Also, if you don't follow the Hogs Heaven link then the video below won't make any sense.
Your Weekly Dose of Bai Ling Related News
Bai Ling is a celebrity, of sorts. She's been in stuff, she was almost in other stuff, mostly she's famous for having trouble keeping all her stuff covered while in public.
The fug girls did her yesterday, but good, that photo deserves the treatment it gets. Not many folks have earned their own category at Go Fug Yourself, but perusing all the posts they've done on her over the years, she has earned it.
A few days ago, TMZ posted a video of her "dancing". Bai, St. Vitus called, he wants his dance back.
But as I contemplate Bai Ling more deeply, she's a woman of many layers, at least 23 of them which are completely crazy, and 8 or 9 of those crazy layers which I would probably really enjoy being around.
The fug girls did her yesterday, but good, that photo deserves the treatment it gets. Not many folks have earned their own category at Go Fug Yourself, but perusing all the posts they've done on her over the years, she has earned it.
A few days ago, TMZ posted a video of her "dancing". Bai, St. Vitus called, he wants his dance back.
But as I contemplate Bai Ling more deeply, she's a woman of many layers, at least 23 of them which are completely crazy, and 8 or 9 of those crazy layers which I would probably really enjoy being around.
A Peek Behind the Curtain
Scott Adams gives us a peek behind the curtain to see the exciting behind the scenes world of Cartooning.
Turns out the list of requirements is short.
Talent and brains aren't anywhere on this list, interesting, best to start saving up for one of those monitors, then, I think I smell a career change coming . . .
Turns out the list of requirements is short.
1. Banana
2. Diet Coke (substituting Diet Pespi while acceptable may effect the quality of the outcome)
3. Cat (hopefully purely optional, if one were to need a pet by your side, seems a dog (non-evil non-Dogbert variety) would be preferable)
4. Computer with Wacom 21sx Monitor (*xwl drools*, their latest, the Cintiq 21ux looks even juicer, though the price tag is gobsmacking)
Talent and brains aren't anywhere on this list, interesting, best to start saving up for one of those monitors, then, I think I smell a career change coming . . .
Cutting Kupchak (and Kobe) Some Slack
The Summer of Kobe continues. Now a video has popped up, and it purports to show Kobe speaking ill of Bynum and Kupchak.
Bill Plaschke of the LA Times, a Kobe hater even when they were winning championships, has a big article chock-full-a-Kobe-hateration.
As far as selecting Bynum in the 2005 draft, Bynum was clearly the player with the most potential available at that pick. Look at the 2005 draft and find a name drafted below him that you'd want to add to your roster instead of Bynum. You can't, there isn't anybody on that list who has done much in the NBA (with the exception of Antoine Wright of the Nets, but the Lakers didn't need another 2 guard). Kupchak made the right call drafting Bynum, and all their draft picks since 2003 have been pretty solid (passing up Leandro Barbosa for Brian Cook might seem like a mistake now, but Barbosa wouldn't have fit in LA just as he didn't fit in with the Spurs), and they've gotten good players late in each draft (Walton, Turiaf, Vujacic, Farmar), they were unlucky that their best pick came in the worst draft year of the past five (2005 was a very weak draft). This year's draft is deep, but they need a veteran, so any package for current players should include this year's picks as they'd get good value in return.
So they've got good talent scouts and made the picks they had to make at the time. What's been wrong, and where Kupchak deserves criticism is the decisions they've made after the picks were done. They could have packaged the draft pick and got a veteran player to fill an immediate need. For the past two years GMs around the league have been salivating over Bynum, seeing that he's not a great fit for the Lakers and Lamar Odom has also not found a way to mesh with Kobe. Making a trade using those two players as bait seems like a natural call. Plus Kupchak deserves lots of criticism for letting Caron Butler go in favor of trying to do something with Kwame Brown, and there was the massive contract given to Vlad "Space Cadet" Radmanivic, two costly mistakes that have leveraged a chunk of the Lakers present as well as future for very little in return so far.
Now the Lakers are backed in a corner, partly because Kobe can't shut up, and partly cause the organization didn't make the tough decisions when they should have been made.
Bynum still shows a ton of potential, and might end up being one of the top three centers in the league for the next decade, but keeping him on your roster for the 2-3 years that it will take for him to fully reach that potential is costly, difficult, and not conducive to winning now.
Maybe Kobe is acting like a spoiled brat, but he's also right, the Lakers have an opportunity to be one of the better teams in the league if they have one all-star to compliment Kobe and the right role players to fill in the rest of the roster. The last two seasons that isn't the roster they've had. They are the 2nd youngest team in the league, and when compared to their peers on the teams made up of mostly under 25 year old players, they are the class of those teams. Unfortunately, they play against all the teams, and having the right mix of veterans and youngsters is crucial to having a legitimate shot at a good playoff run.
Kobe's also right to see that pretty much every team in the East is one Kobe away from being in the Finals, the Lakers role players are as talented as the cast LeBron has around him in Cleveland. Put them in the West and instead of putting up the 2nd best record in their Conference, that team would have struggled to win 45 games. Kobe+Deng and a few other good players left over from a trade in Chicago would easily win 55 games and challenge for the Conference Title. That seems to be the only possible scenario acceptable to Kobe and everyone else, probably still won't happen, but you can tell he'd love to attack the Jordan mystique right there in Chicago.
But if Kobe is destined to stay with the Lakers, there's still some chance to create a team that could beat the Rockets, Spurs, Mavericks or Suns. Package Bynum, Odom and Vujacic for an all-star big forward/center and a solid veteran point guard who can work within the triangle, and work on signing one or two veteran bench players who can contribute a steadying force during a playoff run.
I think a Kevin Garnett deal could still be worked without gutting the team, for the PG, Derek Fisher might be attainable and knows how to operate under Phil's system, and for that veteran off the bench, sounds like the Spurs aren't going to renew Horry's contract, so he might be available, too.
A starting five of Kobe, Farmar, Garnett, Walton (a free agent, but seems to want to stay with the Lakers, and the Lakers want him to stay) and Brown (Kwame might put together a good season if he stays injury free) with significant minutes off the bench for Mihm (due to his injury, he might have trouble signing with a different team, though a free agent) Turiaf, Fisher, Evans along with Horry in his usual season long slumber until the playoffs start, could do some damage in the NBA Playoffs, even in the stacked West. That team could play big or small, and as long as they have enough healthy bodies, could be a tenacious team on defense (they'd have trouble scoring when both Kobe and Garnett weren't on the floor, though, so Phil will just have to manage their minutes so that one or the other is always there to fill up the basket).
Maybe blowing up the Lakers and starting over without Kobe will be the best thing for the Lakers and Kobe, but I think all it will take is one legit all-star at his side along with one or two players older than himself to get Kobe to trust the front office again. Kevin McHale would be very reluctant to make a trade that helps the Lakers, but Garnett wants out, and the promise of Bynum and the solid play of Odom might be enough to take away the sting of losing Garnett to the Lakers.
It won't be easy, but it doesn't seem impossible, either.
Having Kobe on one of the local NBA franchises is a gift, he is the most exciting player of his generation, and the stuff he does on court on a nightly basis defies description. To suggest, as Plaschke does (and comparing Kobe to Paris Hilton is just plain low), that LA fans would be better off without him is crazy talk.
Bill Plaschke of the LA Times, a Kobe hater even when they were winning championships, has a big article chock-full-a-Kobe-hateration.
As far as selecting Bynum in the 2005 draft, Bynum was clearly the player with the most potential available at that pick. Look at the 2005 draft and find a name drafted below him that you'd want to add to your roster instead of Bynum. You can't, there isn't anybody on that list who has done much in the NBA (with the exception of Antoine Wright of the Nets, but the Lakers didn't need another 2 guard). Kupchak made the right call drafting Bynum, and all their draft picks since 2003 have been pretty solid (passing up Leandro Barbosa for Brian Cook might seem like a mistake now, but Barbosa wouldn't have fit in LA just as he didn't fit in with the Spurs), and they've gotten good players late in each draft (Walton, Turiaf, Vujacic, Farmar), they were unlucky that their best pick came in the worst draft year of the past five (2005 was a very weak draft). This year's draft is deep, but they need a veteran, so any package for current players should include this year's picks as they'd get good value in return.
So they've got good talent scouts and made the picks they had to make at the time. What's been wrong, and where Kupchak deserves criticism is the decisions they've made after the picks were done. They could have packaged the draft pick and got a veteran player to fill an immediate need. For the past two years GMs around the league have been salivating over Bynum, seeing that he's not a great fit for the Lakers and Lamar Odom has also not found a way to mesh with Kobe. Making a trade using those two players as bait seems like a natural call. Plus Kupchak deserves lots of criticism for letting Caron Butler go in favor of trying to do something with Kwame Brown, and there was the massive contract given to Vlad "Space Cadet" Radmanivic, two costly mistakes that have leveraged a chunk of the Lakers present as well as future for very little in return so far.
Now the Lakers are backed in a corner, partly because Kobe can't shut up, and partly cause the organization didn't make the tough decisions when they should have been made.
Bynum still shows a ton of potential, and might end up being one of the top three centers in the league for the next decade, but keeping him on your roster for the 2-3 years that it will take for him to fully reach that potential is costly, difficult, and not conducive to winning now.
Maybe Kobe is acting like a spoiled brat, but he's also right, the Lakers have an opportunity to be one of the better teams in the league if they have one all-star to compliment Kobe and the right role players to fill in the rest of the roster. The last two seasons that isn't the roster they've had. They are the 2nd youngest team in the league, and when compared to their peers on the teams made up of mostly under 25 year old players, they are the class of those teams. Unfortunately, they play against all the teams, and having the right mix of veterans and youngsters is crucial to having a legitimate shot at a good playoff run.
Kobe's also right to see that pretty much every team in the East is one Kobe away from being in the Finals, the Lakers role players are as talented as the cast LeBron has around him in Cleveland. Put them in the West and instead of putting up the 2nd best record in their Conference, that team would have struggled to win 45 games. Kobe+Deng and a few other good players left over from a trade in Chicago would easily win 55 games and challenge for the Conference Title. That seems to be the only possible scenario acceptable to Kobe and everyone else, probably still won't happen, but you can tell he'd love to attack the Jordan mystique right there in Chicago.
But if Kobe is destined to stay with the Lakers, there's still some chance to create a team that could beat the Rockets, Spurs, Mavericks or Suns. Package Bynum, Odom and Vujacic for an all-star big forward/center and a solid veteran point guard who can work within the triangle, and work on signing one or two veteran bench players who can contribute a steadying force during a playoff run.
I think a Kevin Garnett deal could still be worked without gutting the team, for the PG, Derek Fisher might be attainable and knows how to operate under Phil's system, and for that veteran off the bench, sounds like the Spurs aren't going to renew Horry's contract, so he might be available, too.
A starting five of Kobe, Farmar, Garnett, Walton (a free agent, but seems to want to stay with the Lakers, and the Lakers want him to stay) and Brown (Kwame might put together a good season if he stays injury free) with significant minutes off the bench for Mihm (due to his injury, he might have trouble signing with a different team, though a free agent) Turiaf, Fisher, Evans along with Horry in his usual season long slumber until the playoffs start, could do some damage in the NBA Playoffs, even in the stacked West. That team could play big or small, and as long as they have enough healthy bodies, could be a tenacious team on defense (they'd have trouble scoring when both Kobe and Garnett weren't on the floor, though, so Phil will just have to manage their minutes so that one or the other is always there to fill up the basket).
Maybe blowing up the Lakers and starting over without Kobe will be the best thing for the Lakers and Kobe, but I think all it will take is one legit all-star at his side along with one or two players older than himself to get Kobe to trust the front office again. Kevin McHale would be very reluctant to make a trade that helps the Lakers, but Garnett wants out, and the promise of Bynum and the solid play of Odom might be enough to take away the sting of losing Garnett to the Lakers.
It won't be easy, but it doesn't seem impossible, either.
Having Kobe on one of the local NBA franchises is a gift, he is the most exciting player of his generation, and the stuff he does on court on a nightly basis defies description. To suggest, as Plaschke does (and comparing Kobe to Paris Hilton is just plain low), that LA fans would be better off without him is crazy talk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)