I know, that would be nice too. But seriously, when did that shift happen? Almost any fitness site that you go to now has sex tips, dating advice, flirting tips or some other nonsense. And its usually pretty high up on the page, right after some new workout theyre touting. They even have exercises that they claim will make your lady scream your name in bed. Now, Im not saying they wont, but what the f*%k?

Is this what magazine editors think all men think about? Sex and women and pleasing them? I would feel insulted except I know its partly true. Its true from the imbeciles at the gym that show off for the girls, its true from the guys with 14″ guns wearing tank tops, its true from most mens insecurity about their size(Im looking at you YellowSun). But really, lets move past it already. Lets realize that every activity in a man’s life doesnt have to boil down to sex. We dont want high paying jobs for sex. We dont want fast cars for sex. We dont want to work out for sex. So stop shoving it down our throats.

If they have to give dating advice, thats fine. I guess thats what Ted in marketing told them would sell magazines. But dont mix it in with every other section. For once, lets remove sex from an aspect of our lives.

Please have the decency to sign your post if you’re going to be saying ridiculous things.  Do you honestly believe that the knowledgeable NBA fan (the only people who give a damn about trivialities such as Hall of Fame inductions) lionizes MJ for his morals or even his management skills?  And really even if some idiot still chooses to view professional athletes as role models, how is MJ complicit in this?  He doesn’t hide any of his flaws – he just plays up his superhuman skillz on the court (MJ deserves a gratuitous misspelled ‘z’).

Any real NBA fan knows and remembers his faults well.  He gambles too much.  He ruined Kwame Brown.  He’s a womanizer.  Post-40 he still parties with 20-something douchebags in Cabo.

MJ being classy in Cabo in 2008 (Image via Bumpshack.com)

MJ, to the best of my knowledge, denies none of this.  In fact he seems to revel in his flaws.  As imperfect as he was on the basketball court, he’s kind of an ass off of it.  But unlike a certain mega-superstar in L.A., he doesn’t tearfully apologize to his wife for his unfaithfulness because he was forced to do so after (wrongfully) being accused of rape (hint: I’m not talking about a Clipper).  Instead, MJ just does weird, morally questionable actions and dares you to criticize him.  What’s wrong with that?

And if his response to public scrutiny about his ambiguous morals is to ram an Air Jordan commercial down our throats, what should we care?  After all, is it MJ’s fault that we all want to forgive a man who dunks like this?

Don’t act like you’re not impressed.  I’ve seen you forgive people for less.  Like a shiny quarter.

Now get off your soapbox.  Judging by your funk, you should be using its contents instead.

YellowSun

Tomorrow, as any orange-blooded basketball fan knows, is the day that MJ will be inducted into the NBA Hall of Fame. But, as we look back at his legacy, we have a tendency to glamorize him, to remove his faults and only remember his “Hollywood” moments. To de-humanize him and turn him into a perfect person, incapable of error. Is it because if we saw his faults it would somehow diminish his accomplishments? Because if we realized he was human just like us we would feel worse because of our lackluster accomplishments? Why do we do it?

MJ wasn’t perfect. He was ferocious, an All-NBA defender and scorer, a fantastic dunker, incredibly athletic, the greatest of all time, and the list goes on and on. But he wasn’t perfect. He gambled. He had mistresses. He humiliated teammates and organization executives. He tormented opponents and their fans. He didnt know when to call it quits. He was far from perfect.

But isn’t that what makes him great? He had so many mistakes along the way in his career, yet his accomplishments are so massive they dwarf those minor mis-steps. Isn’t that a testament to the man’s greatness? Being like Mike entails a silky smooth jumper, tenacious D, clutch shooting, and being a winner. Its synonymous with his name No kid on earth would associate gambling or mistresses with being like Mike. But being Zidane means headbutting people when you dont like them. Being Vick means having dog fights. Being Kobe means being egotistical. When you look at his peers even in other sports, you realize MJ really stood head and shoulders above the competition.

He could do almost anything he wanted and no one would care. Heck you only need to find an MJ hater (and there are quite a few of those) to know MJ had his faults. But on top of everything else, his greatness lies in the fact that he was flawed. Deeply flawed. But for those 40 or so minutes that he was on the court, his performance was so scintillating, his charisma so charming that you forgot his misdemeanors (or atleast they didnt matter as much anymore). If you found out that half the stories about him were exaggerated, would you think any less of him? I wouldnt. He still played better than everyone else, still won 6 rings, still dominated on both ends of the court like no one else has since.

Tomorrow MJ will be enshrined in the HOF. He will take the final step in achieving immortality. But when everyone is singing his praise, lets not exaggerate or get caught up in the Space Jam moments, lets remember him as he really was. An awesome and truly unique talent, who comes around once in a blue moon, but so great that he was able to overcome even his own demons to win us over.

People who warrant capital punishment:

1- People who don’t  wear deodorant. Enough said.

2- People who wear too much cologne/perfume. Breathing is important while working out, and no one wants to choke in your cologne. We get it, you can afford Armani, no need to empty the bottle on yourself.

3- People who talk to people while they’re working out. Its not a bar, or a party, I’m not here to win friends, I’m here to pummel my body into submission under several hundred pounds of iron and I can’t do it with you asking stupid questions. If you don’t know, ask a trainer. Last time I checked, I’m not one.

4- People who wear inappropriate clothing. Guys, no short shorts. EVER. Regardless of how thick your legs are, this is a crime against humanity. Because any time you do leg presses or sit ups everyone can see your junk, and we really didnt want to. Also, no wife beaters. Unless youre a supermodel and have a physique that looks like God descended from the heavens just to sculpt your body from a block of wood, you shouldnt’ be wearing anything less than a t-shirt. And if you think its hot, it’s not. In fact, there’s nothing more attractive than a man who fills up his shirts naturally (and doesnt buy extra small clothes or wear wife beaters). Girls, no mini tank tops. Even if you have a killer stomach and it looks really hot, keep in mind that almost no body part looks hot when sweaty. So seeing your toned tummy covered in sweat is quite annoying. I know it’s hot at the gym, but a pure cotton t-shirt wont kill you. As a general rule of thumb: clothing for the gym should be cool, comfortable, and should keep you looking decent when you’re covered in sweat.

5- People who dance at the gym. Or talk excessively. This actually makes my blood boil. Some fucker just met his old buddy and decided to leave his towel on the bench/machine while catching up on all the beers they had. Either walk away and let someone else use the bench or shut up and get back to work. Its not your sofa, and unlike you, the rest of us are busy and have precious little time at the gym so we like to make the most of it. And dancing? I know youre listening to music and its probably upbeat, but I dont see a disco ball or dance floor anywhere. Take that shit outside.

6- People who move your towel and start working in. There’s no excuse for this. If there’s a towel there, its in use. Come back later. Don’t move my towel and change the settings and weights and work yourself in. I don’t know why people do this, its like they’ve never heard of going for a drink or doing super sets. Believe me, I’m not wasting time checking out girls or “hanging with ma buds”, I’m here to workout. Let me finish and you’ll get the machine/bench quickly enough.

People who commit less egregious gym crimes, but that still warrant serious punishment:

1- Girls who wear makeup at the gym. Even I know this, makeup clogs your pores and runs when you get sweaty. Either apply it sparingly the day youre going to the gym, or take it off. Because when it get smudged like that, you look like you just walked out of a homeless shelter and everyone feels sorry for you.

2- People who dont use towels at the gym. This is just common sense. Youre at the gym, you sweat, that sweat touches the bench/machine and other people then have to sit in it. Its the humane thing to do to cover the bench with your towel. No one wants your germs and I know you dont want theirs. So cover it up and no one gets hurt. And if youre one of those people that sweat a lot, thats ok, just wipe the bench down. That’s all I ask.

3- People who think the gym is a fashion show. Its not. I saw some punk the other day walking around in a fedora. A fucking fedora. Really? You’re sweaty, fat, wearing socks with shorts and a fedora at the gym. First off, that’s a serious fashion faux pas right there. Second, its the gym, is it really sunny in here that you need that? Is there a girl at the gym that will overlook your ridiculous appearance because you’re wearing a fedora? On this topic, people who wear wool winter hats at the gym should be beaten with the weights that they’re working out with. And they always wear them with a wife beater too. Either its cold inside, in which case wear a proper shirt, or its hot inside in which case take the hat off. Imbecile.

4- People who don’t respect your space. Ok, if you see someone doing lunges, don’t walk in front of them. If you see someone standing in front of a mirror working out, don’t come and stand in front of them. It’s that simple. I need a certain amount of space to work out, all I ask is that you respect it.

5- People who check themselves out in the mirrors. The mirrors are for monitoring your form. Only. Nothing else. Anyone caught doing anything else should be beaten with the weights they’re working out with.

6- People who talk/play games/check their facebook accounts/surf on their cell phones while at the gym. C’mon people. I have a Blackberry for work, which is always supposed to be attached to my hip and that I should be checking compulsively, but at the gym all of that stays in the locker. Do you know why? Because if you have the time to check your phone, you’re not working out hard enough. If you can remember to check your phone, you’re not working out hard enough. If you do check your phone, you are clearly not working out hard enough. So get out of the gym take care of your business, then come back when you’re serious about it. Amateurs.

Locker room crimes:

1- Walking around butt naked. I understand its a locker room and people are changing, but if you’re just naked and loitering you should be locked in a locker while a large Texan practices his swing. Either put some clothes on, a towel on, or get in the shower. No one wants to see your hairy back, saggy ass fat, or that pitiful excuse you call a penis. Put something on.

2- Checking out other people. This unfortunately is a crime all men commit, and ladies, on behalf of my entire gender I apologize. If you’re going to check someone out, do it DISCREETLY. If they know you’re doing it, it’s not discreet. Now I understand that sometimes a guy walks in with a killer physique and you’re just curious, so have a quick glance and move on. There’s no reason to stare.

If everyone followed these rules, the gym world would be a better place. If I missed any, let me know.

BrownManOfColour

Throughout human history, there have been times when society was shaken to its core and the way people lived there lives changed forever. The iron age, the medieval age, the industrial age, the information age. All of them fundamentally change the world as we know it. We are now in the Information Age, and whatever the next age is called, it seems like we’ve reached it. And with that, we need to make some serious changes. As MJ so eloquently said “Im talking ’bout the man in the mirror, Im asking him to change his ways”, and change our ways we must. According to recent studies, if every human on earth were to disappear, and all activity was stopped tomorrow, the effects of our actions would continue for another 5o or so years. Can you imagine telling your grand kids they move slower than an iceberg, only to have them look at you confused and say “A what now?”. It may be funny, but its very real. Im not an environmentalist, but Im very annoyed that everyone keeps talking about environmental change and no ones doing anything serious about it.

As I said earlier, it appears we’ve reached a new age. One in which we care about each other and the environment, where we’re more responsible about how we leave the economy and the planet for our kids. So in the spirit of change, I propose a few changes. They are drastic, they will probably be costly, but people have already taken steps in the right direction. All I propose is a more structured framework for saving the planet and moving towards a more sustainable future.

First, we need to change the way we think. Thanks to the industrial and technological revolutions of the past two hundred years, we humans have a certain smugness about our existence that isnt right. We need to realise that nature isnt here to be our bitch, but that we must co-exist with it. As such, I propose a Human Conservation Act. We all know about wildlife preserves, but I propose the opposite. Rather than having certain areas of the world where human influence is banned, I propose having certain areas of the world where human activity is allowed. Everywhere else, nature is allowed to roam free and do its thing. So for example, if you applied the law to Canada, it would mean that around every town and city, there is a radius beyond which all human activity is banned (taking growth, immigration, etc into account of course). That means city planners now have to be much more prudent with the space they have, and use all available technology to get the most out of the land they have. That also means that activities such as fishing, skiing, rafting etc will now be more limited and more controlled to prevent human influence from spreading. The idea is first and foremost to change the way we think about the world. We cant go on looting and pillaging this planet of its resources forever, and with this law, we’ll have to control our actions much more. Think of it as Jurassic Park, on a global scale where we’re enclosed in our cities and towns and outside of that nature is allowed to roam free as it should and try and recover from our devastation. Rules like this are already in effect to some extent or other, I propose we formalise and structure them and enact them as laws.

Second, bring back the railroad. Ok, not the railroad per se, but Maglev. Theyre almost as fast as planes (and when you factor airport security, turbulence, delays, customs, etc the travel time is the same only smoother and unaffected by weather. Im sure if train companies had the same research budgets as Boeing theyd be faster by now.) and they run purely off electricity. Which means rather than having thousands of planes jettisoning millions of litres of fuel into the upper atmosphere, we now have high speed trains  running off electricity. If we can figure out a way to generate completely clean electricity, then were talking about pure, “green” transportation that produces no emissions at all and is substantially more expandable than planes.

Third, hold off on the hydrogen fuel cell for just a moment. Everyone is hailing the fuel cell as a green, zero emissions alternative to fossil fuels. But consider this, fuel cell vehicles produce water, which is not dangerous by itself, but when produced by millions of vehicles all across the world can have massive repercussions. Remember, carbon dioxide and monoxide are both produced naturally, but at the levels that humans produce them they become toxic. The same can be said of water vapour. I’m not saying stop research into hydrogen technologies, I’m saying lets consider what happens when its produced in such massive quantities (which it will be because of our reliance on the car. I’ll deal with this next) before we start putting them on the roads in large quantities. We could very easily go from global warming to global humidification, leading to deserts retreating and more species going extinct. Again, I say let’s take a step back and before we consider going all out with this, let’s look at the consequences here.

Next, the car. It has become such an integral part of our lives, yet something has to change. In the context of a Humanity Park society as I mentioned above, cars would become less relevant, since all human activity is constrained to a specified region supplied by public transport (this isnt stated, but implied in the above law). My beef with cars is only because of what theyve done to our society. Every city has millions of cubic feet of concrete devoted to expressways and roads. With a reduced dependence on cars, we can now reduce these and reclaim the land for urban development. I propose government subsidized car sharing in addition to a vastly improved and efficient public transportation system. The government subsidizes car sharing companies to make it cheap and affordable (and if these cars are green even better). You pick it up when you need to, do what you need to and return it. You no longer have to worry about oil and tire changes, maintenance, lease or buying agreements. You rent whatever car you’re in the mood for by the hour or day and when you’re done you return it. With public transportation being easily available and covering a large percentage of most cities, and with car sharing a cheaper alternating to owning or leasing a car, it’ll slowly lose its value.

Finally, recycling. We all do it to some extent, but I think it should be expanded. Toyota has already started looking into building cars that are 20% recyclable. With more incentives, that’s possible with a wide range of other products. Enter the Recycling Law which stipulates that by a certain date (lets say 2020) 50% of all multi-component products must be recyclable. That means for every computer or tv or car must be recyclable. Recycling centres can be expanded and upgraded to allow for more efficient recycling of these products. And for every new tv, if half of it is recycled, then it becomes that much cheaper as well (factoring in recycling costs as well. Im assuming that when done on this scale economies of scale have been reached). For single component items such as clothes, bottles, packaging, etc, the law states that by that same date, 50% of all these products must contain more natural materials. Now the numbers are just guesses, it could be any percentage, but the idea is sustainability, and encouraging it. There are already several green initiatives in effect, but the ideas presented here are meant to support them rather than replace them.

Imagine this, pretty much everyone takes public transport to work (and in this utopia Im assuming its half decent), and after work you pick up a Lancer because youre in the mood for something sporty. The car has already been charged and ready to go, so you drive yourself around for a bit, get off at the train station, and drop the car off and recharge it. Your high speed train will arrive shortly, and soon you’re whizzing through the country side witnessing nature the  way only your fore fathers saw it. No hassle, no extra costs. Just simple and clean. We have the technology, is there any major reason why that isn’t possible?

BrownManOfColour

Its great that more and more women are working now, and they have equal opportunities in education, employment and advancement. Studies have shown that female managers and traders have a significant advantage over their counterparts when considering the long term. Which is great. The part that bugs me is that women, and I’d like to emphasize this isn’t all women, just a large chunk, will not bring the professionalism that comes with it. Case in point: is it ok to hit a girl when appropriate? To anyone who immediately says no, you’re a sexist. And I’ll tell you why.  You said no without hearing the scenario, which means you’re no is based on notions of chivalry and the fact that you’re not supposed to hit a girl. But let’s be clear, that is the definition of sexism. The literal meaning of sexism is to treat someone differently based solely on their gender and stereotypes. And that makes you sexist.

Now, let me present a scenario. You’re at a party, and you’re talking to a girl. For some reason she misunderstood what you said and slapped you thinking you made a lewd comment. To hit or not to hit? That is the question. Most of you would say no, but let me ask you this, take her out of the picture and put a man in. Would you hit him back now? I would. Most people I know would. But we wouldn’t hit the girl, just because she’s a girl. And that, my friends is what is missing. I am not advocating violence against women. Nor am I saying that you should hit her without proper cause, and without self control. In fact, it would be better if no one hit each other at all (except YellowSun, he needs a good slapping around every now and then). The point I’m trying to make is that the MENTALITY MUST BE CHANGED, by both men and women. Women need to stop thinking that they can get away with more simply because they’re women. They need to realize that there’s a good side and a bad side to gender equality and you can’t have one and not the other. In the scenario presented, I would say this: If I feel that she really had no reason to hit me, Id hit her back, not as hard as I would hit a man, but I would hit her back. So I say to you, in the interest of pure gender equality, slap that bitch! (Kidding ladies, kidding). But Im honestly tempted to start a website, slapthatbitch.ca to try to get my point across.

We’ve heard it all before, a girl has her period and we all know what comes with it. She gets a little cranky and grumpy and you’re supposed to put up with it. If you’re her partner, then you should, if you’re her friend, it depends on how close you are, and if you’re her coworker, it’s unacceptable. If you expect anyone to take you seriously, you have to own up to it and take the heat without excuses (hence the phrase “take it like a man”). And its part of the reason why women still arent fully respected at the workplace, and why, according to studies, the women who do get ahead tend to display masculine tendencies. This is what I’m talking about. This is precisely what shouldn’t happen. Many of the insults men throw at each other are feminine (“you bitch”, “youre such a pussy”, etc), because of this mentality. But if we brought about more complete gender equality, perhaps things like that would stop.

You’ve seen countless examples: Shes got her period and is acting bitchy, but because its her period its ok. Im sorry, thats no excuse. Men have hormones too, but we keep them in check and don’t blame our idiocies on them. Take responsibility for your actions. She was offended by something you said or did (unjustifiably so) and hits you and you can’t do anything. Back to my original point. You cant go around hitting people for no reason and expect nothing to happen. There are consequences for your actions, deal with it. You take her out on dates, and you’re always paying. This is unacceptable too, if you’re earning the same as a man, at least offer to pay your half. And if the relationship gets serious, it has to be 50-50.

All I’m saying is, that it’s about time that we realized that the sexes are not the same, and never will be, but that doesn’t mean we can’t be equals. Women should retain their femininity, their identity, and men should respect them for it. Women should have the same freedoms that men do, but realize that there are certain expectations and consequences that come with it. And that’s all Im saying.

BrownManOfColour

Allow me to take to task your line of specious reasoning against my rallying call against the lottery pick.  Since your quibbles are so numerous, why don’t I tackle the three biggest issues  you raise?

Issue #1 – Isn’t there a lack of sure-fire local stars?

Your first argument against it is that the “player would have to be pretty special” and that “There aren’t many” of such players.  Exactly – a territorial pick system shouldn’t be abused and allow a team such as, say the Bobcats, from cherrypicking every single intriguing player that permeates the ACC (primarily Duke, UNC and Wake Forest).  Instead it should be a rarely used provision which allows teams to select local megastars who are almost sure to help local teams both on the court and at the ticket office.  Since sure-fire picks are few are far in between, teams would have to select wisely.

I can already anticipate the follow-up argument against my logic forming.  The question is, “But what’s to STOP Charlotte from taking a lottery stud if they have a low draft pick?”  Hmmm, good point (I always ask the best hypothetical questions).  Thing is, I’ve ALREADY thought of a solution to this question – make the territorial pick a calculated, weighted risk.

You can always get around the fairness issue by forcing lottery teams contemplating using the territorial pick to forfeit a package of picks (maybe two unprotected future 1^st rounder selections) in order to take the local star.  Additionally, you could mandate that territorial picks get paid the same amount as the #1 overall pick in order to placate the union and to ensure that there is also financial sacrifice in making a territorial pick.

But putting measures such as these in place, you would ensure that local teams really weigh the odds and select only the crème-de-la-crème.  If you were a NBA GM, wouldn’t you definitely think VERY carefully before giving up two future picks for one just one guy?  You would if you were a good GM.

Argument #2 – Don’t small-market teams have less local talent?

Your second argument seems to be that these small-market teams would be at a considerable disadvantage when faced with a territorial pick.  You claim that small markets generally do not enjoy local stars.  I call BS and question your knowledge of amateur hoops in America.  Let’s take a look at a couple of the smaller markets just to give a few examples of possible territorial picks.  A team like Oklahoma City could have selected a guy like Blake Griffin from Oklahoma State this year and solidified their title as the league’s hottest young team.  Charlotte would have access to North Carolina’s rich lineage of college hoopsters (Chris Paul as an example).  The Pacers would have a crack at the studs coming out of IU, IUPUI and Purdue (how good would Eric Gordon look under Reggie Miller’s retired number?).  Sacramento could finally land a young talent to compete with the in-state Lakers (O.J. Mayo in Sac-town is surely preferable to him rotting in Memphis).

I could go on but I just wanted to point out the ludicrousness of your statement.  America is a hoops hotbed – Almost everywhere.  Sure, there may be concentrations of talent in certain urban areas (NYC and Chicago come to mind) but if each team has access to the same limited number of territorial picks, it’s not like the Knicks would get EVERY local superstar – they would have to think hard and choose just ONE.  In almost every single geographical area, there is at least one good college or player either produced or developed.

As for international players, I would favour this solution.  Earlier, you mentioned that certain markets may get screwed by the inherent weakness of the talent produced in their local areas.  I don’t agree but let’s say it is so.  Why not then allocate international players to teams in regions where the local talent is adjudged to be weaker?  To make it fairer, why not analyze drafting trends and if there has been a paucity of NBA talent coming from the region over the past ten years, allow the NBA teams in those regions first crack at international players?  Wouldn’t this solve two problems with one stone?

Think out of the box, man!  Oh, that’s right, you’re not smart enough for that.

Argument #3 – Wouldn’t local stars just bolt after their rookie contracts?

Yeah, so?  How exactly does that differ from the current system where rookies leave their horrible clubs after their initial contracts?

Look, I don’t really give a damn whether the territorial pick chooses to re-sign with the club.  Free agency is free agency and it’s the player’s right to choose.  But tell me, how does the current system where random ping pong balls determine where a player might end up seem fairer to you than local teams getting a shot at established local stars?  If they put in a few years with their hometown club and then choose to find the bright lights of the “storied” clubs you mentioned, how is that different from the current system?  At least under the purview of the territorial pick, local teams would get a chance to benefit from the local talent the area produces rather than watch them get drafted far away and possibly buried on the bench or over-exposed on a 12-win ballclub.

These are just three rebuttals I have to your uneasiness with the reintroduction of the territorial pick system.  I can think of more but I’m tired and I think I’ve schooled you enough for one night.

Are my plans radical?  Yes, but I also think that there is a method to my madness.  Not only would my solution create stronger local bonds between NBA franchises and their fans but I suspect tangible increases in local TV revenue, attendance and merchandise sales would be realized by NBA franchises from drafting home-grown talent.

Listen, I realize that the “brainiacs” who run the NBA would never implement this system in a million years.  My question is, “Why not?”  If this system was good enough during the early years of the NBA and attracted local fans to a fledging sport, why wouldn’t it work now and augment lagging local and national NBA viewership?  Not every game can be Kobe vs. Lebron after all.

I can’t believe you have an issue with my solution to the talent distribution inequality across the NBA and then advocate an incompetence tax.  Great idea, genius – give bad teams (a) even less funds to try when trying to right the ship or (b) give miserly owners even more of an excuse to cut costs on player salaries in order to “balance the books”.  You couldn’t see a good solution if it was right in front of your nose.

But then again, I guess I can’t blame you not being able to see the things right in front of you given the shadow cast by your prodigious schnozz.  It must be hard casting a permanent eclipse of the sun.

Cheers,

YellowSun

Let me tell you why it wouldnt work (other than that youre an imbecile). Lets examine the territorial picks more closely shall we?

Lets say that we re-introduce the territorial pick, allowing a team to forgo its draft pick to pick a player from its locality. First of all, for a team to want to forgo a draft pick to select a player from its locality has to imply the player is pretty special, at least a lottery pick. Otherwise he wouldnt have sufficient upside to be able to draw crowds, build local support, and be worth giving up its draft pick. Now, lets look through history to see how many such players have been drafted in the neighborhood of small market teams. There arent many. Which means that either the radius around a small market team has to be pretty big, or we have to build some other provision in. And at this point, you know the other owners are going to throw a hissy fit, so something like this would be very difficult to implement.

While I agree its very difficult to lure big names to small market teams, a lot of that has to do with the culture and reputation of the organization in question. A look at the Spurs or Kings (from the early OOs) or even Oklahoma City (to some extent, and especially in the next year or so) proves my point. They built an organization that players wanted to come and play for, regardless of the size or state of the city. Furthermore, what good is drafting a local superstar if the moment his rookie contract is over he bolts for another team? Look at what Lebron has done to Cleveland. Its entertaining for everyone outside of Cleveland, but within it, people are genuinely terrified he’ll bolt for New York and win his championships there and break their hearts. Given how often small market teams are mismanaged, Id say this is the more likely outcome. They select a great player, try to build around him and fail, and he bolts for another team, leaving his former team in disarray.

Your argument also relies on the fact that the player would want to stay with the local team, and if the team drafts him against his wishes and he really doesnt want to play there, what then? And if youll argue that most kids would want to be local heros, Id say thats true to some extent. But how many kids have fantasized about playing for LA, Boston, New York or one of the other storied franchises? There are two sides to that coin.

Finally, how do we deal with the influx of international players? Wouldnt the NBA Players Association object to local players potentially being restricted by the territorial pick while international players get to go anywhere in the draft? I see the problem small franchises face and its a very real one, but I dont think its something that a territorial pick could solve. Perhaps an incompetence tax? If you miss the playoffs for three straight years then you have to pay a percentage of your payroll as tax (accommodations for injuries and players leaving to go play abroad can be made). How does that sound?

Additionally, let me just say one thing, I do not play with Lego, I collect it. Theres a difference. Its geeky, like collecting stamps, but not childish. And like collecting any trinket, its eccentric, but still a hobby. Just because your hobbies involve finding your nose or trying to see the world around you through those slits you call eyes, mine involve collecting.

BrownManOfColour.

Of course, this being us we just ended up coming with wholly inappropriate nicknames which didn’t fit too well.  Clutching at straws, I suggested going after his kind-of-pubescent voice.  While his Mickey Mouse voice still deserves mocking (no man taller than 6’6″ should be a soprano), mercifully Jefferson has given us something else to mock.

It appears as if “good guy” Jefferson did the most honourable thing a man can do* and dumped his fiancée - days before his wedding.  Of course, Jefferson compounded this most excellent decision* by not informing anyone until, literally, 2 hours before his supposed wedding.  Confused guests supposedly showed up in full regalia to his swank non-wedding.  At least he had the sense to give his boys his Amex Black card and carte blanche.

In honour of this ludicrous story, Richard Jefferson will henceforth be known on this blog as ALTAR BOY.  Serves him right for tarnishing his squeaky-clean image.  I want him to relive this weekend every time Marv Albert says “and the Altar Boy scores”.

Tell me why this nickname wouldn’t stick.

YellowSun

* sarcasm, ladies

* again, sarcasm

Apologies for the slow updates but I have been moving house. For most people this entails the investment of time, energy and some monies though I assume that you do not understand since your belongings could fit in the back of a Toyota Corolla – Except your toy collection of course. (Readers, please complete this sentence: Grown men playing with Lego is (a) juvenile, (b) disturbed or (c) better than the Michael Jackson tribute.)

Speaking of Jacko, I flat out refuse to talk about (or respond to) the Jackson media love-in. Suffice it to say that the world lost its best modern entertainer as well as a man who had sleepovers with little children. I’ll miss one and not the other – there’s no dichotomy in that.

Let’s just talk about the NBA instead. First off, I have to respond to your lame attempt to give Richard Jefferson a nickname. Your nickname, which I will not repeat due to its poorness, would imply that there is a certain way that black men should look and we all know that’s simply not true (right BrownManOfColour?). He does, however, sound a bit odd (not in a black/white way by the way) so maybe we should concentrate on that.

By the way, before I continue, I’d like to point out that Jessica Alba is not partially African-American. She is instead a delightful mixture of French Canadian, Danish and Mexican American and a glowing tribute to the wonders of the American melting pot (in terms of hotness, not acting ability).

Now that that’s done, let’s just ignore the rest of the NBA manoeuvres you just mentioned. Yes yes, I’m sure Artest will be slightly better than Ariza just as I’m sure that Vince Carter will still jack up 30 foot jump shots in Orlando and that Shaq will single-handedly murder the English language on Twitter.

The real news is the Hedo to Portland-no-wait-Toronto move. Think about this for a minute – a highly touted free agent (yes, I am aware that this FA class is terrible) decides to forsake a contending team in the U.S. to freeze in Canada. This is major and unprecedented news! The fact of the matter is that the Raptors regularly could not attract top-tier free agent talent to Toronto for a number of reasons – the taxes (which will wipe out any financial advantage the Raptors offer had over the Blazers’ btw), the weather, the fact that many Americans inexplicably seem to think that playing in second-tier American markets like Sacramento will bring more visibility than playing in the 4th largest media market in North America.

But this is the first time that a player in his prime has decided to go to Canada and proves, over 10 years later, that the NBA’s plan for global expansion is working (in another 200 years, NBA players might actually consider playing for somewhere even more foreign and exotic than Canada).

There are, however, two facts which should temper the enthusiasm for Raptors fans. Firstly, Toronto wildly overpaid. Sure, the Blazers’ offer was close in terms of money and length but that doesn’t make Bryan Colangelo’s move any easier to swallow. Hedo is a nice complementary player but he’s being paid like a borderline superstar and I’m not ever sure about investing that kind of money and time into a 30-year-old coming off a career year.

Secondly, Hedo isn’t American. Don’t get me wrong, I love talent irrespective of its origin but Hedo’s move doesn’t establish Toronto as a future FA hotspot for NBA superstars just yet. Let’s explore Turkoglu’s logic behind going to Toronto – he and his wife liked that Toronto had a big Turkish community. That’s it. While that’s nice for Hedo somehow I can’t imagine Americans like Lebron or D-Wade putting as much stock into the ability to get good baklava when they consider their respective FA destinations in 2010.

In essence, Toronto still has not attracted ONE premier American free agent in its nearly 15 year existence. While you can chalk up at least 10 of those years to the fact that Toronto was terrible, and that terrible teams outside of LA and Miami generally don’t attract top talent, the fact is that Toronto couldn’t get anyone to join it even when Vince Carter was lighting up the NBA.

As sad as it is to say, foreign teams like Toronto and small-market teams like Milwaukee will always have trouble attracting big-name American players. It’s just natural that U.S. players would want to play for big U.S. teams just as every Southern Ontario boy dreams about playing for the Maple Leafs or every frustrated Jersey actor dreams about working in “the City” – everyone wants to fulfill their childhood dreams of being rich and famous in their own localities.

For that reason, I am a proponent for bringing back an old pro sports practice – territorial picks. As Wikipedia tells us,

“A Territorial Pick is a type of special draft choice used in the NBA Draft from its inception in 1950 until 1965. As the NBA was still trying to build fan support in its local markets, players from teams’ local areas seemed to be a natural way to draw fans to the arena. A draft of first-year players made that difficult, however, as a popular local player could be drafted by another team. To help teams acquire local players, territorial picks were instituted. Prior to the league’s draft, a team could forfeit its first round draft pick and select a player from within a 50 mile radius.”

Obviously, given the paucity of Canadian talent, Toronto’s territory would have to be expanded to include all international players but tell me why this idea wouldn’t work. Small-market teams would regularly get talent influxes from local-area schools making them more competitive, fans would be able to follow local talent for at least the first part of their pro careers and owners would get attendance boosts from having a marketable local star. Everyone wins right?

I’m at over 1000 words now so I’ll stop. I just want you to respond with one reason why territorial picks wouldn’t work.

By the way, please stop talking about my penis every time we talk. Your not-so-subtle fascination with my manhood is getting obsessive at this point. Oh, and implying that another man’s penis is real original by the way – it’s totally not evident that you’re simply covering for your own deficiencies.

YellowSun

But is it me or is there something a little nauseating about all this? For years MJ dwelled in the bowells of oblivion, and no one really seemed to care. His last album was a flop (by his lofty standards), he was losing money and getting sued by his creditors, he had to sell his beloved ranch, and he had to hide out in Dubai while he tried to piece his life together. But all of this seemed to drift largely under the radar. And now, he has passed, and all of a sudden hes back in the limelight, centre stage, captivating audiences yet again, though not quite in the way he would’ve liked.

While watching the memorial, a few things stood out. For one, the number of times people said that he loved everyone. That he was this great sibling and all round lovable guy. Lets be honest here, MJ the singer was awesome, unbelievable. His kind will truly never come again. But MJ the man, was a different story. Most of his diehard fans wouldn’t be friends with him. He was different, he was a loner, he wasnt really close to too many. But now, all of a sudden, at his memorial, all these random people are coming out and talking about how he loved the world so much and just loved everybody, and as far as I can recall none of these people were known to be good friends. In fact, he wasnt really close with much of his family other than Jermaine and his mother. Im curious to know where all these people were when he was defending himself in court against child molestation allegations, getting sued by creditors, having trouble signing recording deals and in his final hours.

The other thing thats odd, is how its a 2 hour long memorial. I cant remember the last time someone had a memorial service that long. And I cant help but sense that cable companies are cashing in on his death from the absurd ratings that this will produce. People all around the world are crying during his memorial, and these are the strange people that couldnt be bothered to buy his last album and probably put him in the financial troubles he was in the past few years (Ill admit, I was one of them, I downloaded all of his songs). And having anyone other than MJ sings his greatest hits feels a little weird. Its just not the same unless its him. If they had to have singers at his memorial, they shouldve sung another song. Jesus is Love, is not appropriate however.

Im not hating on the man, Im hating on whats being done to him now that hes gone. How his memorial has turned into this absurd public spectacle, and how even in death we cant give him some dignity. The man is gone, let him rest in peace.

Amen.

BrownManOfColour

Let’s start with the deal everyone is talking about. Ron Artest to the Lakers. For those who dont know yet, Ron Artest signed for probably (the deal isnt finalized as yet) for 3 years at the mid-level. To do this, the Lakers let swingman Trevor Ariza walk. In an interesting twist, Ariza signed with the Rockets to replace the hole Artest left. While most commentators think this is a pretty fair deal, I think it was a little lopsided in the Lakers favour. Now I know the Lakers took an immense risk in signing Artest. But hes been on good behaviour since leaving Indiana, hes only signed for 3 years, and they have the greatest coach of all time and the best coach to work with egos in Phil Jackson. With that in mind, the deal makes complete sense. Plus, the worst thing the Lakers could do was stand pat. With the arms race that was going on between the Magic and Cavs(more on this later), the Lakers wouldve had to make some upgrade. Plus, now they have someone to throw at Lebron, Vince, Roy, Carmelo, Ginobli or Jefferson on their way through the playoffs next year. From the Rockets perspective, the deal was decent. Yao Ming‘s foot injury is still suspect and could prove to be career ending, McGrady just walked into free agency and potentially retirement, and Artest just signed with the Lakers. In the face of all that, the Rockets had to do something. Signing Ariza to 5 years and the mid-level exception was a good way to plug the hole, but lets face it, Ariza is no Artest. Artest is a physical, lock down defender and can create his own shot. Ariza had a stellar playoff run, but he was feeding off Kobe. Who wouldn’t put up decent numbers? I think the Rockets may have overpaid a little for Ariza. And with the team essentially in rebuilding mode until Yao’s injury is sorted out, it wouldve been more worthwhile to pursue one of the other marquee free agents on the market.

Now the other trade everyone is talking about, Vince Carter to the Magic. Has there ever been a greater instance of one-upsmanship than this? Just hours earlier, the Cavs nabbed Shaq (more on this later), and then the Magic upgraded big time with Vince. All in all, the Magic clearly made a better trade than the Cavs. Carter is a proven offensive force, and a reasonable defender (especially when motivated, and you’d have to think being on a contender in his home state would motivate him), plus hes a legit 3 point threat and a pretty good closer. The Magic may have to give up Gortat, which could be a serious problem if Howard runs into foul trouble, but other than that, the Magic gave up no one of real importance. Alston was clearly going to lose minutes to Nelson and start sulking so it was better to get rid of him sooner rather than later. As for the Nets, theyre obviously in cost savings mode and willing to make the franchise the laughing stock of the NBA in the process.

Shaq to the Cavs. While Cleveland didnt give up much to get Shaq, it isn’t clear to me they came out the winners in this. Shaq is well past his prime, and while he can still put up some pretty good numbers, I’m not sure he was worth the $20 million in salaries the Cavs took on. Plus, we all know how well Shaq plays when he doesnt get touches. Not to mention, his physical fitness is seriously in question as he hasnt played all 82 games in a season in a while and youd have to wonder how much he has left in the tank for one more long playoff run (and it will be long if the Cavs are gonna get through the Celtics, Magic and maybe even Wizards just to get a crack at the Lakers). The Suns on the other hand seem to have taken a page from the Nets book and have detonated the team. Theyre shopping Amare, and just shipped out Shaq and took no star players back in return. Poor Nash. Hes the NBAs Jennifer Aniston. He was supposed to have it all with Amare and Marion, an uptempo team and a championship. And instead hes contemplating retirement. Stoudamire is his Brad Pitt. The guy who was supposed to give it all to him, but couldnt because of injuries, defensive lapses, and a lack of discipline.

Jefferson to the Spurs. I hope the league is watching because the Spurs are putting on a clinic on how to run a successful franchise. They gave up Kurt Thomas and Bruce Bowen (and may get them back if they can negotiate buy outs from the Bucks) to get Richard Jefferson and just like that, theyre back in the elite in the West. Jefferson gives them an excellent around-the-rim scorer, a long athletic wing and a reasonable defender and some new blood in a team that was aging pretty badly. With Popovich at the helm, next year’s Western Conference playoffs look fun indeed as it essentially comes down to the Lakers, Nuggets and Spurs (with the Blazers, Mavs, and Hornets as maybes depending on what happens next).

Last but not least, the Wizards. It has to be a busy week in the NBA when a deal like this is completely forgotten. The Wizards got Mike Miller and Randy Foye from the Timberwolves for Etan Thomas, Darius Songaila, Oleksiy Pecherov and the fifth overall selection in the 2009 NBA Draft. Even if Arenas doesnt come back at full strength, with Jamison and Caron Butler it still gives the Wizards an awful lof of firepower. And with offensive minded Flip Saunders at the helm, youd expect the Wizards to do a lot better than they did last year and be one of the top teams in the league offensively. And if they can play defense, look out. For the Twolves, what can I say? Theyre shopping Al Jefferson, just got rid of a bunch of great role players, and didnt re-sign McHale as head coach. For all of McHales deficiencies as GM, the one role he flourished in was head coach and had a pretty impressive record in that capacity.

Thats the NBA for you.

Youre right. Richard Jefferson does need a nickname. But Dicky J isnt it. In fact, thats what you call your penis, so its a little lewd (and I do mean little). I dont think initials ever counted as nicknames. And initials with your number were even stupider. Honestly, CP3? CB4? KB24? Did all the creativity in the world just die that we have to rely on players giving themselves nicknames? What happened to names like the Iceman, Clyde the Glide, The Admiral, MDE, His Airness, Magic, The Dream, The Round Mound of Profound? Richard Jefferson deserves better.

I propose we call him I-cant-believe-hes-black-man. Because lets face it, when you look at him, thats the first thing you think. Like when you look at Jessica Alba and think the same thing but quickly forget when you realise how hot she is. If thats too long for you, then how about this, Under the Radar? Because hes played under the radar his whole life, is now going to a small market team that plays under the radar until April when everyone realises how good they are, and is going to be playing with players that are, well, under the radar. I think its appropriate.

BrownManOfColour.

For one thing, Im a Lakers fan, but thats not why I hate them. Let me be clear, I respect the pre-2002 teams, and despise the ones after that. The pre-2022 teams were great. They were filled with Hall of Famers like Bird and Russell and provided epic playoff battles that basketball enthusiasts like myself could enjoy for decades. That was a franchise. You hated them, but you had to respect them. Then something happened in late 2006 that changed everything.

For the past several years the Celtics were a decent team at best, but nothing compared to the legendary teams of the 50s, 60s, and 80s. The franchise, like many others, was in the process of upgrading their arenas with Jumbo-trons and fan nights and so on. As many of you know, the Celtics never had cheerleaders because the legendary Red Auerbach, architect of 16 of the Celtics 17 championships, said he wouldnt have them. He thought they detracted from the game and had no purpose on a basketball court (and I agree). But in 2006, Red passed away. And not a full season had passed that there were cheerleaders wearing green mini skirts dancing in the Garden. The following season was dedicated to Red, aptly so for a man who gave so much to one franchise, city and sport, and Red’s signature was painted on the floor boards in front of the players bench. And there were cheerleaders dancing on it. Despicable. “Over my dead body”, those were his exact words when asked if the Celtics should have cheerleaders. I guess you should be careful what you wish for.

But lets step back for a minute and look at this objectively. Yes, Red hated cheerleaders, and yes, theyd have to come eventually. But did it have to be the season right after he died? They couldnt wait one more season? When Christopher Reeve died, they delayed the release of Superman Returns for a year and a half out of respect. Did Red get the same respect? No. In fact, its hard to find anything that wouldve been more disrespectful to the cigar-puffing patriarch. It wasnt like he was opposed to the Jumbo-tron or new speakers or executive suites or fan nights or something else that would’ve hindered the Celtics ability to compete in the NBA. He was opposed to cheerleaders. They dont do much in a basketball game anyway, and the Celtics have the most loyal fan base in all of sports, so it wasnt like thats why they did it either. But the real reason I hate the Celtics is because no one, not the fans, players, coaches or management, registered a peep as pom-pom wielding high school drop outs danced on Red’s signature. They may as well have pissed on his grave. Youd have to go pretty far back in history to find a similar instance of betrayal.

BrownManOfColour.

I agree with most of what you wrote.  Apple’s stuff is indeed good from a software standpoint (indeed, there is something to be said about programming uniquely for hardware you assemble) but hardware-wise most Apple stuff has basically been built on the PC archetype since 2006 (hello, Intel).  So it’s had the same capabilities of a PC-based system with next to none of the customization options since 2006.

Look, I’m no computer guru (and lack the fancy technical education that you possess) but I know when something is lacking.  From what I can gather, Apple’s stuff “just works” because, as you mentioned, most Apple devices are almost impossible to personalize and screw up.  For instance, do you want to change the visual layout of your iPhone?  Too bad.  Do you want to write some cool new programs for your iPhone?  Well, not unless Apple “approves” it.

I hate Windows Mobile with a passion (as only someone who has used that abomination daily can hate it) but I have to give it credit for one thing – I can download a gazillion homebrewed apps which does almost everything you can think of.  Change the look of the OS?  No problem.  Overclock your phone?  Why not?

Sure, some of the programs suck (or crash my phone) but other times, I can see real promise in some of the programs and e-mail suggestions to the creator.  The apps aren’t always slick but the lack of a “Big Brother” judging whether the app should live or die allows for some truly interesting programs to filter down the pipeline.  It’s ironic that Apple was basically launched into the public consciousness with their infamous 1984 ad.  Really, is there a tech company which actively discourages the hardcore tech user more than Apple?

This brings me to a major problem with Apple you didn’t really address – the fanboys.  Anytime you even mention ANY Apple flaw, you’re instantly derided on the Internets as a hater and a peon of the Microsoft/Google/Linux evil empire.  Why is that?  Is it so far-fetched to think that Steve Jobs and Co. might have overlooked (or worse, intentionally held back) something in one of their products?  For instance, the iPhone didn’t have copy-and-paste for the longest time.  The fix for that is a simple software update – why did it take 2 years to do something about it?

By the same token, is it really hard to believe that Microsoft can occasionally do some software/hardware better?  Is it not true that PCs are STILL the preferred medium for hardcore gamers because of their easy-to-upgrade architecture and is it not similarly true that Microsoft Office is a decent piece of workplace software (far superior to the iLife Suite)?  Why is it that Apple must always be best in the mind of the hardcore Apple fanboy?

Look at the reaction to the Palm Pre.  It’s a great device.  It lacks some of the features of the iPhone but it smokes the iPhone (yes, even the 3GS) when it comes to multi-tasking and software integration.  Yet, any major tech website is inundated by fanboys who nitpick about every perceived Pre flaw (of which there are many – really, no 3D graphics in 2009?) and trumpet every minor iPhone “advantage”.

The point is that I don’t like fanboys of any type.  All they’re doing is letting their beloved company off the hook for a feature or hardware flaw that the company didn’t have the foresight to include and paying for shiny packaging and a badge.  Instead of constantly bashing competing products to try and justify their purchase, why not demand the best from ALL producers and buy accordingly?

Does the Zune have the best audio quality?  By all means, buy that if sound quality is important to you!  Do you need to multi-task on your smartphone?  Why not pick up a Pre?  Do you need to do heavy graphics work on your computer?  Then Mac should probably be your choice.

Listen up, let’s stop being brand loyal.  Apple is not “a community”.  Google is not your “friend”.  These companies are designed for one thing – to take your money in exchange for a product.  It’s up to you to decide which company gives the best value for money and deserves your hard-earned cash.

There’s no shame in being polyamorous with your tech.  After all, do you really think that Steve and Bill are always faithful to you?

YellowSun

First, lets be clear. Im not an Apple hater. Ive tried Apples products and I have to say, from a software perspective, they are pretty good. From a hardware persepective, not so much. In fact, its more their marketing and cool image more than anything else that’s sustaining sales.

Let me begin with software. Credit where credit is due, its good. Theyve clearly put some thought into it, and it is sound from a development and human-computer interaction perspective. But lets be clear on one thing. Apple is not superior to Microsoft or Google. In fact, from a technology perspective they may even be inferior. First off, Apple maintains strict control over its hardware. As such, when the developers sit down to come up with features for the new OS or Safari or anything else, they know exactly what hardware and environment it will have to deal with. That in itself, makes the task that much easier. Second, a company like Microsoft or Google, which have to work with Intels and AMDs, 64 bit and 32 bit, single core and multi core, have a much much harder time getting their software to be as reliable. As a result, there’s a myth about Apple software’s stability that just isn’t true.

On to the hardware. I recently purchased an iTouch. I disliked it so much, that I returned it three days later. Let me go over everything that was wrong with it. One, its not pretty. Its just a screen and a button, there’s nothing pretty about it. Two, its annoying. I hooked it up to my pc and started downloading my songs, only to realise that they hadnt been copied properly or some were copied several times. Now, Im sure there’s a simple way to fix that, but I dont have time for it. Its an mp3 player, not a camera. It shouldn’t require any excessive work to get it going. If it takes more than a few minutes to get my songs on it, I cant be bothered. Technology is supposed to work for us, not vice versa. Now, about their laptops. Theyre not pretty (theyre bloody white, but I digress). Anyone who thinks that theyre good value for money, should be shot (this doesnt take into account their recently announced price cuts as I havent had a chance to review those yet). Heres what you get in a Mac. You get a fast processor, lots of slow memory, a large but slow harddrive and a fancy case. They spend on the items that they know people will look for, while cutting back on the rest and charging extra for the Apple logo. And Im sorry, but that doesnt make a good pc. In almost every test of a Mac versus other machines, the Mac didnt do very well.

On to Apple’s image. For some reason, everyone thinks Apple is some sort of pioneer and that theyre creativity and vision is astounding. Wrong. They haven’t done anything new or creative, what they did do was get lucky and make some funny commercials and things took off from there. The iPod was not the first mp3 player. The iTouch wasnt the first touch screen device. The iPhone wasnt the first all-in-one device. All of these existed in some form or another long before Apple came along. People say that the Apple App store is a classic example of that. No it isnt. Its called the Microsoft Developers Network and its been around for ages.The difference is luck and marketing. Microsoft didnt have the former and they didnt try the latter. The Palm Pre and Blackberry Bold are better than the iPhone, the Zen and YP-K3 are better than the iPod, so Apples not even producing the best quality products on the market.

Im not hating on Apple, Im just saying lets step back from all the euphoria and admit what Apple really is….a great marketing machine.

BrownManOfColour

Sure, he’s not a superstar but lesser players enjoy far more nickname notoreity.  Fred Hoiberg was “The Mayor”.  Elden Campbell was “Easy E”.  Joey Graham has TWO – “Golden Graham” or “Grammy Joe”.

Listen, these guys can’t hold Richard Jefferson’s jock.  (Before I get angry letters from Easy E fans, let me ask you, do you think anyone has ever said “Boy, we better make sure we keep Elden Campbell from going loco on us tonight?”  Didn’t think so.)

Richard Jefferson was a borderline All-Star for years and he’ll be joining a cast in the Spurs who have at least a 2-year window to keep winning championships.  They have the greatest PF of all time in Tim “Captain Emotion” Duncan, a legit starting PG in Tony “Mr. Longoria” Parker and a second-banana scorer in Manu “Baldy” Ginobili.

Richard Jefferson catatpults this threesome into a dangerous foursome – something no NBA team has (unless you think Rajon Rondo is capable of becoming an equal to the “Big Three” in Boston).  For that reason, we can’t have Richard Jefferson answering to RJ.  We could ignore him on the Bucks but we can’t ignore him now, not when he’ll be on nationally televised games 800 times this year.

So, what is my new nickname for RJ?  Dicky J.  Can you imagine Mike Tirico rattling off that nickname for a devoutly religious family man?  I can and it amuses me.

Think you can do better, BrownManofColour?

Cheers,

YellowSun

The Beige Guide to the World is designed to bring to the world our frequently dueling perspectives on current events, cultural phenomena and other subjects of interest.

We might argue, we might agree but rest assured that every disagreement or conversation we have will always be 100% genuine.  In the end, what we aim to do is provide an outlet for our own random thoughts and, hopefully, it’ll be entertaining to you.  If not, at least it’ll be entertaining to us.

Take a look and if you want to know what we’re thinking right this second check out our Twitter.

Cheers,

YellowSun