...Our Christmas Decorations...

We can't put anything up outside because of our condo - so we went bonkers in 2010 inside!

Still have presents to wrap, but this is our Christmas house! Here is the extent of our decorations, besides the Christmas Houses which I have a video of, below.



And here is a video of our Dickens' Village houses. This was the first video I ever made on iMovie with captions and music, it was fun to test, I obviously want to do this in bigger/better ways in the future.

...is it okay to laugh???

Just so you know, this is about sports.

Within the last 5 days, there has been 2 separate stories about pro athletes having fun while losing, and while the contexts were very different, the crux of the conversation is the same.

Here are pertinent clips from the Arizona Cardinals Derek Anderson's laughing, then the following press conference:



and



Then last night during the sports debacle known as the Cavs/Heat matchup brought some of its own "too much fun" controversy. I have copied the URL of the story that is really scathing here

So the issue is this: Is it okay for players to laugh while they're losing. I have heard multiple arguments this week, but they are both flawed, and I'll explain why. The first story I heard was the "why it is okay to laugh while you're losing" story, from an NFL Hall of Fame Website story about Joe Montana:

A humorous example of his poise under pressure occurred in Super Bowl XXIII against the Cincinnati Bengals. Trailing 16-13 with 3:20 left in the game, the 49ers had the ball on their own eight-yard line.

"Some of the guys seemed more than normally tense," Montana recalled, "especially Harris Barton, a great offensive tackle who has a tendency to get nervous." As usual, Montana was just focusing on the situation, how far they had to go and how much time was left. Just then he happened to spot the late actor John Candy in the stands. "Look" he said, 'isn't that John Candy." It was hardly what his teammates expected to hear in the huddle with the Super Bowl on the line. But it definitely broke the tension. "Everybody kind of smiled, and even Harris relaxed, and then we all concentrated on the job we had to do."

And then there's the "winner's don't find losing funny" go-to guy I think of, Tom Brady. This is Tom Brady's postgame after the Jets loss earlier this year, and you can see it in his body language whenever they are struggling, he hates losing so much:



So now you have all the info, and I still haven't said anything yet. I guess my first point is that we are talking about 3 groups of people in the first 2 clips:
1. The horrible Arizona Cardinals
2. The horrible Cleveland Cavaliers
3. The Underachieving Miami Heat

1 & 2 are easy - the fact that Derek Anderson is laughing has nothing to do with their success or failures. The only reason this is a story is because it was on Monday Night Football, and an NFL Network exists, which needs 24/7 programming.

The Cavaliers were snakecharmed by Lebron for the last 7 years. They were a group that played magical regular seasons and honestly didn't stand a chance of winning. The fact that they were (or weren't) joking with Lebron during the game is not the disease - it is the symptom. They have never been really coached before this year (Mike Brown), and they were led by someone who is proving to be literally the biggest egomaniac in the history of modern sports.



You know a person is deplorable when I agree with Reggie Miller's "the hole has been dug deeper" sentiment.

I guess what I'm really getting at is that in the Montana excerpt, we see that levity, fun, laughter, motivation techniques of any kind are okay if employed by winners. They aren't if they are employed by losers. That's not anything new, there just isn't a consistency in diagnosis is my main problem. If the 49ers lost the Super Bowl to the Bengals that year, a really good Bengals team I may add, would Montana have been vilified for making a joke about John Candy to Harris Barton? No, for 2 reasons. 1, there was no NFL Network/ESPN/Podcasts/Youtube to focus on that aspect, and 2, Joe simply knows how to lead.

It isn't in Tom Brady's DNA to joke about a loss, but it is in Joe Montana's to joke as a motivation tool. We don't need or care to know what is in Daniel 'Boobie' Gibson's DNA with the Cavs, or with Derek Anderson's, because in the grand scheme of things they are role players, players of no consequence, and don't need to be measured in these conversations. They are not relevant.

All of this is not relevant. A leader is a leader, a winner is a winner, and ultimately measure athletes on championships, which is a biproduct of guts and determination. Sometimes humor is involved in the chemistry too, but that chemistry has long passed Derek Anderson and the remaining Cleveland Cavaliers windows.

...Potter Movies...

I haven't seen the 7th movie yet - and I'm sad it's broken up into 2 parts. I wish we still had the ability to sit through an epic 3-3.5 hour movie like we once did. Movies like Giant, Laurence of Arabia, and Gone With The Wind were partially what they were because they were such an emotional commitment from start to finish...

But that isn't my point, I mostly wanted to just rank how I feel about the Potter movies after rewatching 1-5 in the past week:

1. HP & The Prisoner of Azkaban
2. HP & The Sorcerer's Stone
3. HP & The Order of the Phoenix
4. HP & The Goblet of Fire
5. HP & The Chamber of Secrets

As far as reading experience goes, this is how I rank all 7 (in terms of how much I enjoyed reading them, while reading them:

1. HP & The Sorcerer's Stone
2. HP & The Prisoner of Azkaban
3. HP & The Goblet of Fire
4. HP & The Half Blood Prince
5. HP & The Deathly Hallows
6. HP & The Order of the Phoenix
7. HP & The Chamber of Secrets

...CBS Crew...

I was driving home tonight from Football Sunday at Bree & Tori Tavares' house, and I heard the press conference that is shown a handful of seconds into this clip attached. My reaction was, "that is an awesome clip - this guy is pissed, he is upset, and he cares about the fact that he let the team down."

We were watching the Bills game live when Johnson dropped that pass, and I am not going to lie, I laugh and I shout when a guy drops a pass, b/c that's my right as a fan. I am allowed to have those emotions. However, if I were a broadcaster, I'd like to think I'd control myself. I don't see myself thinking differently if I had a different role, or if I made millions mocking current NFL players like the dimwits in this clip do.

I wanted to post the press conference to my twitter/facebook b/c I really think this Bills team is awesome - Justin asked if they were a playoff team if they didn't screw around at QB/RB early in the year like they did, and the fact that they lose to good teams by so few points is evidence they are not far at all from being exceptional.

When I searched youtube , I found the clip of the CBS clan mocking Stevie, and acting as if they have never suffered, never felt bad, never showed an emotion other than flat out cockiness, and in a few moans and groans and giggles, showed they have no idea what humility is.

Dan Marino, Bill Cowher, Shannon Sharpe, and Boomer Esiason. If you have followed football all your life, or in the last 30 years, you'd be able to answer this question very quickly, without much thinking: Would you have any desire to spend 30 minutes in a room with any or all of these men? Your answer would be an emphatic, "NO!" Only Steelers fans, Bengals fans, Dolphins fans, and fans of complete A-holes would appreciate what these guys have contributed to the league.

Marino is the Charles Barkley of the NFL - the guy who may have been the best to never win - except nobody longs for his lost championship. People wish Barkley won, and appreciate what he gives to the game now. Marino detracts from it. Cowher & Boomer aren't even worth talking about. Also, for some reason, refs refused to call a false start on him when basically on every snap he moved his right leg before the ball was ever snapped, b/c he was too old and slow to play by the rules, and too arrogant to think the rules applied to him.

Cowher is a maniac who can't control his saliva, and had an up and down career that was rejuvinated by a Super Bowl victory in what was not only the most boring Super Bowl ever, but also the Super Bowl victory against the least threatening opponent of all time.

Shannon Sharpe...I don't even know what to say, I don't know what kind of person you need to be to think, "That Sharpe is an admirable person...I really respect him." First of all, he is a murderer of proper diction - an assassin to the English language, but I won't even hold that against him b/c he spent the first 38 years of his life perfecting pass-catching, blocking, and running his mouth...but the list of people in this world who think they are fantastic because they were near John Elway is insufferable, and continues to grow.

And Jim Brown was once a great voice in the NFL, but I fear that TV producers and the CBS "Show" of NFL football have stripped him of integrity, thought and real insight. Instead he is relegated to be the ringleader of a circus whose clowns have clearly taken control.

Stevie Johnson should be criticized for dropping 5 passes, including the bomb to win the game. He is a pro, and deserves scorn for failing on a big stage like OT against a perennial powerhouse like the Steelers. But he should be applauded for caring, for wanting to win, for voicing concern that he let teammates down, and he doesn't need a collection of has-been's who falsely think they played in a better league, and whose only validation in life is to constantly attempt to drag down the young stars who they know will soon trump their importance in the most powerful sports league in America.

...Reggie Jackson v. Frank Drebin...

I am going to do the impossible, the thing that nobody says anyone can, or should do…and I’m going to go out on a limb and say that it is actually possible that both sides are right on an issue…(GASP!)

So here it is, Thanksgiving weekend and everyone is travelling. On a side note, how do people travel on Thanksgiving at the airport? They jack ticket prices up so high I cannot imagine spending that kind of dough to fly anymore. It was always expensive, but over the years, things have gotten nuts. Trust me, I follow these things. I go on kayak for fun, I am not kidding. I think looking at flight prices is interesting.

Anyway, millions flock to the airport and have to go through security, and every single one of them is inconvenienced, without question. The insane rules that seemingly make no sense actually may make no sense. Some airports require you to do certain things, and we’re more strict on domestic flights than other countries are with flights coming into the US, so you have to ask yourself, “what the hell are we doing?!”

People are freaking out b/c a scanner can tell if you have big feet or not, but whatever, at some point you’d think that looking at thousands of body-scans an hour would cease being interesting, and personal freedoms in this sense are under attack only in the mind of the person being scanned – its sort of a “get over yourself” type of thing. But I get it, I see how it’s something uncomfortable, and I understand that the inconvenience of it all is there, I wouldn’t argue that.

However, there are a few things. First, flying isn’t a right. Don’t fly, then. Don’t get on a plane if you don’t like the rules. I say this over and over again, consumers in this country think they are slaves to the developer/seller of the goods – we aren’t! WE HAVE ALL THE CONTROL!!!!

If you don’t like what airlines are asking of you, you don’t need to write a letter or protest violently, you simply can stop using the airline and convince your friends to do the same. It’s that easy. It really is. Short of that, then what you’re protesting is a personal dislike for a policy, and why would a Company change it’s policy b/c a vocal minority doesn’t like the policy? It has to grow to the majority stage.

But beyond the annoyance of it all, and beyond the fact that people are acting as if they can expect 100% convenience from every single thing they do in their lives, I feel like the bigger issue is that we are convincing ourselves we are stopping the next 9/11 from happening because we make me put my laptop in a separate bin.

These policies aren’t secret, we know what they are, and so do the terrorists. The people who orchestrated 9/11 weren’t aliens who guessed right and got “lucky”, they knew our culture, our rules, our methods, and understood how to circumnavigate the system. They will do the same next time, if there is a next time.

Yes, we’re making it more difficult for the terrorists who aren’t skilled to get things done. But the TSA regulations, in my view, aren’t going to prevent a years-long, well devised, intricate plan from happening. I am sorry if that makes people uncomfortable or angry, I just don’t see how pat-downs will change anything except catch the obvious terrorists.

At the end of the day, it reminds me of The Naked Gun. Watch this scene, and my view is Frank Drebbin is TSA (from about minute 4:20 on) and our National Security Administration. Reggie Jackson is the next terrorist, and #20 on the Angels with the nail file on the mound is the underwear bomber or the unsuccessful buffoon in Times Square. Sure, we’ll catch the obvious, but good old fashioned luck is the only way to stop Reggie from poppin’ out of the pile and attempting to kill the queen.

...Who does this?

The Fishers do, that's who...

...By Month....

I am not yet tired. That's bad. So, to fill the time, I'm going to post a year-deep retrospective: The most important thing that happened to me this year, each month. It only counts if I have video and/or pictures of it. Keep that in mind.

January:












February:












March:












April:



















May:


June:












July:




August:










September:













October:














November:

...Thanksgiving Menu...

I think this is where we stand for Thanksgiving. There may be changes, but it's going to be a GOOD ONE!

...Vanilla Sky...

Stripped of all expectation, and 10 years (rather than a few months) removed from my personal Almost Famous euphoria, I think that Vanilla Sky is actually a very, very good movie.

That's all I got.

...Broadway Shows...

The other night Alison and I saw Wicked in Boston, it was the 3rd time I have seen Wicked, and it was the 3rd time I saw it in Boston. I think I don't mind seeing it again and again because each time I do a new song strikes me as a real moment in the show - and that could be driven primarily by the characters and the way the actors and actresses sing each song. Not sure exactly, but the first time I saw it, it was obviously 'Defying Gravity' that stood out - given it probably is one of the most powerful songs from the last 10 years of Broadway, but I'll get to that later.

This time around it was 'As Long As You're Mine', no idea why. I listen to it now and I am not particularly moved by it, but I think it was just a moment where there wasn't a lot of action on the stage, and being in the 2nd row it was exciting to see 2 people act on stage, close up. It is a good song, but I can 100% guarantee that it won't be my favorite song.

This is not the point of why I am writing this. I am writing this because it struck me on my ride home from work tonight that out of all of the males in the universe that I am either friends with, or even know on any level, I can't think of anyone who knows, or cares more, about Broadway than me. That isn't a statement about how much I know in regards to Broadway, I know a minuscule amount - and I do care about the shows and the actors, and plays, etc...but not as much as someone who really cares - like Alison, for example.

Here is, in chronological order, the 10 most important events for me in regards to seeing Broadway style shows:

1. Early 80's - My mom was in a show - Sweet Charity, maybe, which was performed by the local theater group my family was a part of. And I remember specifically being very confused by her makeup, the new person she had become, and I remember not liking it. It wasn't her, it was her character, but it wasn't my Mom, and it struck me as odd. I was intrigued by this whole process as she continued to be in other plays, including Hannah & Her Sisters, which I was older for and understood she was acting, but still didn't like that she had to cry and be upset in the play. This whole process - me understanding what acting was, and watching people be a part of it, honestly scared me a little bit. I can't explain it, but I was intrigued, from afar.

2. Mid 80's - Seeing Annie somewhere in Boston with my parents. I don't remember a single thing about the show itself, or even really caring about the show after it was over. But what I do remember is that everything felt so big, so exciting and so energetic. People had tickets and entered a theater like a movie theatre, but they were buzzing - it wasn't like a movie, people were dressed nicer and the stairs were steeper and it was just large. I remember being impressed, which was a better feeling than being intimidated, like I explained above.

3. 1991 - I saw Cats in London with my parents, and without question it was literally one of the most depressing and disappointing things I have ever seen. Cats was all the rage, and I was definitely supposed to love this show, and I think it was literally impossible to love this show. I remember thinking, "This is Broadway, and people love Broadway, this is awful, how can this all make sense?" Now I am older, I still am baffled by the fact that Cats was a big deal, it was fairly horrible from what I can tell.

4. 1994 - I saw Tommy in Boston with Mike Baird, Rebecca Alukonis and Melissa St. Croix, and it was completely moving. There are a few things that stand out from this. First, I missed Drew Bledsoe's 45 completions in 70 attempts performance v. the Vikings during this show, but I recall weighing that against the show and recognizing that it wasn't a big deal to me. I was not upset.

I also remember from the opening with "Sparks", the whole show was LOUD! It was energetic, it was phenomenal. This was also my first major exposure to The Who, so I don't know which was more important, but I left this thinking, "I could see more of this kind of thing". I didn't, for a long, long time, actually - but at the same time, the experience of being at a musical and being invested was thrilling to me.

5. 1997 - Riverdance came to Boston and while this isn't a Broadway show, necessarily, at the time with the limited exposure I had to the theater, this counted. It was important to me because I felt like I was regressing towards my mean - I was seeing enough on the positive and negative side of things, and I was starting to formulate an opinion. I think that Riverdance was critical to not only my theater appreciation, but also in my honing of my bull&hit gauge. And this show was 100% BS. Flatley later admitted he pumped in sound, b/c, after all, how could the actors make all that noise organically, he asked? Good question - that's why we were all intrigued, Oz... I feel venom towards this guy, and I had no desire to go to a show for a long time after this.

6. 2004 - My theater life changed significantly when I met Alison and was able to have access to shows, geographically, b/c Alison's parents lived so close to the city. I hadn't yet seen a show on Broadway, and the notion was exciting to me, even though the idea of seeing a show wasn't that exciting for the show's sake. I had listened to the Tommy soundtrack until the disc was cracked, literally. But beyond that, I wasn't driven to go anywhere to see a show.

In 2004 Alison took me to see Avenue Q on Broadway, and it worked. I was hooked. Pretty much instantly. The quality of a Broadway show, from the performers to the sets, to the theaters, all of it hooked me. But seeing Avenue Q is one thing, that's easy, its funny and light, but what about some real, hard-hitting Broadway. Would that work on me? Yes, it would.

7. 2007 - I was lucky enough to see a first run of Mary Poppins on Broadway, whose stage, set, scenery, singing and spectacle officially turned me into someone who 100% loved Broadway. I love it. I love the music and the way the songs drag you from one segment to the other. I love how you never know what the next scene will "sound" like - you don't get that out of movies. Unless you're talking about revolutionary and groundbreaking film making, you have to live through the feeling, no matter what.

Don't get me wrong, I love movies, obviously, but Mary Poppins was the first time I can remember being in a theater, and aside from Tommy's audio power, I felt in awe. I felt small, and I felt like I was watching something real happen in front of me - a coordination of a great deal of time & effort, and I appreciated it.

8. 2008 - Like any other person who had a friend or a relative, I had heard of Rent by 2008. The movie came out in 2006, and I knew a vague idea of the plot - these lazy screwball drugbags had AIDS and blamed the world for it - that's what I thought at least, and I'm not sure I'm too wrong about it now.

More literally, in the summer of '06 I was staying at a boutique hotel literally right next door to Rent, and at about 10.15 or so, I noticed that if I listened I could hear the sound of the show next door - the cheering, clapping and shouting. It pains me to know I had a free night in NYC and I was feet, within earshot, of the show and didn't see it. We all have regrets.

But I had steered clear of it - it was an intimidating thing at this point - a show everyone knew and loved, and if I really wanted to be embrace the Broadway community, I felt a great sense of pressure to know and love this show as well. In 2008 when the show closed, a decision was made to show the last performance in movie theaters, with some editing. I decided this was the right time to see it - on my home turf a movie theater a few miles down the road.

Up to this point, I think it's safe to say I hadn't been as moved by a collection of music for a relatively short span of time, with the only exceptions being Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, STP's Purple and Radiohead's OK Computer. The performance didn't have the original cast, and it just was on the screen, but I absolutely felt like I was there, and while I don't feel as strongly about it now as I did then, I could see how this really gripped an entire generation and moved people to love Rent. These songs are completely etched into my head at this point, and I know I'll listen to them for the rest of my life.

Since this film, I saw Rent live on stage in Boston and I saw a local production in Newton as well - I'm very much looking forward to seeing it in a rebirth in 20 or 30 years as well.

9. 2009 - If Rent gave license to the world to write a Broadway production that not only aimed for youth, but also for non-white youth, and aimed for an audience it wasn't going to attract in mid-town Manhattan on an 8x a week basis, In The Heights was a show that took firm grasp of that invitation and RSVP'd with force.

There are 4 to 6 songs in this that I consider masterpieces - perfect songs, but also amazing elements to a very rich story of friendship and meaning and place in time, importance in history. Thinking locally and effecting the people closest to you - these kinds of values are so magnificent and no show I have ever seen took such a stranglehold of your emotions like In The Heights has done for me. I saw it on Broadway with a good portion of the Original Cast, including the lead, who is the lifeblood of the show.

The finale song, actually the final 3, as well as the 2 songs leading to Intermission are powerful, emotional songs that tell such a complete story - totally remarkable. In the Heights is my favorite show I've ever seen - it'll be a movie someday and I hope people see it, but it's the kind of show that literally makes you want to be a better person and care more, with completely beautiful music.

10. 2010 - "You get everyone addicted to your coffee, and off you go," is a line from In The Heights - during one of the emotional finale songs, and it sort of sums up how I feel about Broadway and musicals at this point. I am not shutting the door on possibilities of good songs, and powerful stories. Next To Normal was a tremendous show, but it had a soft 2nd act, and I am sure I'll love Fela and Memphis when I see them, and that kind of looking forward is great, but I also look back.

Wicked opened the same year as Avenue Q, and while I don't regret seeing Avenue Q within it's first 12 months, I am pained by the fact that Kristen Chenoweth and Idina Menzel were on stage for Wicked, and I didn't even come close to seeing it. It wasn't even on my radar. I don't have regret like this with anything else in my life. I cared about sports so early that I didn't miss anything I could logically see - but the powerhouse performances by IM and KC are something I can only see glimpses of on Youtube (which I can't stand) and in documentaries.

Seeing Wicked now is like watching the NFL with the replacement players - the real power and emotion and music comes from the original cast. That being said, I saw the performance the other night and it made me hopeful that not only is the musical alive and well, but it can work in Boston, and if the songs are right, it can work anywhere.

I am of the opinion that the performers in Manhattan's musical are the most talented people in the world in terms of music. I wish those people were the heroes in terms of talent. I can't stress enough - you need to find a way, the dime, the time, everything, to see a show you think you'll like in New York.

They put it all on the line 8 times a week and go out there, live, and sing to the best of their abilities which are great.

I don't know what it is about me, as a 33 year old Male, that makes me so interested and passionate about Broadway and what it has to offer, but I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world. I guess I sacrifice things, but I am not sure what? There is always room for entertainment in my life, and I am glad Broadway is taking up a large %.

...Mr. Parks...

I don't know Mr. Parks at all, but this is a great remembrance about him in today's Boston Globe. I don't even know if I know anyone who knows him, I may, he was at UMass while I was there.

It's funny because something like this shouldn't strike me emotionally, but reading what she had to say about her band leader I was immediately drawn to my UMass organized sport memories, which always come in the form of my playing days on Zoodisc.

Long passed are the days where I try to justify what UMass Ultimate meant to me, from an athletic or commitment standpoint. I am very much over trying to convince people we took this thing seriously, and we cared, and we were emotional about it.

I had fun with a few teammates this week remembering a brotherly-love type argument I got into with a teammate, and it was hilarious to look back, and it was so heated and passionate at the time, we cared a hell of a lot about that team.

But the point of this post was to recognize a UMass legend - he deserves it, but also to recognize my teammates I played with at UMass, who ultimately became some of my best friends.

The real point of my post is this: I completely forget that having friends you can admire, respect, look up to and draw inspiration from is something I can never take for granted, I'm so completely humbled to be surrounded by some of the best people I could imagine, and while some people only get that type of guidance and leadership from coaches, band leaders, bosses, etc, I get it whenever I need it from my friends - Minutemen, or Lakers alike...

...Coach K v. Wojo. Wojo loses...

I have copied an entire article written by Adrian Wojnarowski about Coach K and his comments about the Russia/USA game in 1972. I generally really like Adrian's articles, but I think this one is unmitigated crap.

I love Coach K so much right now, for 3 reasons: (1) He is doing an amazing job with this team USA, and he did an amazing job last time. I find him fascinating and brilliant as a coach. (2) Coach K has been so loyal to Duke, which isn't a pre-requisite for my respect, but it is something I can respect, therefore, he wins. (3) He's fair, and respectful, and everyone knows that about him.

I didn't grow up liking Coach K, I actually think I disliked Duke, so my defense of Coach K really comes from a place of earned respect, and in home-town loving sports world, I honestly think that liking someone from outside your state, your home town, removed from your favorite team, then you are an anomaly, and your opinion should carry weight. Therefore, I'm going to argue with everything Wojo says in the article below. His text is in bold, my comments are italicized.

ISTANBUL – In the end, it was the kind of desperate stunt that comes from a coach holding too little faith in his team, perhaps too little preparation. Behind the cover of some kind of nationalistic stand, Mike Krzyzewski used the platform of the world championships to impugn the integrity of a good coach’s name. In his haste to exploit that old American basketball gash, Krzyzewski created a fresh boogeyman for a post-Cold War game between the United States and Russia. David Blatt, American traitor.

I firmly believe this is 100% bullcrap. If Coach K was Ochocinco or T.O. or Ozzie Guillen, I'd maybe believe it, but this attack of Coach K in the first paragraph goes so harshly against what we really know of him - I automatically start reading this thinking Wojo has an agenda, and that agenda is likely that he is upset that since the free-agent orgy this summer, Wojo is getting ignored. Welcome to working for Yahoo! Wojo, you aren't top priority in the readers minds...

That’s the implication for an American-Israeli coaching the old evil empire’s national team, and that’s a load of garbage. No one takes these national coaching jobs for simply national pride, but also the perks of privilege, access and residual gains. Team USA plays as much for Nike and David Stern’s imperialistic designs as it does the red, white and blue.

I don't even know what he is talking about here - I don't think I fully understand if he his accusing Coach K of wanting residuals, or Blatt. I cannot figure it out. Coach K had the Lakers job in his hands, he had the Clippers job in his hands, he has had opportunity to have it all. Everything. He consistently has reminded the world that his players are everything, that he fills a role, he has placed ego so low on his priority list - I don't even know where Wojo is coming from here.

Krzyzewski knows that truth, and he went to such a low-brow, low-rent place on the eve of Team USA’s 89-79 victory over Russia that moved the Americans into Saturday’s semifinal against Lithuania.

What Coach K said isn't even that harsh at all - he responded to a question and he accused the "American-Israeli" coach of being Russian. He's lived there for 30 years, and he coaches the Russian team. Coach K knows where Blatt grew up, he is simply referring to the fact that Blatt wants Russia to win, and to act as if the USA/USSR 1972 game is something thats emotionally difficult to deal with - which Blatt did - does require a response of "bullshit", which is what Coach K did.

“We’re friends,” Krzyzewski would say of Blatt as he brusquely marched past a reporter in the hallway outside his news conference. He didn’t want to hear the rest of a question on the subject and kept moving. Krzyzewski stopped for a second, turned around and passed on answering whether he had any regrets or had simply expressed his true belief that a differing perspective on the ’72 Olympic gold-medal game constituted some kind of patriotic treachery.

You gotta love this one. You really do. Wojo admits that Coach K didn't hear the full question, but accuses him of brushing off a "differing perspective." That's like accusing Einstein of being obstinate b/c he didn't disseminate E=MC(squared) via Twitter. You're reaching here, Wojo.

To get past the dogged, undermanned Russians, Krzyzewski riled up that old Russian hate for his players and the public. It sniffed of desperation, but Duke’s coach isn’t taking the chance of becoming the first national coach in history to fail in winning consecutive world championships. Never mind the myth of sportsmanship in international basketball, Krzyzewski used up and spit out a most disposable Blatt.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. First of all, the Russians are in the Quarterfinals of a World Basketball Championship. Nobody, including Coach K, sees them as "dogged" or "undermanned." Coach K says only respectful things of Davidson College in a early November game at Cameron Indoor. He isn't desperate, he isn't positioning Russia, he simply said 1 line, which was about a moment that was painful to an entire sports nation.

"Sportsmanship in international basketball" is exactly what is at the heart of the criminally horrible call, reaction, and celebration by the '72 Russian team. It was a different time - the 1980 US Hockey game was important b/c it was US v. USSR - for a military man like Coach K, those types of things do actually cut deep. Wojo's involvement in the Cold War is probably relegated to reruns of 'Red Dawn'.

Krzyzewski played the patriotism card to his advantage with Team USA, and yet later didn’t want the accountability of its ownership.

Yah, that...or he didn't want to deal with assholes like you, Wojo.

“Hey, I said what I thought, and after that I didn’t get a whole lot of chance to say something,” Blatt said. “I don’t know how much gamesmanship I practiced. But it looks like the [USA] coach jumped on it and used it pretty good. His guys were awfully motivated and so was he.”

Sure, Krzyzewski has a soft spot for the ’72 team, and that’s understandable. His assistant coach, Chris Collins, is the son of Doug Collins. Mike Bantom travels with Team USA in his duties with the NBA league office. I happen to disagree with Blatt, and believe an unjust chain of events occurred that cost the U.S. the gold medal. Still, the U.S. coach, Henry Iba, was too far past his prime, and his antiquated, sluggish style never properly used the athleticism and talent of those Americans. They never should’ve been in a 51-50 death grip with the Russians, but that’s how it went with an icon propped up on the sidelines.

I could write forever about this - on one hand Wojo accuses Coach K of not needing to give his players motivation, b/c they are better than Russia. Then in the next paragraph he trashes the 1972 Coach b/c the game was close - and that the "undermanned" and perhaps even "dogged" Russian team made it a game.

I also find it funny because he actually gives Coach K his due - he explains that it may actually be a wound, which could leave to a relatively benign comment like the one Coach K made. I am totally confused as to why he is so uspet with him!

They weren’t the first Olympians to get robbed and they wouldn’t be the last. Eventually, reason should’ve taken over and they should’ve gone back and accepted those silver medals. This 38-year blood war with that loss has gone on long enough, and the Americans would’ve set a terrific example had they done what they would’ve told their kids to do: Be gracious, accept the medal and move on.

Thank god we've identified the person who is able to tell us when people should get over things or not. He should thumb through his handbook and realize that the level of anger Coach K had in his comment warranted, perhaps, a tweet by Wojo, but not an entire article. He is overreacting, and now I am too. Do you see what you started here?

Yes, the ’72 saga strikes a human chord within the American basketball establishment. In an Olympics where Israeli athletes were murdered, the loss of a basketball tournament remains an ache for the ages. Before the quarterfinals game on Thursday, an inquisitive Chauncey Billups(notes) carried his breakfast over to Bantom and probed him on his memories of that fateful day in Munich.

So is it okay for Coach K to be mad, or not? I don't get it?

Before they left the dining room, Billups told Bantom that nothing Team USA would do on Thursday would make that game right for him again, and yet maybe they could let him leave the arena with something of a smile.

Bantom didn’t need a victory over the Russians – not as badly as Krzyzewski did on Thursday. He would get it, but not before sacrificing the good name of Blatt. When it was over, Krzyzewski gushed about Blatt’s genius, but that was easy at the game’s end. He had tagged him as a non-American for coaching those Russians, and labels are hard to shake when they come out of the mouth of a Hall of Fame coach. Yes, we’re friends, Coach K said. Friends, indeed. What a desperate, low-rent stunt.

Wojo accused Coach K of not wanting the "accountability of the ownership" of the comment. Seems, to me, he took ownership, and nobody brought more visibility to this comment, and blew it out of proportion as much as Wojo did.

The low-rent stunt here is the slandering of Coach K, who has spent decades working hard, ignoring the notion of legacy, and instead creating one as perhaps the last real sports figure you can admire with no hesitancy.

...Prognosticating...

At least we all know that Punxatawney Phil is a joke. I mean, we approach the whole process knowing that its just a funny, silly thing that we do to pass the time, a social norm that has grown to entertain and amuse us. That's nice.

Slightly down the ladder in terms of respectable prediction are weatherpeople in general. The countless examples of being flat out wrong far outnumber any examples of useful prediction. Basically their roles in our lives is a function of advertising space on Local News channels - they are not needed, and they essentially should exist to only let us know if there is a hurricane, tornado, or other natural disaster, weather-related, they can warn us of. Anything outside of that is frivolous, but we've accepted them.

And at the bottom of the prediction food chain are sports analysts. These are the worst because their accountability isn't low, it's next to nothing. Who is keeping track of what they say? Besides Justin, Trav & Myself, nobody really ever pays attention to how wrong these guys are basically all the time, yet they continue to predict, and we continue to be entertained by it.

But why are we entertained by it? What does it bring us to hear two "experts" tell me, before the season has even started, that the Packers and Ravens are going to meet in the Super Bowl. Guess what, they aren't. Nobody knows who is going to be in the Super Bowl - in fact, the biggest NFL experts in the Universe only serve to bring their credibility down by selecting a Super Bowl matchup.

This past weekend, Lindsey Davenport was doing analysis for the US Open and when asked who would win between Wozniacki and Sharapova, she shook her head and in true Davenport fashion just said, "I don't do that." That is the most refreshing analysis I think I have ever heard.

"I don't do that," would serve everyone well. Each Sunday for a 1/2 hour before gametime we listen to a collection of unaccountable blowhards (i hate that word, but thats what they are) sit on the sets of ESPN, CBS, NBC, FOX, etc and tell us who will win each game and why. We see their records, usually around or sub .500, and I am sure statistical analysis will show that they are literally worthless. They are a worthless experiment.

I have grown so uncomfortable with the, "so what do you think is going to happen?" question, or the "who is going to win?" question. I don't know. Nobody knows. Everyone. Nobody knows. Lets talk about something else. I am going to start taking the Davenport Approach, as I am coining it...."I don't do that," will be a common phrase you'll hear from me.

Except when it comes to ultimate. I'll take Red Tide over Zebra Muscles any day of the week.

...Variety...

I too often blog about the NBA. Not that there are rules, but if I want to get the attention of even 30% of my friends, I should talk about other things. I used to talk about politics more, but honestly the social media policy at work is scaring me off of that, as strange as that may sound. Even writing that sentence scares me a little. But I do love me some Big Brother, I really do.

So I figured I'd sorta just rant, Dennis Miller style, about all the different things that have interested me over the past few weeks. I know this is lame, and not articulate, but I'm feeling the urge to just put things down.

Straws

I am not a "They don't make 'em like they used to" kind of guy. I like change, progress, evolution, I like when things go in a different direction. One thing I don't like, however, are straws nowadays. I don't know what it is, if its the material of the paper sheath, or the material of the straw, but straws are harder to open, and they bend/break more easily than they used to.

I interact with straws a few times a week for iced coffee, so this may be a Dunkin Donuts issue, and I cringe that it most likely was a cost-saving measure, dropping the price of straws from .008 cents to .005 cents per straw worldwide, and it results in my crimping 40% of the straws I open and making it so I get equal parts Air and French Vanilla on every sip. This aggression on behalf of Dunkies won't stand.

Actually, it will stand quite easily, I have no leverage.

Nyjer Morgan

This is about baseball, and I'll keep it short, but this guy is bonkers! I don't have an opinion of him personally beyond that, but this guy is going to be my poster child for why throwing at batters is the single biggest nonsense thing in sports. It has no lasting benefit, it doesn't serve any purpose besides perpetuating some kind of false aggression, and it has no place in civilized sports - its like brawling in hockey but with less logic.

Morgan is completely nuts, but the reality is that the pitcher has said he threw at him partially b/c he didn't like that Morgan stole with a lead - that kind of thing drives me crazy. There isn't nearly as much of that in the NBA or NFL as there is in baseball - I swear to gosh so much crap comes out of baseball b/c these guys are playing a boring sport. Anyway, Morgan is crazy, baseball is silly, and fights make me queasy.

Jobs

I saw an analyst this morning on CNN that was saying she was shocked that there hasn't been an uptick in hirings in the marketplace. She said that temporary or part-time/freelance work is increasing, and she was stunned that companies weren't yet offering the full-time benefits route.

This is something that someone in the business has trouble seeing, but some of us outside of the business can see so easily. What business am I referring to? Simply put, the business of Greed.

If you are running a company, and you are driven by getting the shareholders more money, this economic downturn is the greatest thing for you. You have a 2 year built-in excuse for poor performance, which may be justified. Your company is no longer judged by the last 24 months, but by the next 24 months, which is great. As a private company, you have no incentive to increase your workforce - the reality that millions of hard working people need, and want, jobs isn't your responsibility.

Of course companies are hiring freelancers, of course they aren't paying benefits. The reality is there isn't enough work to go around for all of us to sustain our current lives - the myth of being busy at work all the time (for other people, of course) is something that we can't afford to let go of, so we act shocked when corporations can get the same output/input from an employer on 20 hours as they did on 40 hours.

The whole algorithm of what its going to take from a workforce/headcount perspective is changing.

The Mosque

I really don't have any intentions of discussing this beyond the fact that this is one of those times where people who are in charge, the leadership of this country, New York City, and even neighborhood level folks, need to stop considering the voice of every individual and what they think is right, and simply act.

My personal opinion is that Obama should step in, and become more vocal than he ever has been, about his feelings on this, and apply a pressure that has been unseen on the local level, prior to this. I would have the same opinion of G.W. Bush was in office - the person leading this country has to stand for something, and in the absence of standing for something vocally and without question, confusion reigns. Even if I don't agree with what the result is, courage in conviction and believing your own honesty is what matters. What this has all turned into is so sad, so analytically depressing, and it doesn't need to be. Someone either make this thing happen, or not happen, but lets stop dancing.

Dairy Queen

For the past 10 or 12 years or so, I decided to get Blizzards. Probably on average, 1 time per year, I'd get a Blizzard at Dairy Queen. When I was young, they were so unique - candies mixed with delicious-ish ice cream, what can beat that. Cookie Dough, Snickers, M&M's, Reeses...each flavor was so awesome. Then I had Nerds, and it was gross, but I pretended to like it.

Then I tried other flavors, I can't recall what they are, but it was always just "too much"... A blizzard is just "too much."

A few weeks ago I decided to go to my old standby - a combination at Dairy Queen I hadn't gotten since, oh I don't know, 1988? Swirl Soft Serve, cone, cherry dip.

The Blizzard has absolutely nothing on that combo. The Blizzard is auto-tune to The Cherry Dip Swirl's Joni Mitchell. So delicious. The blizzard is dead - its time for everyone else to stop pretending they like it.

Apple TV

In the spirit of fairness, I want to give Apple it's due props on how awesome Apple TV is. I never wanted Apple TV before for a few reasons. (1) It didn't stream HD, which really is a reason to not make a product, but in true Apple form, they made it anyway. (2) Apple TV didn't have a deep enough library, and without the relationship with a company like Netflix, it felt very limiting.

They fixed both those things, and for only $99 bucks we're finally seeing the future of what TV will look like in a tangible way, and that is awesome. I'd be shocked if my house didn't have an Apple TV by October 1.

Mad Men

I can't speak for every show on TV, but right now I watch about 3 shows. I watch Mad Men religiously, I watch Survivor and I watch Hard Knocks. The rest is live sports, or sports highlights programming. If Real Time With Bill Maher is on, I'm all over it.

I know this though, the last 2 weeks of Mad Men have been unbelievable. There is 1 show that comes to mind that was as good as this one late in it's 4th season, and that is The Wire. The Sopranos was good, but had tailed off, and the same goes for The West Wing.

But watching an episode of Mad Men is an education, it reminds me of my film class days, or even my English class days, where an art form was created in a way that gave you license to take leaps, create thoughts, go beyond the notion that "I just need to be entertained." Listen, I have no problem with entertainment, and I have no issue if people only want to watch Reality TV, I won't fault you for it, (unless its Jersey Shore - I fault you for that) but for me, personally, I'm at a time where I want a TV show to mean something to me, and Mad Men takes care of everything.

I'm looking for a good Mad Men email buddy - someone who will let me rant about my favorite parts, the most disappointing parts, and the parts that made me want to scream with joy and/or agony. I'll be accepting applications in the form of an essay. You wanna be my buddy, you have to explain to me why you think Peggy hasn't left Sterling-Cooper-Draper-Price yet.

...Carter isn't like us...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/08/carter_snubbed.html?p1=News_links

That article is rubbish.

Jimmy Carter went to N. Korea to get someone, and bring him back to the US. I don't think Carter, from what I know of him, cares about being snubbed, or worries about that type of nonsense. I don't know how, as a country, we voted Jimmy Carter President. That isn't an insult to him, it's an insult to us.

The guy isn't like anyone else in politics, ever. He is such a person of morals and passion and honesty to himself, and he is belittled daily by people who don't like him, and I don't think he cares. Well, Jimmy, I'll help you out there, too - I don't care either.

Carter went to get someone (who doesn't deserve to be "gotten"...stay the frick out of N. Korea, everyone), and he brought him home. The fact that he didn't have to shake hands with a psychotic dictator isn't going to ruin his day.

I don't know the man personally, and I could be wrong, but until he comes out and says, "BY GOSH, I'M SEETHING! I WAS SNUBBED. NOBODY SNUBS JIMMY C! NOBODY!", I'm not going to worry about his well being.

Col'nl Pritchard is projecting - his speculations say a lot more about his own personal values than it does about Carter's.

And yes, I'm prepared to take this all back when at 5:45 pm Carter admits he was, in fact, snubbed and seething about it.

...Dustin Johnson is weird...

I was on a boat coming home from Long Island when the drama unfolded at Kohler, and Dustin Johnson played himself out of the playoff yesterday afternoon.

I was looking at ESPN scorecenter, and I noticed that Watson & Kaymer were in the clubhouse at -11, while Johnson was getting to 18 at -12, in the lead.

Immediately, like every other golf fan in the world, I was brought to the memory of Johnson's brainless US Open collapse at Pebble Beach, shooting an 82 and blowing a big lead on the last day. I also was thinking about how hard 18 had been all weekend, and not a lot of birdies had happened there, but all he needed was par.

I am not going to criticize his decision to use driver, I think thats a completely personal "feel" type of thing, and if it was feeling good, then so be it.

But I am going to criticize what happened next. The dude needed par to win, and you can read all about what happened, but as a person who was watching the drama unfold via twitter, watching other pros feel for him, and journalists mock him, I thought that there'd be some kind of grey area, once I saw the replay. But I don't think there was.

That course, all weekend, was a display of unusual bunkers - rough cuts of grass meeting sand - a very unusual course for a major, but not for a PGA Championship really, and every mistake was greeted by a really odd look to the green, or odd lie in a surface you're not used to playing in.

I figured when I saw the replay there'd be some confusion as to whether or not this could be a bunker, but I was mistaken. I saw the replay and my first thought was, "jeez, that looks like a bunker to me!"

I understand that he put the ball into a gallery, and that there were people, stands, water bottles, even a turf mat covering that area, but each golfer is given the supplemental rules of golf at the tourney. Each golfer can read on a sheet in the clubhouse, almost explicitly, that this exact situation may occur.

There is a rules official nearby all the time. If he had just asked, it would have been clear. Heck, he didn't even NEED to ground his club, he chose to.

This isn't a situation where I feel bad for him, like if the ball moved after grounding the club, or if a bad lie was brought on by trampled spectator grass..

Johnson, in 2 majors this year, has been caught up in the moment mentally - he is doing the kind of thing we slay other athletes for, and I think we have that right. When Chris Webber called a timeout in the finals, when they didn't have one, he was wrong. When DeSean Jackson spiked the ball before he reached the end zone, when Leon Lett let Beebe strip the ball in the Super Bowl, we all mocked the athlete, and deservedly so.

I'm not saying we should pile on Johnson, b/c I think he clearly has an issue with handling pressure (And for crying out loud, if all you need is par, why in the world are you BOMBING a 4 iron out of a bunker/waste area instead of just trying to lay it up, chip and putt for the win?! And what the deuce happened on that putt for par? He missed it by way more than a pro should miss it by?!

Johnson collapsed, mentally. He isn't a victim of the rules, he's a victim of himself. You can feel bad about it on a human level, but don't feel like the game cheated him, b/c it didn't. This is a great example of how fair Golf really is as a game.

...Bypassing the electoral college...

I am really, REALLY confused about this proposed bill.

The bill will essentially make it so no matter how an individual state votes, the electoral votes within that state would go towards the candidate who won the National Popular vote. In theory, if all states enacted this legislation, the winner of the National Vote gets all electoral votes in a shutout.

In theory, that's sorta cool.

But in practice, in an environment when BP and Bank of America were given the green light by our Supreme Court to spend as much money necessary and possible in order to anoint the next CEO of America, it is a dangerous thing.

First of all, you'll hear mostly the Lefties, who are in favor of this bill, talk about how this will "make every vote count" and will energize the populace - which may in fact be true. You'll hear right wingers say that that it isn't fair b/c the coasts dominate the number of people in this country, and they can dwarf a "fly over" state in the middle. New York City, for example, will go a long way in swaying the vote, and New York City is going to vote Obama for President against every McCain, Palin, Sanford or Jindal.

If you are able to remove your own political bias, and see through the myths that both sides will create, you're left with this inner conversation and list of questions:

How will this change things?

Well, the answer is we don't really know. Electoral Math is a Science - or - Electoral Science is Math. People get paid a lot of money to determine how to spend the money that dictates the outcomes of elections. If you take TV advertising as the Gold Standard, essentially someone decides, "We are going to advertise in Alabama b/c we think we can win Alabama. We are going to spend 0$ in California, however, b/c the other candidate will win there."

Why does it matter how they spend the money, they want all the votes they can get, right?

Electoral advertising isn't purely about speaking to as many people as possible, its about adding up the potential electoral votes you can get or not get. If you know you're going to lose California and its 55 electoral votes, why waste a single dime there? Find a way to make up the other 55 in a combination of 8 or 9 states - thats how you win.

But I like to look at the National Election #'s and paint a picture!

Well, tough crap. Take my example above, the population of California could be, and likely has, completely forfeited in favor of attempting to secure a collection of smaller states, whose electoral votes could be more powerful than their population #'s.

What I'm trying to say is that adding up the popular vote IN PAST ELECTIONS and using it as a point, "My guy should have won, he got more votes!" is really disingenuous. It's not telling a complete story, its an irrelevant practice using numbers to their own advantage.

So if this bill passes, won't we just cut through all that crap and elect the person we want, as a Nation?

Maybe we will, but I don't want to take that chance. I like the electoral college - there haven't been examples in which a candidate won a particular state, but didn't get the credit for it. That isn't in danger. Voters are confused by the system, but those who don't vote b/c that portion of the system confuses them are not worth pandering to - it is remarkably unfair to pander to them.

So what is your solution, mr. hotpants know it all head?

Listen, if you want to abolish the electoral college, I'll have that conversation seperately, that's NOT what this bill is. This bill is keeping the electoral college there, and then assigning the votes to the candidate who gets the National vote. In practice, if McCain/Palin had more votes than Obama, and if Obama won Massachusetts by 80/20, Massachusetts electoral college votes would go to McCain/Palin.

This would be fine if all 50 states + DC were on board, but the group steering this bill is hoping purely to get just enough of the states to add up to an electoral majority. 270 state electoral votes or so are needed in order to coup this next election. So there is some grey area, a few rounding errors away from the unthinkable.

A candidate could win MA by a landslide, win the National Popular vote by a slim margin, but still not have enough electoral votes to take the cake.

If your problem is with the electoral college system, remove the system. Don't tweak it just enough to give us a potential disaster then Deval Patrick your way out of it with a last minute vote change. Don't try to Hilary your way out of it by acting as if you care about the voice of the voters.

Its about winning, and its cynical.

What are you so worried about? What effect could it have long term?

I can tell you the effect, and I can see it playing out sooner than later. In '08, Hilary and Obama agreed that Michigan & Florida, if they moved up their primaries before NH, would not count towards the Democratic nomination, it was agreed on beforehand. Hilary didn't like the result, she demanded the MI votes count, and fought for it.

In '10, the Democrats in MA fought to allow Deval Patrick to place an appointment in as Kennedy's replacement after his death. In '04, the Democrats fought to strip Romney of that same right if Kerry had become President.

My point is, all of this hemming and hawing is a way that the Democrats see a chance to steal a few elections. Make this about NY and LA, energize the base in Miami, Chicago, Houston, etc - and there is no way that Middle America will be able to overcome the will of the traditionally lefty groups.

That's the Dems goal, and its dishonest and unfair. And that makes me sad. At some point this Law will come back to bite those who voted in favor of it, and they will want to change the rule.

This isn't a law about making the will of the people heard, its a law about being cynical enough to think you can trick voters into thinking they matter - but it's really about the math, the science and the fact that Democrats know they will win if they win battleground CITIES, not States, under this format.

...an additional tube, or pipe, or bag or SOMETHING...

I have a question, and I don't think it's crazy to ask.

One can assume that the notion of capping this leak in the Gulf was imminent. They knew that was the goal, and the hope.

Taking judgment out of this, we also all knew there was a possibility that the cap would not hold, at least on the first try. But lets say it captured 95% of the oil for 10 hours...only a small % was leaking, and it was very manageable. Or even better, lets say it captured 100% of the oil for even less time, 5 hours, this is my question.

Why haven't they been developing some sort of bag, or tube, or SOMETHING, that would capture oil if the cap were to break. We see images of this capped leak, and it looks awesome, but what if in 3 seconds it pops off?

This reminds me of when you pump up a tire on a bike. The way bike tires work is fairly simple.

1. Unscrew the black cap, and air doesn't leak out

2. Put on the pump and you'll get a quick air leak, but then you start pumping up.

3. When you're done pumping, and you remove the pump nozzle, a small leak happens again, but it stops when the whole pump is removed.

4. You screw on the black cap, for no reason other than cleanliness and a safety precaution.

Why aren't we doing #4 in the gulf?

Why aren't we putting something OVER this cap?

On July 4, 1994, I had the pleasure of assisting in setting off the Marshfield 4th of July fireworks. It was fun. I was there with the big tubes, lighting fuses, watching them launch into the sky from the best vantage point possible.

After it was over, the grizzled vet of fireworks displays inspected the tubes to make sure everything was set off, and he literally was looking into the pipes with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth. I am not kidding.

Looking at the image of the capped well reminds me of this dude - we are all standing here looking at it on the HD image capture, staring into the face of this cap that we hope will work, and we seem like we're trusting the people to take all precautions whose lack of taking precaution put us in this place.

I'd be 100% more comfortable if we couldn't see this cap, b/c an additional tube, or pipe, or bag or SOMETHING would be covering it.

Sincerely,

Less Than Cautiously Optimistic This Cap Will Work

...3rd Person...

I read this about athletes speaking in 3rd person. I've heard Bosh, Wade & James do it in the last week, my initial gut reaction is that this whole situation is too big for any of them, so they disassociate with it, but that's amateur diagnosing at best.

The bottom line is I can't stand that reporters let athletes & celebs get away with this nonsense 3rd person type perspective. In my brain, when I read this clip from Dwyane Wade about the Celtics defense, I think Wade is 100% nuts:

"LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Kobe Bryant, guys like that understand what Boston's defense was about," Wade said.

Really, who talks like that besides people who are absolutely crazy. I can't think of anyone, actually. Well, athletes. All athletes. They have spent so much of their lives being ripped apart from reality by everyone that I almost can't blame them.

The thing that really kills me though is that Commissioners and those who are supposed to have the sport's best interests in mind don't realize how much of a divisive thing something like this is. I sometimes forget that the psychology involved in interactions, in marketing, in winning people over, is completely forgotten by those in power.

NBA rookies, and rookies in all sports, go through lots of training about how to stay away from Gold Diggers, and how they should wear condoms and not give their money their entourages - but it'd do them some good to give them humility training as well.

Stern condemned LeBron for his "Decision" TV show, but in a very passive manner. I think it'd do Stern good to recognize that "The Decision", speaking in 3rd person, and being not only financially but also emotionally unattached from those who pay your salary is going to be the ultimate downfall of professional sports, someday. But the point is that LeBron, I don't think, has ever been told to slow down, stop doing what you're doing, think about how you are perceived.

We need a Truth Czar in sports. Whether it be in sports reporting, or some kind of other realm. Athletes can earn as much money as we throw at them, but it has to come with a cost, and being accountable for what they say - speaking in 3rd person, for example, is a great start.

Wait a second, a new blog is born. SportsTruthCzar.blogspot.com. I'm starting it. Be ready, folks.

Anyway, this useless rant can be supported by an article I found on www.psychologyofsports.com, read it here: http://www.psychologyofsports.com/couch/couch020201.htm

...Pro athletes don't care about sports...

I've mentioned this a few times to people, but the 2003 loss in the ALCS at the hands of Aaron Boone and the NY Yankees devastated me. I went into a self proclaimed 24 hour vow of silence, shirking work responsibilities and listening to the radio to make sure someone else was feeling the same pain as me. It was crushing, heartbreaking, horrible.

Then a few days later I realized that was completely insane, and I came back to real life. My love for the Red Sox, and a lot of other professional teams, went more from a personal one to a newly developed business version. I sorta started to get interested in approaching sports from a much different angle, and with my line of work I was able to dive head first into the Darren Rovell CNBC Sports Business side of things.

I am 100% sure that's why I'm so interested in contract situations - even while the game is being played, and the C's are in the middle of what was almost a historic championship run, I'm thinking about how they will retain Kendrick Perkins long term, and more acutely I'm thinking about where LeBron would end up.

I think it's safe to say LeBron was distracted completely by the business side of things - hence his early exit. LeBron is a child. LeBron's situation was honestly a bit terrifying for him. He reminded me of the lead character in Dazed & Confused while he was pitching at his Pony League game the night of the last day of school. He wanted to win & get the hell out of there. While LeBron didn't end up throwing the strikeout to end the game, he certainly did his best to bolt out the outfield fence, while Dan Gilbert was waiting there with a FAH-Q wooden paddle.

LeBron bolted, and Cleveland fans are uproarious. As far as I can tell, there are 5 different categories of those who have an emotion about Lebron.

1. People who don't live in either Cleveland or Miami, but are NBA fans, and are just generally sickened by the way he made his selection and referred to himself in the 3rd person, consistently. I'll come back to this point.

2. People who don't live in either Cleveland or Miami, and are not fans of the NBA, and generally hate it when athletes are rich (despite the fact that they ignorantly pump money into these leagues buy buying merchandise, reading magazine articles, calling Sports Talk stations, etc...) . These folks I don't have time for. Shut up. Yes, other people are rich, get over it.

3. People who live in Cleveland and are genuinely hurt by LeBron's actions, not because he left, but because of the way he left. Bill Simmons has said much about this, and I don't need to expand, but the grandstanding and the decision to pick the prettier city in a fashion like this really could be hurtful to those who haven't gone through the same catharsis I went through in the Fall of '03.

4. People who live in Cleveland and are maniacs who think LeBron should be tethered to his hometown city simply because they think that is how it should be. These are the folks burning jerseys, crying in bars, screaming at the top of their lungs, and threatening LeBron's health. They are not worth talking about, or to.

5. People who live in Miami and are so excited, LeBetard style, that they have the makings of a mega-team.

So within those 5 groups, there are a few things I find really fascinating.

Cleveland has a history of losing. They lose big football games, they lost a football franchise. They lost a few World Series they should have won. They didn't make the NBA Finals despite the best record 2 years in a row. They lose, and the fans know it.

I think the biggest misconception, however, is that LeBron really knows this. Yes, LeBron grew up in Cleveland, but he grew up other-worldly. I am consistently disappointed with pro athletes and their viewpoint on sports. They look at things from a very different place.

Think about LeBron's timeline. He is 25 years old, he was born in 1985. In 1986 & 1987 Cleveland lost heartbreaking football games, Lebron was an infant and a toddler - do those matter to him? No.

When LeBron was all of 8, Mike Jordan and the Bulls swept the Cavs, "The Shot" was something that LeBron probably didn't watch live, and considering he wore #23 up til this upcoming season, I don't think he was pained much by the memory of Jordan dominating his hometown team.

I think back to when I was 8, which included the 1986 World Series and I don't think I stayed up for a single World Series game - and baseball was my life. The pain for LeBron wasn't real there either.

In 1997, the Indians were 2 outs away from a World Series title when Jose Mesa blew it - Lebron was already a Yankee fan by then. Did that pain of a Cleveland loss matter to him? No. You also have to remember he was a Yankee fan when the Indians lost in 1998 to, who else, his beloved Yankees.

By the time "King James" was a Frosh in HS he was the best player in Akron, and his Sophomore year he was Mr. Basketball in Ohio. He was called The Chosen One by Sports Illustrated his Sr. year - he doesn't need other teams, he never did.

He never needed to identify with the masses in Akron, Cleveland or Ohio in general - he is his own mass, his own team.

His choice to rip the hearts out of Cleveland yet again, at first glance, seems to be something seeped in tradition and par for the course for Cleveland, but I think King James has been living in his own world for so long that he has no idea what it means, in context. I do think he actually is blind to the fact that he is part of that Art Modell, Jose Mesa, Michael Jordan and now, LeBron James Mt. Rushmore of Cleveland heartbreak.

Nothing more needs to be said about his egotism, LeBron is a lost cause as a person. Now the question goes purely to the business of sport, and I cannot wait to see how Pat Riley sells this Heat team to Free Agents. Now that's NBA basketball.