NBA All-Star Karl Malone recently announced his retirement from professional basketball. Though universally hailed by columnists, sports talk radio hosts and fans alike, all kept dredging up the fact that Malone, despite three trips to the NBA Finals, never won an NBA Championship.
So what? Why is that relevant?
Individual greatness in team sports should not be dependant on whether or not a player won a championship. I could list a number of great players in the NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB that never won championships (Karl Malone, Dan Marino, Ted Williams...) but I shouldn't have to. A lot of factors explain why certain players didn't win a championship: Teammates, injuries, caliber of opponents, etc. In Malone's case, he arguably had the teammates (John Stockton and Jeff Hornacek though you could a better center could have pushed the Jazz over the top) and Malone never suffered a serious injury as a member of the Jazz (his key teammate, John Stockton, never suffered a serious injury, either). But what Malone and the Jazz did have was Michael Jordan and the Bulls. The level of competition was as high as it gets. The Bulls were a juggernaut that, unfortunately, the Jazz had to face twice in the NBA Finals. And while many people feel that Malone and the Lakers should have won the NBA Title in 2004, it certainly wasn't Malone's fault they didn't. Malone tried playing through a serious injury but, in the end, the injury limited Malone's ability to help his teammates substantially and Detroit pulled off the rare major NBA Finals upset (something that only has happened twice in the last forty-five years).
In nearly two decades of playing professional basketball, Malone did everything he could do to win a title. No one worked harder. Few, if any, power forwards in NBA history have been better (only Elvin Hayes, Kevin McHale and Tim Duncan can be ranked near Malone among power forwards). Yet some will still cite Malone's poor fourth-quarter play in the playoffs as a big reason why Malone didn't win a title. And I will concede that point. However, not every great player is a Michael Jordan or a Magic Johnson when it comes to clutch play. And, as I pointed out earlier, there are many reasons why great players don't win championships. The absence of an NBA Title on Malone's resume should have nothing to do with how great he should be considered.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Is Michael Moore evil?
Back in October of 2004, Utah Valley State College (located in Orem, Utah) paid Michael Moore to speak at their school. The studentbody presidency was willing to shell out $40,000 for the "honor" of Moore's presence. The invitation ignited a firestorm of controversy but the studentbody governement would not back down saying, in essence, that though they disagreed with Moore's views, they felt it important to have someone speak at USVC whom represented a viewpoint that differed from the mostly conservative studentbody. At his blog (http://www.jinxidoru.com/), Michael Bailey, an alum of USVC's "parent" school, Brigham Young University, has ridiculed the protestors as bigots and accused many of them of writing "horribly ignorant" letters to the editor. Apparently, Bailey's feathers were ruffled after some anti-Moore folks called Mr. Moore "evil". Other Moore supporters, like Bailey, have accused the anti-Moore folks as being intolerant of opposing views and so forth. The pro-Moore side has been especially troubled by the threat of USVC supporters and alumni to withdraw support from the school because of the invitation and subsequent appearance of Moore.
Michael Bailey and his ilk just don't get it.
One, people weren't upset because Moore has an opposing view. They were upset because Moore doesn't counter conservative ideology with intelligent discourse. Moore instead counters the right with misleads, half-truths and lies. Fahrenheit 9/11 is all one, huge lie. I needn't go over the lies again. Writer Christopher Hitchens, who ironically is a liberal, has already done a superb job of exposing Moore for the liar he is (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/).
Two (this shot isn't necessarily aimed at Bailey), the pro-Moore folks in Utah, in their hysteria over supporters of USVC possibley withdrawing support from the school, have accused the anti-Moore crowd as being against free speech. What a bunch of ignorant nonsense. Free speech is a two way street, guys, and if supporters of USVC want to stop donating to the school over the controversy, that's their right to do so! They are simply speaking out with their pocketbook. I don't completely agree with the way they are speaking out against the Moore invitation but, as I said, free speech is a two way street.
Three, anyone who goes around making up horrific stories of American abuse (of Americans and non-Americans alike), falsely accusing the Bush administration of heinous crimes, and fomenting hatred from abroad toward America certainly comes close to evil in my book, Michael Bailey. So please, next time you refer to those of us in Utah as bigots and horribly ignorant letter writers, perhaps you should really take an honest look at Michael Moore. I don't throw the word evil around carelessly and hesistate to do so now but Michael Bailey, if Michael Moore is not evil, he is certainly something akin to evil.
Michael Bailey and his ilk just don't get it.
One, people weren't upset because Moore has an opposing view. They were upset because Moore doesn't counter conservative ideology with intelligent discourse. Moore instead counters the right with misleads, half-truths and lies. Fahrenheit 9/11 is all one, huge lie. I needn't go over the lies again. Writer Christopher Hitchens, who ironically is a liberal, has already done a superb job of exposing Moore for the liar he is (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/).
Two (this shot isn't necessarily aimed at Bailey), the pro-Moore folks in Utah, in their hysteria over supporters of USVC possibley withdrawing support from the school, have accused the anti-Moore crowd as being against free speech. What a bunch of ignorant nonsense. Free speech is a two way street, guys, and if supporters of USVC want to stop donating to the school over the controversy, that's their right to do so! They are simply speaking out with their pocketbook. I don't completely agree with the way they are speaking out against the Moore invitation but, as I said, free speech is a two way street.
Three, anyone who goes around making up horrific stories of American abuse (of Americans and non-Americans alike), falsely accusing the Bush administration of heinous crimes, and fomenting hatred from abroad toward America certainly comes close to evil in my book, Michael Bailey. So please, next time you refer to those of us in Utah as bigots and horribly ignorant letter writers, perhaps you should really take an honest look at Michael Moore. I don't throw the word evil around carelessly and hesistate to do so now but Michael Bailey, if Michael Moore is not evil, he is certainly something akin to evil.
Friday, February 25, 2005
The left do not support our troops.
Today I came across a letter to the Illinois Times (an excerpt):
"I don't know of a single person, whether they lean to the left or to the right, who would say they don't support our troops. "
Peter Kullick
Chatham
Not true! If you're against the mission our troops are engaged in, you don't support them. Period. And those on the left (or, for that matter, the right) who say they're against the current mission in Iraq but they still support the troops are disingenuous. It is impossible to support the troops without supporting their mission. Those against the war in Iraq may not want the troops to die and may hope the troops return to America safely but to say you support them is absurd. It is not possible.
It's like someone saying they supported John Kerry but voted for President Bush. They can say they supported Kerry, but it is simply not true. Support for Kerry would have translated into a vote for Kerry.
And now we have some leftist whackos going around stealing the "Support Our Troops" magnets off of motor vehicles. How absurd! How stupid! It's just another case of the left supporting free speech as long as they agree with it.
"I don't know of a single person, whether they lean to the left or to the right, who would say they don't support our troops. "
Peter Kullick
Chatham
Not true! If you're against the mission our troops are engaged in, you don't support them. Period. And those on the left (or, for that matter, the right) who say they're against the current mission in Iraq but they still support the troops are disingenuous. It is impossible to support the troops without supporting their mission. Those against the war in Iraq may not want the troops to die and may hope the troops return to America safely but to say you support them is absurd. It is not possible.
It's like someone saying they supported John Kerry but voted for President Bush. They can say they supported Kerry, but it is simply not true. Support for Kerry would have translated into a vote for Kerry.
And now we have some leftist whackos going around stealing the "Support Our Troops" magnets off of motor vehicles. How absurd! How stupid! It's just another case of the left supporting free speech as long as they agree with it.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
On John Kerry, Swift Boats Vets and Bill Maher.
Why did the left think it was okay for John Kerry to smear all Vietnam veterans by calling them war criminals and comparing them to Genghis Kahn yet thought it was wrong to challenge Kerry's record as a swift boat commander? Kerry can label all veterans as murderers and rapists but if 256 swift boat veterans challenge Kerry, Kerry supporters and their allies in the media go on the attack and denigrate those same veterans who served our country so valiantly. The swift boat vets were simply expressing the view that Kerry is not trustworthy (something that has been proven over and over) and that he would not make a good commander-in-chief. They were not calling Kerry a murderer nor were they comparing him to one of the most savage killers in world history. They were simply doing what the media should had been doing all along: Asking tough questions.
Bill Maher caused quite a stir recently when he said religious people suffer from a neurological disorder. Some conservatives, including conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved, have said that they think Maher should apologize. I had to scratch my head at this one. Why on Earth would anyone want an apology from Bill Maher? Maher, if he had apologized, sure as Hell wouldn't have meant it. Maher can be funny from time to time but his understanding of religion and and those who worship is lacking. He simply has no brains when it comes to the subject. As a religious person myself, I don't want an apology from Maher. It would mean nothing.
Bill Maher caused quite a stir recently when he said religious people suffer from a neurological disorder. Some conservatives, including conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved, have said that they think Maher should apologize. I had to scratch my head at this one. Why on Earth would anyone want an apology from Bill Maher? Maher, if he had apologized, sure as Hell wouldn't have meant it. Maher can be funny from time to time but his understanding of religion and and those who worship is lacking. He simply has no brains when it comes to the subject. As a religious person myself, I don't want an apology from Maher. It would mean nothing.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Al Franken is afraid of ideas.
The left takes absurdity to a new level.
Former Saturday Night Live writer-actor-comedian Al Franken was at the Conservative Political Action Commitee gathering last week in Washington. Conservative talk show host Michael Medved was broadcasting his show live from CPAC and had asked Mr. Franken to come on the show to debate. Franken was willing but nearly had a cow when he found out author and Swift Boat Veteran leader John O'Neil was to be Michael's guest as well. Franken threw down a chair, refused to debate O'Neil (gotta love those libs and their fear of debating ideas) and stormed off after a few terse words with Medved.
Al Franken is not a credit to the left. His Air America radio program does not allow guests with opposing views on to debate the issues. Franken is apparently fearful of debating the issues himself. This is yet another example of leftist intolerance. They are all for freedom of speech as long as they agree with it. And they've been trying to marginalize Republicans for nearly fifty years (thank Heaven for Fox News Channel, talk radio and bloggers or conservatives would never get a fair shake).
What is the left afraid of? Why are they so unwilling to listen to the right? Conservative talk shows have guests on their programs whom they disagree with all the flippin' time yet one of the many failings of Air America is it's refussal to even invite those they disagree with to appear on their various talk radio programs. This makes for extremely boring radio. No wonder no one is listening.
Could it be that the left is afraid that if conservative views are held up to the same light liberal views are people will chose conservative ideas? I don't know. But I'm alarmed that many on the left are so unwilling to debate and exchange ideas. Democracy is at it's best when two very different and legitimate parties confront each other over ideas. But, at this point, the Democratic Party is not a legitimate party. It's a haven of lunacy.
Former Saturday Night Live writer-actor-comedian Al Franken was at the Conservative Political Action Commitee gathering last week in Washington. Conservative talk show host Michael Medved was broadcasting his show live from CPAC and had asked Mr. Franken to come on the show to debate. Franken was willing but nearly had a cow when he found out author and Swift Boat Veteran leader John O'Neil was to be Michael's guest as well. Franken threw down a chair, refused to debate O'Neil (gotta love those libs and their fear of debating ideas) and stormed off after a few terse words with Medved.
Al Franken is not a credit to the left. His Air America radio program does not allow guests with opposing views on to debate the issues. Franken is apparently fearful of debating the issues himself. This is yet another example of leftist intolerance. They are all for freedom of speech as long as they agree with it. And they've been trying to marginalize Republicans for nearly fifty years (thank Heaven for Fox News Channel, talk radio and bloggers or conservatives would never get a fair shake).
What is the left afraid of? Why are they so unwilling to listen to the right? Conservative talk shows have guests on their programs whom they disagree with all the flippin' time yet one of the many failings of Air America is it's refussal to even invite those they disagree with to appear on their various talk radio programs. This makes for extremely boring radio. No wonder no one is listening.
Could it be that the left is afraid that if conservative views are held up to the same light liberal views are people will chose conservative ideas? I don't know. But I'm alarmed that many on the left are so unwilling to debate and exchange ideas. Democracy is at it's best when two very different and legitimate parties confront each other over ideas. But, at this point, the Democratic Party is not a legitimate party. It's a haven of lunacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)