Remind me again why I don't watch pro basketball?

Now first of all, let me say that I loves me some pro football -- I can imagine no better weekend than watching two games on Sunday afternoon, then watching another one that night. (Not that I get do that anymore with two kids in the house, but I can dream, can't I?) Especially when it gets down to the final few minutes of a tight game, when every play counts, and one team digs down and makes something amazing happen to win it.



So last night, after putting the aforementioned small people to bed, rather than go back in the office and work like usual, I flipped the TV on, and lo and behold, it was the second half of the Cavaliers vs. Magic, NBA Conference Finals. The Magic were up three games to one, so the Cavs were fighting to keep their season alive. While I play regular hoops on the weekends, I've never watched much of it on TV. But I figure hey, this game oughta be good!

And for most of the half, it was exciting -- the lead changed hands a bunch of times, and it was tied up going into the fourth. This guy in particular seemed to having a great time on the court, with a big smile, and even bigger shoulders:

Seriously, what is up with his shoulders? Are there steroids that affect only your shoulder muscles? And how does that help you in basketball? Well, I was about to find out...

As the fourth quarter started, the announcers kept saying that if the Cavaliers were going to win it, Lebron James would have to take over the game. James hadn't done much up to that point, but hey, he's the NBA MVP -- this should be good! We gonna see some insane Michael Jordan-type aerial acrobatics? Or impossible Kobe Bryant falling-backwards-with-someone's-hand-blocking-his-eyes three pointers?

Not quite. James did indeed take over the game, basically by holding onto the ball for 20 of the 24 allowed seconds, then dropping one of HIS huge shoulders and steamrolling through whoever was between him and the basket... FOR WHICH THE DEFENDERS WERE CALLED FOR FOULS.

What the hell? You're standing there, somebody plows into you, and it's YOUR fault? Apparently it's also illegal to even THINK about blocking anyone's layup, as every exciting breakaway was negated by a whistle, no matter how incidental the contact appeared on the replay. Just as the pace of the game would quicken, everything would stop so someone could stand there...and shoot...free throws.

As the final seconds approached, the Magic were down by just a few points. Did they fight hard to get the ball back and make up those points? No, they began fouling the Cavaliers ON PURPOSE, in order to stop the clock and dare the Cavaliers to...MAKE TWO FREE THROWS. Apparently, fouling on purpose at the end of the game is a winning strategy in professional basketball. These are the best basketball players on the planet, and they have to foul each other on purpose to win? How is this professional? Let me try that on the guys this weekend, and see how it goes...

So instead of a thrilling, athletically inspiring, all-out struggle for victory in the final seconds, I got to watch twenty minutes of guys standing by themselves, spinning the ball around and pondering it deeply. Either that, or they were trying to imagine where else on their bodies they could still fit tattoos.

And after each shot, they got hi-fives from their teammates WHETHER THEY MADE THE SHOT OR NOT.

I was pondering deeply why the two teams don't just show up, hold a free-throw contest, give each other hi-fives and call it a day.

So just for S&G this morning, I looked up free throw shooting percentages for last week's games to test the theory:

Last night: Cavs 79%, Magic 68%, game winner: Cavs
Wednesday: Lakers 76%, Nuggets 74%, game winner: Lakers
Tuesday: Cavs 83%, Magic 70%, game winner: Magic (by 2 points)
Monday: Nuggets 75%, Lakers 68%, game winner: Nuggets
Sunday: Magic 76%, Cavs 74%, game winner: Magic
Saturday: Nuggets 89%, Lakers 70%, game winner: Lakers
Friday: Cavs 80%, Magic 68%, game winner: Cavs
Thursday: Nuggets 78%, Lakers 77%, game winner: Nuggets

Six out of seven NBA Conference Final games won by the team that shot better at the line. The seventh lost by a single basket.

And if we keep going...

Wednesday 5/20: Magic 85%, Cavs 70%, game winner: Magic
Tuesday 5/19: Lakers 83%, Nuggets 65%, game winner: Lakers
Sunday 5/17: Lakers 78%, Rockets 64%, game winner: Lakers
and Magic: 80%, Celtics 80%, game winner: Magic

...and so on.

Tonight, 6pm: Lakers vs. Nuggets. To be decided by ten guys taking their time to carefully and methodically put a ball in a hole 12 feet away.



Me? I'll be getting some work done.


.

I NEED A GREEN CARD

Oh, great, Trekking Left is going to go on another rant about illegal immigration!

Nope, this post is about a different green card ... Saturday night was my monthly trek to Sings Like Hell with my buddy, Patrick. And the headliner was a band called The Greencards.

All I can say is, wow, this group is good. They have kind of this rockabilly thing going on, so it does lean a little heavy on the country side. But the combination incredible strings and heavenly voices just completely blew me away.

This song is one of their slower ones, but you get the idea:



Anyway, they sounded just like this live. Perfection.

ANOTHER THING REPUBLICANS DON'T GET

This Studio Briefing entry from a few weeks ago made me laugh, but I forgot to post it ...

Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert has become the subject of an academic survey conducted at Ohio State University titled "The Irony of Satire: Political Ideology and the Motivation to See What You Want to See in The Colbert Report." The survey, conducted among 332 undergraduates, concluded that many conservatives believe that Colbert is on their side. As reported by today's (Wednesday) Chicago Tribune, the researchers observed that "conservative viewers often don't comprehend Colbert's "deadpan satire" and process his messages "as being conservative, Republican, and disliking liberals." The study was uploaded on Colbert's website beneath the headline, "Science Proves Stephen Colbert Also Popular With Conservatives."

This also reminds me of the time a while back when the The White House actually had one of Colbert's interviews on their web site without even realizing that he was completely making fun of them.

So, how can anyone be the member of a party that doesn't get sarcasm?

I HEART BILL MAHER

For those who know me well, it's no secret that I'm a huge fan on Bill Maher. Outside of maybe Al Franken and Jon Stewart, no one is better at being incredibly insightful and funny at the same time. And his show Real Time With Bill Maher is probably (alone) worth the ten bucks I pay per month for HBO.

Anyway, the last episode of Real Time was so good that I just had to share ... It had a stellar panel that included George's new hero Matt Taibbi, TAM's new hero Naomi Klein, and my hero Seth McFarlane (creator of Family Guy). It's just a great combination of really smart people talking about the important issues that we discuss all the time in our little circles. Please watch:

Part 1



Part 2



Part 3



Part 4



Part 5



Totally worth watching, right?

THIS DEBATE IS TORTURE

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I wanted to say a couple things about Obama's decision not to punish those who committed acts of torture (on the condition that they were following the guidelines outlined by Bush's "Justice" Department) ...

Let me start off by saying that I generally agree with the anger expressed by many liberals regarding Obama's actions here. I mean, the argument that "they were just following orders" didn't fly for the Nazi's in WWII, and it shouldn't fly in this situation either. Heck, even the two likable soldiers in A Few Good Men didn't get off scot-free after Nicholson admitted to giving them a "code red" (I know, I have to relate everything to movies or television ... I can't help it). Anyway, I think the reason this excuse doesn't hold water is expressed pretty well by Kieth Olbermann's Special Comment on the subject.

Having said that, I have to admit to feeling a whole lot better after reading this story in the Washington Post regarding the intense debate in the Obama administration as to whether or not they should release those torture memos. I, of course, recommend reading the whole thing, but I would like to focus on the following quotes from the article:

Five CIA directors -- including Leon E. Panetta and his four immediate predecessors -- and Obama's top counterterrorism adviser had expressed firm opposition to the release of interrogation details in four "top secret" memos in which Bush administration lawyers sanctioned harsh tactics...

...Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had said he supported the disclosures because he saw the information's release as inevitable and because the White House was willing to promise that CIA officers would not be prosecuted for any abuse. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen sided with Gates.

Seated in Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's West Wing office with about a dozen of his political, legal and security appointees, Obama requested a mini-debate in which one official was chosen to argue for releasing the memos and another was assigned to argue against doing so. When it ended, Obama dictated on the spot a draft of his announcement that the documents would be released, while most of the officials watched, according to an official who was present. The disclosure happened the next day.

So, I had two main thoughts upon reading this:

1) Even though I disagree with Obama's decision not to prosecute those people who abused the detainees, I do think Obama deserves a great deal of credit for releasing those memos at all. That took courage in my opinion.

2) How cool is it that Obama handled the situation the way he did, and how happy are we that we have a president who approaches situations this way instead of simply "going with his gut" or some such nonsense.

Finally, I do still hold out hope that there will be justice and was heartened by Barack's later statement:

With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.

At the end of the day, aren't those really the guys we want behind bars anyway?