Even though I listed Rose as my #1 in my mock draft post, I never realized how athletic he was... this video is pretty ridiculous:
Jun 21, 2008
Jun 19, 2008
KG's Ring = Validation?
I lost track of how many commentators, bloggers, & sportswriters have heralded KG's ring as the final & irrefutable truth that Kevin Garnett is one of the all-time greats. I'm confused by such logic for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, Kevin Garnett did not need to win a ring to be considered one of the all-time greats. His career stats speak for themselves: 20.4 pts, 11.2 rebs, 4.4 asts, 1.4 stls, & 1.6 blks. For his CAREER. His circumstances also speak for themselves: the best teammates he ever had (until this season) were an aging Sprewell & an aging Cassell. Often times, circumstances far outweigh individual talent. To win a championship, you must be in the right place at the right time. This year, Garnett finally was surrounded by other superstars and a ring was the payoff.
Since KG finally got a ring, does it mean this was the best seasons he has ever played? No way. Sure, he "changed Boston's culture." Blah, blah, blah. No, he came into a situation where he had two other great players and competitors in Ray Allen and Paul Pierce to play alongside him. I do not mean to undermine KG's leadership, but let's make no mistake about it -- this was a team effort. In fact, KG had a VERY mediocre Finals series (except for Game 6). He went into Game 6 with a 16 ppg average on 40% shooting (as a post player!). Both of these numbers are well below his career & career playoff averages. He was probably the main reason they lost Game 5, missing 3 of 4 FT's down the stretch & a couple of uncontested layups. In a bit of irony, one of KG's worst series turned out to be the series he turned his "loser" label into "winner."
I am sick of the number of championship rings being viewed as the #1 indicator of individual greatness. There are certainly some players who rise above the competition in the Finals, but it's usually their circumstances (i.e. the talent they are surrounded by) that got them into the Finals in the first place. Paul Pierce, for example, has been the same clutch player his whole career. He just hadn't been on a good enough team to make the finals until this year. Low and behold, he dominated the Finals and the world is finally recognizing his greatness. If Ainge hadn't swapped for Garnett & Allen last offseason, the greater basketball world would think of Pierce as just another good player who played on poor teams.
It's laughable that players of the caliber of Charles Barkley and Karl Malone will never be viewed as "clutch" and might even be considered "losers." Or look at football with Barry Sanders, or baseball with Ty Cobb. It isn't that these players weren't clutch or "winners," they just happened to play their best ball when there were dynasties dominating their respective leagues (Bulls for Malone; Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls for Barkley; Cowboys, Niners, Packers for Sanders; Yankees for Cobb).
To me, it's even more laughable that someone like Bill Russell is "unquestionably" the best Center of all-time in some peoples' minds. "You can't question his greatness -- look at all those rings!" Guess what, folks: there were between EIGHT and 14 teams in the entire league when he won all of those championships. Today, there are 30 teams, the overall skill level is much better, and it is an international competition with a much larger competition pool. I don't question that Russell was the best (or one of the best) of his time, but he also played on a team that was much better than the rest of a small league in a not-quite-popular sport at the time.
In closing, I'm very happy for Kevin Garnett. He should have been considered one of the all-time greats whether or not he won a championship, though. It's a shame that it took one for people to finally put him in that category.
First and foremost, Kevin Garnett did not need to win a ring to be considered one of the all-time greats. His career stats speak for themselves: 20.4 pts, 11.2 rebs, 4.4 asts, 1.4 stls, & 1.6 blks. For his CAREER. His circumstances also speak for themselves: the best teammates he ever had (until this season) were an aging Sprewell & an aging Cassell. Often times, circumstances far outweigh individual talent. To win a championship, you must be in the right place at the right time. This year, Garnett finally was surrounded by other superstars and a ring was the payoff.
Since KG finally got a ring, does it mean this was the best seasons he has ever played? No way. Sure, he "changed Boston's culture." Blah, blah, blah. No, he came into a situation where he had two other great players and competitors in Ray Allen and Paul Pierce to play alongside him. I do not mean to undermine KG's leadership, but let's make no mistake about it -- this was a team effort. In fact, KG had a VERY mediocre Finals series (except for Game 6). He went into Game 6 with a 16 ppg average on 40% shooting (as a post player!). Both of these numbers are well below his career & career playoff averages. He was probably the main reason they lost Game 5, missing 3 of 4 FT's down the stretch & a couple of uncontested layups. In a bit of irony, one of KG's worst series turned out to be the series he turned his "loser" label into "winner."
I am sick of the number of championship rings being viewed as the #1 indicator of individual greatness. There are certainly some players who rise above the competition in the Finals, but it's usually their circumstances (i.e. the talent they are surrounded by) that got them into the Finals in the first place. Paul Pierce, for example, has been the same clutch player his whole career. He just hadn't been on a good enough team to make the finals until this year. Low and behold, he dominated the Finals and the world is finally recognizing his greatness. If Ainge hadn't swapped for Garnett & Allen last offseason, the greater basketball world would think of Pierce as just another good player who played on poor teams.
It's laughable that players of the caliber of Charles Barkley and Karl Malone will never be viewed as "clutch" and might even be considered "losers." Or look at football with Barry Sanders, or baseball with Ty Cobb. It isn't that these players weren't clutch or "winners," they just happened to play their best ball when there were dynasties dominating their respective leagues (Bulls for Malone; Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls for Barkley; Cowboys, Niners, Packers for Sanders; Yankees for Cobb).
To me, it's even more laughable that someone like Bill Russell is "unquestionably" the best Center of all-time in some peoples' minds. "You can't question his greatness -- look at all those rings!" Guess what, folks: there were between EIGHT and 14 teams in the entire league when he won all of those championships. Today, there are 30 teams, the overall skill level is much better, and it is an international competition with a much larger competition pool. I don't question that Russell was the best (or one of the best) of his time, but he also played on a team that was much better than the rest of a small league in a not-quite-popular sport at the time.
In closing, I'm very happy for Kevin Garnett. He should have been considered one of the all-time greats whether or not he won a championship, though. It's a shame that it took one for people to finally put him in that category.
Jun 5, 2008
Game 1
As I suspected, Kobe let his "feud" with Ray Allen get the best of him in Game One. He turned the first quarter into a grudge match and strayed from what had brought the Lakers success all playoffs. I can't recall a game those two have squared off in where Kobe hasn't lost focus of the team concept for stretches of the game. I also thought Odom had several mental lapses during the game. We've seen this multiple times during the playoffs, where he appears to lose his focus/concentration which ultimately leads to stupid fouls and 7-8 minute stretches where you forget he's on the floor. While his stat sheet may not have been that bad, he made several key mistakes that swung momentum.
Boston didn't play their best game, either. They were fortunate enough to hit some timely baskets and get some fortuitous rolls (see Paul Pierce's banked three to make a four-point play). Mainly, they just appeared to have more energy and were getting on the floor for loose balls. Boston wanted it more, and it paid off in the end.
This being said, I'm sticking with the Lakers to pull off a Game 2 upset on the road. Odom hasn't had back-to-back mediocre games in awhile, so I see him coming back focused. Kobe's shot selection should improve after watching game tape and doing whatever Voodoo exercises Phil has him doing these days. Call me a homer if you want, but I've got LA in game two -- feel free to make me eat my crow if I'm wrong.
One final thought: How bad could Pierce's knee actually be if he was playing full-speed, high-intensity basketball just minutes after "injuring" it? If I didn't know any better, I would have thought he was breathing his last breathes while lying on the floor moaning for 2-plus minutes. Part of me thinks it was a big scheme (that paid off) to re-energize the crowd upon his heroic return. Either that, or they just gave him some ridiculously potent meds.
This could be a Finals for the ages!
Boston didn't play their best game, either. They were fortunate enough to hit some timely baskets and get some fortuitous rolls (see Paul Pierce's banked three to make a four-point play). Mainly, they just appeared to have more energy and were getting on the floor for loose balls. Boston wanted it more, and it paid off in the end.
This being said, I'm sticking with the Lakers to pull off a Game 2 upset on the road. Odom hasn't had back-to-back mediocre games in awhile, so I see him coming back focused. Kobe's shot selection should improve after watching game tape and doing whatever Voodoo exercises Phil has him doing these days. Call me a homer if you want, but I've got LA in game two -- feel free to make me eat my crow if I'm wrong.
One final thought: How bad could Pierce's knee actually be if he was playing full-speed, high-intensity basketball just minutes after "injuring" it? If I didn't know any better, I would have thought he was breathing his last breathes while lying on the floor moaning for 2-plus minutes. Part of me thinks it was a big scheme (that paid off) to re-energize the crowd upon his heroic return. Either that, or they just gave him some ridiculously potent meds.
This could be a Finals for the ages!
Jun 4, 2008
My 2008 NBA Mock Draft Lottery
Here is my mock lottery for the 2008 NBA Draft. You will quickly find out that after picks 1 & 2 I am not creating a board where the "best" available player, regardless of position, is picked. My mock draft focuses on the most glaring weaknesses/needs of the teams that have the picks and does not take into consideration all of the draft-day trades that will inevitably take place. Enjoy.
1. Chicago Bulls - Derrick Rose (Memphis, PG): I know a lot of people think they can't afford to pass up Beasley here, but I disagree. Beasley is going to be a 3/4 combo player in the NBA, and that's the exact position played by Tyrus Thomas (whom the Bulls are still high on - remember he was a top-4 pick?). They also have Nocioni who plays the same 3/4 combo position. Further, Rose is going to be the next great PG in the league. With rumors already circulating that Hinrich is now on the trading block, Rose would be a perfect pick. I say they try to get a late-first round pick in exchange for Hinrich and use it on a big man or trade him for an already-proven big man, because they would be loaded on the perimeter with Deng (3), Gordon (2), and Rose (1).
2. Miami Heat - Michael Beasley (Kansas St, PF): This is a no-brainer. The Bulls' pick will dictate what Miami does, but there are only two options here and one will have already been taken.
3. Minnesota Timberwolves - OJ Mayo (USC, SG): This pick makes the most sense as the next-best available player is Bayless, who plays the same type of game as Foye. This will also give them a good reason to dump McCants, and we all know that needs to be done sooner rather than later.
4. Seattle Supersonics - Jerryd Bayless (Arizona, PG): I think he would be a perfect fit and it wouldn't be long before he took some scoring pressure off Durant. I also think he could come in right away and play some minutes at the two, which would enable Durant to slide to the three (his most natural position).
5. Memphis Grizzlies - DeAndre Jordan (Texas A&M, C): He's as big as Brooke Lopez, and much more athletic. Mainly, I couldn't stand the mental image of a Darko/Lopez front line. Yuck.
6. New York Knicks - Brooke Lopez (Stanford, C): I was torn on this slot because I think Westbrook would fit perfectly with D'Antoni's style. However, he would be a major upgrade from Eddy Curry in terms of mobility. I'm sure they'd rather have Jordan with this pick, but he's already been taken in my mock draft.
7. Los Angeles Clippers - D.J. Augustin (Texas, PG): I know, I know, #7 is a stretch for Augustin. However, the one position the Clippers desperately need help at is PG. I'm sorry, but when Dan Dickau is getting the majority of PG minutes, you've got problems. I think the Clippers are aware of this, as evidenced by their late-season signing of Smush "brain-dead" Parker. Augustin is the closest thing to a pure PG (even though he's score-first) that's left in terms of lottery-worthy players since I don't think Westbrook will ever be able to carry that mantle (see Monta Ellis).
8. Milwaukee Bucks - Danilo Gallinari (Italy, SF): I have gone seven picks without a foreign player, and we all know there is no way we will ever see another NBA Draft without a foreign player going in the top 10 picks. The foreign factor always adds a bit of uncertainty, which really turns on GM's. That said, I saw some video of this guy, and he appears to have a solid all-around game and good size for a SF (6'9"). Plus, after re-signing Mo Williams last offseason and getting Yi in the draft, SF is the position where the Bucks need the most help.
9. Charlotte Bobcats - Kevin Love (UCLA, PF): I'm sure I'll get plenty of flack for this pick, but I can't help but think Love would thrive for a Larry Brown-coached team. Think of their future starting five: Felton, Richardson, Wallace, Love, and Okafor. With Brown on the bench, they would be a playoff-ready team in the East within two years at most.
10. New Jersey Nets - Eric Gordon (Indiana, SG): This pick would make sense to me as I foresee Jefferson or Carter being traded in the near future. They would have a talented, young backcourt with Devin Harris and Eric Gordon, along with some young bangers down low (Boone, Williams).
11. Indiana Pacers - Russell Westbrook (UCLA, PG/SG): If he falls this far, he would be a major steal at #11. Westbrook is a great on-ball defender & super athletic. I think he would complement Granger & Dunleavy nicely in that fast-paced offense, and we all know about the inury/behavioral problems of Tinsley. Although not a pure point guard, their offensive style does not demand as much in terms of ballhandling out of the lead guard position.
12. Sacramento Kings - Darrell Arthur (Kansas, PF): Kind of a boring pick, but it would make sense given their needs. They just drafted Hawes to be the long-term solution at Center, and the emergence of Beno Udrih created some stability at the PG spot.
13. Portland Trailblazers - Joe Alexander (West Virginia, SF): I would love it if this pick actually happened. The dude is straight athletic, and athleticism is something that is lacking on the Blazers' roster. Selfishly, I'd also be relieved of watching Outlaw log so many minutes and make so many "what was he thinking?" plays (I live in Portland).
14. Golden State Warriors - Ryan Anderson (Cal, SF): This pick would also raise some eyebrows, but if the Warriors can extend the contract of Biedrins, he (along with Brandan Wright) would ensure a talented, young, frontcourt. Their backcourt is already loaded, so a swingman is probably their biggest need at this point. I like Anderson because he has a good three-point shot (which is necessary on any Don Nelson team) and would provide size & depth to a lineup that normally played undersized and had a short rotation.
1. Chicago Bulls - Derrick Rose (Memphis, PG): I know a lot of people think they can't afford to pass up Beasley here, but I disagree. Beasley is going to be a 3/4 combo player in the NBA, and that's the exact position played by Tyrus Thomas (whom the Bulls are still high on - remember he was a top-4 pick?). They also have Nocioni who plays the same 3/4 combo position. Further, Rose is going to be the next great PG in the league. With rumors already circulating that Hinrich is now on the trading block, Rose would be a perfect pick. I say they try to get a late-first round pick in exchange for Hinrich and use it on a big man or trade him for an already-proven big man, because they would be loaded on the perimeter with Deng (3), Gordon (2), and Rose (1).
2. Miami Heat - Michael Beasley (Kansas St, PF): This is a no-brainer. The Bulls' pick will dictate what Miami does, but there are only two options here and one will have already been taken.
3. Minnesota Timberwolves - OJ Mayo (USC, SG): This pick makes the most sense as the next-best available player is Bayless, who plays the same type of game as Foye. This will also give them a good reason to dump McCants, and we all know that needs to be done sooner rather than later.
4. Seattle Supersonics - Jerryd Bayless (Arizona, PG): I think he would be a perfect fit and it wouldn't be long before he took some scoring pressure off Durant. I also think he could come in right away and play some minutes at the two, which would enable Durant to slide to the three (his most natural position).
5. Memphis Grizzlies - DeAndre Jordan (Texas A&M, C): He's as big as Brooke Lopez, and much more athletic. Mainly, I couldn't stand the mental image of a Darko/Lopez front line. Yuck.
6. New York Knicks - Brooke Lopez (Stanford, C): I was torn on this slot because I think Westbrook would fit perfectly with D'Antoni's style. However, he would be a major upgrade from Eddy Curry in terms of mobility. I'm sure they'd rather have Jordan with this pick, but he's already been taken in my mock draft.
7. Los Angeles Clippers - D.J. Augustin (Texas, PG): I know, I know, #7 is a stretch for Augustin. However, the one position the Clippers desperately need help at is PG. I'm sorry, but when Dan Dickau is getting the majority of PG minutes, you've got problems. I think the Clippers are aware of this, as evidenced by their late-season signing of Smush "brain-dead" Parker. Augustin is the closest thing to a pure PG (even though he's score-first) that's left in terms of lottery-worthy players since I don't think Westbrook will ever be able to carry that mantle (see Monta Ellis).
8. Milwaukee Bucks - Danilo Gallinari (Italy, SF): I have gone seven picks without a foreign player, and we all know there is no way we will ever see another NBA Draft without a foreign player going in the top 10 picks. The foreign factor always adds a bit of uncertainty, which really turns on GM's. That said, I saw some video of this guy, and he appears to have a solid all-around game and good size for a SF (6'9"). Plus, after re-signing Mo Williams last offseason and getting Yi in the draft, SF is the position where the Bucks need the most help.
9. Charlotte Bobcats - Kevin Love (UCLA, PF): I'm sure I'll get plenty of flack for this pick, but I can't help but think Love would thrive for a Larry Brown-coached team. Think of their future starting five: Felton, Richardson, Wallace, Love, and Okafor. With Brown on the bench, they would be a playoff-ready team in the East within two years at most.
10. New Jersey Nets - Eric Gordon (Indiana, SG): This pick would make sense to me as I foresee Jefferson or Carter being traded in the near future. They would have a talented, young backcourt with Devin Harris and Eric Gordon, along with some young bangers down low (Boone, Williams).
11. Indiana Pacers - Russell Westbrook (UCLA, PG/SG): If he falls this far, he would be a major steal at #11. Westbrook is a great on-ball defender & super athletic. I think he would complement Granger & Dunleavy nicely in that fast-paced offense, and we all know about the inury/behavioral problems of Tinsley. Although not a pure point guard, their offensive style does not demand as much in terms of ballhandling out of the lead guard position.
12. Sacramento Kings - Darrell Arthur (Kansas, PF): Kind of a boring pick, but it would make sense given their needs. They just drafted Hawes to be the long-term solution at Center, and the emergence of Beno Udrih created some stability at the PG spot.
13. Portland Trailblazers - Joe Alexander (West Virginia, SF): I would love it if this pick actually happened. The dude is straight athletic, and athleticism is something that is lacking on the Blazers' roster. Selfishly, I'd also be relieved of watching Outlaw log so many minutes and make so many "what was he thinking?" plays (I live in Portland).
14. Golden State Warriors - Ryan Anderson (Cal, SF): This pick would also raise some eyebrows, but if the Warriors can extend the contract of Biedrins, he (along with Brandan Wright) would ensure a talented, young, frontcourt. Their backcourt is already loaded, so a swingman is probably their biggest need at this point. I like Anderson because he has a good three-point shot (which is necessary on any Don Nelson team) and would provide size & depth to a lineup that normally played undersized and had a short rotation.
Jun 3, 2008
Seeing Double
Without further ado, here are my top five player/celebrity look-alike tandems:
5. Fabricio Oberto & Kurt Cobain: Nirvana loyalists, no need to fear. Oberto has been practicing his vocals and the band plans on reuniting in the near future with Fabricio on the mic. Should be a seamless transition. In fact, Flea (Chili Peppers) was sitting courtside at this one and told me Oberto was actually singing the lyrics to "Come as You Are" when this photo was shot.
4. Donyell Marshall & Ludacris: Just take a minute to look at these photos. The resemblance is uncanny.
3. Kyle Korver & Ashton Kutcher: With Korver's move to Utah, there's a good chance he will eventually have been with as many women as Ashton has - but Korver's women will be all at the same time. Even Ashton can't top that.
2. Manu Ginobili & Borat: Which picture is more disturbing? Rumor has it Manu actually auditioned for Borat's role in "Borat comes to America." He didn't make the cut because his legs weren't hairy enough. With a little rogain, he could be ready in time for the biographical movie commemorating Borat's life that is scheduled to hit theaters in 2011.
1. Sam Cassell & ET: If the Celtics win the NBA Championship, Doc Rivers promised Sam that he would ride his bike into the galaxy with Cassell in basket to give him a proper retirement send-off.
5. Fabricio Oberto & Kurt Cobain: Nirvana loyalists, no need to fear. Oberto has been practicing his vocals and the band plans on reuniting in the near future with Fabricio on the mic. Should be a seamless transition. In fact, Flea (Chili Peppers) was sitting courtside at this one and told me Oberto was actually singing the lyrics to "Come as You Are" when this photo was shot.
4. Donyell Marshall & Ludacris: Just take a minute to look at these photos. The resemblance is uncanny.
3. Kyle Korver & Ashton Kutcher: With Korver's move to Utah, there's a good chance he will eventually have been with as many women as Ashton has - but Korver's women will be all at the same time. Even Ashton can't top that.
2. Manu Ginobili & Borat: Which picture is more disturbing? Rumor has it Manu actually auditioned for Borat's role in "Borat comes to America." He didn't make the cut because his legs weren't hairy enough. With a little rogain, he could be ready in time for the biographical movie commemorating Borat's life that is scheduled to hit theaters in 2011.
1. Sam Cassell & ET: If the Celtics win the NBA Championship, Doc Rivers promised Sam that he would ride his bike into the galaxy with Cassell in basket to give him a proper retirement send-off.
What's in a Name?
Most star athletes have unforgettable nicknames, whether earned through their play (e.g. "The Big Hurt") or through self-promotion (e.g. "Ocho Cinco"). However, there are far too many athletes who's play has been deserving but are only known by their first (or last) names. Slam magazine has a feature each month, identifying such athletes and hosting a contest to come up with creative monikers for the identified un-nicknamed players. Here are a few I came up with for players without nicknames or whose nicknames don't do them justice:
"The Stork" -- Marshall Faulk
Sort of fitting that Marshall Faulk has had one of the highest-"scoring" careers of any athlete -- both on and off the field. Marshall once held the single-season touchdown record, but also managed to produce (at least) 6 children by 3 different women. Since these children came as a surprise and were delivered without a real father, I think "The Stork" is a fitting nickname.
Close second: "The Fertilizer"
"Little David" -- Barry Sanders
After searching the net, apparently Barry Sanders did have a nickname: "B." Neither do I recall this nickname, nor do I think it does justice to the greatest running back in NFL history. "Little David" (his middle name) suits him better -- making Goliath-sized defenders look stupid game-in and game-out.
Close second: "TNT"
"The Pill" -- Rafael Palmeiro
This nickname would have a double meaning -- referring to his days as a spokesperson for Viagra and for whatever else he put into his aging body in the late-nineties.
Close second: "Fingers" (just watch video of his court appearance)
"Stillframe" Steve -- Steve Nash
I was trying to mimic the "Pistol" Pete thing... I think Nash is similarily crafty with the ball, and it seems like he sees the court in slow-motion (or in stillframes) at times. Okay, kinda lame, but I think it's a travesty that the two-time MVP doesn't have a catchy nickname.
Close second: "The Puppeteer"
"Million Dollar Baby" -- Stephen Jackson
This is probably my favorite nickname that is not already owned by a professional athlete (that I know of). I most certainly would have given this title to Sheed, Iverson, Duncan, Kobe, or Rip if they didn't already have nicknames of their own...
Close second: "Three-to-Five Upstate"
Some other star athletes that need nicknames in the worst way: Derek Jeter, Tom Brady, LaDanian Tomlinson (since he stole the original LT's nickname)
"The Stork" -- Marshall Faulk
Sort of fitting that Marshall Faulk has had one of the highest-"scoring" careers of any athlete -- both on and off the field. Marshall once held the single-season touchdown record, but also managed to produce (at least) 6 children by 3 different women. Since these children came as a surprise and were delivered without a real father, I think "The Stork" is a fitting nickname.
Close second: "The Fertilizer"
"Little David" -- Barry Sanders
After searching the net, apparently Barry Sanders did have a nickname: "B." Neither do I recall this nickname, nor do I think it does justice to the greatest running back in NFL history. "Little David" (his middle name) suits him better -- making Goliath-sized defenders look stupid game-in and game-out.
Close second: "TNT"
"The Pill" -- Rafael Palmeiro
This nickname would have a double meaning -- referring to his days as a spokesperson for Viagra and for whatever else he put into his aging body in the late-nineties.
Close second: "Fingers" (just watch video of his court appearance)
"Stillframe" Steve -- Steve Nash
I was trying to mimic the "Pistol" Pete thing... I think Nash is similarily crafty with the ball, and it seems like he sees the court in slow-motion (or in stillframes) at times. Okay, kinda lame, but I think it's a travesty that the two-time MVP doesn't have a catchy nickname.
Close second: "The Puppeteer"
"Million Dollar Baby" -- Stephen Jackson
This is probably my favorite nickname that is not already owned by a professional athlete (that I know of). I most certainly would have given this title to Sheed, Iverson, Duncan, Kobe, or Rip if they didn't already have nicknames of their own...
Close second: "Three-to-Five Upstate"
Some other star athletes that need nicknames in the worst way: Derek Jeter, Tom Brady, LaDanian Tomlinson (since he stole the original LT's nickname)
Jun 2, 2008
Beijing Olympics Boycott Threats
Virtually every nation in the free world is up in arms about the 2008 Summer Olympics. From celebrities to key political figures, we are hearing cries to boycott the Olympics. These cries, broadcast through the world's loudest human boom boxes, aren't just mindless background noise (as they normally are) -- they are valid complaints and echo the sentiments of millions of others who don't carry big sticks.
The "threats" to boycott have undoubtedly sent chills down China's spine, considering China has shown a willingness to do just about anything to portray itself as a model country for the Summer Games (at least aesthetically). Rumor has it that China is even trying to develop a means of clearing its notoriously hazy skies so that CBS, BBC, and the other networks will capture a beautiful & scenic urban landscape this summer. Despite these efforts, however, China has made no moves to clean up its act. Despite all of the negative press from a globalized media, despite the outcries from its own citizens, and despite all of the hollow promises that were made when it sold itself to the Games Committee, China has stubbornly held its ground through its disregard for human rights.
This is not about cultural relativity (i.e. what's right for us is not necessarily what's right for them, and we don't have the right to tell them what we feel is right or wrong in the first place). It is just plain wrong -- how can it even be argued? I read a press release today that announced Chinese officials had stripped two Chinese defense lawyers of their licenses to practice law because they took on cases to defend human rights. I've also read stories about foreign press being warned that it will be monitored in all of its conversations while covering the Summer Games -- whether these conversations take place in public or in the "comfort" of their own hotel rooms.
If you are from a developed nation, just try to imagine these scenarios unfolding in your hometown.... that's what I thought. It's unthinkable. For all the moaning we do about the civil unjustices in our backyards, peeking over the fence should show us that we have it pretty good. So good, in fact, that it is not a matter of us having an agenda here, it is a matter of us having a social responsibility.
So here comes the real question: will any of our countries or athletes, either collectively or individually, actually boycott the 2008 Summer Games? Individual athletes may take a real stand against these unjustices, but I highly doubt any countries will boycott the Games entirely. There is just too much money, too much fame at stake. Sure, we'll shout at the Chinese Government and metaphorically slap their wrists. But chances are that our athletes be suited up in our national colors right next to all the other countries' performers come August.
What kind of message is this going to send? Will it say that we care about the issues, but not at the expense of our gold medals? I sure hope not.
The "threats" to boycott have undoubtedly sent chills down China's spine, considering China has shown a willingness to do just about anything to portray itself as a model country for the Summer Games (at least aesthetically). Rumor has it that China is even trying to develop a means of clearing its notoriously hazy skies so that CBS, BBC, and the other networks will capture a beautiful & scenic urban landscape this summer. Despite these efforts, however, China has made no moves to clean up its act. Despite all of the negative press from a globalized media, despite the outcries from its own citizens, and despite all of the hollow promises that were made when it sold itself to the Games Committee, China has stubbornly held its ground through its disregard for human rights.
This is not about cultural relativity (i.e. what's right for us is not necessarily what's right for them, and we don't have the right to tell them what we feel is right or wrong in the first place). It is just plain wrong -- how can it even be argued? I read a press release today that announced Chinese officials had stripped two Chinese defense lawyers of their licenses to practice law because they took on cases to defend human rights. I've also read stories about foreign press being warned that it will be monitored in all of its conversations while covering the Summer Games -- whether these conversations take place in public or in the "comfort" of their own hotel rooms.
If you are from a developed nation, just try to imagine these scenarios unfolding in your hometown.... that's what I thought. It's unthinkable. For all the moaning we do about the civil unjustices in our backyards, peeking over the fence should show us that we have it pretty good. So good, in fact, that it is not a matter of us having an agenda here, it is a matter of us having a social responsibility.
So here comes the real question: will any of our countries or athletes, either collectively or individually, actually boycott the 2008 Summer Games? Individual athletes may take a real stand against these unjustices, but I highly doubt any countries will boycott the Games entirely. There is just too much money, too much fame at stake. Sure, we'll shout at the Chinese Government and metaphorically slap their wrists. But chances are that our athletes be suited up in our national colors right next to all the other countries' performers come August.
What kind of message is this going to send? Will it say that we care about the issues, but not at the expense of our gold medals? I sure hope not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
