Cards Move On

Nats I feel for you but I don't not for the fans who cheer you on.  Cards, you are the Taliban who just don't go away even if its down to the last strike in the nations capital. You fight and grind.  Still, I feel for the Nats even though there is no Indians there and the attitude is predominantly white in sponsorship, management, and coaching. However, these Cards don't believe in letting up and letting the better team win. Or in fair play that the English preachers always seem to preach on those missions. They are exception of the rule. They are the Taliban. And they will play another Taliban team in the Giants who don't let up. So, America wake up. You hate the Taliban not because of destruction of lives but because they don't have the sense of letting up or admitting defeat that you deep down admire. As long as they beat the Russians like the Rangers, Braves, Brewers but the Nats. They are America's team. They would have been okay if the Yankees. Maybe, they will lose to them if the Yanks get there.

The LPGA IS ALIVE?

 Not Mickey Wright's (left) or Kathy Whitworth's (right) LPGA Tour?

I got the bad news. They are cutting back highlights of LPGA golf.  Matter of fact,  they aren't showing any highlights of regular tournaments. The grand-slams will be only the final round highlights. The sponsors are cutting back and the tour is only playing 31 tournaments per a year compared to the PGA Tour 45 tournaments this year. Despite a 15 year old, Lydia Ko winning the Canadian Open last weekend, pessimism pervades because fan interest is just not there so they say. But I think differently. To me, a lack of respect of for the LPGA is why fan interest is declining not apathy.

The LPGA its on the back-burner of all communication means whether its newspaper, radio, television, or internet. The articles about the LPGA are written very poorly. They just put the winner and that is it. The excuse is that its boring and nobody is watching. But how can anybody watch if you are not writing articles of potential players with keen and expert analysis? On the television side, the production is very poor. Half the time, the announcers get the wrong hole or the golfer's name. The camera angles are terrible and the shots are very distant instead of being close like the PGA. Its like being at the tournament behind fans trying to see a golfer hit her shot. Finally, there is nothing leading up to the tournaments with ads, promos, or other means from television, magazines, newspaper, radio, or internet like you do with the PGA. Unless, you look up the internet schedule for the LPGA.

Not many have had the career or fanfare of Grace Park

Lot of critics as well as former and current players blame on Korean and other Asians who win tournaments but do no have sustaining power like an Annika Sorenstam or a Karrie Webb. They win that one major, go away and get married. But that is true with American and European players as well. Likewise, homosexuality in women's golf tends to be looked at  by sponsors as a deficiency. For fans like me, I don't really care. I enjoy good golf but its poor coverage, makes me want to stay from the television set. Its always in tape delay mode here in America. Which indicates to me, that television coverage is either not well-budgeted or they don't have a budget. That is too bad because golf is a great game regardless of who plays it but if you don't give it the same respect as the men even when Tiger is not winning, who is going to watch?

The Power of Righteousness

This thought came to me while I was visiting the Negro League Baseball Museum in Kansas City, Missouri USA as well as reading about Indian failures in the Olympics.  Righteousness is the theme and considered more important than winning (but you play hard to compete). To the start the tour, they featured a black & white film of a African-American boy singing the U.S National anthem in an old baseball uniform. After the film, I toured the exhibits featuring African-Americans (referred to as Negroes back then in America) playing baseball in Kansas City as well as other cities from late 19th to the mid 20th century. Finally, you come to a miniature baseball field with statues of past, great Negro League players from each position. The important thing you learned is what great men they were on and off the field.

John "Buck" O'Neil- Former player and Museum curator

The museum is located on 18th and Vine Street in a inner-city, African-American neighborhood. On that site, is where the Kansas City Monarchs used to play. The team used to play in a segregated league during the 1920's till the late 1950's. During that time, Major League Baseball (formed in 1869) in America didn't not allow African-Americans to play in their leagues. This started back in 1884 when Cap Anson, an influential white refused to play against a African-American player, Moses Fleetwood, in a National Association game. From that time onward, many white leagues barred African-Americans and African descendants from other countries like Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Dominican Republic. 

Rube Foster, Founder

To counter this, independent teams formed to showcase African-American talent but folded due to lack organization and money. In 1920, Rube Foster, a former a Negro league pitcher, who owned a team called the Chicago American Giants started a a league with teams including his own Chicago team, St. Louis, Detroit, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Kansas City. The idea was not only to play competitive baseball but to showcase player discipline, intelligence, morality, and team fundamentals in hope for MLB inclusion as all African-American team.  He helped other teams in his league who suffered financial hardships. But he kicked out many players who didn't follow his rules of righteousness. Unfortunately for Rube, he suffered mental illness from a gas leak in a hotel room in 1925 and died in a asylum in 1930.


With his death, the league suffered and league fell apart but the Kansas City Monarchs continued as an independent team owned by a white man named J.L. Wilkinson that barnstormed the Midwest and Western part of United States as well as Western Canada with a House of David Team (a Christian society team that wore their hair long and grew beards). They played local teams in those areas and introduced night baseball games before the Major Leagues did so. MLB didn't invite them despite their financial issues during the economic depression of the 1930's. Therefore in 1937, Kansas City joined the Negro American League with teams in the Midwest as well as teams in the south like Atlanta, Birmingham, and Memphis. Despite the changes and financial struggles, the Monarchs maintained the Rube Foster tradition of  high moral, player conduct (they wore suits before and after games).  Likewise, drinking and carousing after games was frowned upon as well as gambling. 


Finally in 1946, Major League Baseball decided to integrate black players instead of bringing a whole team like the Kansas City Monarchs. MLB teams bought players from the Monarchs but many of them failed due to the pressures of integration baseball. Only Jackie Robinson used his righteousness to win baseball games in a white league as well as overcome racial adversities brought upon media, opponents, and fans. He is considered a champion in integrating baseball. A great man. The question is: whether its important to win or be righteous? Only India knows.

Kevin Brown

During my college years at Reinhardt and UNC-Charlotte, I watched a lot of baseball on ESPN as well as Baseball Tonight (shoot, I remember Bill Robinson, why he was replaced by Ray Knight, hell if I know?). This is from the 90's decade where fundamental baseball didn't exist according to Dave "Soup" Campbell. Geez, I remember Gary Thorne harping on Mel Hall's slow trot after hitting a homer against the Twins. I graduated in 1996, the year after Cal Ripken broke the consecutive game streak (could he have done it without having to worry about no DH). When I moved into an apartment after graduation, I didn't have a TV but I had a library with internet and a TV in the laundry room that had ESPN.

I have to say that year, Kevin Brown was most dominating pitcher. Sorry,  J.Smoltz, he was better. Yeah, he only had 17 wins but man, he shut down everybody. The team didn't produce any runs for him, though. I remember he wore 41 for the Rangers and Orioles but with the Marlins, he wore No. 27. He had a delivery that would cause him to turn his back and then fall towards the first base line. I was thinking he was going to get hurt and but he never did until he got to L.A. and then with New York when his body broke down. With the Marlins and Padres, he never got tired and threw harder in later innings.  I didn't see that in Texas or in Baltimore *"the acuity" of the pitches from inning one to the last all the way from April to October.  I was suspicious of his dominance with Florida. Lets go back and find why?

I saw him pitch in 1993. He threw hard and pitched a lot of innings. But he always got tired toward the end of the season and his pitches weren't that sharp in later innings. I remember when he won 21 games but he had support from Juan Gonzalez, Dean Palmer, Ivan Rodriguez, Julio Franco, and a traded Jose Canseco as well as Tom Henke. But in 1994, he stunk and in 1995 with the Orioles, he really stunk (he and Phil Regan).  So, he comes to the Marlins and just dominates? Now, the Marlins who had decent players in Gary Sheffield (break out), Jeff Conine, Charles Johnson (can catch but hitting?), Devon White, and Rob Nen. Young players in Quilvio Veras, Kurt Abbott and Edgar Renteria. But the Marlins never seem to respond to Rene Lachemann's managerial style. Despite all those issues, Kevin Brown's fast ball and the fork ball was something else in Florida and in San Diego. In short, he didn't need support.

I don't remember too much about 1998 except for the Yankees (ESPN kisses up them, thank you MLB Network) but Brown was definitely better than Tom Glavine or Greg Maddux. Soon afterwards, he moved to L.A. and got that big contract as well as the rumors and nagging injuries. Now, the question becomes of why those pitchers  that he beat out don't speak out against him but will against batters who were rumored to have taken steroids. I have heard Smoltz, Glavine, and Maddux have talked about their win totals without steroid era of batters. But this man took away your era title and wins.  He won two games in the 1997 NLCS with the Marlins and one with the Padres in 1998 against the Braves.What about middle-inning relief pitchers who were on the juice? You "pitches" need to start fessing up or does that mean, you have to tell the truth about yourselves? I guess there is a code of silence, here.

Former catcher, Carlton Fisk on Roger Clemens: *"The reason he got let go from the Red Sox [after the 1996 season] was because he was starting to break down," Fisk told the Tribune (Chicago Tribune). "His last couple of years in Boston just weren't very productive, a la 'The Rocket.' Then all of a sudden he goes to Toronto and he wants to show somebody something. Then he gets two consecutive Cy Young Awards [in '97 and '98]. Come on, give me a bucket."



*-- Carlton Fisk (ESPNBoston.com article, Jan. 20, 2010)

Jeremy Lin, The AAT-Sensation

I followed Jeremy Lin a bit. But I don't try to watch him because he seems to mess up. LOL. Kidding aside, he is a sensation. I watched basketball since 1982 (thanks Carolyn Rowland) so I missed Billy Ray Bates and his short run in Portland.  I have to say in looking at Jeremy, he always looks like he is going to get injured when he drives to the basket. There is nothing that really stands out about him accept his height of 6'3?  He knows how to play 5 on 5 basketball. But he couldn't play 3 on 3, 2 on 2, and 1 one 1 like they do in those in those pre-draft drills or summer camps in the NBA. Hence, him not being drafted. In short, he is a talent evaluator on the floor. He knows what he can do and what the guys on the floor can do. Everyone talks about what will happen when Melo comes back. I say just watch.

He really reminds of those willowy figured players from the 70's players like Westphal and Dandridge (Please put him in the Hall of Fame).  I'm sure Roy Williams is mad at himself for that one as well as the ACC. I think its good though that he went to Harvard not because of lack of talent but that he learned to score within the offense and the teams that surrounded him. Dean Smith said that any player can score 30 points by himself but can he score 30 through five guys. He can.

His problem is that he didn't create his own scoring. He was too unselfish. I think unlike the 70's skinny guys of Walker, LaGarde, Lamp, Dunleavy, and others before him, he has minor leagues in mid-season like the D-League to develop his one on one, two on two, and 3 on 3 game. Likewise, with dedicated coaches like Eric Musselman who are concerned about player development, he has gotten physically stronger and willing to attack the inside paint more with attitude. Keith Smart too when he was with the Warriors with the no-foul rule.

I think what will make him a great player in the NBA, however, is that he doesn't blame other minorities for his problems and troubles.  Regardless of his religion and belief, Jeremy is a not a pagan convert that puts down others. A true follower of God.

Let that be a lesson to all.

Boosters Pansies

That is what I think about all them folks who cover college sports. Whenever there is a scandal involving illegal payments between athletes, coaches or administrators by boosters, the media always blames the players, coaches, or administrators. Never the boosters even if he is a convicted felon. Why? Because they pay the bills to ESPN guys like Mark May even if he doesn't want to admit or Mike Golic. I'm so tired them talking about morality about student-athlete conduct and death penalty on the program. But no death penalty on the boosters. Man, oh, man.

What is about these boosters that they get a free pass? I heard the same thing on the show First Take by Jemele Hill and Michael Smith. Some may side with the athletes or coaches but they all agree on the boosters. Sam Gilbert. The man was involved with drugs before his death and yet, he was more powerful than John Wooden. I hope we hear more about Mr. Gilbert now that the Wizard of Westwood has passed on. UCLA players, Larry Farmer, "I have seen him move mountains" and Lucious Allen said "Coach Wooden as long as we were between the lines. Outside the court — Sam Gilbert" (LA Times, Jun. 8, 2010 by Chris Dufresne).


These dudes strong and tough as they are nothing but jock pansies to boosters whether they are for them or against them. For instance, Wooden by all accounts knew about Mr. Gilbert but was intimidated by his presence and business. He looked the other way concerning cash, cars, women, clothing, and housing. Likewise, Sam negotiated contracts for top UCLA players when they got to the pros for only a dollar. He was involved as a contractor who did things on the "side." Kentucky basketball did the same thing. Players, coaches, and administrators got punished but never the boosters. Now for football, Notre Dame. No good unless they cheat.  This is where former ND alum, Mike Golic, annoys the crap out of me.
 
Dude, okay, you didn't cheat and athletes shouldn't cheat. You paid the price and you did it fair and square.  Athletes don't deserve to be paid because they are students. But why do you look away when boosters give money? How come they don't get to be punished? Why do you hold them to a higher standard then a priest? Likewise, you always talk like a hidden, but bitter sexual abuse victim when you put down these athletes who take the money. "Well, circumstances have happened to me (what?) where I could have given up but I still played clean and you should too because you didn't go through what I went through. So, I'm more holier than you" attitude. Fine, but be honest about. Mark May, you played for Jackie Sherrill, enough said.
 
My biggest wrath is definitely the writers concerning boosters. This goes back to the 30's. Many of the writers are and were friends of these boosters some of them with shady connections with the Mafia, Ku Klux Klan and other "devil's advocate" groups.  Yet, they go on blaming the shiftless athletes who don't know nothing. Maybe, you got a concerned reporter who will blame the university or the coaches, get his Pulitzer's, and his payday. But the news dies down but the scandal continues because they always "thanks" the boosters of getting them there.
 
In short, college sports hypocrisy at its finest with these media folks.
 
 
 

Run and Jump, THe Carolina Way

Japan beating U.S. in the women's World Cup is amazing enough since the average height of each Japanese player is 5'4 while the U.S. is 5'7.  But, they beat Germany in the quarters, and Sweden in the semi's. Both defeated teams had the same height average as the U.S. I'm reminded of a Billy Packer story about Dean Smith when he was a player for the Kansas Jayhawks. Dean's coach, Phogg Allen, would show a film of a snake and a rodent fighting. The snake would always win because it always got down lower. That is what the Japanese women did to all three teams to win the World Cup.

Likewise, it looked like the Japanese took a page out of Dean Smith's jump switch defense with them traps. They always pinned them in a corner by using two or three players and forced them to kick from the weak side. The U.S. players didn't have enough ball-handling skills from their big strikers to be patient. Because after about two dribbles, they would kick it away or the Japanese would steal the ball or force turnovers. Maybe a 2-3 zone every time they got toward the goal with a "set piece." It seemed the Japanese just swarmed Abby Wambach with 2 or 3 players on defense.

Mostly though, it reminded me of Larry Brown's transition to defense to offense. One of Japan's goals was when the U.S. was attacking them but Japan got the ball back and scored off that transition. In Larry's teams, specifically with the Cougars and Nuggets, he had great defenders who were small and quick but great dribblers with speed who could push the ball, score if need to or pass to the weak side for the open man. Japan didn't quiet have those skills on offense but they pushed the ball up field from those take aways and wore down the U.S.

I think this year's U.S. team was better than the team in 1999 which I think was overrated compared to Germany in 2003 and 2007. The 1999 team had great players but the competition wasn't that good. Their finals opponent, China wasn't great in terms of offense but good on defense. However, China couldn't   switch like Japan did with the same quickness and tenacity on defense to create transitions. In short, Germany, Sweden, and the U.S. were the rodents that got snakebitten by Japan. The Carolina way.

Dude? Leave Roger Alone

Roger Federer loses a match which isn't the finals or the semi's and the critics from ESPN's First Take start slamming him for being a good sport. They talk about him being afraid of Rafael Nadal so that he was happy that he lost Jo-Wilfred Tsonga. You had the mediator who tried to play devil's advocate by saying maybe he cares but in a different way but he accepts defeat. Then you have the other who says that he looked deflated and didn't have that calvary charge attitude like Earl Weaver who blew World Series's but would always say that he will be back.

I'm like whatever, dude. Roger is one of the few athletes that I don't resent for being perfect on and off the court. Why? Look at his opponents. They all play hard for him with enthusiasm even if they are getting their butts kicked by him. Because of the man and huminatarian that he is. You see Andy Roddick, Andy Murray, Rafael Nadal, and others. They have become better players because of him without the resentment and anger.  The exception is Novak Djokovic and to steal Furman Bisher's line "what ever happened to David Nalbandian or Lleyton Hewitt?"

In short, Roger is the best win or lose!

Pushed by Good Ole Boys

When I see minorities or women in office, I'm a bit wary. Not of their qualifications but their associations. For this voter, I could careless of how they come across whether its liberal or conservative, color-blind or racist, and dumb or smart. As a minority living in white flight, I look for the Pat Riley or Margaret Thatcher factor with great interest.

I believe that this is whats happening to Sandy Springs mayor, Eva Galambos. This little tussle with Gwinnett College reinforces my view. She may be Jewish and a Phd but she can twang. Look at how many good ole Christian boys and girls she lead to the promise land with her reforms. Lets include sterilized minorities of Islamic, Jewish, and Hindu faiths as well as races who fear and hate other minorities besides their own. Likewise, racist homosexuals.

White flight minorities went in for the ride and voted her into office. However, sterilized as they maybe towards white heterosexuals, minorities and homosexuals do end up with off springs who need to go somewhere. Certainly not Sandy Springs. Eva is going to make sure of that with her good ole boy lobby of folks with questionable education. Those are the folks that helped get into office with the "I'm afraid of City of Atlanta's agenda" rhetoric since 1989. Eva woofed about their work ethic and she was going to take them on when push comes to shove. Unfortunately, the Good Ole Boys got scared when the pressure got tight and left her hanging to dry.

Eva is definitely a figure head like Bobby Jindal. I get aware of having somebody who is married within their faith or race but leads an agenda of white flight. Danielle Giffords and Nikki Haley are at least honest. But in their case, its not what religion you are but what religion you marry. Look at Barack Obama. Both women are willing to push their own constituents hard. Sometimes, though, your own group pushes you back, hard. Eva is too passive and afraid to get on her Good Ole Boys due to her Christian dependency on them. She side steps them if they want a massage parlor or liquor store across the street from the city government place.

I think of her as Miss Piggy. Yeah, she is strong and tough against individuals or folks but you can't take on a group that can roast you and eat you in a heartbeat with money to spare (Piggy started running when she saw an oven). You either marry one or avoid them. Don't vote for me as Sandy Springs mayor. She was the perfect type for lobbyists to get Sandy Springs to be a city but not the type to run it. I believe a person needs to lead and push a fraternity instead of being pushed and pulled by one like pork.

Bill Veeck's Bastard Children

Just Geno Auriema, John Wooden, Bobby Knight, Jo Pa, and all you folks who don't put names on your jersey's so the camera can focus on you. Bill Veeck is the man and you guys are his bastard children. You can deny all you want but its true. Without him, you guys wouldn' have nothing. Look at all the TV dollars, you make from others teams names on jerseys that you play against. If all teams had no names, you would have no dollars.

See in 1959, a fan friend was complaining to Bill who was then owner of the Chicago White Sox baseball team, that he couldn't recognize who the players were. Bill then came up with the idea of putting names on his team's jerseys in 1960. The first year it was on the road and the next year, it was both. Critics complained that it would take away score card sales at the ballpark but it didn't because the players were too far away and actuality it helped scorecard sales as well as increasing television coverage which brought millions.

Basketball teams like the Lakers and Duke University were using it. In football, it was Maryland in 1961 but scrapped after one year. Not all coaches were sold on it because they believed it promoted the individual. Actually, it put the focus on the team instead of the coach who loves himself like David Lee Roth. Coaches who use No-name say they are protecting the players. Really. Well, why does the camera always focus on you instead of your assistants? I mean why not put the focus on assistants like Tom Kelly did when he managed the Twins. You saw the camera on Ron Gardenhire and Wayne Terwilliger. Don't believe their hype.

It took awhile to sell the idea. The American Football League put names in August of 1960. When they merged with the NFL in 1970, they kept their's and got the NFC teamsto put theirs. The Lakers were the first in 1961 but the NBA required all teams to do so in 1971-1972 season when the no names of the Bullets and Bucks of the 1971 Finals produced a bad TV rating even though Kareem, Oscar, Wes, and the Pearl played. NHL did it in 1977-1978 but the WHA did it in 1972 when they had Bobby Hull and Gordie Howe. Baseball, the National League required every team on the road to have names in 1979 while the American League required every team on the road in 1990 except for the Yankees. In college, they leave up to each team but the money entices them to put names.

I think its great because its American and not that Taliban mystery bull. Yeah, Yeah, sacrifice committement, excellence, and all. Its all about you. Then put it on your sleeve like Air Force football did in their bowl game. They didn't put their last names but they put what they stood for, Freedom and Service. I like that. Anyway, they are Bill Veeck's children and you no-names are Bill Veeck's bastard children because you get benefits too out of his will.

The Players Club

Now, don't think this happens between a group men and a woman. It happens between women to women but they aren't homo social unless its like the movie "Players Club." You hear about these things at clubs, sororities, occupation with mostly women, competition like athletics or arts, and relations. "Whern" it comes to making that team or position, you trying to get that edge. Nice girls aren't so nice and mean girls are really mean.

What's the best way to "destory" a girl? Well, guys only know certain things but women know. It reminds me of an old story from the Charlotte Post about a female cop who stood 5'1 and weighed less than a hundred pounds. An interviewer asked her whether she feared large men on drugs carrying weapons during a "certain intervention." She answered no but she feared other women particularly her size because they know her and guys don't. Likewise, she felt that they were tougher to deal with.

Therefore, these weirdo's never seem to do that with the exception of Charles Manson and he got them to do the dirty work. These cases are the most talked about but they aren't the most realistic in daily routine life. Reason: gossip is tough to prove of who did it. A few blogs ago, I mentioned this lady had an issue with another professional, successful women with a house husband. She talked about another, successful lady with a house husband who had an affair. Implication is clear.

I'm a season ticket holder of the WNBA, Atlanta Dream. I put fliers out in the bulletin boards in buildings at my condominium. I came across some "haters" many of them are women. They don't admit directly but make these patterned statements "that I don't have the time, too expensive, its not like the men, and who watches them." Some are truthful but when I mentioned that NBA players watch them. They will say that they are new in town but they have Hawks tickets.

One lady got mad at me for missing practice because I went to a WNBA game (same lady who missed practice because she went to some dinner). Yet, many of these women like to talk about their character, strength, and perseverance but when you talk about other women's character in athletics or other professions like the armed forces, they go coy or accuse them of being butchy. Men understand that women can hurt you and are willing to admit but women don't want to because it makes them weak in the eyes of other men.

For some reason when a women calls another women out, it seems more justifiable for a man to do something harmful. I heard this story about a jealous woman accusing this pious woman of sleeping around when it actuality she was raped by a man. The jealous one spread the rumor through other ladies. The husband ended up blaming his wife of leading the rapist on. In response, she jumped off the well to meet her death. Women are powerful.

Coach Hews coaching.

Too much guard play on the point. The forwards need to be allowed to play point in certain situations particularly on the side wings just above the baseline toward the sideline near the paint. They just crash or go to the hoop in blind fashion without any reads. That is due to Mr. Hewitt's lack of confidence in their skills and their art. Likewise, the players lack confidence to make reads and passes on the run in a half-court set. In Hewitt's team, the forwards are always climbing Mt. Everest when it comes to making decisions.

However, Tech plays hard and will make a run when things look bleak and when everybody's tired. Guard play becomes important toward the end of the season and the tournament. Likewise, the length of the forwards and the hustle will make the difference for a run. But I would like to see Coach emphazize the forwards to make some reads instead of retreating to the guards to make all the reads. That way, all 5guys will have to defend 5 guys instead of just 2.

If you don't know what I'm talking about take a look at Rick Barry from 1975 with Golden State or John Johnson from 1979 Seattle Sonics.

It Takes Two to Make a Thing Go Right

Indigo Girls and the Eagles were both in Atlanta last Friday. One thing that crossed my mind is that for a certain constant success, you need one who has great business savvy and the other with spiritual gratitude. Emily Sailers is the spiritual leader while Amy Ray is very talented and spiritual, her business acumen is what keeps the band alive. For the Eagles, Don Henley was the guru for the Eagles with his songwriter but Glen Frey was the promoter who got the money down. You can say the same thing about NWA with Ice Cube and Eazy-E as well as Chris Wong and Luther Campbell (You say, m; I say o, whatever) from Two Live Crew.

Run DMC fascinates me the most in this concept but it was of three. It was a Rick Rubin show like he did with the Beasties but only because he brought the music to suburbs. Russell Simmons or Run managed them, did all the promotions, and behind the scenes. Yet, you had Jam Master Jay who had that promotion sense while DMC was a mystic to himself. They could have focused on what the people wanted and given it to them like Hammer but they didn't. They focused deeplya on their spirituality. However, DMC couldn't sugarcoat because it had deep thought implications that young divinity students want to understand but mature adults can.

Most of the groups or artist when they come to town are "protrayed" as either being the business/promoter advocate and the other being the artist, guru, or spiritual guide. There is only a few people that I remember being promoted as both. James Brown, Jerry Garcia, Prince, Sly Stone, Rick James, Ian Anderson from Jethro Tull, Quincy Jones and George Clinton. Just to name a few. However, most bands have a producer that do all the talking for them like a tennis coach. Like George Martin, James Guericio, Mutt Lange, and Berry Gordy but he let Smokey and Otis do their thing. Of course, most of the bands have had producers other themselves but they hire them to work for them not the other away around.

Of course that is where the problems come when you have a manager and the band folks are trying to be their own. To explain. It is sort of like tennis players from the 70's and before. They didn't have coaches or money managers with some exceptions. They had to make their own deals with companies to sponsor their travel, pay tournament fees, and equipment. But Ion Tiriac, a former tennis player did this with fellow tennis players, Illie Nastase, Guillermo Vilas, and Boris Becker. Likewise, he coached them or hired coaches like Gunther Bosch for Becker. But he got into issues just like Harold Melvin and Teddy Pendegrass but unlike Tiriac, Melvin couldn't replace a talent like Pendegrass.

In musical terms, Harold Melvin & the Blue Notes are a tragedy. Harold Melvin did all the arranging and brought in talent but Teddy Pendegrass was the man, dude. When he left, Harold should have quit and taken over as manager for Teddy. Teddy was great on his own due to the help of producers, Kenny Gamble and Leon Huff (Harold's discovery). Once they left, Teddy found sorry producers who couldn't understand his idiosyncracies. Harold did. It would have benefitted both of them but Harold replaced musicians before and thought Teddy was just another James Brown wannabe. Likewise, Teddy thought Harold was a Quincy Jones wannabe. Both are right and wrong (re-recording Teddy's hits to your singers is not cool, Harold). Snoop says "leaving me is like Blue Notes leaving Harold Melvin, you will never go platinum." In Harold's case, he should have put Teddy Pendegrass on the name.

If you look at the history of bands, two's operate best with some exceptions. Look at Otis Williams of the Temps and David Ruffin. When Ruffin left, the Temps survive to this day due to Mr. Williams but the soul of the band died in 1967. Look at the Rolling Stones but you would think it is different with Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. You think its all Mick but talk to the band, it is Keith that is the spiritual leader and Mick the business man (Be good to your kids and I want a burial). As he said when writing music, "its better to have two than one because you always get a different angle."

Where is Joe Biden?

Down and Dirty, Rosalee?

I like the below-the-waist fashion that you see a lot of black teenager's wear today. Doesn't look good when I did it. Particularly when you see the look at those straight-laced women. LOL. This would make an educated Indian man with a daughter wince. But no one cared. But with black guys, it does something. Cities in the south are making ordinances in their counties on "wear and tear". I say, whatever.

I was at the Marta train station in Sandy Springs. There was this group of 6 girls and 5 guys going to a Braves game. I think they went to... a preppy school (by looking at some of their T-shirts. I went to Galloway). The guys were trying to show off their so-called "swag" to the ladies (They were tall-toned except for one). Couple of the girls ignored me when I looked at them (too old for this). Inside the train, they were all chipper, talking it up like summer camp or recess. Then all of sudden, you saw this brother with his pants hanging down and underwear up. The train stops, he gets up to walk. Complete silence from that group. Jaw dropping. The dude destroyed whatever swag them preps had for life as well as the girls for the rest of that ride.

Likewise, there was this couple with Atlanta Braves T-shirts, kissing in increments, warm and fuzzy on the train. They were some seats down from the teens but a couple from the bro. Ole time, they were embracing each other like birds on a tree. When the "Mr. Pant" walked out, the guy was still feeling fuzzy but some of the fuzz left the lady because her eyes were wandering in thinking mode of what if. The guy wasn't trying to make a statement because he wasn't looking at them. He was just being himself.

An ordinance should only pass if I did it which was back in 1989. Go Indigo Girls and M.C. Hammer! Problem was, no one cared because the girls looked at my skinny butt with disgust and pity (pant button broke and I tried to use the belt to keep it up). As Alex Hawkins would say, "that Roger Staubach runs like a sissy."

Helen Thomas, Get Back

All I could think about is this guy in the 6th grade who said, "Get Back to where you belong." He meant India but I was born in United States. I don't recall him being kicked out of school. This dude had a weight problem and I'm remember this Jewish guy made fun of his weight but he never said that to him or about his religion, ever. Bullies are smart folks even in elementary schools. They know who they are allowed to make fun of and who they aren't. I became friends with the Jewish guy even though he made fun of India and me. I didn't know what Israel was to make a comment. Back then, it was about being associated with Communism like Russia and those nations like "Poland."

I give Helen props that she was an equal opportunity bully unlike "Dice" Clay, Rush Limbaugh, Dinesh D'Souza, and Dr. Laura (weren't homosexuals killed by Nazi's). I don't get on these folks so much as to their followers. They attract a large minority following. Don't be suprised if you see those folks at a pooja or other minority dominated events. Reason: they put down groups in a "check and balance" counter, a British technique. That way, a 50-50 from each group that will hate them but will also love them. For instance, Limbaugh puts down Arabs but he also put down Gays and Blacks. There are Arabs who don't like Gays and Hispanics and vice-versa from Gays and Blacks.

She seems to be more in the line of Pat Buchanan and Bobby Hull in that they hate everyone who is not white and Christian. However, Helen is Catholic but of Syrian descent. In viewing her comments, I notice that she doesn't tell Jews of Arab descent to go home to Lebanon, Ethiopia or even back to India with the exception of "wherever they are from." My take is this: she is been having issues with Eurocentric Jews ruling Israel. They rule like Nazi's to her and she is just calling it like she sees it.

My take is she is not Anti-Semite. She is Anti-Zionist and thinks the Israeli's are terrorists. I really don't care because of my whole point is this. She could have blasted Indians, Pakistani's (bootleg tape on Get Back on Youtube), and others, she would have had her job and maybe even gotten a raise. So to you traditionalist, conservativie, Indians, don't give me that crap! You didn't get Helen fired. By the way, I rememeber a few years ago both J.C. Watts and John Lewis were trying to pass a bill to get a Holocaust Museum for African-Americans. Who turned them down, the same folks who passed the bill for the Holocaust Museum in D.C.

Bad Color analysts

I watch a lot of women's basketball games, pros and college (even high school) on TV. Women's basketball, regardless of what family and friends say about it, is great. I will not apologize for their abilities (Yeah, they don't dunk). The one issue I will take heat for is bad color analysts/commentators. Most of them are women but they are some males ones too. They don't coordinate well with the main announcer. No chemistry or sense of respect for each other's ability. There are some exceptions and circumstances that create this. But it is what it is.

Usually, you have an announcer who did news programs for local affiliates before moving to the broadcast booth. Likewise, they have covered "mundance" stuff like eating contests or other events. They are either trying to move up, help out, or trying to get back up after hitting bottom. The color analyst are either former solid player/citizen or mediocre player/coach. Reason they are there? Same as an announcer but not in media.

I like the experienced announcers because they have a great sense of history. However, if he tries to make a reference of "tipped rebounds" to Moses Malone, the female color commentator invariably stays silent or says "oh, yeah him. He was good." Ah, man. A turn-off but if she is a good listener, its okay. But if that commentator gets on her high horse and starts acting "thou art more holier than you" when criticizing players. I'm taking her outside. At least, Bill Walton knows and appreciates basketball history including the women's game.

These women don't even know and appreciate their own history. Unless, its a one day seminar where old-timers meet the players and the announcers. Whats worse about this? The same commentators will criticize today's players for not appreciating what "these women" have gone through. Yet, ask them about who won the 1985 NCAA Tournament. They couldn't even tell you who Dawn Cullen was much less appreciate what she did in the final to sacrifice her body. Anne Gregory. Clarissa Davis. Molly Bolin. Val Whiting. Saudia Roundtree (damn shame her knees). I'm sure they know about Cheryl Miller, Lynette Woodard, and Immaculata University. And if these commenators know something, share it.

The worse is Doris Burke when she covers the women's game. Debbie Antonelli does the same thing but comes second because she knows basketball history from Kay Yow and on. Yet, in the men's game, they are better listeners because both are men in a women's body when it comes to commentating. They don't go on their high horse like like they do in the women's game, they calls it like it is with tact (Funny thing about those two, the announcers in the women's game give respect to them).

Now, why is this? Well, remember what I said about Moses Malone and "the tipped rebounds" comment. In the women's game, its okay because the viewers are just happy to see women playing. But in the men's game, fans and advertisers are watching to see if you got game. Those talk shows won't let you forget it. Likewise, if they get on their high horse about morals, the commentators will make a reference to John Havlicek which they bull around but what about Larry Siegfried (Bill Bradley or Mike Riordan). Who? "Yeah, good man." Not going to work.

To you analysts/commentators: if you don't know your history, get off the box. You are not a preacher. But if want to preach, learn your history. Since you don't have time or an interest (most were too focused as kids) for that, be a good listener and an appreciate the players now and then. Show some pointers and make observations. Finally, get it together with the announcer. Okay, if he or she disrespects you, don't take it out on the players. Because, I'm watching you.

If You Hit Once, You Hit Again

When thinking about Yeardley Love death's that title says it for me. It is a quote by a counselor/therapist at UNC-Charlotte by Dr. Lisa Brandyberry around 1995-1996 period. She said this at a forum about domestic violence among college students. Looking at her, she seemed to know what she was talking about. She was very obese then but it seemed more out of pain than negligence. I think it took place at a dorm room or an events center. Can't remember anything else but that quote.

I couldn't even tell you if it was mostly men or women at that seminar. I think I was invited by the another counselor, not sure. Here I was being angry not being able to get a date much less a girlfriend. Now, I'm hearing this lecture. My family and others who "know me" think I'm a nice guy but the girls then and now think I was a creep. I was thinking to myself and laughing, "ha, ha" you all got beaten by the cool and acceptable guys but not by me. My mind blasted back to the past concerning family members, female acquaintances, and associates. I smiled inside for a bit. Then, Lisa gave a stern, indirect look and said those magic words.

Yeah, she was talking to me too. She mentioned that no matter how soft or what the motive of the other person, if you hit, you will hit again. She wasn't concerned about being aggravated or wanting to control somebody. I tried to block it off by thinking "I would only hit a person when aggravated." But, she wouldn't have it. She said it, again and again.

As for Yeardley, her coach said about her "being great without trying to be." Yet, she only started 3 games in her senior year compared to 9 games, her junior year. It indicates to me that the coach knew about her relationship with George and that it was affecting her play. A good player is supposed to get better from freshmen to senior year and that never happened to Yeardley. This happens to players who have injuries, maturity issues or is a star player on a bad team. But Yeardley didn't seem to have injuries, issues, and was not a star. Yet as a senior, the coach put her on the defense coming off the bench.

I'm not blaming the coach because this has happened to me. My main point, I think had Lisa given the lecture to the team before all this, she would have educated both the women and the men lacrosse teams including George. He may not have changed but the coach and Yeardley probably would have taken action, sooner. Likewise, maybe George would have benefited from her seminar because it sure benefited me.

Hannah Storm, Revised

I have been a critic of Hannah Storm since she started her career at CNN. I didn't like her because she acted like a bitchy, Indian woman, all stuck up and married to a nice guy (Isn't America supposed to be different from those countries? I like Dan Hicks, though). Her father was the ABA (American Basketball Association) Commissioner, Mike Storen. I think he was GM for a couple of teams and even owner. Back to her, I remember the Albert Belle incident, guess who I favored? Now, I'm her biggest fan.

I don't know what happened when she moved to CBS. Maybe covering those wars and those tragedies or perhaps admitting that she had port-wine stain under her left eye. Whatever it is since she moved to ESPN, I absolutely adore her. Its not those skimpy outfits that Tony Kornhiser got suspended for (player-hater). She has this confidence, you can't shake. Something I truly admire.

She have evolved from the Lisa Kudrow to Jennifer Anniston and now, Courtney Cox. Hell, yeah.

Give Me The Spiel?

The best analyst in football is Chris Spielman for ESPN. He is a educator of football fundamentals to us fans. He mentions terminologies such as "eight in the box" and "closing the gate" but unlike other former player turned analyst, he simply explains his view without killing the game's moment. I admire his zeal of being the best and expecting the same from others. Sometimes, it leads to issues but in a good way. However, I resent his lack of warmth to his own school's football history concerning players before him.

In his playing days, Chris rode guys who didn't play to their potential or who didn't have in confidence in what they did. Likewise, he does the same to himself and expects himself to be the best whether then as a football player or now as an analyst. He rode Pam Ward hard due to her awkwardness. Though he said he was honored to be part of the first woman doing play-by-play in college football, he kept interrupting her and second-guessing her analysis during action.

It doesn't matter if it's a man or woman, he does the same thing to his current broadcasting partner, Bob Griese. Unlike Pam, Bob will fight back but sometimes to his detriment. The Juan Pablo Montoya comment was due to the fact that Chris was riding him hard and Bob wanted to get him back. Before you get on Bob' comment (he deserved the suspension), I want you to consider what Chris and fellow announcer, Sean McDonough said some two years back.

Chris and Sean have great chemistry and mutual love for each other's work (I was very touched of Sean's voice cracking when announcing the passing of Chris' wife to cancer). Though great at what they did, they made a "jerk comment" to ESPN studio broadcaster, Dari Nowkhah. Dari is Iranian-American. During a Division I-AA playoff game between Richmond University and Appalachian State, Chris and Sean made comments about the expensive tuition at Richmond. Meanwhile, Dari was studio host of that game, doing updates of other I-AA games and news. When Dari finished his highlight, the two asked him if his parents could afford a school like Richmond in a sarcastic tone. Dari said, "I don't know what you meant by that."

Chris dedicates himself to his faith, family, and Ohio State football. He is biased when Ohio State plays and is honest about. My issue is that he talks as if he invented the linebacker position at Ohio State. He doesn't exactly embrace Ohio State history concerning players who wore his No. 36 like Tom Cousineau and Marcus Marek with the same passion as his game analysis. Other linebackers such as Randy Gradishar, Ike Kelley, Mark Stier, Dirk Worden, and others. He treats them like kryptonite as he does Woody Hayes and that 1968 Ohio State team. Earle Bruce to the current Buckeyes, different story.

Now, he knows a lot of players and facts. He embraces Ohio State traditions such as jumping off the lake before a Michigan game and singing fight songs. Yet when it comes to past players, he doesn't embrace it like fellow analyst and friend, Matt Millen does for his alumni school, Penn State, or in general, college football. Matt wishes he played with leather helmets, no face masks, and playing two-way football. He may not know everything but he wants to. He will mention names of the past without force or being pushed. Simply, Matt wishes he was there when Jack Ham or Dave Robinson played and shares that passion to the audience.

Chris, I'm glad your back. Football fans need you to bring the truth and the education of fundamental football. I appreciate your passion and your candor towards anyone who doesn't bring out their best. Sometimes, I think you take it too far but I understand your zeal. However, I want you to appreciate others who made you what you are today and give them reverence with the same passion as your game analysis to fundamental football.