The Black Man's Burden b/w A Lesson From Hip Hop

With so much drama in the ATX

It's kinda hard living as the O-Mayg-U-S
But, somehow, someway
I keep writing funky, dope blogs like every single day.

Well..not EVERY day. But you know what I mean.

I was recently accused of being a racist. If you really want to know how this came to be, you can see it here. But in summation:

I regularly post on the NBA boards at FOX sports. At one point we started talking politics (I know, I know...talking politics on a sports website is just a disaster waiting to happen) and someone accused Barack Obama of being racist due to his association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I disagreed and added what I thought was an offhand comment about Wright not being completely off-base. This kick-started a campaign by two other posters who said that by agreeing with Wright in this matter that I must also be racist. This completely confused me and we went back and forth for quite a while until I realized that there had been a miscommunication almost from the get go. The person who had initially mentioned Jeremiah Wright claimed that the reverend had said that White people attempted to commit genocide against Black people in this United States. When I responded with the "he's not completely off-base" comment, what I had in mind was what Wright actually said, which was the United States government had attempted to commit genocide against Black people in the U.S., with the "not off-base" part being a reference to the Tuskegee Experiments.

Whether or not that actually got cleared up is not entirely clear to me. It's possible that the two other posters might still think that I am racist. I don't find that to be a particularly big deal. I know that I'm not. Or at least I don't think that I am; it's probably better to ask people who know me to get a more accurate answer. But that conversation has caused me to start thinking...what exactly is racism?

At one point during the debate at FOX sports, I tried to explain the difference between individual racism and socialized racism, which seemed to fall on deaf ears. That frustrated me but I am not at all surprised. In modern day America, I think we've done a fairly decent job of villainizing the racism that is part of the nation's historical make up. No sane person today thinks that slavery or the decimation of the Native American nations were good things. Most people realize that the government-sanctioned treatment of non-White (and specifically Black) people as recently as the middle of the 20th century was appalling. Today, it's pretty hard to find a group of people who are more commonly reviled than the Ku Klux Klan or neo-Nazis. These are good things.

However...

We have done ourselves a disservice here because we've gotten to the point where the above situations are now how we define racism, completely leaving out so many other things that need to be addressed. On FOX sports, I think I had a pretty simple way of showcasing what institutionalized racism is. When someone asked me to explain it, I wrote the following:

Do you believe that all races in the United States are today treated equally? Does the average Black child born in America today have the exact same chances of failure or success as the average White child? If your answer to either of those questions is "no" then you have already acknowledged what institutional racism is.

If your answer to either of those questions is "yes," then let's discuss this: according to the Human Rights Watch, Black people make up 12.32% of the United States population. Yet they make up 43.91% of the population that is in prison. If all races are treated equally, then why is there such an enormous discrepancy in those two numbers? There are only two possible explanations. One, Black people are inherently more likely to commit crimes. Two, different races are not treated the same. There are no other possible reasons. You tell me which one is the answer.

When you look at it that way it becomes a bit clearer why socialized racism isn't discussed as much. Protesting individual racism is easy. Anyone who discriminates against someone else because of his or her skin color or ethnic background is wrong. That is simple and straightforward. As individuals we can examine our own actions, and if we know that we don't do that, then we can feel good about ourselves. But how do you solve a problem that is beyond what you as an individual can control? The answer, obviously, is that we cannot. And in a society in which we have been conditioned into thinking of racism as being just about an individual's choice, it is difficult to get people to pursue a line of thinking that points to a broader picture that is outside the realm of control of any one person, or even multiple people.

That brings me to the big question: what are we supposed to do about this? Is it an unsolvable problem? I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, it IS possible for people of various ethnic backgrounds to coexist without the racial tension prevalent throughout the US. I used to work with someone who grew up in Puerto Rico before moving to the mainland. I remember him telling me how shocked he was to observe the casual racism he encountered here. He told me that there was nothing of that sort in Puerto Rico. According to him, because there is no historical dominance of one ethnic group over the others, as there is in the United States, people don’t look at one another as different races. They simply see each other as Puerto Ricans. Now, I’ve never even visited Puerto Rico, much less held residence there, so I have no idea how realistically he portrayed his island; nevertheless, until someone can definitively prove that this is not the case, I will hold on to hope.

However, it is what is in the other hand that causes my pessimism. While I believe in the viability of harmonious ethnic coexistence, I question how possible it is in the United States. When my friend described his shock at observing racism for the first time, the sad thing is that what he described were things that I had come to accept as matters of fact. There are multiple reasons that cause me to question if things will ever really change:

• The belief that nothing needs to change. It is very much tied in to the lack of understanding what institutional racism is. I tend to hear this from White people more than anyone else. The general rationale behind it goes along the lines of, “Minorities are better off than they were 40 years ago. They get special consideration for colleges and jobs. Why do they still complain?”
  
  
  
• The undiscussed reality of the situation: in order for people who have been disenfranchised to ever gain equal footing in a society, the group that has served as the ruling class will have to give up some of its power/status. It is unlikely that that will be done willingly.
  
  

• The transformation of EVERYTHING into a racial issue. This mostly comes from Black people and is championed by guys like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Anything that can be even remotely tied into race is. A recent example of this is the whole unnecessary uproar about the Vogue cover that featured LeBron James and Giselle.

• The influx of new racism. Historically, racism in the United States has been tied into the relationship between White Americans and Black Americans because that allows us to examine the most egregious examples. But more recently, more varied examples have reared up due to the increasing mixture of different races and ethnicities. The 9/11 attacks fueled a sentiment against anyone from the Middle East or even India. Additionally, as more and more people immigrate to the US from other countries, they bring with them their own prejudices. As I have witnessed first hand, someone who grew up in Nigeria, surrounded by other Nigerians, is much more likely to be suspicious of people “not like them” than someone like me who, at various times in my life, has lived in White neighborhoods, African-American neighborhoods and Mexican-American neighborhoods.
  
  The interesting thing about this one is that it goes beyond people dividing themselves by color. Instead the boundaries are determined by common heritage. There is a member of my extended family who has said that she cannot support Obama. Her reason? She doesn't think that the first president of the United States who is of recent African decent should be from Kenya, he should be from Nigeria. I don't know how seriously she means that but the fact that she even thought of it is interesting. It doesn't stop there, however. The most disparaging remarks I’ve heard about African-Americans haven’t come from White people, they’ve come from African immigrants. Of course, the vice versa is also true. That isn’t a particularly new phenomenon in American history. Early British-Americans were prejudiced against Irish-Americans who in turn were prejudiced against Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans, Jewish-Americans, etc. I guess differences aren’t that big a deal as long a there is another group that can commonly be hated.

So what does this all mean? In 1899, British writer Rudyard Kipling created his poem, "The White Man's Burden." Almost since its first publication, readers have debated as to whether Kipling intended this poem to be literal or if it were meant to be satirical in nature, a la Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." In summary, Kipling's poem is an exhortation of cultural imperialism and explains to the White race that it has an obligation to rule over all other races and help them evolve from their barbaric ways. You probably won't find too many people today who will publicly express that same viewpoint. However, it does bring to mind an interesting question: do certain races have certain obligations?

There is one thing that I am 100% certain of, and that is that racial reconciliation will NEVER happen without open communication. Some people don't want to talk about it because they feel that we are past that. Other people are all too willing to talk about it but only in terms of how they can benefit. Both of those are wrong. Racism still exists. Most Black people in the United States could lay testament to that. Here's my question though: is it wrong for a White person to not see that? Should Black people expect White people to see racism just because we do? Is that fair?

I don't know if it is. I don't know if it is fair for a population to be expected to see slights that are never used against them. I don't know if it is fair for White people to be expected to apologize for atrocities that were committed by their forefathers or by their less intelligent brethren. I know that I don't want to have to always apologize for other Black people who suffer from "nigga syndrome." So I wonder if that is the Black Man's Burden. Do Black people have an obligation to teach and explain what racism in the modern day is? And if so, how should that be accomplished? Personally, I'm sick and tired of seeing protests. They have their place but when every single thing that is perceived as a slight results in Jackson or Sharpton jumping on a soapbox, exactly how much effect can protests be expected to have when it comes to racial reconciliation? The Jena Six? Protest worthy. LeBron James on a magazine cover? Not so much. Again, racial reconciliation will not happen without frank and open discussion and such discussion will not and cannot happen with protests occurring over every little slight.

--

The interesting thing about the original accusation that kick started this whole line of thinking is that the timing of it was juxtaposed next to an annual hip hop event in Austin, B-Boy City. While I wasn't able to attend all the events that I wanted to, I did manage to hang out with some b-boys during a practice session as well as attend what was supposed to be an emcee battle and ended up just being a bunch of hip hop fans hanging out.

Something that struck me about these moments was the diversity in the ethnic makeup of the people who were there. There were literally people there from every imaginable ethnicity. But here's what I noticed even more: nobody talked about it. Not once did I hear anyone mention race or ethnicity. And the reason it was never mentioned is because nobody cared. In the world of underground hip hop there is only one thing that ever matters: skills. If you have skills then you will earn respect and that's it. No one care about what color you are, what part of the world gave birth to your ancestors, how much money you have or anything of the sort. You earn respect by proving that you belong. And you prove that you belong by demonstrating your talent--end of story. What a fascinating concept.

One of my favorites songs is "If You Can't Say Love" by the Visionaries. During his verse, LMNO drops this line:

"Embrace grace, cut the chase, know our place:
In a world of anger with piles of waste
We're some do-gooders with the filteration
We're Mexican, Islander, Euro, African, Asian
Celebrate Creator before creation
Division we're erasing."

He's speaking specifically about his crew, which is a group of six guys with a multi-ethnic background.

(L-R: Lord Zen, Dannu, 2Mex, Key Kool, Rhettmatic, LMNO)

However, every time I hear those words, I can't help but think how
much better off we ALL would be if we took heed of them.

One day we all will be able to say "love."

NBA Final Four

So we're down to that last four teams in the NBA season. Last night the Celtics continued to protect their home floor by beating the Pistons and I am currently watching the Lakers try to do the same against the Spurs. There's really no surprise that these are the teams left. Excluding the Celtics, the remaining teams have combined to win all but one NBA title in the post-Michael Jordan era. And Boston had the most wins of any team this season.

I find it interesting that, even this late in the season, the Finals could result in completely different scenarios. The NBA is no doubt hoping for a Lakers/Celtics Finals. That would provide a series that features two number one seeds that have a historical rivalry and have the most championships in NBA history. Additionally, it would have two of the biggest stars in basketball; one of whom is its most charismatic (Kevin Garnett) and the other who is its most notorious (Kobe Bryant). Perhaps more importantly, from the NBA's perspective, they have arguably the largest fan bases of any two teams in the league which, combined with the presence of these two aforementioned players, of course means ratings...which of course means mo' money.

On the other end of the spectrum would be the Spurs vs. the Pistons. No one in the NBA's front office would admit to it but they are absolutely praying that this doesn't happen. This Finals scenario would draw little more than apathy for anyone outside of San Antonio, Texas and Detroit, Michigan. Two teams that focus on defense and ball control, are from relatively small markets and features only one real superstar. And that superstar, Tim Duncan, happens to be the most boring superstar in the NBA. To make NBA executives even more wary, they already KNOW that this series would draw low ratings because these exact same teams met in the Finals in 2005 and that series had the second lowest ratings ever for an NBA Finals.

I can't say that I blame the NBA for being nervous about that. As much as I love basketball, I have to admit that I don't know how much I'd watch a Spurs/Pistons rematch, especially the first few games. I'd probably tune in whenever it got to the point when one team was in danger of being eliminated but even then I don't know how excited I could get.

As far as the games go, there is still some intrigue left in the Conference Finals. The Celtics have yet to lose at home and yet to win on the road. They were able to get away with that against their first two opponents but I don't know if that can work against the Pistons, who are more disciplined and play better as a team than either the Hawks or the Cavs. Technically, the Celtics don't have to win a single road game to claim the title. However, if Detroit wins one in Boston, the fact that the Celtics are 0-6 on the road during these playoffs can really come back to haunt them.

In the West, the Lakers and Spurs continue their rivalry. These two teams have absolutely dominated the conference for the past decade. Other than 2005, one of them has represented the Western Conference in the Finals every year since 1999. I'm really curious to see how this series plays out. This is the best team the Lakers have had since they traded away Shaquille O'Neal and seeing how they match up with their nemesis will prove quite interesting, I think. As good as Pau Gasol is, he's not a great defender and thus the Lakers have no one who can stop Tim Duncan. And as great a defender as Bruce Bowen has been over his career, he's 36 years old and thus the Spurs really have no one who can consistently guard Kobe Bryant. So which superstar will be able to lead his team to the Finals?

While I can't make that prediction, I'll make this one: barring injury, the NBA champion is coming from the West. That became a foregone conclusion once the Spurs defeated the New Orleans Hornets. There is absolutely NO CHANCE that either Flip Saunders or Doc Rivers outcoaches Phil Jackson or Gregg Popovich.

Mavericks season wrap up

[I've pretty much been meaning to write this for a while. I started thinking about what I would write here while I was watching Game 4 of the Mavericks-Hornets series and I saw something that I had never, ever seen before: Mavs fans walking out of the American Airlines in the middle of their team getting blown out. That signified something to me. It wasn't just fans giving up on the game or even the series. It seemed that many fans were tired of this era of the team. But before I actually started writing, I wanted the outcome of the series to be made official, which I felt would probably happen in Game 4 (even as die-hard a Mavs fan as I am, I pretty much watched the entirety of that game because Pam Oliver was the sideline reporter and I was hoping that some cameraman might get lucky). However, for some reason the higher ups at work actually expected me to...work. So I've been kind of busy and am just now getting a chance to actually put all this down. So without further ado...]

For the second straight year, the Dallas Mavericks' season is over without seeing the second round of the NBA playoffs. For the third straight year, all Mavs fans are left to spit up the bile of disappointment. This season is different though. The way the last two years ended was shocking, to be sure. But they also came upon us suddenly. We didn't know how bad they would be until those respective playoff series actually started. This year's ending was something else. In both of the last two seasons, we Mavs fans grew to expect a strong run out of our team and were eventually disappointed. But at the very least, those disappointments were contained to the playoff series in which the Mavericks lost. This season was more painful, for me at least, because that disappointment was prolonged over the entire season.

Last season, after a 67-15 Dallas squad was upset in the first round, I wondered how the team was supposed to react. I felt that you shouldn't gut a team that had just won 67 games in the regular season (tied for sixth most all time). However, because of the way the Golden State Warriors exposed the weaknesses of the team, changes did have to be made. My thinking was that the Mavericks should keep their core but bring in role players who could provide toughness, leadership, a locker room presence and playoff experience. When the 2007-08 season started and that wasn't done, I started feeling at that time that the season would be less than memorable.

There were a lot of possible blockbuster moves that the Mavericks could have potentially made. For the first time ever, Kevin Garnett seemed ready to leave Minnesota and Dallas was mentioned as a possible destination. Kobe Bryant shook up the basketball world by publicly demanding a trade, with the Dallas Mavericks being one of the three teams (along with the Chicago Bulls and the Phoenix Suns) for which he would waive his no-trade clause. But both of these seismic moves that likely would have required moving Dirk Nowitzki (although I suspect that Kobe wouldn't have accepted a trade to Dallas that didn't allow him to team with Dirk). Those wouldn't be the type of moves to progress the team enough to merit doing them.

KG ended up going to Boston, where he infused that team with a passion that led them to the best record in the league. Meanwhile, Kobe stayed with the Lakers, decided to keep his mouth shut and was rewarded when the his team was able to steal Pau Gasol from the Memphis Grizzlies and ended up with the best record in the West.

Meanwhile, to try and keep up with these movements (along with the Suns' midseason acquisition of Shaquille O'Neal), in February the Mavs gave up their starting point guard, starting center (the two of whom happened to be the team's best defensive players), two first round draft picks, depth and future for a soon-to-be 35 year old point guard who had lost his speed and was never an ideal fit for Avery Johnson's offense to begin with. I've made my thoughts on the Jason Kidd trade abundantly clear from the very beginning, so I won't rehash them. Now is the time to look at what the team has and face the future.

A day after the Mavericks were bounced from the playoffs, coach Avery Johnson was fired. There were two very clearly divided sides in the public reaction to this. One side couldn't believe that Avery was being used as the scapegoat while the other was glad to see him go. Personally, I think that not only did the firing have to happen but it was the best thing that Mark Cuban could do to Avery. Of course, the pro-Avery camp brought out all the statistics:

• he's never won fewer than 51 games in a season
• he has a career winning percentage of 73.5%
• he was the fastest coach to reach 50/100/150 wins and has the best record of any coach over his first 82 games

These things are all well and good but they mask one important thing: Avery Johnson became progressively worse as a coach each of his three full years in Dallas. Of course, some people will say, "Wait, how? He went from 60 wins in his first full season to 67 wins in his second. How did he get worse?" Because the team that won 67 games wasn't as good as its record. As John Hollinger points out, if you really want to gauge how good a team is, win-loss record isn't as important a factor as margin of victory and recent performance. And the fact is that the Mavs victory margin wasn't that great (meaning they were coming up lucky in a lot of close games) and the teams play down the stretch wasn't as strong as it had been earlier in the season (they weren't heading into the playoffs with the necessary momentum). When you factor in all the things the Warriors had going for them, it was just a disaster waiting to happen from Dallas' perspective.

But none of those things indicate that Avery was losing his acumen as a coach. However, what happened in the playoffs did. The reason he'd been lauded as a great coach was not because of the 60 games he won as a first-year, full-season coach. It was because he accomplished something that no other coach in team history had been able to do: he beat the San Antonio Spurs in a playoff series. What's more, he did it by outcoaching the Spurs' veritable genius, Gregg Popovich. After Game 1, when it became apparent that his team wouldn't be able to beat the Spurs at their own game, he took advantage of the Mavericks' main advantage over the Spurs: speed. This pushed the Spurs back on their heels, and even though they came back to force it to seven games, the Mavericks were able to prevail.

However that proved to be the zenith of Avery's coaching tenure. It's well documented how the Mavericks gave up a two games to none lead against the Miami Heat in the Finals. But what was not mentioned very much was how Avery simply could not make the adjustments needed to stop, or at least slow down, Dwyane Wade. It could be overlooked at the time because of the horrendous officiating and Wade looking like he was turning into Michael Jordan-lite. But then next year, Avery again showed an ability to make adjustments to the match ups that Don Nelson threw at him. And then this year, it seemed that--to some extent at least--he had somehow lost the ability to properly guide the team. Both sides needed a new direction; and by Cuban letting go so quickly after the playoff loss, it gives Avery the best chance at finding a good fit for his next job.

So now the big question for the Mavericks is: what happens next? For the first time in over 10 years, I find myself thinking that the team needs to be blown up. But...what exactly does that mean? At its most extreme it means completely rebuilding the team. That could prove difficult though. Most of the key players on the team have the long term, relatively large contracts that would make them difficult to move. And that's just the financial aspect of it. During the past off-season, Josh Howard was being discussed as the centerpiece in a potential package deal to bring Kobe Bryant to the Mavericks. That seems laughable now. After having stunk up his playoffs (highlighted by a memorable 3 for 16 shooting performance in Game 4) and his frank discussion about his marijuana use.

(I'm sorry, I have to follow this lead for a moment. Now, I'm pretty liberal. I think that the fact that alcohol is legal in this country while marijuana isn't is one of the biggest hypocrisies that I can imagine. Marijuana needs to be legalized. Like...30 years ago. But WTF was Josh Howard thinking? He called up 103.3 ESPN radio in Dallas HIMSELF and--unprompted--disclosed that he smokes weed because it's his "personal choice and opinion." Josh, homie, smoking is indeed your personal choice. But, uh...it's probably not a good idea to voluntarily disclose that you use an illicit substance when your team is in the midst of getting smacked around in the playoffs for the third straight year. And what the heck is up with you throwing a party just a few hours after a drubbing by the Hornets? Especially since Avery specifically said no partying? SMH. Orale, homes.)

The status of Jason Kidd is also intriguing. During his run in Dallas, it became painfully obvious that he no longer had the physical talents that had made him arguably the best point guard of the past 15 years, especially on the defensive end. I can't imagine that there will be too many teams eager to trade for a player who averages 10 points, shoots 40% from the field and is owed nearly $20 million next season. However, it will be the last season of his contract so some teams may be willing to get him just to get that expiring contract.

That brings us to Dirk Werner Nowitzki. He has been the face of the franchise for much of the past decade. He's an MVP winner, a perennial member of All-Star and All-NBA teams, arguably the most uniquely talented 7-footer ever and possibly a future Hall of Fame inductee. I personally do not want to ever see him in another team's uniform. However, if the Mavericks choose to rebuild, I think that he should be treated honorably and moved to a team that has a chance to compete for a title sooner rather than later. Dirk's mentality and style of play could easily fit onto a team with an established star. He'd fit nicely on the Cavaliers, for example. His game complements LeBron James' perfectly. On top of that, because his game is not based on athleticism and because he is an almost freakishly fast healer, I suspect that he can still play at a relatively high level for maybe another four or five years.

Actually, that's what annoyed me the most about the Kidd trade (I know I said I would leave it alone but I have to vent). Team management acted like a move needed to be made right away when nothing of the sort was the case. Dirk, Howard and Harris could have been a solid core to build around for several years. But now that's all gone and retooling has to be done. I'm still curious about something though: when was the last time anyone heard from Donnie Nelson? I mentioned it in my post after the Kidd trade that it was odd that he hadn't said anything at all about it. Well, it seems that Donnie hasn't said much of anything for a long time. Where is he? I'm wondering if the feud between Mark Cuban and Don Nelson, Sr has gotten so heated that Cuban has locked away Donnie, Jr as sort of a ransom or something.

Of course, there is always the option of trying to sort out this mess. That wouldn't be unprecedented in Dallas. It kind of gets glossed over because the end results have been largely similar but the Mavericks have had to reinvent themselves a few times over the past several years. What was once a freewheeling offense-focused system coached by Don Nelson and triggered by Steve Nash has turned into a half-court game centered around the match-up problems caused by Dirk. Mavs fans have said hello and goodbye to quite a few players in that time. There's no reason to think that it can't still happen, especially in light of how the Lakers and Celtics were able to jump back to the top of the league. The question there is how. Even though there are will be quite a few quality free agents available this upcoming off-season, with the Mavericks being WELL over the cap, it will be nearly impossible to sign any of them. Another solution would be to figure out some sign and trade deals but that requires other teams agreeing to participate.

*sigh*

What exactly does the future hold for my Mavericks? I really have no idea. But by now I am used to the pain.

NBA 2007-08 Regular Season Wrap Up

It's the eve of the NBA playoffs and I cannot be more excited. This has quite possibly been the most exciting regular season in my lifetime. 2000-01 was exciting because I got to see my Mavericks make it to the playoffs for the first time in 11 years. Last year was also great because they tore it up with one of the best regular seasons ever. But as a basketball fan, and not just a Mavericks fan, it's hard to say that any regular season has been better than the one that just ended.

Obviously, I'm really only talking about the Western conference. The East really hasn't been compelling since Michael Jordan was a Chicago Bull. Since then (10 years), the NBA champ has only come from that conference twice, Detroit in 2004 and Miami in 2006. And both of those times, the story has been as much as the team from the West (LA Lakers and Dallas Mavericks, respectively) losing the title as it was the Eastern team winning. Basically, the East just isn't as interesting to watch as the West. I'm not particularly sure why that is, but it is nevertheless.

In the West, every playoff team had at least 50 wins and winning record of .600 or better. That's ridiculous! A grand total of seven games separates the 1-seed (the Lakers with 57 wins) from the 8-seed (the Denver Nuggets with 50 wins). To put that in perspective, that's the same number of games that separates the 1-seed in the East (Boston Celtics, 66 wins) from the 2-seed (Detroit with 59 wins). To further illustrate the discrepancies between the two conferences, the Golden State Warriors won 48 games. In the West, that was only good enough for ninth place and not making it into the playoffs. Had they been in the East, they would have been the fourth seed and had home court advantage in the first round. There's absolutely no question as to which conference race will be more exciting.

Anyone can come out of the West. Anyone. The Lakers are playing great basketball and seem to be firing on all cylinders at the right time. But would anyone really be shocked if a Nuggets team that features Allen Iverson, Carmelo Anthony, Kenyon Martin, J.R. Smith and Marcus Camby caught fire for six or seven games and upset Los Angeles? The New Orleans Hornets are the 2-seed and will go up against my seventh-seeded Mavericks. Coincidently, those two teams also happened to meet on the last day of the regular season. It was the Mavericks who came out with a relatively easy 13 point win (and that was with Dirk Nowitzki having a subpar game). The 4/5 match up pairs the Utah Jazz and the Houston Rockets, who met in the first round last year in a series that went seven games. And the 3/6 match up is the San Antonio Spurs vs the Phoenix Suns, who had a pretty heated series in the semifinals a year ago. Anything can happen in the West. Anything.

Again, the East isn't as compelling but there are still some interesting plots. Can the Celtics close out what they've made their mission to be all year? And what if they make it to the Eastern Conference Finals and face the Pistons? Wouldn't it be hugely ironic if a team led by Kevin Garnett has to face a team coached by Flip Saunders for the right to go to the Finals when the two failed to do so for so many years in Minnesota? And what about the Cleveland Cavaliers? A year ago LeBron James expanded his legend when he pretty much single handedly led to the Finals a team that had absolutely no business being there. Can he possibly match that again this year? Then there's the Orlando Magic. I, for one, am ecstatic that Stan Van Gundy led a team to the playoffs while his snake of a former boss, Pat Riley, presided over the team that ended up with the worst record in the league. I am also rather intrigued to see what the man-beast known as Dwight Howard will be unleashed. Then there's the Raptors, Sixers and Hawks who...ok, so there's pretty much nothing interesting about those three teams.

There's only one thing more interesting than the playoffs right now and that is the race for this year's MVP. However, before I get into the discussion about this year's MVP, I want to say a few things about the reigning one.

***
I am glad that the Dallas Mavericks have Dirk Nowitzki on their team. Other than maybe Kobe Bryant, there is not another top 10 player who routinely gets more criticized by fans. He gets criticized for being a seven footer who shoots from the outside; never minding that he's one of the most uniquely gifted players in the history of the NBA and that he's playing to his strengths. Would he get more props if he were a mediocre-average center?

He gets criticized for not being tough. But I saw very few of those critics praise him for returning to the court 11 days after suffering a high ankle sprain. That's an injury that usually keeps people out for weeks if not months. Daniel Gibson suffered the exact same injury and was out for six weeks.

He gets criticized for not being clutch. You know what? Dirk (along with his entire team) has stunk in his last two playoff series, a grand total of 12 games. Other than that, he has over 800 regular season and playoff games where he's proven himself clutch. But I don't see the critics ever bringing up those times. Let me point something out: for his career, Dirk is averaging 22.1 points and 8.5 rebounds per game. In the playoffs, his averages are 25.2 and 11.1. That means that when the game gets tougher, when the stakes are higher and when the competition is constantly better, Dirk has consistently elevated his game. 82games.com has created a statistic called "clutch stats" which measures which players perform the best in the fourth quarter or overtime with less than five minutes remaining and neither team ahead by more than five points. You know who's third on that list behind LeBron James and Kobe Bryant? That's right, the Big German named Dirk Werner Nowitzki.

I am tired of the unfair criticism he gets. You want to talk about the times he's fallen short over the last couple of years. Fine. But be fair about. Talk about how he led his team past the Spurs in an overtime Game 7 on the road in 2006. Talk about how he was the only player on his team that showed up against the Spurs in the 2002 Western Conference semifinals when he he dropped 42 points, 18 rebounds and six steals against All-NBA defender Tim Duncan in the closing Game 5. Talk about how he is one of only two players in the history of the NBA to have a season where he averaged 24 points and nine rebounds while shooting 50% from the floor, 40% from beyond the arc and 90% from the line (the other one to do so was some guy named Larry Bird). Criticize him when he's down if you want. But be fair and give him props when he comes through (which happens much more often).

***

Ok, now back to the current MVP race. This is easily the greatest MVP race of my adult life. It might be the greatest of my life period, but for now I will agree with Bill Simmons and say that the races in 1987 (between Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan) and 1993 (between Charles Barkley, Michael Jordan and Hakeem Olajuwon) are probably better. But this year's is still a great one. So who is the MVP?

First, let me restate the rationale I use in deciding the MVP, as I first stated last year:

1. It's a regular season award. What happens/happened in the playoffs shouldn't affect the voting. Additionally, all 82 regular season games are equal. If you come on strong at the end, that shouldn't automatically bump you ahead of someone who has played well all season long.
2. History should not help to determine who wins this year's award. The season should be looked at in a vacuum.
3. Making the argument that Player A is more valuable than Player B because Player A's team would lose more without him than Player B's team is stupid. ALL teams get worse without their best player. Player B shouldn't be docked because he has a smarter coach and/or GM.
4. What does the "valuable" part of "Most Valuable Player" really mean? The most important statistic in any and all sports is the number of wins you have. Thus, more than anything, how a player contributes to providing those wins should trump all else.

Dwight Howard is currently the best center in the league. If he ever learns to add post moves to his overpowering presence in the post, he can become historically good. Tracy McGrady took his team on his shoulders when the franchise center went down and led them to the second longest winning streak in league history. Manu Ginobili strengthened his argument as perhaps the greatest sixth-man in the history of the NBA and this season took over from Tim Duncan the mantle as the Spurs' best player. But none of them deserve this year's MVP.

LeBron James is the most talented player in the NBA, maybe ever. This year he showed that he's perhaps the best player in the league in terms of taking over a game. It's rare that you can say that one player is almost entirely responsible for an entire team's success but that is exactly what we have with James and the Cavaliers. Unfortunately, that success isn't quite enough; 45 wins in the weaker conference just isn't going to cut it. If he had managed to lead his team to a division title--not impossible if he hadn't had to sit out a stretch in the middle of the season--his claim would be much higher. (Let me add this though: remember after the 2006 Finals when people were saying that maybe Dwyane Wade was as good as LeBron? You don't hear anyone else saying that again, do you?)

Kevin Garnett is the biggest head-scratcher in this year's race. His team has the best record, they are the best defensive unit and they are the prohibitive favorites to make it to the Finals. However, two things hurt him: 1) his numbers pale in comparison to the other people in the running and 2) it can be argued that he's not even the most valuable player on his own team (Paul Pierce led the Celtics in minutes and scoring), much less the entire league. On top of those things, the Celtics still won at the same clip even during the 11 games KG had to miss. That's rather unfortunate because I do think that the Celtics' success this year can be attributed mostly to him. KG brought an attitude and intensity that fed his new team and fueled them to where they are now. But the fact that his team could still win without him seems to indicate that he is not quite as valuable on the court as a couple of other guys, and that costs him in this year's race.


Which brings us to the two most worthy MVP candidates in the NBA this year: Kobe Bryant and Chris Paul. The interesting thing about these two guys is that when you ask their fans to give reasons as to why their player deserves the MVP, they will inevitably start to give you reasons why the other guy doesn't deserve it. Lakers fans are the funniest. Ask them why their team should be favored to win it all and they'll mention things like having the best front court, having the deepest bench, etc. Ask them why Kobe deserves the MVP and they'll talk about how bad his supporting cast is compared to Chris Paul's. Um...you can't have it both ways.

The biggest argument I hear by Kobe backers against Paul is that Paul has an All-Star teammate in David West or that he has a quality double-double guy in Tyson Chandler. Both of these things are true. However, what is not ever mentioned is that it is very likely that these guys are playing so well because they're playing with Chris Paul. West just had his best year ever in the NBA. Didn't play as well before having CP3 as a teammate. This is Chandler's seventh season. He never averaged a double-double before he had Chris Paul running the show. Paul does that one thing that all great point guards do: he makes his team better. And he's playing the point guard position better than it's been played in years. He led the league in assists and steals (something that hasn't been done since John Stockton did it in the 1991-92 season, and Stockton never averaged as many as 20 points per game). He averaged over 20 points and 10 assists per game (last accomplished by Tim Hardaway in 1992-93, and Hardaway never led the league in assists). He led a team that no one expected much out of to winning the toughest division in the NBA and, as late as the last week of the season, still had a chance to win the conference's best record. I think it's also worth mentioning that he shot better than Bryant in all three shooting categories.

Kobe Bryant, on the other hand, finally became the leader that his team needed. Despite the fact that he tried everything he could to get traded prior to the season, once the games started his wiring wouldn't allow him to not go out and give his all. And then he noticed that his team wasn't half bad. Midway through the season the Memphis Grizzlies gift-wrapped Pau Gasol to the Lakers. Some people are saying that Kobe doesn't deserve MVP because of that, which I say is hogwash. The Lakers have been in the top 4 of the West all season, even before Gasol got there. Also, in a season where superstars like KG, LeBron and Dirk have all missed games with injuies, Kobe has played most of the season with broken bones in his finger. Kobe isn't necessarily having his best season. He isn't even really having his most valuable season (that would be 2005-06 when he averaged 35 point per game and led the Lakers to 45 wins even though they had no business having a winning record). But he is having an MVP campaign this year.

The question is whether or not his campaign is better than Paul's. I honestly don't know. At the end of the season, I think it's pretty much a coin flip. Although if I were flipping that coin I'd kind of be hoping that it landed Paul side up.

I'm Tombout

I’m tombout always being there no matter how far I roam
I’m tombout a place that I call my home
I’m tombout dudes getting whiplash cause of girls with that junk
I’m tombout bass in the trunk and music that funks
I’m tombout CDs going platinum at gas station pumps
I’m tombout riding around in cars that lay low
I’m tombout billboards for movies that opened ten months ago
I’m tombout Big D and H-town, S.A. and Au-Tex
But I’m thinking Eff Dub cause that’s where I rep
I’m tombout Rosedale and Allen and Hemphill and Berry
I’m tombout the changes you see from West to East Seminary
I’m tombout Sundance Square
I’m tombout American Air
I’m tombout Radio Shack and the Tandy Center and all of that there
I’m tombout churches in English and more again in Spanish
I’m tombout trees uprooted from tornado damage
I’m tombout Panthers and Raiders, Wildcats, Chaparrals
I’m tombout kids on schoolbuses watching dudes puffing L’s
I’m tombout the Stockyards and
I’m tombout Ridgmar
I’m tombout heading east to see the Mavs, 'Boys and Stars
I’m tombout Kirk Franklin
I’m tombout the Bass family banking
I’m tombout the Water Gardens
I’m tombout...Kelly Clarkson?
I’m tombout trips to the Zoo
I’m tombout Pimpsta’s "Dickies and Houseshoes"
I’m tombout the Toadies and Rubberneck
I’m tombout TCU kids cashing daddy’s checks
I’m tombout the good and the ills
I’m tombout the differences between Forest and Westover Hills
I’m tombout Sid Rich and Amon Carter
I’m tombout Casa Manana and Will Rogers
I’m tombout hoopties and brand new cars
I’m tombout Epatomed, RIP Saahir Allah
I’m tombout Funkytown
I’m tombout Panther City
I’m tombout Cowtown
I’m tombout where the West starts really
I’m tombout always coming back no matter how far I roam
I’m tombout the city that I call my home.

(Fort Worth! The Fort Fort Worth!)

What happened in Vegas

I just got back from Vegas yesterday. It was the third time in six months that I've gone, all for work. Before getting my current job I had never previously been there. I understand the appeal of Sin City but it's just not for me. Other than playing Texas Hold 'Em with friends, I'm not into gambling. The whole "what happens here stays here" mystique has never been particularly compelling for me. And while it'd be cool to check out some of the shows they always have going on, I really have to wonder if it's actually worth the time and expense it takes to go out there.

I went to Vegas for CTIA. These conventions/trade shows are interesting to me. Not just because I'm a gadget freak and they are always full of new toys (in all honesty, between meetings and all the running around I have to do to actually get to meetings, I don't have much time at all to really see them) but because of the people. They are fascinating to observe during these kinds of things. My favorite part is watching what I like to call "badgerism." Different badges are given out to people depending on why you're there. That allows security to know who can go where and when they can go there. But the interesting part is the way people react to them. They essentially turn the entire convention into Animal Farm, with your badge signifying your class. Any time someone pases by you, the first thing they do is look to see what kind of badge you have and quite often, that determines how they treat you.

For some reason, being a market analyst falls under the category of "press" so I get a press badge. Those pretty much allow me to go anywhere at anytime. But the interesting thing is watching people as they look at my badge and then look at me. I can see it in their faces as they try to work out who I am and how I can help them. It's quite fascinating, really.

Another thing about these conventions: they tend to be very male-dominated, so it's always fun to observe the women. Specifically, the hot ones. There are two kinds of hot women at these things. The first are the professional ones. They know what they're doing at these shows. They'll wear blouses that have just a little bit more cleavage than would be appropriate at the office. Or they'll wear the pantsuits where the jacket is just short enough to show off the pants that are just tight enough to accentuate the curves that are in the right places. Women. I love 'em.

Other than the professionals, the other kind of hot women are the professionally hired ones. These are the ladies that vendors hire to "work" at their booths. Apparently, research has shown that tech geeks are more likely to visit a booth if it's being manned by young, beautiful women in tight and/or revealing clothes. Who knew? Ok, I have to admit: the tactic does kind of work. They couldn't get me to visit any booth that I didn't already intend to visit but I did find myself taking certain, longer routes on occasion because I knew that the scenery would be more appealing.

It's funny how these shows turn me back into who I was in college. Between sessions or meetings, I'd have on a backpack (containing my laptop and/or various folders for the meetings) and my ears would be plugged up with my headphones. The difference between college and now is that 1) I'm not quite as snobbish a backpacker as I was then and 2) I'm a lot less self-conscious. Especially since I was around a bunch of strangers whom I would most likely never see again. So sometimes, when I was walking through the convention center, my iPod would find itself playing an uptempo funky joint. At these times, my body couldn't help but react. I mean seriously, there's no way I could listen to "Always Fine Tuning" without a reaction. So I know there were some people thinking, "Who's that Black press guy over there dancing?"

Erosion

Born b-boy before breaking was invented
Although I don't contort my limbs, I represent it
Tagging my name to gain fame, unprecedented
Self-expression through spray paint, I represent it
Originally intended to fluently speak
The language of two 1210 Technics, I represent it
Dizzy with dialect, my rep is always presented
In the poetic fashion of emcees, I represent it
With these elements combined
I paint cerebral images on the canvas within your frame of mind
Depicting hip hop with beats compelled to manhandle the mic
But ultimately...I represent the Christ-like

-bTwice