SI.com is on my Bill O'Reilly Notice list

They've outdone themselves tonight. Or done themselves in, however you want to look at it.

I don't post much but they pissed me off.

WHY IS THERE AN ASTERISK IN PLACE OF THE "O" IN BONDS ON THEIR FRONT PAGE?!?!!?

I thought ESPN had the market cornered on bad sports journalism, but then I looked at SI.com after Barry Bonds passed Hank tonight. It started nicely with a picture of Babe Ruth with 714 next to his name, then one of Hank Aaron with 755 next to his name, and finally Barry's picture filling the screen with 756. It was a well-conceived graphic acknowledging a historic moment. Then it went awry. The picture had Bonds' back and name on his jersey facing the viewer. Suddenly the "o" changed to an asterisk - and I went ballistic.

What dumb dumb editor thought this was a good idea? This is the most irresponsible shit I've seen a reputable news source do, regardless of the medium. Where's the objectivity? The journalistic integrity? The common sense?

Maybe it's not such a big deal, but I'm still mad. And in the midst of all the anti-ESPN opining from the sports blogosphere, I tried to give that site a shot, too.

Cowbell Alert: Jason Whitlock

Confession time: I am a clone (non-hunter, non Stucknut). That means, like millions of people around the world, I listen to the Jim Rome radio show. He hosts the best sports talk show in the country by far. His show not only draws the largest audience and all the biggest names in every sport popular in America, his takes (opinions and analyses) are humorous and, more importantly, well-prepared.

Unfortunately, like he says many times, Rome takes a lot of vacation because he gets a lot of vacation. Summer is when he takes full advantage of most of his freedom, and he is currently on a two-week mini-sabbatical right now.

This means that substitutes fill his three-hour slot when he is away. Most are good, they all have unique styles. But there are two who always infuriate me and the other clones beyond description: Skip Bayless and Jason Whitlock.

Skip Bayless is a consensus idiot. Everybody knows that. I want to focus on the self-described prosecutor of "bojanglers."

First of all, I mentioned the Jim Rome Show because Whitlock was sub on July 3rd. He friggin' hijacked the show ignoring all pertinent topics of the day to talk about his own bullshit. I know it's July but there are interesting things happening in sports that he could've talked about. However, these are the segment descriptions from his turn to fill in for Rome (from jimrome.com):

* 1) How The Hip Hop Culture Is Affecting Society And Sports * 2) Hip Hop Is A Bad Business Model For Any Sport / No One Cares About The Five Elements Of Hip Hop In A Sports Arena * 3) Gary Sheffield's Comments This Season Were Arrogant And Ignorant * 4) The Gangsta’/Prison Culture Is Unhealthy For Sports And Any Kids Who Listen * 5) A Culture Of People Can Not Define Themselves With W2's Or The Size Of Their Rims * 6) No One Forces Anyone To Do Anything / If You Believe In Yourself You Don't Let Anyone Dictate Your Actions * 7) The NBA And NCAA Have To Be Responsible And Change The Culture And Expectations Of Their Future Players * 8) Dr. Harry Edwards Is “Moved” To Make A Call To The Call-In Line * 9) Calls / Emails * 10) Jason Defends The Accusation That He Is An Uncle Tom * 11) Huge Email Of The Day * 12) Huge Call Of The Day

Rome can't be happy to see this. He didn't talk about ANYTHING having to do with Barry Bonds' home run chase, the upcoming all-star game, the NBA draft, Wimbledon, anything someone might want to hear. If you agreed with his opinions, you would've enjoyed listening but I don't. I guess that's the real reason I couldn't listen that day (but is it professional to come into someone else's show with a clear agenda unrelated to current issues?).

I used to like Whitlock. I liked his columns when he was on Page 2. He once wrote about how the Notre Dame athletic department played favorites (a.k.a. was racist) in offering Charlie Weis a contract extension after his first year there while not taking care of Ty Willingham after having a similar first year. It was a good column. I agreed.

But since his firing from ESPN and his move to AOL Sports he's been on a vicious anti-rap and anti-"bojangling" campaign which has probably alienated many of his readers. It certainly has alienated me. A great blog, Leave the Man Alone, has an excellent critique of Whitlock's "bojangling," which thoroughly articulates my stance on the subject. Read it.

I will take on his claims about hip hop and its impact on sports and its listeners.

There have been crime/gang issues in this country for much longer than hip hop has been around. Why is a music genre to blame whenever someone starts a fight or fires a gun or says anything stupid? The 70's in the NBA were the most violent and drug-infested its history and the Sugarhill Gang didn't come out with Rapper's Delight until '79. We should prosecute the blaxploitation films for that tumult, right Jason? I mean they did portray black people doing drugs, fighting, and killing each other. NBA players had to be influenced by that.

If I'm not mistaken, crime existed before rap. Rappers do glorify disobeying the law, but I feel most people realize that it's entertainment, including the rappers. Of course some of them get into trouble trying to "keep it real" but how many of them actually do what they talk about? Maybe a couple were formerly thugs and engaged in the activities described in their lyrics, but generally, after they get that first check, they're on the right side of the law. Have you ever seen Ludacris get arrested for movin' bitches out his way, or Eminem for killing his girlfriend, or Jay-Z for big pimpin'? Why would they? They're rich! They're going to say what sells. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's entertainment! People don't get mad at Denzel for playing a dirty cop in Training Day, but Too Short is a bad guy for saying "bitch."

Blaming hip hop is a cop out. Whitlock is the guy who berates people for claiming racism in response to bad situations, so why is hip hop ruining society? I don't see people writing articles about punk rock and metal ruining white people, they seem to be doin' fine. And there are definitely some crazy lyrics in those songs.

Where's personal responsibility in Whitlock's argument? Maybe Steven Jackson pulled his heat out because he's crazy, not 50 Cent. Don Imus said racially insensitive things having nothing to do with rap long before the Rutgers' team crossed his path. He probably did hear the word "ho's" in a rap song, but Imus was the one dumb enough to use the word on nationally broadcast radio program with his conservative audience listening. Accusing music of increasing crime rates and negatively impacting culture is and insult to the "victims'" intelligence, honestly.

A person's behavior also depends heavily on his upbringing. The parents' effort in the life a child is the most important part of a person's development. I've listened to hip-hop almost all my life and I think I turned out fine; so have many of my peers. If a music genre strongly influences someone's decisions, blame mommy and daddy, not Lil' Mama and Big Daddy Kane.

LSU = Light Schedule University

Look at this. It's LSU's football's 2007 schedule. Pitiful right? Wasn't their coach, Less, er, Les Miles the same guy badmouthing USC's Pac-10 schedule a few months ago?

LSU's schedule this year is embarrassing. They have no consecutive road games, they're not playing Georgia or Tennessee, all their road games are against soft opponents (the best being 6-7 Alabama), they have a cake out-of-conference on the whole (I saw the VA Tech home game, my grade: meh...), and they have no consecutive tough games. No wonder they're heavily favored to win the SEC. Les Miles should be sofa king ashamed of himself for insulting USC's "easy" schedule.

Conversely, USC has road games at Notre Dame and at Nebraska, this four-game stretch: at ND, at Oregon, vs Oregon State (which beat USC last year), at Cal, consecutive road games twice (and home games once), and the always tough idaho. OK, I'm kidding about the last one but c'mon Les, don't talk about USC unless our own situation is right.

Shut up, Less.

Bowen: Basketball's Bill Romanowski

Off the court, Bruce Bowen is a family man and seems like a really nice guy. He's a model citizen whom young players should emulate upon entry into the league.

However, on the court, Bill Romanowski would think he's dirty. The basketball version of a headhunting linebacker would be an ankle-hunting "defensive specialist" like Bowen. Click the link, and look at the video. It's truly disgusting. Look at what he does to Vince Carter. And Amare Stoudemire. And Steve Nash (this is a whole 'nother thing altogether).

Some people say, "Well, that happens all the time, it's just basketball." Then why does that play happen to Bowen all the time? Because he tries to hurt people. He intentionally puts his foot where he expects the feet of the jump shooter to land, causing injury. He doesn't succeed every time, but if you're persistent, you'll get somebody limping. Then he always throws up his hands like he didn't do anything. What an asshole.

Bowen's antics are far worse than Kobe or LeBron slamming guys in the face after getting their jump shots blocked. When Kobe hits a guy, the victim is hurt for minutes to hours; when Bowen sticks his foot out, the victim is out for weeks to months. Ask Steve Francis what I'm talking about if you disagree. This is why the league needs to punish him for his dangerous "defense."
I know some team has tape more thoroughly showing the callousness of Bowen's tactics than those on YouTube. Send it to Stu Jackson, please!

One of these days, somebody is gonna knock him out. That will be a good day in basketball.

How did I miss this?

Behold, your 2005 MVP and GQ sportsman of the year, Steve Nash.




I didn't know being GQ meant wearing emo/goth/matrix gear, wearing tight pants, and having bangs. They say a picture is worth a thousand words; well these are worth a thousand laughs.


Although a great player, Steve Nash cannot EVER be in GQ again, especially with that hair (they had to ask him to cut it for the pictures. His hair is unacceptable). He is too skinny and ugly to be in that magazine. And I hope for Nash's sake GQ chose the wardrobe, because it's just sorry.

Speaking of ugly, this guy must be next in line for GQ's prestigious distinction:

Cowbell Alert: Comparing Book-to-Films to the Book

I saw the new Harry Potter movie last night, and I really liked it. It was refreshing right after suffering through Transformers and hating myself for not heeding the numerous IMDB comments condemning it, only paying attention to the user rating. Yeah, I got my 2-for-1 on at the movies. You ain't doin' nothin' 'bout it. Don't judge me.

Anyway, I get home and do my post-movie routine and look at reaction on IMDB. The new Harry Potter got the best grade of the series, but, as usual, most people were caviling (saw this word in a crossword puzzle the other day. I know you don't know what it means. Don't be lazy, look it up) that it left too much out from the book. I have this to say in return:

I haven't read one word from any Harry Potter book. And because of that I probably have no right to write a critique of the critics. But I have seen all the movies and Order of the Phoenix is easily the best FILM of the HP series and generally a good movie. Keep that non-profane four-letter f-word in mind. FILM.

YOU CANNOT COMPARE A BOOK TO A FILM. Stop passing judgment based on what the film omitted/changed from the book. I understand that many of you are hardcore book-readers who want to see as much of the book as possible in the cinematic representation. However, movies are an entirely different entertainment medium from books.

Remember that filmmakers have to consider infinitely more aspects of presenting a story than an author.

What does an author need to write a good book? A good story, a laptop maybe, and a publisher. Any constraints? None on length, sometimes on composition time, marketability is a concern, little money is needed for production (no budget), and generally authors get paid AFTER the book is done (unless the publisher expects a best-seller, which is uncommon).

What does a filmmaker(director) need to make a good movie? A good story, millions of dollars from a studio which will limit your creative freedom, good actors (who are hard to find and/or cost a fortune), an able cinematographer, a score composer/good soundtrack, the space to shoot the movie, a cgi team (very expensive, especially for fantasy films), and countless other pieces in a film puzzle. Any constraints? money, money, money, production schedules, actor schedules, the right time of day for certain scenes, marketability is many times more important for a film compared to a book, the fact that there's a budget necessitates much omission, 1 1/2 to 3 hours in length, and money.

I think I have a good analogy for this issue: someone is asked to depict the ups and downs of an entire 16-game season of a football team as one 60-minute game. Wouldn't there be ample omission? the creator would have to make tough decisions about what's most important/interesting and leave out the rest. One game is nowhere near as detailed and varied as a season, but no one wants to watch 16 games in one sitting. Same goes for book-to-film adaptations.

So to argue that films and books aren't at all comparable, I had to make a comparison. The director(forgot his name) had 3 hours max to adapt an 870-page book. And given the expected young, impatient audience, the studio must have implored him to keep the length down. Give him a break. The movie was great.

I've also seen suggestions to split this movie into multiple parts. That makes no sense. HP is already going to be 7 different films! how would splitting any of them for the sake of the books work? Critics, please leave the book out of your HP movie opinions. For real. Stop it.

Kobe "Apologizes" to Kupchak

Kobe held a press conference last week "apologizing" to Lakers GM Mitch Kupchak for comments he has made about him and the organization recently. After listening to what he said, he sounded more remorseful that the comments were leaked on Youtube and not for the comments themselves.

I think he was really thinking...

Mitch, I'm sorry you had to hear my feelings through the internet like that. Those assholes told me they were taking pictures while they were filming me. Who knew phones recorded videos nowdays? These whippersnappers and their gadgets... damn meddling kids.

Anyway, I'm not here to apologize for the comments. I'm just mad they made the internet. Don't get it twisted. You're still a terrible GM who is wasting my prime by acquiring talent meant to do well in the future as opposed to concentrating on current success. Trading for Kwame Brown was an awful move, drafting Bynum was ill-advised, and not trading Bynum for Kidd was downright silly. Smush Parker as our starting point guard? HAHAHAHA. You do know the Lakers aren't in the D-league right? You can get NBA-quality guards if you want to.

I am apologizing, but you're still an idiot. Remember that, ok? I hope we're on the same page now.

Oh, and I still want out, but not to the Bulls. I don't think Scott Skiles and I would get along. He likes ball movement.

Well, make something happen, Mitch! You'll probably fuck it up anyway. Whatever.

Yes, these were the thoughts of the best in the game. He told me so in a video (coming to Youtube soon!).