Why in the world would I write about Kevin Garnett now? We're in the second round and his team didn't even make the playoffs. This was my thought process before I fell asleep last night:I really enjoy when Magic Johnson sits in with the TNT studio crew. He's not the most articulate speaker (Kenny Smith is more articulate, and Charles Barkley is more eloquent in his bluntness), but Magic's passion for the game is tremendous. Why would he sit in? He certainly doesn't need the money or the exposure, but he analyzes the contests out of sheer love for the game of basketball.
Magic Johnson, who left college after two years, reminded me of Jermaine O'Neal of the Indiana Pacers. O'Neal has an important voice regarding today's issues within the NBA and, more significantly, has acted as spokesman for the Hip Hop culture at times. While O'Neal has shown a willingness to speak his mind, he hasn't had the influence that he could have, or should have.
O'Neal criticized the proposed age minimum in the NBA, because it would hurt the fortunes of talented poor black men. He called the minimum unconstitutional. It isn't.
The Constitution sets age minimums for the president (must be 35 years old), senators (30), and representatives (25), so obviously the Constitution clearly states that age minimums are acceptable. I don't bring this up to mock O'Neal, but to make a point. Had he been forced to read the Constitution, say in college (he didn't attend), he would have known that. It's not a question of intelligence, but of having a chance to apply that intelligence. So essentially, O'Neal's voice has much less meaning and impact than it could have.
Another player around 7 feet tall, who also skipped college, is Kevin Garnett. Then I thought, “You know what? Kevin Garnett is overrated.”
6 comments:
mate, i don't know who you are, but if you dissed my 'confederate flag' at a rock n roll club, you'd have to run away and keep running. do you even know who the flag applies to?
as i wrote on your site, the flag is the battle symbol of the confederacy, which was a collective of southern states that seceded from the union (United States) after Lincoln's election in 1860. the confederacy seceded because they wanted to institute slavery in the American territories.
i would say it at the club too, i run fast. and as i suggested before, don't wear that at a hip hop concert. just some friendly advice, mate.
no. it's a rockabilly flag, introduced around the 1950s, and that profile pic is the album cover of crazy cavan and the rhythm rockers' crazy times album-only the best rockabilly band in the world, who i also happen to be good friends with.
and also, i have no intention whatsoever of going to a bloody hip hop concert, so i've nothing to worry about in that respect! kindly don't darken my blog again with your shitty comments!
holy shit, i'm sorry. i didn't realize that the confederacy (in the mid 1800s)was influenced so much by a rock and roll band that surfaced nearly one hundred years later (1950s). my mistake.
so basically, your friends support suppressing black people and the enslavement of that group. also, "darken" was an interesting choice of words.
look! i am in england. you are in america. we have entirely different history due to the cultural differences. the flag over here has an entirely different meaning to what you're trying to put across. as much as i appreciate your history lesson, i shall stick to my own a level history classes, thank you very much!
(and english history is much better than american!)
american and england did develop totally separate histories: how could i be so blind!
oh wait, except it was actually britain who helped influence the outcome of the american civil war in the 1860s. they had already abolished slavery in the 1830s, thus did not support the confederacy, on moral grounds, when the american south needed it most.
oh yeah! world war II in the 1940s! perhaps that was another opportunity for the confederate flag to enter into britain’s racist cultural scene. but those are just 2 little examples.
as far as which history is "better," i'm not sure i understand that concept. if one dooesn’t include amerindians, than british history is certainly longer. (not sure how one doesn't include them though). perhaps british history is more violent (maybe). but is imperialism "better" than neo-imperialism, i'm not sure. what does “better” mean there? who is it “better” for? what's your argument?
Post a Comment