If you become an object of sexual desire before you come to terms with your own sexuality, you get messed up.
If people are left alone to have nature take its course, they will learn about sex just fine. Cave men figured sex out just fine thanks to hormones and instincts without cultural norms or religious beliefs to complicate the issue. The pituitary gland governs this process quite nicely. Sexual awareness begins when hormones begin doing their thing and suddenly you are aware of your sexual arousal. You recognize the physical characteristics in others that stimulate your arousal, and your hormones compel you to approach bearers of those characteristics seeking sexual contact. Eventually you recognize that others are attracted to you when they respond positively to your advances or initiate advances towards you themselves. And from there your sexual knowledge progresses through increasing experience, Particularly the emotional component of sex.
It is the cultural and media influences upon people in our modern society that can confuse or disrupt this process.
Arrognace is not such a bad thing. The thinkTank Panel (of One) is actually an admireror of Arrogance. Arrogance is simply unknowingly misunderstood by millions. Meanwhile no one seems to realize that arrogance's cousin "confidence" is celebrated simply becasue it is comforting to the collective anxiety of society. Today the ThinkTank Panel (of One) will explain the subtle yet definative difference between arrogance and confidence.
Arrogance (Note the Banned Black Shoes)
There is a very specific difference between confidence and arrogance. Confidence is always based on past perfomance. You've done it before so you believe you can do it again. You have had this question before and you researched the answer to it so you are confident your answer is correct this time around. Or it may be that you have been training long and hard for a competition, and so you are confident that you are prepared and the hard work will payoff.
In contrast to confidence, which is based on a verifible past precendent, Arrogance is not based on anything what-so-ever. It is an absolute resolution or position with no factual or substantial basis. We generally admire confidence becassue it points to a legitimate cause and effect relationship that demonstrates principles we prize as a society such as; hard work leads to success, practice makes perfect, or the best predictor of future outcome is past performance. These are cornerstones of logic. They comfort us by reinforcing the notion that there are definitive patterns that rule the world. Nature is consistent and unchanging. We take comfort in that constency and reliability. In a way, confidence is an expectation that the universe is in perfect working order. It is faith confirmed by experience. It's the essence of common sense.
On the other hand, arrogance has the audacity to rebel against comon sense. To be arrognat is to say "past performance is nothing. The laws of nature as you understand them do not apply to me. The previous answers are wrong, and you are just going to have to trust me on this. "
Arrogance is not inherently bad, but it rubs people the wrong way because it demands blind faith to accept or support it's assertions. Blind faith is a precarious position to be in, and therefore we all feel threatened by arrogance, and resent those that put us in such a postion by being arrogant. But it should be noted that any kind of new discovery, any challenge to the status quo begins as arrogance. But once it is demonstrated and established it becomes confidence, because it is now based on past performnace.
The ThinksIveThunk.com ThinkTank Panel (of One) spent thousands of man hours reviewing various real life scenarios and examples to illustrate this point, and has concluded under rigorous pseudo-analysis a that (as usual) the ultimate example is Michael Jordan.
Michael Jordan took the NBA by storm during the 1984-85 season. Jordan averaged over 28 points per game as a rookie, and his arial assaults on the rim immediately garnered him a national following. Michael not only embodied arrogance in his aggressive, never back down style of play, but also rebelled agaisnt established convention with his signature Black and Red Nike Air Jordan sneakers. Who was this guy to demand the attention and admiration of fans everywhere? Who was this guy that challenged the established pecking order of superstars with out a hint of deference for who the reigning World Champions were? And so the The Black and Red colorway of the Air Jordan was banned by the NBA, and Jordan's fellow All Stars attempted to freeze him out of the All Star game becasue they all collectively and indivdually felt threatened by the arogance of Michael Jordan's unwavering assertion that he was going to dominate the entire game of basketball through shear determined force of his ultracompetitive will. Multiple early playoff exits did not deter Michael Jordan or change his stance. And so Machael Jordan not only remained the epitimy of arrogance, but appeared to be spitefully resisting conversion to confidence as he failed year after year to win a title, which only made him appear more arrogant than he was already percieved as being, if that was even possible.
But then Michael Jordan won an NBA title in 1991. And Suddenly Michael Jordan wasn't quite so arrogant. He won again in 1992 and 1993. He then retired as the Third Supremely confident Athlete of the Century with Babe Ruth and Muhamad Ali.
Then Michael Jordan decdied to play minor league baseball. A professional basketball player had never quit basketball and then become a pro baseball player before ( well it probably happened but not "everybody" knew about it). Attempting to do so challenged the assumptions of what a professional athlete should do and how they should be. Suddenly Michael Jordan was arrogant again. That was until he finally got tired of striking out and decided to return to basketball. At which point he was immediatley hailed as arrgoant again becasue he expected to come back and be as good if not better than before.
Of course after an initial disappoiting playoff loss to Orlando, Michael Jordan won three more NBA titles, and became even more supremely confident than before, because now he had more NBA championships than just about everyone but a handful of Boston Celtics players. He was hailed as confident because he now had 6 rings to back up his claims to dominate the game. His past perfomance justified his attitude and deamenor....Ergo he was confident and no longer arrogant.
That is until he came out of retirement yet again.....but we won't go there due to time constraints and it makes some members of the Think Tank Panel (of One) get a little misty eyed.
The only quasi-clearer illustration of arrogance is this post its self. This post has the audacity to proclaim the definative definition of the word arrogance with no track record of etymology, no credential as a philologist, or even a measly citation. Merely reading this post has demanded that the reader forsake all previous knowldge of dictionaries and vernacular usage of the word and demands that reader to step off a ledge of substance through a perceived veil of nothingness with only the vague hope that the Think Tank Panel (of One) will catch them on the other side. How arrogant is that? It is the very definition of arrogance!!! But if that reader takes that leap of faith and finds the Think Tank Panel (of One) is in perfect postion to catch them, they immediately will have demonstrated the truth of the matter and their step off that ledge is now a past presedent from which an on-going path of confidence can be blazed back through the veil of nothingness to truth.
The ThinkTank Panel (of One) is a big fan of all things ironic. Therefore the ThinkTank Panel (of One) loves this blog post on how the word ironic is used incorrectly all the time.
The ThinkTank Panel (of One) has always been under the impression that the word “ironic” or irony refers to a contradiction or conflict, a paradox of sorts. For instance, an oxymoron in which you have 2 words of opposing meanings together such as sweet and bitter in the quintessential oxymoronic example, bittersweet is, by definiation ironic.
This blog post appeared on the website Dictionary.com. A quick search in the Dictionary.com dictionary for ironic yields the following entry:
containing or exemplifying irony: an ironic novel; an ironic remark.
coincidental; unexpected: It was ironic that I was seated next to my ex-husband at the dinner.
First of all “unexpected” is as sweepingly vague a definition as you could possibly get. It could mean anything, and therefore does us no good what-so-ever in narrowing down the proper usage of the word irony.
Nevermind that the blog post begins by saying that irony is not a coincidence, on the very same website that defines irony as “coincidental” A coincidence is a non-contradiction. In order to have a contradiction the elements at play must have some relationship to one another in order to come into conflict. The point of calling something a coincidence is to say that there is no relationship between the elements at play, the 2 events occurred simultaniously but completely seperately. For those of you in a statistics course; the coefficient r=0. There is no relationship, therefore no elements are in opposition or conflict. Ergo, by definition a coincidence is not irony. Now that is ironic!
The blog post goes on to give it’s own definitive definition of irony:
An ironic remark conveys a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning. So, in an ironic statement one thing is said, while another thing is meant.
For example, if you were trying to be ironic on a stormy, dreary day, you might say: “What glorious weather!”
The ThinkTank Panel (of One) and several other commenters on the blog post would consider that to be the definition of sarcasm. The fact that the blog post defines irony as sarcasm makes this a part/whole or chicken vs. the egg conundrum. Is irony sarcastic, or is sarcasm ironic? In the humble opinion of the ThinkTank Panel (ofOne) Sarcasm it’s self is ironic in that there is a contradiction between what is meant and the words that are actually spoken. But irony is not sarcastic because the conflict is appearant. Unless of course the word irony is used incorrectly, as the blog post says happens all too often, and the elements refered to are in fact not in conflict, and therefore the irony does not exist. The “use of the word ironic” in this situation could be construded as sarcastic, as the true condition of the elements is not irony but they were called irony anyway, which means that what was said was the opposite of what was meant. There is now conflict between the actual conditions that exist and the conditions that were declared to exist but actually do not exist. Ergo, the incorrect use of irony is in and of its self both ironic and sarcastic. Now that was unexpected!
Ergo, this blog post on irony is it’s self ironic, for as it attempted to curtail excessive use of the word ”ironic”, it defined irony as sarcasm. And sarcasm is a far more frequent occurance in everyday language than irony, thereby paving the way for an even greater abundance of “irony” usage in the common vernacular. The opposite of what the blog post author intended, has happened. Now that is ironic!
Now this ironic debate always convenes around 1 song. The ThinkTank Panel (of One) can't stand the song, or the singer, so you can take a listen and debate amoungst yourselves.
I hate to keep rehashing this topic because it is excruciatingly painful, but here is the definitive last word on the god-forsaken Oden or Durant debate. The debate boils down to 2 facts.
Fact #1: Durant is destined to be Dirk Nowitski X 1.5. All the hype about Durant as a revolutionary wing player at 6’10” will be over by his 25th birthday. Granted that still gives him 4 years, but when his hall of fame career is over he will have played 2/3rds of his career as a power forward. History proves it over and over. Players try to resist the move but team needs and the demands of a player’s body as they age make it inevitable. Players start to fill out at 25 years of age and big men are always at a premium. Swing men are a dime a dozen in the NBA (look at the T-Wolves this year).
Kevin Garnett tried to be a 6’ 13” small forward. It didn’t last. By all accounts he’s been playing center for 10 years. Dirk was drafted to be the revolution only a European big man could become; a 6’10” small forward who could handle the ball like a pg and shoot from the hash mark. All the same things they say about Durant now, they said about Dirk in 99. He’s played power forward for the last 8 years and rarely handles the ball above the foul line extended. By the time it’s all said and done he will average between 25 and 30ppg for over a decade. Durant could put up between 30 and 35 for a decade. That’s Jordan and Chamberlain territory alone, but hardly revolutionary. But how many rings do Dirk and KG have between them? Only one. The fact is swing men and stretch 4s do not a championship ring bring.
The single exception to this fact thus far is Lebron James who, to his credit, has recognized this fact and purposely refused to develop a post game to delay his eventual move to power forward that Pat Riley is planning as we speak (Riley did the exact same thing to Lamar Odom, another 6’10” multi skill perimeter player converted to a 4 out of need and convention).
Which brings me to fact #2 which I’ve actually already stated indirectly:
Quality Big men are now and forever shall be the closest thing to a shortcut to winning NBA Championships. Now granted a big man always needs great little men to get him the ball and shooters to stretch the D, but no amount of outside shooting and perimeter all stars can make up for a mediocre low post presence. Look at the league now. Dwight Howard comes of age and Orlando is a perennial contender out of nowhere. The 2006 Miami Heat won a title with the 2006 Shaq. The 2007 Heat with no Shaq was one of the worst teams in history with Dwyane Wade. Name a team with a quality center who isn’t considered at least a fringe contender? The Nets with Brooke Lopez are the only example currently. How many playoffs did Olajuwon miss? The David Robinson lead Spurs were always in the hunt. Look what a difference Gasoil’s presence makes in LA, or Garnett’s in Boston. Those are the facts proven time and time again by history repeating it’s self.
If you think about it, the team that drafted Durant will try to convert him into Oden if he doesn’t win them a title soon. The Thunder are lacking a game changing big man. Do you see them winning a title in the next 2 years with Serge Ibaka at center? The conversion will come and everything special about Durant right now; the size on the perimeter creating match up nightmares, the coast to coast one man fast break, seeing over the screener on the high pick and roll, and the turnaround fade way jumpers over the swarming triple team from dam near half court all will be sacrificed to try and manufacture what could not simply be acquired on draft day: an elite big man. Only Magic Johnson has escaped this fate because he won a title for the Lakers as a rookie. Ironically he did so by scoring 42 points and grabbing 20 rebounds while playing Center for the injured Kareem Abdul Jabbar in the series clinching victory of the NBA finals. And so Lebron is still the only exception as even Magic became a big man when it mattered most.
Ok, so now you are an NBA GM with the first pick in the Draft and you can draft Dirk Nowitski 1.5 or a 50/50 Raffle ticket for an NBA Finals short cut. If you want to sell tickets you take Dirk 1.5, if you want to win titles you roll the dice with the 50/50 short cut. The Blazers took the 50/50 shortcut, knowing it would be either a Bowie (bust), or a Walton (Championship in his 3rd year). If the Blazers don’t win a title this year with Greg Oden, it just means when they draft 1 overall again in 15 years, they should draft the big man again because the odds say they are due for the title shortcut.
The 2010 mid term elections are being tallied, and whatever the verdict, the campaign season told us plenty about how America feels about President Obama’s term in office thus far. In the state of Missouri every Republican campaign was the same. They ran against Obama. All they did was say their opponent voted with Obama once, and then proceeded to rail on the president. One time they even equated a republican with Obama in the primary becasue he owned a car dealership that had participated in "Cash for Clunkers." This is a brilliant move because the President already has his dirt aired in the national media daily. It’s much easier to air the same old criticism of the president rather than having to dig for dirt on your opponent who may have never so much as had their picture in the local paper untill this election .
Today, President Obama is the most polarizing figure in America, some how taking that mantle away from Lebron James which is quite a feat given the backlash from the “Lebron’s decision” Show. The mear mention of the name Obama and one is forced to pick sides. All this, less than 2 years removed from Obama’s own campaign promise to bridge the bi-partisan divide. The man preaching transpearancy and compromise in advocating for the enviroment and children, while laughing with ESPN anchors as he makes hisNCAA tourny picks and praising the power of basketball to unite people at the NBA All-Star game, suddenly is using back-ally deals and parlimantary procedural loopholes to ram spending bills through congress, while talking to Matt Lauer on the Today Show about “Whose Ass to kick!” and going on The Daily Show with John Stewart specificly not to be funny.
So what happened?
The following clip best illustrates exactly what happened to the Obama presidency. It's a metaphor. To be perfectly clear; Obama is represented by the guy on the left. Republicans are the guy on the right. The white guy that walks in represents the American electorate.
(WARNING: This Clip is from the rated R movie “the 40 year old Virgin” and as such is full of Bad Words!! Cover your ” 40 year old Virgin” ears.)
So there you have it. Obama became the guy Denzel Washington plays in every movie (however that is not Denzel in the Clip, sorry Shaniqa); the Good guy gone ghetto. The Republican’s collectively stonewalled Obama’s agenda. You can definatley picture Obama saying “lets move forward amicably” and then getting it thrown in his face. This is exactly what happened at the "Health Care Summit" And that was it. His inner "Shaft" came out, and he decided he was through reaching out to the ”party of no.” And it was on.
Unfortunately for the president the Rupublican’s had played him perfectly. They planned it going down this way. They wanted this. They baited him, and he took the bait. The first Black president of the United states has to accomplish something. He can’t afford to strike out, and he most certainly can not strike out looking. So he swang for the fences. He hit a double and tried to stretch it into a tripple. On Tuesday, the election just threw him out. He will have other at bats.
But remember baseball is not his game, basketball is.
And Basketball is played in the hood!
For the record this is not a commentary on Cable news Ratings, which are wildly fluctuating. This is just the ThinkTank Panel (of One) provising a plausible explaination for a witnessed phenomenon.
The ThinkTank Panel (Of One) loves Fox News, but not for the reasons one might expect. Not because Fox News accurately represents and advocates for the views of the entire ThinkTank Panel, (that would be impossible). It is also not because Fox News is truly “fair and Balanced” in its reporting, because it’s obvious they are not. In fact it is precisely because Fox News has an agenda and they unabashedly press it that agenda down the throat of their audience, all the while maintain that everything they do is “fair and Balanced” that the ThinkTank Panel (of One) enjoys Fox News. Because it’s entertaining. That and that alone constitute the reason “More Americans get their news from Fox News.” It really has nothing to do with what is reported or the political view advanced. Fox News is on TV. The whole point of being on TV is to attract viewers; ands Fox is the one TV news channel that has not forgotten this.
Keith Olberman is as vicious a liberal spokesman as any Fox News commentator is conservative. However Keith Olberman’s shtick is tiring at best and just plain uninteresting to all but the most closed minded liberal. Fox news is exciting and entertaining; while still maintain the pretense of a free press working for the masses. Fox News delivers all of its content with the sense of impassioned urgency that people respond to. It is addictive really. It can suck you in whether you love it or hate it. In that regard Fox News is very mush the Howard Stern of the News business. You watch just to see what happens next.
So while the ThinkTank Panel would caution against reading much into the implications for America’s political leanings by the massive rating lead Fox News holds, the panel believes those rating are very telling about what captivates America’s short attention span.
The ThinkTank Panel (Of One) theorizes three elements of the American TV audience’s psyche Fox News appeals to.
1.) Fear: This is the most obvious element. Every TV news cast leads into a commercial with tag lines touting, “Up next, information that could save your life,” or “The new Harry Potter Movie comes out Friday, why you should be concerned.” Every news station hooks its audience with the premise that each item of news is potentially life altering, and they do this by playing on the various fears of humanity. But no one undermines the perception of security at all levels than Fox news, because Fox News takes our highest and broadest form of security and protection, the US federal government , and makes it’s every move a matter of life or death, (or at least of substantial sums of money.)
2.) Energy: This is the brilliant part of Fox News. While it is busy pushing the fear agenda it does so with anchors and commentators best suited for conducting pep rallies and rock concerts. If it were visually appealing on screen Fox News would dispense with microphones and just give each talking head a megaphone from which to bellow. Fox News is like a 20/7 MTV Rock the Vote Special for boomers. The ThinkTank Panel (Of One) is mildly surprised that ESPN’s Chris Berman has not been vultured by Fox News to do election coverage. The entire line up of female on air talent at Fox News has the collective appearance of a high school cheer squad or a college sorority. The one exception to this is Greta Van Susteren, who happens to be the most reputable journalist on the Fox News payroll.
3.) Intellect: Finally Fox News does a tremendous job of appealing to a rather “high brow” audience. Or perhaps more accurately; Fox News succeeds in making its audience feel more “high brow” for having watched Fox News over another news source. There is a sense of elitism that is imparted to the viewer for merely having been a viewer. Viewers feel they are special and somehow smarter, than their non-Fox News watching peers, not because of the information received in watching, but because they chose to watch in the first place. Where other news stations say “thanks for watching” Fox News in essence says “congratulations you came to the right place.”
[On a side note, The ThinkTank Panel (Of One) would like to point out that the staunch conservative Fox News is using a page straight out of the very liberal Barak Obama presidential campaign when it appeals to a “high brow” sense of elitism. This represents a shift in recent American Politics as both the Clinton and Bush administrations had emphasized a “Hey I’m every man” theme in their successful presidential campaigns (think: baseball, booze, saxophones, and “not inhaling”).]
So what can the success of Fox News yield to us that is of any practical value?
Quite simply, Fox News proves true the old adage, “it’s not what you say but how you say it,” and further illustrates the notion that “perception is reality.” News is in fact a commodity, and the real value of that commodity is in how well you sell it. Yes these are all clichés. Yet Fox News has proven these clichés to be substantial. Remember you don’t have to buy what Fox is saying. The fact that you are watching means they already sold you.
The stages of grief were developed byElisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book, On Death and Dying. They are in order: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. The stages of grief are a staple of current psychological theory. However like all psychological theory, it is subject to much criticism and debate. One of these critiques totally refutes the entire premise of stages of grief (you can link to it here). With that in mind, the ThinkTank Panel (of One) has conducted an extensive analysis of these stages of grief and proposes the following refinements to the theory, designed to address inherent shortcomings, yet maintain the cohesion Kübler-Ross provides.
First the ThinkTank Panel (of One) would emphasize the sequential nature of the stages. It is well established that a person in the grieving process may go back and forth between stages several times before completing the process and overcoming their grief. Whether one is progressing or regressing, they will experience the stages in order, there is no skipping a stage. Just as there is no way to short cut the process there is no way to be “free fall” into a previous stage without passing through the stages in-between. For example if a person finds themselves in the 4th stage of depression and has a setback which leaves them stuck in anger, they will experience a period of bargaining, however brief, before they regress to that anger stage.
Next the ThinkTank Panel (of One) proposes some minor terminology changes to the labels of the stages of grief that are more accurate description s of the psychological mechanism at play in the various stages.
First, the term “denial “is subtly misleading as it implies the griever refuses to admit the event which caused their grief actually occurred. This is inaccurate, and dangerous as it confuses a separate, yet related psychological phenomenon that professionals treating grief must also be aware of. For example: Sally is grief stricken by the sudden passing of her mother from a sudden heart attack. Sally’s initial reaction upon hearing the news is to say “What? No. This can’t be. How can she be dead? I just spoke with her yesterday. She was fine!” While most people would call this a textbook case of denial (and it may well be accurate to depict this action as a denial), it is incorrect to assume this is the first stage of grief as Sally has not yet begun to grieve. This is an example of shock, a distinct psychological issue that if prolonged could require specific mental health intervention. . Sally will not receive this intervention if her actions are incorrectly interpreted as the normal grieving process.
More accurately the denial phase of grieving should be labeled “denial of a problem” to differentiate it from the shock induced coping mechanism of denial of the event, a form of repression. It is only when Sally tries to convince herself and others “I’m fine,” that she begins the necessary, natural grieving process.
The ThinkTank Panel (of One) considered briefly adding shock as the initial stage of grief preceding denial of a problem. However it is readily apparent that Shock is not inherent to grieving, as Sally’s mother could have died from a long battle with a terminal illness, in which case Sally would have expected her passing and would not be in shock. Yet she would still need to grieve
The bargaining stage of grief attempts to describe a state of mind in which the griever is attempting to take control of their grief so that they may dictate the terms of the grief so that they may manipulate the situation into one more acceptable . For instance; Sally’s mother with a terminal illness finds it easier to accept her impending death when she aspires to survive just long enough to see her daughter’s wedding next month. Similarly, Sally negotiates with herself that she will stop missing her mother once she fulfills her mother’s lasting wish for grandchildren, by having a baby. This leads to a year of erratic and irrational behavior, characterized by midnight calls to her physician’s residence when she could not reach him at the office as Sally obsesses over conceiving and then doubly obsesses about the prenatal health and development of her baby. In either case the griever desperately seeks continual control over something to compensate for the helplessness of their grief.
Therefore the second proposed refinement to the stages of grief is to re-label bargaining to the more apt description of desperation, as it is the desperate grasping for control which defines this phase. The bargaining merely refers to the transference of this desperation on to an object or action.
Given the new perspective due to the change from bargaining to desperation leads to the ThinkTank Panel (of One)’s 3rd proposed refinement to the stages of grief. In bargaining, the transition to depression is the idea that the grief does not keep its end of the bargain and dissipate when the griever lives up to their end of the bargain. The result is a complete loss of all hope and a deep depression. Whereas, with the new notion of desperation, there is a realization that that a person’s best efforts to exert control are in vain, which leads them to give up or surrender. Thus the ThinkTank Panel (of One) proposed that the stage of depression be re-labeled surrender.
It may sound like semantics, but the difference is the realization of one’s powerlessness is an important component to explaining how the process of grieving works. One must surrender control voluntarily before one can accept the fact that they actually have no control over a situation. And of course, acceptance is the final stage of grief.
Lastly, in light of the difference a subtle change in verbiage can have on the comprehension of the psychological processes at work, the ThinkTank Panel (of One) suggests that the 2nd stage of anger be relabeled frustration. Conceptually there is better flow between flow between Denial of Problem and Desperation with Frustration than with Anger. In psychological terms Anger implies an emotional state that can be rectified by relaxation. Frustration on the other hand implies emotional arousal in response to an obstacle that must be overcome by finding a solution, and it is the search for a solution that drives one to desperation.
So there you have it. The new ThinksIveThunk.com ThinkTank Panel (of One) approved stages of Grief are:
Denial of Problem
The ThinkTank Panel (of One) proposes to unmask a conspiracy.
The Co-Conspirators: The Portland Trailblazers and Lebron James.
When Lebron James Makes his “decision” in just about a half hour from now. He will reveal a sign and trade deal sending him to the Portland Trailblazers. This deal has been in the works for months.
Kevin Pritchard’s firing for no apparent reason is only a cover so that he could work in secret to make the final arrangements. KP is “In New Jersey, interviewing for the nets job is all part of the cover and he will be in there with Lebron tonight. The Rumored Chris Paul to Portland deal will also happen now. Monty Williams worked out the Paul Deal on condition of getting his release from the Blazers butthey had to leak the deal was killed so as not to arouse suspicion, but the ThinkTank Panel (of One) is just too smart for them. Tom Penn’s bizarre firing was so he could spy and collect chatter from ESPN and other reporters at the draft. Why else would the Blazers have been pretending to interview all these bad GM candidates? It was a smoke screen so that no one in this new wild and wacky twitter and TMZ world we live in, would know the biggest deal in NBA history was going down before it happens.
I mean really, do you think Lebron would have his own show just to stay in Cleveland? Hell no. If he was going to Miami with Bosh and Wade, then they all three would have announced it on the decision show. If he was going to New York or New Jersey or Chicago he would have done it right after a presentation with them so it looks like he was sold by the team and improves the public perception of the team’s management, that they were able to win Lebron over.
So yep, Chris Paul is coming to Portland. Lebron is coming to Portland!! The ThinkTank Panel (of One) has only one question remaining. Who do the Blazers trade to Cleveland for Lebron? We know the Paul Deal, Pryzbilla and Andre’s contracts plus Batum, Bayless, and The Newly Drafted Williams From Memphis. Given what’s left of the roster surely one of the Big Three (Roy, Aldridge, Oden) are headed back to Cleveland in exchange for the current 2 time league MVP. The question is which one? The ThinkTank Panel (of One) doesn’t like to guess, but would speculate that the Cavs would demand Roy and picks for James straight up (that explains the bizarre trade of Webster, Cleveland must of coveted Babbitt, and Portland did what it had to do to get James). But KP is a sneaky bastard and he convinced Cleveland to take Aldridge, Babbitt, Rudy Fernandez, picks, and the newly acquired Emeka Okafor for James and the bad Contract of Antawn Jamison.
Portland now has a starting 5 made up entirely of all stars in Paul, Roy, James, Jamison and Camby. Free agents will sign for less to play with these guys. Greg Oden as a sixth man (if he will accept the role) could be amazing.
To be honest, with the 4 players in the trade and Mo Williams as a starting 5, Cleveland is a playoff team in the east. That is a lot of shooters and a rebounder = Orlando .5
So there you have it. Conspiracy uncovered. Future prognosticated. Dreams shattered.
Does anyone buy this??????????????????????
I have a theory about tipping. I have no evidence to support this what so ever!
Back in the old days when you had Kings and rulers and other royalty who had servants, a visiting dignitary would come and want to receive "special treatment" from the servants of the king he is visiting. Tipping or "gratuity" came out as a way of buying the servants services and silence, in a way in which the host king would not object.
For example, lets say Prince Charming is visiting King Trident, and Charming takes a fancy to one of Trident's chamber maids. He attempts to seduce her and she resists his advances. So Charming offers to her a bribe. The chamber maid refuses and threatens to tell Trident. So the next time they are all assembled at court, before the chamber maid can tell King Trident what happened, Prince Charming gets up and makes this grand speech in praise of the chamber maid and the excellent service she has rendered to him as a servant, and he would like to reward her with a token of his appreciation and pays her the money he attempted to bribe her with earlier. Now if she says anything to Trident she looks ungrateful, and as the only proof she had was the bribery money she is now holding, it would probably lead her to the guillotine. Since she took the money, Charming will later play the "your already in too deep, you might as well go through with it" card, and have his way with her.
Early tipping wasn't always buying sexual favors. More often than not it was buying loyalty. Since the servants are all in the service of King Trident, if Trident wanted to have Prince Charming murdered, he would just command his servants to do so. So tipping for good service with the promise "there's more where that came from, provided I'm still alive" was a preemptive move by Charming to get the servants on his side. Eventually this practice became so common place that all pretense was dropped and it became standard procedure to give servants a little something-something as a general incentive, seeing as you can't kill another kings servants. That's almost as bad as stealing their silverware or losing their horse.
Today is a big day for Brandon Jennings. His Milwaukee Bucks Play the Atlanta Hawks in a series deciding game 7 today. Game 7 provides a rare opportunity. The rookie point guard has a chance to become a superstar over night. With a big-time performance today in front of a national audience Jennings could win the hearts of millions of fans, establish his reputation among players in the league, and most importantly win control of his own locker-room.
Some would argue the real prize Jennings could win is the favor of NBA commissioner David Stern and that would be the real key to achieving superstardom. I would agree in as much as Stern determines the TV schedules and grant Jennings and the Bucks international exposure if he so chooses. But that exposure doesn’t matter if Jennings doesn’t own the Bucks first. The dirty little not-so-secret secret about superstars is that their head coaches are indebted to them. While following a coach’s instruction can make you a star, it is only by usurping the coach’s authority that a player becomes a superstar.
So how can Jennings possibly usurp the authority of a disciplinarian like Scott Skiles? By seizing the opportune moment.
That opportune moment could arise in game 7. At some point the game, and the series will ultimately have to be decided by the players, not the coach. At some point the coach may have to concede this. At that point a player has to step up and claim victory or defeat, for himself, for the team, for the coach and for the city. As the point guard, and (with Andrew Bogut injured) the best player on the team, and the only player with any kind of national following outside of Milwaukee, Jennings is the best position to seize that moment.
Now a lot has to go right for the scenario to play out where Skiles has to hand over the keys to Jennings. Most likely it has to be a tight game. Jennings performance has to be superlative to the rest of the players on the court, and most importantly, Jennings performance has to be signature Jennings, not signature Skiles. Otherwise Skiles is not putting faith in Jennings he is merely putting faith in himself and his coaching abilities as he imparted the right way to play to Jennings. But if circumstances do necessitate a player’s takeover, and Jennings does seize that moment and leads the Bucks to victory and into the 2nd round, he will own Skiles, and the rest of the Bucks organization.
Seizing the opportune moment is somewhere between an Oedipus Complex and Mutiny, in so far as a subordinate surpasses a superior in authority. It’s a “The Student has become the teacher”, kind of thing.
The Euphemistic way of putting it is to say that the coach puts faith in his player and the player rewards that faith, so the coach grows to trust the player on the court. But the truth is the coach trades his authority for a win. In this particular case a victory and a trip to the 2nd round would validate Skiles as a legitimate coach, having advanced in the playoffs with 2 separate teams. The good news for Jennings is Skiles has a history of trading his authority for a win. He traded his authority to Ben Gordon last time he advanced with the Chicago Bulls. The bad news is he didn’t have to because Gordon didn’t overtly seize the moment, he just took the trade Skile’s offered and the deal eventually ruined a promising Bulls team, and cost Skile’s his job there.
If the cards fall Jennings way and he delivers a signature Jennings performance (which most likely means an array of seemingly miraculous rainbow fall-away pull up jumpers) on the national stage when it counts most, everyone in that Bucks locker-room including Coach Skiles will have to admit that their best chance for success as a team has been proven, trial by fire on the court, to be Brandon Jennings being Brandon Jennings. At that moment it will be his team. And like I said at the beginning, being a superstar doesn’t matter unless the player has ownership of his team.