Karma

I don't believe in karma. Not really. At least, not to the point where I believe that there is some mystical energy keeping track of all good and bad deeds, and this same omnipresent force also doles out the appropriate cosmic reward/punishment for each and every action a person performs. Now, I'm not saying that being a good person and doing good things is completely meaningless either. Au contraire. I very much believe that if you do good things, good things will happen to you. But, I’m saying these good things are more likely the result of human nature than some magical entity that we call karma. If you give off a positive vibe and do good things for people or society in general, then of course, your chances of having good things happen back are increased.

If you help an old lady cross the street, maybe a guy will see you do it and think to himself ‘what a good person’, and maybe he’ll be the one giving you an interview for a new job later that week. And maybe that little deed is what made him choose you over the other candidates. That's not karma - you weren’t owed that job by the cosmos - that's just human nature. More likely nothing tangible would ever come from it, aside from you making an old lady’s day a little better. If you’re a good person, you’re just more likely to be in situations that could result in good things happening for you. Not because of karma, but because other good people are going to gravitate towards you. They tend not to gravitate towards guys that lie, cheat and steal.

So, while I don’t believe in karma, I do still try to do what's 'right'. I mean, that might sound like a no-brainer, but it feels like too many people pick and choose to do the right thing only when it’s convenient for them. It’s good that they ‘try’ to do the right thing most of the time, but imagine how different the world would be if everyone did it all the time.

For example, today I bought some concert tickets. They were only selling 100 of them, and once they were gone, anyone else hoping to attend would have to win their way in. As such, they were in very high demand. I was lucky enough to add a couple to my bin before they sold out, but I easily could have bought a few more and sold them for three of four times what I paid. But that's not really the 'right' thing to do, is it? So, I left those extra tickets to be claimed by another person - hopefully someone that’s as equally grateful as me that they will be able to attend. I didn’t do it because I now think karma will owe me something. Nor was I afraid that bad karma would catch up with me either. Sure, I could have justified scalping those tickets to myself pretty easily, and not lose a wink of sleep over it either. For all I know, the next person did just buy those tickets to sell them 5 minutes later at a huge mark up. That person has no more or less of a right to do it than me, so really, if it was going to happen anyways, why shouldn’t I have been the one to do it?

Justification is such a tricky thing. Rather than actually considering what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’, we spend the majority of our time trying to justify to ourselves how something we know is ‘wrong’ could technically be viewed as ‘right’. Or at the very least, ‘not wrong’. I mean, no one wants to think of themselves as ‘wrong’. I doubt that Charles Manson woke up every day and looked in the mirror and thought ‘you’re wrong, you’re evil, you shouldn’t be doing this… but let’s do it anyways, just because!’ Of course not. As easy as it is for us to see how wrong he was, some part of him must have been convinced that he was right. It’s just human nature. Heck, maybe justification is just a natural reaction your mind has to being wrong. You know, just like you can’t hold your breath until you die, maybe you can’t do wrong without your brain automatically justifying it.

For example, I have a penchant for downloading videos from torrent sites. I know it’s wrong, but I somehow justify it to myself as ‘not wrong’. Basically, for TV shows, I tell myself ‘Hey, I pay for cable, I could be watching these shows as they air, so really, I technically pay for this.’ With movies, I tell myself ‘Hey, if I like a movie, I buy it, I have a ton of DVD’s and Blu Rays on my shelves, so if I download a movie, it’s because I was never going to pay to see it anyways (so it’s not like they were going to get any money from me if I didn’t download it), and if I do like it, I’ll buy it.’

What I don’t want to admit to myself is simple: I’m wrong. I just am. Stealing is stealing, and this is stealing. Every time I click download, I’m spitting all over the tablet that the 8^th Commandment is carved upon. (And the only reason I even know about those tablets is because I downloaded that Charlton Heston movie for free off the internet…) Just because Warner Brother’s is a big faceless corporation, just because one movie viewed for free from one insignificant guy in Canada is barely a drop in the ocean for them either way, just because actors get paid more than they should, and theatres charge too much for their tickets, doesn’t mean I’m magically justified in stealing it. I may think that I’m just balancing out what I perceive to be a discrepancy, but the simple truth is, I want to see the movie, I don't want to pay for it. The ‘right’ answer is to either pay full price or not see the movie at all. But I don’t like that answer. So I make my own answer. And that, my friends, is how society works. People don’t like to accept the cold hard truth, so they go the extra mile to try to justify a new truth. Even if it’s not the ‘right’ truth.

There’s an expression in basketball: “It’s not a foul if the ref doesn’t call it.” Meaning, you can get slapped around and hit all over as you go up for a shot, but it won’t matter one bit unless the ref blows his whistle. Which, really, is just a part of the game. A ref isn’t going to see everything, every time. The part that I find interesting is that because of this, people tend to blame the ref in such instances, more than they blame the person that actually fouled them. That the other player is almost let off the hook - maybe even expected to try get away with however much the refs will allow him to. And while not all of society plays basketball, almost everyone operates under a similar philosophy: if I can get away with it, I should do it. And this might be the biggest reason that society is fundamentally flawed. 

The referee is not the problem. To me, looking to the ref is the same as us looking to the government. Sure there is stuff we need the government to do (just like basketball will always need refs), but when we feel wronged, too often we look to them to solve the problem, rather than looking at the actual source of the problem itself. Adam Carolla makes a great analogy about this type of thing. I’m paraphrasing here, but basically he says that our society is like a capsized boat. All we ever worry about is how to get the boat upright again, but we never concern ourselves with what tipped the boat over in the first place. Sure, we might get it upright again, but that’s not going to stop it from capsizing again later on.

Basically, it’s like this: when I was a kid, we’d go out trick or treating for Halloween. While we were gone there would be no one left at home to hand out candy. So, we left a bowl out front with a ‘Please Take One’ sign next to it. You can probably guess what happened next: Some kid showed up, looked around, saw no one was watching, and dumped the whole bin into his pillowcase. No one else got any candy that night. That’s our society in a nutshell. Sure, a lot of people think ‘That’s terrible…’ but sadly, plenty of people also think: ‘Good for the kid, gotta look out for number one…’ And the problem is, this didn’t just have an affect on one night. Because of it, we didn’t bother putting out candy the next year. So instead of everyone getting plenty of candy for years to come, one kid got a small amount of candy one time. 

Was it my parent’s fault for putting out the candy in the first place? Of course it seems stupid to blame them, all they were trying to do was have candy available for all the kids. They trusted that people would do the right thing. And yet, people are just as likely to say that they 'should have known better' as they are to actually blame the kid for being greedy. It’s almost like, kids are supposed to be greedy. But my parent’s simply should have  known better than to put the candy out in the first place.

But can’t we all agree that society would be better if we could leave out the candy? That even in terms of ‘what’s best for me,' that the kid might have gotten more candy in the long run by being able to come back every year and take his fair share, rather than only getting to take more than his share once?

What if we’re not talking about Halloween candy, either? What if we’re talking about welfare or worker’s compensation? Sure, it might feel like free money to some people, but at the end of the day, that money has to come from somewhere. We’ve all heard the stories of people abusing the system. At some point something is going to have to be done about it. And maybe that ‘something’ will stop the people from abusing it, but also prevent many honest people that actually need these services from getting them too. Wouldn’t it just be easier if no one took welfare unless they really needed it?

And that’s the problem. How do you do that? How do you stop people from being greedy/lazy? Can it even be done? Are we too far gone as a society to ever hope to fix that? Will we always think that one person can’t make a difference? When everyone else is benefiting, and you feel like you’re the one person trying to do what’s right, and it’s not making a difference, it’s pretty tempting to just join back up with everyone else, and at least help yourself out in the process.


So, which is it? Am I a fool for trying to do the right thing, even if it’s sometimes at my own expense? Or am I right to try and lead by example, even if it’s never likely to bring about any change? For example: I was at a Tegan and Sara concert recently. I had really, really (really) good seats in the front row (dead centre on Tegan) and next to me was a young teenaged girl and her mother, who had gotten her daughter the tickets for Christmas, and they had driven up from North Dakota to see the show together. This girl had never been to a T&S show before, and she was super excited. Now, I'm not saying I'm not excited at T&S shows - far from it - but there’s no way my excitement could match that of a teenaged girl, there for the first time. You often hear that having a child is great because you get to experience the world through their eyes, as if for the first time again. Well, this T&S show was like Disneyland, and this little high school lesbian was like having a 4-year-old son. Her excitement. Her false hope (that Tegan would somehow notice her over everyone else in the crowd, and be smitten). Not knowing what to expect, or when to expect it. What songs they might play. What banter they might engage in. Everything. It reminded me of a time long since passed, in which I had gone through the same gamut of emotions at my first show. 



And the show was great. The music was perfect. The banter, epic. And the seats couldn't have been better. And, seasoned veteran that I am, I already knew what the perfect souvenir would be. So, when they took their final bows, and exited stage left, I sprung out of my seat and snagged the set list (the small piece of paper that each artist keeps taped to the floor so they know which song comes next). Now, this wasn't just any set list. This was Tegan's set list. It was a pretty great score. And I was beyond thrilled to now hold it lovingly in my hands. But then I looked over at my new concert buddy, and saw a look on her face that said 'ah, the set list… I never would have thought of that… I'm trying to be happy for you, but I just can’t stop my jealousy from showing…'

 So, after a slight pause, I handed it to her. 

In the moment it felt like the right thing to do. But now, I'm trying to decide whether or not I regret it.

Sure, she absolutely lit up at the gesture. I had probably just put the cherry on the sundae of this already epic trip for her. And it had felt really good as I did it. But at the same time, I easily could have kept it for myself. I hadn't wrestled it out of her fingers. Or pushed her to the ground to make sure I got to it instead of her. It was mine to do with as I pleased. But I've been to many T&S shows. I have a set list already at home (granted, not Tegan's personal one… but still). Maybe she'll never have the chance to go again. Maybe even if she does, she'll never be in range to grab the set list. Maybe I did the right thing. I'm not sure. I really would have liked it for myself. But in that moment, it meant more to her - at her first concert - than it did to me at my… err… not-first concert.



Maybe she'll move onto Lady Gaga in a week and throw the set list away. Maybe she'll cherish it forever. Maybe what felt like the right thing to do to me, now has her laughing with her friends back in Fargo about the sucker that foolishly handed it over, as they post it on eBay. I'll never know. But it sure would be nice if there was such a thing as karma. I mean, not to dislocate my shoulder patting myself on the back or anything, but I think karma would have to reward me pretty big for that one, right?

Aloof

Do girls really like assholes?

I mean, logically speaking, they shouldn't, right? But obviously conventional wisdom has proven that more often than not, they do.  Don't worry. This isn't the 'woe is me' post that most perpetually single, consider-themself-to-be-a-nice-guy-but-can-never-find-a-girlfriend, sexually frustrated dudes like me, might normally be gearing up to make at this point. No, I'm not bitter.

Really, I'm not.

If you're a guy working from a distinct disadvantage (in this case, being an asshole) and can still get many a fine young lady to fall for you, that's no reason for me to be mad at you. What is an asshole supposed to do? Never date? "Sorry, you should put your clothes back on. Jerks like me don't deserve to see naked ladies…" It's not their fault that they're just doing what works. The only person you should be mad at is yourself. You're the one that's working without this disadvantage but is still unable to get the same results. There's no point in getting mad at the ladies either. "Boo hoo… girls say they want a nice guy, but they always end up with jerks." As though a girl might overhear it and think, "you know, that guy has said that 300 times already tonight (and let me tell ya, it gets more attractive each and every time), but he's right…" and boom, suddenly all the ladies in the world will be into the nice guys that complain at parties about not being able to find girls.

When has complaining about the way something fundamentally is, ever changed it? If girls like jerks, then it's your own fault for not being a jerk. Leveling all the blame at the guys that are jerks in the first place or the girls that fall for them is like getting mad at the sky for being blue. The sky doesn't know how not to be blue, it's just doing what the sky does. It's your fault for wishing the sky was red.

The real question you should be asking yourself is 'why is the sky blue?' Or, more specific to this blog, 'why are girls drawn towards jerks?' Although we could try to figure out the sky/blue thing too. I mean… what is it? Like, the reflection of the ocean or something? Wait… why is the ocean blue, then? Is it just a reflection of the sky? But if the sky is just the reflection of the ocean, and the ocean is just a reflection of the sky, then which came first, the sky or the ocean? Wait, what do you mean that they have nothing to do with each other? Man… science is hard.

Err... sorry. Where was I?

Ah, yes. Look, I'm not saying every guy should start acting like a jerk. If a girl was drawn to the sight of a jerk like a bull is drawn to sight of the colour red (yeah, yeah... the whole bull/red thing is a myth… I know. Didn't I already establish my scientific ignorance when I didn't know why the sky is blue?), I'd have done it years ago. Obviously there's much more to it than that. Being a jerk alone isn't the source of the attraction. The key is figuring out what it is that could be so great that makes a jerk's jerkiness worth putting up with. And, when you think about what women are attracted to, and what common traits jerks process, it does kind of all make sense.

First, and most importantly (in my opinion) is the initial: is the person into the other person or not? I've discussed it at length previously, but to recap, a person will overlook and ignore a lot of your flaws if they're really into you. They will go out of their way to spend time with you. They will want to talk to you, be around you, and they want you to want to be around them too. It's simple stuff. Unfortunately, the delusion a lot of guys easily fall victim to is that despite the obvious signs, there's always the chance that she's just 'playing hard to get.' Because that's what girls do when they're super into you: Never call or text you. Find excuses to cancel on you when you're supposed to get together. Date other dudes… All because they're playing 'hard to get.'

But, as it pertains to this discussion, most importantly: if a person is into you, they'll be more apt to look past your flaws. Flaws such as you being a bit of a jerk. Or if they're super starry-eyed-smitten from the start, you being a big old fat jerk. But how does a girl get so 'starry-eyed smitten' to begin with? Is it all just based on how a person looks? Is that what I'm saying? Good looking guys can be jerks, because girls will always fall for them after just one glance?

Well, yes and no.

I don't think that a good looking guy gets up every morning, winks at himself in the mirror and declares "Man, we are one good looking guy, reflection. In fact, we're so good looking that why don't we just be complete jerks to everyone we encounter today? What are they going to do? Not love us? Please… not when we're this good looking!"

Well… maybe some guys do that (I'm looking at you, Hoff). But probably not all of them. That said, even if it's not a conscious decision, I do think that being good looking does make it easier to evolve into a jerk. Not over night. Not over a weekend. But over the course of an entire life? Of course. Look, attractive people will always have it easier than the rest of us. If two people go in for the same job, they have the exact same resumé, are both equally charming during the interview, but one person is good looking and the other is not, guess who the job is going to? Is it fair? Not really. But that's just the way society and human nature works. There's no point in losing sleep over it, that's just the sky being blue.

So, if you're a kid, good looking, and ask to borrow a dollar from another kid to buy a chocolate bar. The kid, naturally inclined to seek the approval of a good-looking alpha male, might go so far as to say "here you go, you can have it." The good-looking kid isn't going to turn down a free chocolate bar, and gladly accepts. Smash cut to a year later, and maybe the good-looking kid doesn't ask to borrow the money anymore. Maybe he's so used to the other kid just giving it to him at this point, that the conversation sounds a little more like "hey, give me a dollar for a chocolate bar."

A jerk is born.

When you don't hear 'no' as much as everyone else growing up, you just kind of get used to hearing 'yes'. And eventually, you're an adult that's used to getting things your way, expects that people want to make you happy, and somewhere along the way, started thinking that you might just be a little bit better than everyone else. It's not necessarily a choice you made, but how else are you going to turn out if that's how people have been treating you every single day of your life? If you were told by every person you ever met, every day of your life, that you were a duck, eventually you'd have to start believing that you were a duck. If everyone treats you like you're better than them, eventually you're going to start thinking you're better than them.

Look, I'm not saying every good looking guy is a jerk. I'm just saying, I can see why attractive people are more inclined to turn out that way.

But, not every girl is so quick to be smitten by a pretty face. In fact, girls are way less concerned with looks than guys are. So, if not looks, what else attracts a girl to a guy on first sight? Well, word on the street is that few things are more appealing to a lady than confidence. And, well… if there's one thing jerks don't seem to lack, it's confidence. Again, not all confident guys are jerks, but almost all jerks are confident. I mean, you almost have to be to get away with it. It's hard to be a sheepish jerk.

So, what does any of this have to do with me? I mean, there must be some connection, right? Otherwise why would I bother mentioning it? Well, funny you should ask. You see, while it's pretty easy to say that being good looking and having confidence are good ways to attract women, I have another theory as to why girls might like jerks. Now, obviously I could never go fully down the jerk road to test this, no matter how much I'd like to try (I can only imagine the look right now on the poor bastard's face that accidentally stumbled upon this blog after Googling 'Jerk Road' expecting to get something completely different…), but on a scale of Friendzone Tool to Complete Asshole, I have dabbled in the Aloof area of the spectrum a bit. Now, the theory behind Aloof is that if a girl is good looking, then most guys will bend over backwards to please her. They'll do favours for her, buy her things, and find any excuse that they can to be in the same room with her. And I can only imagine that while flattering (and I'm sure they'd never want it to stop), at some point it also becomes a bit tedious.

So, by that logic, if every guy is constantly fawning over them, wouldn't the guy that didn't fawn at all, stand out just a little bit? Not a lot. But at least a little bit. No drunken texts sent at two in the morning declaring love, no flimsy excuses as to why you need to meet up on Saturday night for dinner, no Valentines chocolates 'because we're such good friends…' None of it. Just complete indifference. "Ya, you can pick up that CD you wanted to borrow, but make it quick, I've got things to do." You can see how it's sort of like a distant cousin of the jerk, but without, you know, the complete jerkiness.

I think it's rooted somewhat in the 'people want what they can't have' theory. Sure, as much as you'd like to look at an attractive girl across the room at a party, have her look back at you, give each other a quick once over, nod in agreement of mutual attraction, and then spend the rest of your lives together, really, that's no fun. There is some thrill in the chase. If a girl is used to always getting who and what she wants, then it doesn't matter if she actually wants you, just knowing that she can't have you is enough to make her want to prove that she could get you if she really wanted to. It's sort of like, "wait, I'm supposed to be the one that's not interested in you… not the other way around." It's the reason rock stars almost never end up dating their fans. Most of the time they prefer someone that has basically never even heard of their band before. Why? Because a fan is just sitting there waiting to be given the green light to pounce, the non-fan has to be chased.

Does it work? Well, in my experience, not really. It still comes down to whether she's into you, or she isn't. Again, not much is ever going to change that. There's a big difference between 'thrill of the chase' and 'thrill of the never-going-to-happen.' But, I will say this, in the small bit that I've dabbled with aloof, I can see why it works. I can see why, when cranked up to 'jerk' levels, a girl can basically wonder to herself 'man, nobody ever talks to me or treats me like that, why isn't he doing whatever I say, and telling me I'm beautiful all the time, like every other guy I know?' and it's almost fascinating to them. And they start to think about it some more. And then again at work the next day. And just like there's no such thing as bad publicity, soon, all that matters is that the only guy she's thought about in the last few days was the jerk. Does it matter why she's thinking about you, so long as it's you that she's thinking about? Well, girls always seem to end up with assholes, so I guess the answer is obvious.

(In case it's not that obvious… Yes. The answer was yes.)

2013 NBA All-Star Weekend Results/Recap

First, a quick recap of my predictions from last week:

BBVA Rising Stars Challenge

My prediction: Team Shaq (148) over Team Chuck (136)
[MVP: Kyrie Irving]
Actual result: Team Chuck (163) over  Team Shaq (135)
[MVP: Kenneth Faried]

I didn’t actually watch this game, so I don’t have too much to say about it.


Sears Shooting Stars

My prediction: Team Harden
Actual result: Team Bosh

Look, I rag on this event a lot, but it’s not that bad. They just need to tweak it a little. By the end we’ve just seen too much of the same thing. If they just made this event a one round, winner takes all, it wouldn’t be the target of so much of my scorn.


Taco Bell Skills Challenge

My prediction: Damian Lillard
Actual result: Damian Lillard

I actually got a prediction right? Don’t get too used to it…


Foot Locker Three-Point Contest

My prediction: Stephen Curry
Actual result: Kyrie Irving

Kyrie shot the lights out in the finals. It was breathtaking to watch. To start the round, he only missed one of his first 18 shots. Just let that sink in for a second: 17 for 18. Not free throws, three-pointers. Amazing.


62nd NBA All-Star Game

My prediction: East (155) over West (143) [MVP: LeBron James]
Actual result: West (143) over East (138) [MVP: Chris Paul]

LeBron didn’t quite stand out as much as he did last year. In fact, Kobe did a really good job guarding him at the end of the game, something I wasn’t sure that Kobe was still capable of doing anymore. I don’t love the guy, but man, you gotta respect how good Kobe still is, even with all the miles on his body. The Chris Paul MVP nod was great to see, and well deserved. He really did do a great job of getting people involved, controlling the game, and scoring when he needed to. Best point guard in the league, if you ask me. It’s too bad about his spotty health, really. If he could have put together a career at the level he’s capable of (15 solid years with only a few minor injuries here and there, not having to pick his spots and save his knees for the playoffs, but rather playing all-out, every minute that he was on the floor) he could have been one of the 10 or 15 best players of all time. Who knows, it could still end up that way, but I worry that his body will let him down in the long run. Which is too bad, because when he’s playing at his highest level, it’s just a joy to watch.


Sprite Slam Dunk Contest

I had pretty high expectations for this dunk contest. I get the impression Kenny Smith was feeling the same way, as he predicted several times during the broadcast that this would be one of the 10 greatest Dunk Contests in All-Star history. Which, as a guy that loves to make lists, got me thinking:  What are the Ten Best Dunk Contests of all time? And then I realized how dangerous and time consuming such a thought might be, and quickly moved on…

And, while this didn’t end up being in the Top Ten (at least, off the top of my head) it definitely wasn’t in the Bottom Ten either. And it was way better than last year. So, without further adieu:


Gerald Green
Dunk 1



Gerald Green comes out swinging here. Ya, it’s not going to win you the contest, but not every dunk you do, can. I mean, even in the great contests of all time, not every dunk was a 50. Even Vince, who most people agree had the greatest performance* of all time, had a few ‘filler’ dunks. They were still good, but everyone remembers the 360º he opened with, the off-the-bounce East Bay, and the elbow hang. The baseline 360º and step-inside-the-foul-line two-hander were fine, (more than fine, really) but they’re not exactly the lasting images that everyone remembers from 2000.

Basically, what I’m trying to say is that while this wasn’t a contest winner,  it’s still the type of dunk you need to win a contest. A very good, very solid, mid-40 dunk, that keeps your score up, gets you into the finals, and gives you the chance to unleash that epic dunk that will be the one that wins the contest. To me, this is a very good way to come out of the gate: an impressive,  crowd-pleasing dunk, made on the first attempt. It gets the crowd on your side, loosens you up, gets your juices flowing, and sets the stage for better things to come. Hopefully.

*MJ vs Nique in ’88 might (might) be a better battle, but individually, I think you have to give it to Vince in 2000.

Judges Score: 50
My Score: 44


James White
Dunk 1



I mentioned during my predictions that I’ve had my eye on James White for a while. Not as a basketball player (he’ll never be more than a deep bench guy… although in the NBA, that’s still nothing to sneeze at) but rather as a dunker. And, as a dunker, I’ve seen him do this dunk in practically every contest he’s ever been in for the past 12 years. And you would think that this might turn me off (one of my only beefs with MJ’s contests was that he basically did the same dunks in ’88 that he did in ’87). But it doesn’t. This dunk is just a thing of beauty. The grace. The hang time. All of it. I love this dunk.

Now, I’ll admit, he’s a step over the foul line here. And, while on or behind the foul line is always better, that doesn’t mean being a step over somehow negates the dunk entirely. Sure, if you’re just doing a simple one-hander, with no added flair, then the dunk lives or dies on the foul line placement. But this dunk is so good regardless, that while yes, I will concede it would be improved with the added distance, I do think the judges and broadcast guys were a little too hung up on the foul line then they should have been.

Judges Score: 45
My Score: 49


Terrance Ross
Dunk 1



I don't pretend to be an expert of much. But I do like to think I have a pretty good handle on dunking. Especially 'competition dunks' (dunks that you would never see in a game, but rather have been carefully crafted/honed for a dunk contest). As such, there are a few dunks that have been on my radar for a few years, that i have been eagerly awaiting someone to master for the NBA Competition. They are, in no particular order: The Earl Manigault (also known as the 'Double Dunk'), the 720º, and the Kobe. Why do I call it the Kobe? No, he didn’t invent this dunk the year that he won the Slam Dunk Contest (1997). Nor did he magically throw it down during a game or even in the warm up line before a game.

No, it’s because of an Adidas commercial in 2001. The premise of which was that a couple guys had just seen Kobe do the greatest dunk that they’d ever seen. They never show the dunk, or even describe it or give any details about it, you just see the excitement in their reaction, and it’s left to your mind to only imagine what this dunk could possibly have been.  It was an effective approach, because after that much hype, nothing they could have shown you could ever live up to the expectations that you had built up in your mind. So, of course, eventually Adidas decided they had to actually show it. Because that’s what stupid people in suits do. They put up their hand in advertising meetings and say “So, when do we get to see the dunk?”. And the poor guy from the Creative Department, that came up with the whole concept, yet makes a third as much as anyone else in the room, sighs, deflates like a balloon, and tries to mutter “Well, the point is that we never see it, because, you see, as long as….” and without skipping a beat, the guy in the suit goes “No, I think we should see it.”

I’m complaining, but really, I shouldn't be, because the resulting commercial was actually pretty cool. In fact, I think it’s much better remembered historically than the original commercial that preceded it (seeing that I can’t find it anywhere on YouTube, but the follow up is on there 20 times.) And all it was, was basically just 60 seconds of Kobe doing a bunch of crazy dunks. Now, a couple of the dunks were so crazy that I’ve never believed that they were real. There had to be some wires, or computer trickery in there somewhere. But in between the madness, there were a couple of realistic, but still really cool dunks. And the one that always stuck out for me – and apparently lots of guys in the NBA as well - was the behind-the-back 360º. Keep in mind that this was 2001. No one had ever done a behind-the-back dunk before (in fact no one actually did until 2005) so to combine that with the 360º, and because it was so smooth and looked so good (the pose in the air, the power on the dunk, everything) to this day, I’m still not sure if Kobe actually did this dunk for real during the commercial shoot, or if they used the same wires or CGI that I assumed they did for the other dunks.I mean, it's believable enough that he could have, but because of the other 'over-the-top' dunks in the same spot, you do have to wonder.

Regardless, guys have tried more than once to get this dunk down over the years. And much to my delight, they’ve always credited it as an idea they got “watching a Kobe Bryant commercial a few years back.” Which, as the guy that immediately yelled at the TV “He’s trying to do the Kobe!” as it was happening only to be met with blank stares from everyone else in the room,  it was hugely rewarding to have the player actually admit as much mere moments later while being interviewed. It’s kind of pointless to know a bunch of obscure trivia like that, unless a great moment presents itself and you get to bust it out, have everyone assume that you’re talking out your ass, and then be proven absolutely correct mere moments later. Anyways, to make a long (long) story short, I’ve been waiting on this dunk for a while now, and it was good to finally see somebody not only get it down, but also do it justice. Of course, in a perfect world he would have nailed it on the first attempt, and by the time he finally got it down (the sixth attempt) it had lost a fair bit of it’s luster, but still, great dunk.

Judges Score: 50
My Score: 50


Kenneth Faried
Dunk 1



We are pretty spoiled these days in the dunk contest. I mean, everyone is pretty m-eh about this dunk by Faried (myself included) and yet, really, it’s pretty good. An off-the-glass, 360º, alley-oop, with his head at the rim? That probably would have been enough to win any contest from the 90’s, a good chunk of the ones from the 80’s and even a few from the 00’s as well. And yet, everyone yawns, the TV commentators talk about it deserving 7’s (guys were getting 7’s for missed dunks…) and Faried walks back to the bench with his head down and his shoulders slouched. People act like the dunk contest is played out, that maybe they should get rid of it, that nothing new can be done. I think people just don’t appreciate good dunks. And this was a good dunk. Not a great dunk. Not a 50. But a good dunk.

Judges Score: 39
My Score: 42


Eric Bledsoe
Dunk 1



Here’s another good dunk. And again, it received a very lukewarm reception. But unlike Faried’s dunk before this, it kind of deserved what it got. For one, he had taken four attempts at a much better dunk already, before finally giving up and settling for this one. It’s hard to get excited for a dunk that a guy settles for. Also, well it really is a very impressive dunk for a smaller guy (Bledsoe is 6’1”) it just doesn’t accentuate his small size like other dunks could. The biggest advantage a little guy has is how high off the ground he has to get to do the same dunk as a bigger guy. And, while he is certainly high off the ground to get this dunk, it just doesn’t come off that way. It’s no fault of Bledsoe, it’s just a flaw inherent to the dunk itself. Nate Robinson chose dunks that showed off his small size. And it made a huge difference.

Lastly, this was a dunk that looked much better on the replay. When you see the slo-mo, and the right angle, you realize just how good of a dunk it was. But as it happened live, in real time, it was just kind of m-eh. And that’s what the judges are voting based on, that’s what the crowd is reacting to, and that’s the difference between you sitting up on your couch in excitement while watching at home, or only realizing it’s a good dunk after the third replay is shown. Again, pretty hard to get excited about a dunk only after you’ve already seen it three times.

Judges Score: 39
My Score: 40


Jeremy Evans
Dunk 1



I had very little faith in Jeremy Evans coming into this competition. In fact, if I had picked the full order of finish instead of just a winner, I might have had him coming in dead last. To me, while he was deserving of last year’s win, it had more to do with how badly everyone else had been, than with how well he had performed. He hadn’t so much been the ‘best of the best’, as he had been ‘slightly-less-worse’ than everyone else. As such, I felt the superior field this year would expose him as the ‘fortunate winner’ that I considered him to be. Nothing against the guy, like I said, he deserved the win, but it was a victory of circumstance rather than domination. Plus, I just felt that he was too reliant on props and gimmicks, and I was hoping that people might start to turn on such theatrics, and that there might even be a bit of backlash against such things. Especially with such good pure dunkers in the field, hopefully winning the crowd over with straight up great dunks and making the gimmick dunks look all the more silly by comparison.

And… well, he actually did win me over a bit in this contest. But we’ll get more into that later, because this first one was not the dunk to do it. No, he was back to his old tricks of trying to fool us into thinking a dunk was better than it is by hiding it’s shortcomings underneath a layer of slick theatrics. Sure, bringing out Mark Eaton is nice. He was a great player for Utah back in the day, and I like the respect you’re giving him, but at the same time, the one thing everyone knows about Mark Eaton is that he’s 7’4”. If you’re bringing him out, it should have something to do with his height. Sitting him on a box negates that completely. It might as well be John Stockton at that point. And at least more people know who Stockton is. But regardless of who was sitting there, the dunk itself was pretty m-eh. Not bad, but not great either. Add in the four attempts to get it down, and trust me, sitting at home, I was smugly thinking that the cracks in the armour were already starting to show.

Judges Score: 47
My Score: 39


James White
Dunk 2



And then the wheels came off…

Obviously, missing a dunk is never a good idea. Especially when they give you so many attempts to get it right. In this case, he took six, and still came away with nothing. The first dunk he was going for could have been pretty cool. Floating, switching hands, getting a bit of power. Having seen so many of his contests over the years, and knowing that he had a penchant for doing almost everything from the foul line, I was pleased to see him mixing it up a little. Don’t get me wrong, it wouldn’t even be sniffing in 50 point territory, but if done cleanly, I could see it being in the 45 range. The same type of dunk I was talking about earlier that doesn’t win you the contest, but gets you into the finals and gives you a chance to win. Not that it mattered, he gave up and went back to his foul line bag of tricks. And sure, a windmill from that far back would be impressive, but even if he had gotten it down, I’m not sure it would have been different enough from his first dunk to merit a high score. I probably would have only given him a 42. But that would only be if he made it. He didn’t even do that. My guy’s night was over. Sorry, James, we'll always have between-the-legs foul line dunks to remember you by.

But, hey, at least I still had Gerald Green up next, right?

Judges Score: 32
My Score: 0 (I don't believe in giving scores for missed dunks)


Gerald Green
Dunk 2



Not so much…

But first a little side jag: I was talking earlier about how there’s nothing better than having a piece of really obscure trivia, and getting to use it. So, the second Green started cutting off the net, I turned to my parents and said “He’s going to do the Earl Manigault Double Dunk.” And they were like “Nani-what?” giving me that look that basically said “We get that you know more about this than us, but come on, do you really expect us to believe you know that he’s about to do some obscure dunk by a guy whose name we’ve never heard before (at least say “Michael Jordan”), just because he’s cutting the mesh down from the basket?” I mean,  even I fully admit that this was a pretty specific thing to predict based on not very much information. And then bam, Green goes for the Double Dunk, the commentators mention the name Earl Manigault, and I look like a damn savant.

Or a guy with far too much useless knowledge in his head.

So, the question you might be asking yourself at this point is: “Wait… how did you know that he was trying that exact dunk, just by seeing him cutting down the net?” Well, for starters, I didn’t. Not with anything near 100% certainty, at least. But, having spent countless hours trying to perfect this dunk myself (granted, on a 9 foot rim, rather than the regulation 10 foot height) and having discovered that it was nearly impossible with the mesh intact, I figured I might as well throw it out there. I mean, if I was wrong, no big deal, no one is expecting me to be right about something so odd and specific. But if I’m right… well, it’s almost freaky. Although, to be honest, my parent’s didn’t look nearly as impressed as they should have.

So, I guess the next question you’re probably asking is “Ya, but why were you so obsessed with a dunk made famous by a guy from the 60’s who never played a second of NBA or Division 1 college ball?” Well, you see, back in 1996 there was a decent HBO movie made about the life of Manigault,  an infamous New York street baller. And, since back in 1996 I would watch literally any basketball movie that came out (yes, even Slam Dunk Ernest… I wish I was joking) of course I tracked down a copy on VHS and gave it a watch. A scant 120 minutes later, I had became more-than-slightly enamoured with the story of Earl ‘The Goat’ Manigault (this was also the movie that introduced me to Don Cheadle, with whom I also developed an immediate man crush).

The biggest benefit of playing in the 60’s, like Manigault did, is that very few people had access to cameras. As such, playground players became legends more because of the stories of their exploits, rather than cell phone videos posted to YouTube. And, while I admit that I’m sure they came to be greatly exaggerated,  I drank up every single story about Earl Manigault that I could find. For example, at 6’1” he would pluck quarters off the tops of backboards to win bets. He once did 36 reverse dunks in a row to win $60. He would often spot his opponents a 10-0 lead at the start of a game and then beat them 11-10. You know, stuff like that. Was any of it true? Who knows. For every guy that says those things are impossible, there are three more guys that swear on their lives that they saw it with their own eyes.

Of all the legends told about Manigault, the most common, the most famous and perhaps even the most believable is that of the Double Dunk. (The quarters-off-the-top-of-backboards one rivals it in terms of fame, but is widely considered to have been a move done by Jackie Jackson originally, and simply ‘borrowed’ by Manigault later on.) Basically, the Double Dunk is where you go up, dunk the ball, catch it after it’s gone through with your opposite hand and then dunk it again, all in one jump. Unlike it’s depiction in the HBO movie (which is how Gerald Green tried to do it as well), The Goat would do it without hanging on the rim, which is what made it such a great dunk. Hanging on the rim greatly lowers it’s impressiveness, which is why I was underwhelmed with Green’s attempt. Well,  that and he took 10 attempts, didn’t get a score in, and only completed it afterwards in frustration. Very hard to get excited by that. But, if a skinny white eleventh grader was able to eventually get it down on a 9 foot hoop, then my dream of seeing it done for real will always live on.

(By the way, based on my experience, the key to the dunk is getting the first one down while you’re still on your way up. As such, it’s hard to come ‘flying in’ for the dunk, you almost have to start at a standstill under the basket and just go straight up… which obviously decreases how much height and hang time you can get on the jump,. So while it increases the difficulty, it also lowers the visual impressiveness from a spectator perspective.)

Judges Score: 32
My Score: 0 (40 had the made attempt counted)


Terrance Ross
Dunk 2



Sorry, that last write up spiraled a little bit out of control. I’ll keep this one brief. Not because it was a bad dunk (it was actually a really good dunk), but because I’ve touched on this twice already: This was a perfect example of the ‘not going to win you the contest, but a solid dunk to help you get into the next round’. Smooth. Clean. Powerful. Just a really good, really solid dunk.

Judges Score: 49
My Score: 43


Kenneth Faried
Dunk 2



This is a dunk Jason Richardson did back in 2004. And it still stands as one of the greatest contest dunks of all time (I had it at number #3 on my list). I mean, obviously the J. Rich one will always be special. First attempt, never seen before, never even thought possible, perfect execution… everything. He couldn’t have done it better. Faried’s was nice too - and is easily worth a 50 - but considering it’s the exact same dunk (no added flair, or really, any attempt to improve upon the original at all) it’s hard to really consider it on the same level as the J. Rich original.

Judges Score: 50
My Score: 49


Eric Bledsoe
Dunk 2



Now here’s everything Bledsoe should have done with his first dunk. Great height, high degree of difficulty, puts it through cleanly and powerfully. Great dunk. It’s too bad he wasted his first dunk so badly, as I would have loved to see what he could have done in the finals.

Judges Score: 50
My Score: 47


Jeremy Evans
Dunk 2



This was a tough dunk. Of course, that was kind of obvious when he needed three tries to get it down, but still, the degree of difficulty is very high. Again though, it’s kind of gimmicky. Although I’ll admit that this is at the end of the gimmick scale that I don’t mind. It’s tolerable enough (and actually adds enough to the dunk) that it’s not distracting, so I’ll let it pass. Good solid dunk.

Judges Score: 43
My Score: 42


Jeremy Evans
Dunk 3



Well, if that last dunk was on the acceptable end of the gimmick spectrum, then this one makes up for it in spades by going completely the other way. Ugh. The commentators said it best: the dunk was actually pretty good without the painting. If Evans would just have a little more faith in his dunking ability, and not try to rely so much on this other stuff, he might actually be higher on my scorecard. As it stands, based on my personal scores, Kenneth Faried should have made the finals over him, and after seeing this first dunk, I’m really wishing he had.

Judges Score: N/A (Fan Voting)
My Score: 38


Terrance Ross
Dunk 3



Side-of-the-backboard, alley-oop, 360º.

Blake Griffin tried and failed in 2011. Derrick Williams did a pretty good job of it in 2012. But Ross one-ups the both of them by making it look even better (bringing it down to the hip and windmilling it home) in 2013. Great dunk. I don’t even mind him wearing a Vince jersey in tribute (a gimmick that I used to love, but has been so over-used in recent years, that it was really starting to annoy me) since he didn’t try to build up the reveal of the jersey with unnecessary theatrics or shoehorn in a dunk that was sort of like something Vince did in 2000. No, he just showed up for this dunk, already wearing it, not drawing attention to it, and just doing what he would have done anyways. At this point, he would have to really blow his last dunk to not walk home with the trophy. Unless of course Evans did something crazy for his final attempt…

Judges Score: N/A (Fan Voting)
My Score: 48


Jeremy Evans
Dunk 4



Ok, maybe not crazy. But this was a great dunk. A great dunk. No gimmicks, just straight up floating, posing, hanging and putting it home with authority. Like I said in the beginning, Evans did kind of win me over by the end of this dunk contest, and this was the dunk that did it. I don’t know if it’s to his credit or detriment. Like, in one way, it shows what a good dunker he is, but in another way, it shows you how every other dunk could have been so much better if he hadn’t been trying to make each one so gimmicky. Regardless, it had looked like Ross might run away with it, but suddenly we had a contest again. At this point, it really could have gone either way.

Judges Score: N/A (Fan Voting)
My Score: 49


Terrance Ross
Dunk 4



And we have a winner. Sure, Evans had the better dunk, but this one was good enough, that when you factor in both of the dunks that each guy did in the finals, Ross easily comes out on top. And, when you consider that Ross had the best dunk of the night (behind-the-back-360º) and was consistently the best dunker each round, it’s only seems appropriate that he got to hoist the trophy. The voters got it right. The best man won.

Judges Score: N/A (Fan Voting)
My Score: 46


My prediction: James White
Actual result: Terrance Ross
.

2013 NBA All-Star Weekend Preview/Predictions

In what is quickly becoming a yearly tradition, I give you my annual NBA All-Star Weekend predictions:


BBVA Rising Stars Challenge

Team Shaq	Team Chuck
Damian Lillard Kyrie Irving Andrew Nicholson Klay Thompson Harrison Barnes Chandler Parsons Dion Waiters Michael Kidd-Gilchrist Tyler Zeller Kemba Walker	Anthony Davis Kenneth Faried Kawhi Leonard Bradley Beal Ricky Rubio Tristan Thompson Nikola Vucevic Brandon Knight Isaiah Thomas Alexey Shved

Prediction:
Team Shaq (148) over Team Chuck (136)
MVP: Kyrie Irving

While this game is essentially unwatchable, I will still eat my hat if Shaq's team doesn't win. Talent-wise, it's not even close. The problem with a game like this is that so little of it actually resembles a real basketball game, that sometimes talent doesn't really matter as much as it normally would. So, maybe I should take back what I said about eating my hat. I'll definitely eat something though. Maybe a nice piece of pizza or a steak. That's pretty much the same thing, right?

Sears Shooting Stars

Team Harden	Team Westbrook
James Harden Sam Cassell Tina Thompson	Russell Westbrook Robert Horry Maya Moore

Team Bosh	Team Lopez
Chris Bosh Dominique Wilkins Swin Cash	Brook Lopez Muggsy Bogues Tamika Catchings

Prediction: Team Harden

Speaking of unwatchable… I'll go with the home town team because they've got the best (and maybe only) shooters, but if you expect me to delve any deeper into it than that, then you're even crazier than that NBA Executive that keeps renewing this event every year.

Taco Bell Skills Challenge

East:
Jrue Holiday
Brandon Knight
Jeff Teague

West:
Tony Parker
Damian Lillard
Jeremy Lin

Prediction: Damian Lillard

My other prediction is that I fall asleep watching, startle myself awake as they're presenting the trophy, only to realize that I still don't care who won, and go back to sleep.

Foot Locker Three-Point Contest 

East:
Paul George
Kyrie Irving
Steve Novak

West:
Ryan Anderson
Matt Bonner
Stephen Curry

Prediction: Stephen Curry

It's always easier for bigger guys to win this contest, that's why I'm choosing the little guy with the bad ankles. It's also why I should never go to Vegas.

Sprite Slam Dunk Contest

East:
Gerald Green
Terrence Ross
James White

West:
Eric Bledsoe
Jeremy Evans
Kenneth Faried

Prediction: James White

I'm actually pretty excited for this one. Not because last years contest was so good (it wasn't) and not because I think the Toronto player will win (he won't). But because I have honestly been waiting for James White to be in an NBA Slam Dunk Contest since 2001. If you don't believe me, I've got the super low res .avi files from the 2001 McDonald's Slam High School Dunk Contest still saved on my computer to prove it. That's pre-YouTube folks. I also still have the 2006 NCAA Contest as well, which, if he just could have got that last attempt down, might have been one of the greatest ever.

Trust me, I've been waiting on this dude for a while.

My only fear is that it's been over 10 years, and he's now in his 30's. Perhaps the between-the-legs dunks from the foul line (!) that he used to do are a thing of the past. A distant memory from his younger days. I'm hoping not.

But even if White isn't what he used to be, Gerald Green is back, and it seems like he's jumping even higher than ever. Add in Bledsoe, who might be one of the best athletes in the league, and it's shaping up to be a good one. Hopefully...

62nd NBA All-Star Game

Eastern Conference	Western Conference
Carmelo Anthony LeBron James Kevin Garnett Rajon Rondo Dwyane Wade Chris Bosh Tyson Chandler Luol Deng Paul George Jrue Holiday Kyrie Irving Brook Lopez Joakim Noah	Kevin Durant Blake Griffin Dwight Howard Kobe Bryant Chris Paul LaMarcus Aldridge Tim Duncan James Harden David Lee Tony Parker Zach Randolph Russell Westbrook

Prediction: East (155) over West (143)
MVP: LeBron James

I think the West has the better team. I do. But if there's one thing I learned watching last years game, it's simple: LeBron James is better at basketball than anyone else on the planet. And I'm not talking a little bit better. I mean, noticeably better. Even when sharing the floor with the nine next best players, he is still head and shoulders better anyone else. The West should have the advantage, but the team with the best player on the floor at any given time, should never be counted out.

People That I Can't Hang Out With (Part IX)

I have to tread lightly this week. Not because what I have to say is particularly controversial or anything, but simply because I'm about to discuss a person that I can't hang out with …who I actually do hang out with. And I'm pretty sure he reads this blog.

Look, the title has been a little misleading from the beginning. Pretty much every 'Person That I Can't Hang Out With' is based on somebody that I actually do hang out with. I'm not trying to be a hypocrite, it's just that the real title of these posts should be: 'Things That People Do That Kind of Annoy Me, But Not Really. They're More Like Foibles. I Could Still, Realistically, Hang Out With Them In Spite of This, and Often Do.' Not quite as catchy, right? So, if you happen to be reading one of these, thinking to yourself "Hmm, there's something about this that I can't quite put my finger on… wait! He's talking about me!" Chances are, you're right. I probably am. I'm not trying to end our friendship over the internet or anything. I swear.

I swear.

No, really, I swear. As in, use profanity. I try to avoid doing so in mixed company, when it might offend someone, or be considered rude (assuming being rude isn't the point), but most of the time I don't give it much thought. They're just words. And like every other word, they're at my disposal as part of the English language.

Now, I don't have any problem with people that don't swear. In fact, I kind of respect it. Words only have as much power as you give them, so really, I've taken away almost all of the power/impact that those words might wield, simply by being so flippant in my usage of them. I mean, if you tell 30 people every single day that you love them (including the barista at Starbucks when she gets your Double Tall, Low Fat, Extra Carmel, Frappé Mocha Cappuccino just right), then the word 'love' has lost a lot of it's impact. Even if you sit across from a girl, take her hand in yours, gaze longingly into her eyes and whisper: "I love you," it still means less if you've said it to 80 different girls over the years. It's not completely meaningless, but at the very least, it means a little less than it would if you had never said it to a girl before in your life, right?

So, while I respect people that refrain from swearing, I'm especially envious of those that will use the occasional curse word in a moment of genuine anger/frustration/fear. I mean, if a person that has never dropped an F-Bomb in their life, glares at you with clenched fists at their sides and snarls "Go fuck yourself", that can send a chill right down your spine. You know that they're more angry or hurt than they've ever been, and you know that you've truly done something wrong. More-so than if your jerk-off buddy from college says it to you five times a day - regardless of whether you asked to borrow a pen, tried to steal a french fry off his plate, or got his sister pregnant.

In recent years I've made a fairly conscious effort to be more selective with my use of profanity. Perhaps I'm older and wiser, or maybe it's a concerted effort to gain these words back some of their lost impact. That said, I'll admit, a few drinks always ruins my resolve, and soon the expletives are flowing as freely as the beer that rendered me in such a state. All my good work undone. All impact I've tried to regain, lost.

And really, that's what this post is about: the impact and effectiveness of such words.  You see, as much as I respect (or at the very least, don't look down my nose at) those that choose to refrain from the use of profanity, there is a close cousin to this sort of person that I don't abide. A person that, dare I say, I can't hang out with: The Faux Swearer.

Shoot. Heck. Frick. You know the words. Neutered versions of swears that almost sound like them, but are technically just different enough to not actually be swears. I'm not sure if I can even properly explain what I have against this. It's sort of like, 'look, this is where a person would normally swear, but because I don't swear, I'm going to-sort-of-swear here, but it's technically not a swear, so I didn't swear. Ok?' And I don't know. I guess it's just like, why bother? Why go to all this work to avoid doing something, when really you're basically still doing it?

To me it sort of feels like a person saying "I would never ride a motorcycle, they're too dangerous, and I would never risk my safety like that." And then two days later you see them drive past on something that looks exactly like a motorcycle, and shout "Hey, I thought you said…" to which they interrupt "It's not a motorcycle! The guy that sold it to me said it was a motorized bicycle." Well, to me, that doesn't change the fact that you said a motorcycle was dangerous, and just because what you're riding isn't technically a motorcycle, that doesn't magically make it any less dangerous than one. If you don't swear, good on you, don't swear. But let's knock it off with this technicality nonsense. Just because you're not saying the words, doesn't mean your intention behind them is any different

Let's go back to the whole 'love' example. If a guy loves a girl, he wants to let her know, and he wants it to be a special moment, so he says "I love you." He doesn't say "I lurve you." It doesn't change the meaning behind the words either way, it doesn't change the amount that he loves her in his heart. But it does ruin the way in which he tried to express his feelings to her. And that to me this the difference between 'shit' and 'shoot'. You can say 'frick' in school, but at the end of the day, I would rather hear a kid say 'Aw man, more fucking homework?' than 'I hope you go home tonight and fricking choke on a gun and pull the trigger.'  Sure, you'd prefer the first kid not swear at all, but I think everyone can agree that the second kid said something far worse. If you were entering the data into a cold, emotionless computer program, it would tell you the first one was the more offensive sentence, because technically speaking 'fucking' is a worse word that 'fricking'. And that's my point. It's not the words themselves that matter as much as the meaning/intentions behind them.

And sure, maybe some moments in life simply don't call for full on profanity. I'll admit, I do have a fondness for 'heck'. I don't really know why. I have no problem saying 'hell', but in some instances I prefer the use of 'heck'. In a sort of 'flip convention on it's ear' kind of way. For example. if you ask me if I want to go to a movie, I'll probably respond "Heck yes, I do!" It's sort of a false-excitement thing. I'm basically pretending to be more excited than the situation actually calls for. And I think the use of 'heck' in that instance, rather than 'hell' helps drive that playfulness of the language home. Plus, 'hells yeah' is a little too frat boy, and over-used for my liking.

Look, I'm not saying that F-Bombs should be used on television or that kids should have free range to say them in schools, that's not my point. In fact, I got a great thrill from the use of 'frak' in Battlestar Galactica, and 'cuss' in The Fantastic Mr. Fox. Real swears wouldn't have been nearly as fun, and in the case of Mr. Fox, would have seemed grossly out of place. In fact, I kind of prefer when swears get beeped on TV. It almost has more impact. On South Park and Family Guy they don't shy away from swearing, they just simply beep it out. But when you buy the DVD box sets, they're not beeped out at all. And honestly, it loses almost all of it's impact. I barely notice the real swears, but the beeps during a broadcast draws my attention to it every time.

But I digress, basically, my point is: I can easily forgive the occasional 'shoot' or 'frigg' for the exact reasons that I just mentioned. If a situation doesn't call for full profanity, but could still use an extra adjective or two, by all means, sprinkle in a couple of faux swears. If this was simply the case, I wouldn't have my panties in such a bunch, and I wouldn't feel the need to be writing this post right now. However, there is another use of the faux swear that irks me every time, and makes this post more than necessary. I'm referring to a formally established expression, or proper title, that may contain profanity, but has been replaced with a faux swear. It would be like if someone said "Aw man, I just stepped in dog shoot." Now, as established, I don't mind if the person says 'dog crap', that's fine. But the use of 'shoot' makes no sense and falls more into that 'look, I want you to do the math and go 'shoot? oh, he means 'shit', but I'm still taking a moral stance against actually saying the word, so I'm replacing it with it's facsimile, even though it doesn't make sense in the context of the sentence.'

"Shoot happens"? "Crap Happens"? No, "Shit Happens." That's the expression. If you don't want to use it, fine, But don't bastardize it. I mean, you can see how that might frustrate, right? I'll give you a recent example, one from a real conversation, with a real person (that I'm trying really hard not to completely offend as he reads this):

"Yeesh, new Jackbutt movie did 50 mill."

Jackbutt? Really? I mean, not to be a dick, but when I first read that, it took me an honest 37 seconds to figure out what he was even talking about. Granted, I can be a little slow from time to time, but still. When it finally dawned on me, it was like a revelation. "Oh! He means Jackass…" And by that point I was more caught up with the use of 'Jackbutt' than I was with the actual point of the statement: to start a discussion about how much money the movie had made, and if it was worthy of doing so. And I think this is the epitome of what I'm trying to say. The word itself isn't offensive. It's just a word. In fact, one of the great joys we had in childhood was the fact that an ass (as in, a donkey) wasn't a swear. And if we could find a creative reason to have to refer to the animal as an ass, then we were allowed to do so. We could care less about donkeys, but we loved talking about them because it was like we were getting away with something. And in a way, we were. But only because the word 'ass' has more than one meaning. One is a swear, one is not.

In the case of the movie title Jackass, it's not. So the refusal to say the actual, proper name, is more of a stubborn misguided attempt to prove that you never use any swear words, than it is you actually avoiding saying a swear word. It would be like if you knew a guy named Roger Shittlenicky, but you called him Mr. Shootlenicky. That would be ridiculous, right? Shittlenicky is not a swear, even though it forces you to pronounce the syllable 'shit' over the course of saying it. And that's why 'Jackbutt' seems so ridiculous to me too.

But maybe Jackass is a bad example. Let's say you wanted to discuss the movie Young People Fucking. Now you have a legitimate dilemma, since this is a proper title, and as I've discussed, it's poor form to change the formal title of something. But, it also contains the very real use of profanity as well. Profanity which I am more than fine with you taking issue against saying. I don't know, I don't have all the answers. I'd probably be fine with you saying 'Young People Effing' and I don't know why this is different than 'Jackbutt', but somehow it is.

And I guess that brings us to a big one. What about the dreaded N-Word? Here I am preaching the power and meaning of a word, and yet I would hesitate to ever say it. In fact, I'm obviously reluctant to even type it. And I'm not a racist person. I can't fathom a situation where I would say that word in a hateful or malicious way, and yet, even knowing in my heart of hearts that I mean nothing by it, I still won't say it. I mean, what if I'm just reading a quote in which someone says it? What if I'm listening to a rap album, and simply singing along as the N-Bombs fly? It's just a word. It only has as much power as the intention behind it when it's said, and yet I still can't do it. Why not? Right now people don't know what to do about the Kanye West / Jay-Z song "Ni**as in Paris". It's the song's proper title, so if it lands in the top 10 on the Billboard 100, how does one (and by one, I mean 'white people') refer to it? It's a proper name, just like Mr. Shittlenicky, so people should just say it, right? Well, I could try to argue either way, but in three and a half minutes of some of the greatest television ever produced, Dave Chapelle sums it up perfectly.

(Maybe don't watch this at work with the speakers turned up… do it at home, or with headphones on. You've been warned.)



Perhaps not the funniest, or most iconic of Chapelle's sketches, but I can't think of a better way to convey my point than that. Grantland's Rembert Browne described it best in his brilliant March Madness style bracket to pick the best Chapelle Show sketch of all time:

"…it's cripplingly uncomfortable and hilarious. Watching and hearing white people say "Niggar" over and over again, in the masterful context that Chappelle set up, is still jarring, even when you've seen the sketch hundreds of times and know when it's coming." 

And that's the point. By all intents and purposes, in that context - a context which I've spent the majority of this post arguing in favour of - the use of the N-Word should be fine. But it's not.

So, I don't know, maybe that does make me a hypocrite. If I only care about the intention of a word, the context in which it's used, but still consider some words taboo, regardless of their context or intention, perhaps I am just being completely sanctimonious in my judgement of people that are unwilling to use words that they consider to be off limits. If I'm not willing to use certain words, then why shouldn't they be able to make the same choice?

But seriously, Jackbutt? The line has to be drawn somewhere. And that's why, Mr. Faux Swearer, you have this one thing that kind of annoys me, but not really. It's more like a foible. I can still, realistically, hang out with you in spite of this, and often do.

People That I Can't Hang Out With (Part VIII)

The Sixth Sense

The Usual Suspects

Planet of the Apes

The Empire Strikes Back

Titanic

What do all these movies have in common?

SPOILER ALERT! They all have twist endings.

There's nothing quite like being thrown for an unexpected loop while watching a movie. Especially in today's day and age where audiences are so savvy that it's nearly impossible to sneak anything past them. But, considering it's so fun to be blindsided by a movie's twist, people sure do put a lot of effort into trying to figure out the entire movie before any twists even have a chance to occur. It's like no one wants to be the one that didn't see it coming. I don't really understand why that is either. I mean, for me, there's nothing better than completely losing yourself in a movie, and then having that 'What?!?!' moment when a great twist catches you completely off guard. You know, that type of moment where the filmmakers could basically jump out in front of you and yell 'Gotcha!'

It's hard to describe. It's almost as if the realization washes over you. Like you've been hit with a sudden burst of adrenaline. It's not like your mind was completely numb while watching the movie prior to the twist or anything, but it might not have been terribly overly-stimulated either. So, if you're relaxed, just unsuspectingly watching along with your guard completely down. Enjoying the movie, but safe in the assumption that it's playing out exactly like you expect it will... but then suddenly a big twist happens! Your previously relaxed brain goes from zero to sixty in a fraction of a second. Neurons fire into overdrive. Grey matter frantically tries to piece together clues or recall any prior moments of foreshadowing. Does it all make sense? Is it riddled with loop holes (or worse yet, is it altogether completely illogical)? Did I really not see that coming? Once your brain calms back down from that rush, and if the twist holds true, makes sense, and more importantly caught you completely by surprise, then that 'What?!?!' moment is unlike any other experience that you can have during a movie.

And that's why I don't understand the folks that spoil such moments for other people.

First of all, there's the people that seem to take some sort of sick pleasure in revealing spoilers. The people that purposefully tell the guy that they know has been waiting forever to see a certain movie, exactly how it ends. Or what the big twist was at the end of the last season of the TV show that he's currently in the middle of watching. Or what the score was in Game 7 of the championship game that he has recorded at home on his PVR because he went to his son's hockey game last night instead of watching it live. These people will spoil anything. Even if the person specifically asked them not to. Maybe even especially if the person asked them not to.

To these would be spoilers, no amount of "I haven't seen {blank} yet, don't say anything about it…" in the world can hold them back. Heck, it might only serve to give them greater pleasure. These people don't care about movies. They just like ruining other people's fun. This is the type of person that sees a child holding a balloon and wants to pop it. Sees a couple on their first date, sharing an ice cream cone, and wants to knock it to the ground. They 'accidentally' kick the seat in front of them on airplanes. Or blow cigarette smoke in a person's face on the street. And nothing, absolutely nothing, gives them more pleasure than farting in a elevator. These people are sociopaths. A burden on our fair society. A menace that must be stopped.

Of course not everyone spoils things on purpose. Some things are genuinely spoiled by accident. Some times a person just doesn't even realize they've let an important plot point slip while talking about a movie they've just seen. Maybe they think you already know the ending, and can discuss it with you freely, or maybe they just simply said something without realizing that it gave away the twist. It sucks, for sure. There's nothing worse than having something spoiled for you. But there was no ill-will or malice intended either. Sure, the person probably could have been more cautious or vigilant or aware of what they were saying - I'm certainly not saying that they should be let off the hook completely - but at the end of the day, this one is a little more innocent. Especially if it doesn't become a habit.

Naturally, these are the very extreme ends of the spectrum. Most people fall somewhere in between the semi-innocent slip-of-the-tongue guy and the vindictive monster that can only feel good about himself through the pain and torment of others. But regardless of any of that, the real question we need to be asking ourselves isn't: who is doing this? Or even: to what degree? But rather: why? Why do so many movies or TV shows or sporting events end up getting spoiled? Especially considering that the majority of the time the spoiling is done by a person in our lives that we consider to be a friend.

Why would seemingly normal, well-adjusted human beings so easily and willingly engage in such a hurtful act? Maybe it's just built into some people, you know, like these people spend so much time being alert and cautious to make sure they never get conned or duped in real life, that it bleeds over and just naturally makes them not want to be conned or duped by a movie either. Maybe these people just don't like to be 'tricked'. Maybe they don't like to feel like the filmmakers outsmarted them. Maybe that's why they end up spoiling movies: they assume everyone else feels the same way that they do, and therefore think they are doing people a favour.

I don't know. That seems a little crazy. But how else can we explain it? I guess in a lot of cases, it almost feels to me like the person basically can't hold it in any longer. That they're so hyped up on the experience that they need to share it with another person. And look, I've come out of movies so excited and eager to talk about the ending with another person that I could barely hold my tongue too. But that's still no excuse for spoiling it to another person.

The only other thing I can think of is that maybe some people are just so obsessed with being the first to know about something that a movie becomes one of the few chances that they get to tangibly prove it. Like, "I saw that movie before you, and here's proof!" I mean, none of this sounds like a very good explanation, but it's hard to believe that every person that spoils a movie is a sociopath that gets off on bringing other people down. I mean, that just can't be true, can it?

I guess there could be some subconscious thing that our brain does, where it equates the thrill of the experience to the twist itself. Like, our brain sort of does this weird math where it thinks that by telling another person about a twist that thrilled us so much, that we'll somehow give them that exact same thrill that we experienced. And that maybe, the feeling of excitement that we equated to the movie, they will somehow equate to us, the story teller, instead.

That's a little far-fetched too, seeing as how logically, we all know that the twist itself has no real emotional impact without the carefully crafted film making and storytelling that lead up to it. You know, those minor little things like plot and character development that made us emotionally invested in the movie in the first place. That investment is pretty hard to obtain, no matter what type of movie it is, and without it, any attempted twist will invariably fall flat. It's the reason why so many attempted twists do fail. It's also the reason why the ones that work, strike an even deeper chord with us.  I mean, if I just said to you: 'Hey, imagine some astronauts landed on a planet, and it was ruled by talking monkeys, but it turned out to be Earth!'. Would you care at all? Or would you just look at me, kind of confused, and say: 'Umm… that's nice' and walk away.

A person needs to be invested in the plot. Invested in the characters. They have to have an emotional interest in what's happening to those characters. Then, and only then, when they're wondering if these people that they've grown to care about will survive, if they'll make it out alive, if they can just somehow manage to find their way back to Earth… that's when it's shocking to discover that they never will. That this planet was Earth all along, and there's no going back.

Err… spoiler alert. Sorry.

And that's the other thing. Sure, I flippantly just spoiled the entire plot of the original Planet of the Apes in favour of making a small, and not very funny little joke just now. And maybe I'll justify it to myself as "Hey, that movie is over 40 years old, the statute of limitations has run out on it's ability to be 'spoiled' any more." But really, that's not true. A lot of people try to argue that after a certain amount of time, spoiling no longer applies. Some people say that it's 10 years. Some people say that it's 10 months. Some people say that if you didn't see the very first screening at your local theatre, then you didn't care enough about it in the first place, and 10 minutes after the credits have rolled, spoiling should be fair game.

Look, I get that we can't tip toe around every plot point ever twisted in the history of movies for the rest of time. Especially ones like Planet of the Apes, Citizen Kane or Empire Strikes Back that are so ingrained in the very fabric of society and pop culture that they're almost unavoidable. I firmly, and somewhat hypocritically believe that not everything needs to have a 'spoiler alert' in front of it either. 'Spoiler alert' gets used way too much, and yet people still clamour for it to be used even more. Sure, it has it's place, but as with most things, it all comes down to the simple logic and common sense inherent to the unspoken social contract that most of us choose to follow. Are you giving them a chance to realize that you're talking about a movie that they haven't seen, but still want to, prior to revealing any major plot points? Good, then it's up to them to realize that the situation is ripe for spoilers, and it becomes their responsibility to separate themselves from it before said spoilers are inevitably revealed. I'd say for anyone with half a brain, a 'spoiler alert' is not necessary

That said, if you don't even give them a chance to screen themselves, or worse yet, force it on them so that they never had a choice to begin with, then you're just being a spoiler dick.

And spoiler dicks are definitely people that I could never hang out with.