Humor from on High

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Redemption's Son

There's nothing like a MVP caliber season and a few game winning shots to make people forget that Kobe was very recently the epitome of arrogance in the NBA (that whole adultery thing did not help much either). Good work fickle America.

Yes, he has shown greater signs of leadership this year and has bonded with the Zenmaster...blah... blah...blah, but this should not warrant his recent Royal Treatment by the media. I am all for giving people a second chance, but in this case I think Kobe's success on the court has undeservedly changed people's perception of his character off the court.

Friday, April 21, 2006

Required Reading for Chix

The guide to chasing the urban cougar. Read it, Chix, you'll thank me later.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

MVP Debate

The whole NBA MVP debate is ridiculous. Until the definition of "MVP" is understood the debate is irrelevant. Is the MVP the best player in the league, the best player on the best team in the league, the most valuable player to his team, the player that has allowed his team to exceed expectations the most, or a combination of all these factors? The league itself or sportswriters need to establish a concrete definition of what the MVP should be, else the debate over MVP becomes arbitrary. This debate is not conclusive to just the NBA as every major professional sports league contains this same situation. If you look at the history of the NBA MVP award, the criteria for MVP has changed every year. Some years the MVP went to the most statistically proven player, others it went to the most valuable player to a team, and so on. Personally, I think this is the wrong way to approach the MVP award. The award itself should be the a stable measure that does not change from season to season. Until the definition of the MVP is clear, the entire debate becomes a personal opinion of what an MVP actually is.

In conclusion, the MVP should go to Yao Ming because he is the tallest player in the league. And his broken English is humorous.

Monday, April 10, 2006

Oh. My. Dog.

I'm speechless.

Click for hilarity

Thanks to You Can't Make It Up.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

It's A Boy!!

That's right....I'm now Papa Kaiser. The little bundle of joy came into this world at a cool 3,345 lbs and 2 oz. You want to talk about someone needing an epideral? Thank god for water-birthing! Not sure exactly how they knew it was a male, because I have yet to see any genitalia (not for lack of looking), but I do think it looks just like me. Especially around the eyes....

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Rasheed Wallace: A Model of Class

Rasheed Wallace recently got suspended for one game following his 16th technical foul of the season. David Stern implemented this automatic suspension rule for a player that receives 16 T's in one season and another game suspension for every two remaining technicals. This isn't a surprise coming from a player that has averaged over 25 techs for the last decade.

Said Wallace,
"I don't care about No. 16," Wallace said. "I'm just going to be cheering from home."

It appears as though he is very remorseful for his actions. A model team player and role model for all.

Seriously, how hard is it to not get 16 technical fouls in a season? Only a player that wanted to get 16 would end up getting suspended. Although I don't agree with some of Stern's recent acts to clean up the NBA like the dress code, this new rule should help protect the refs (who probably have the hardest reffing job in sports) and give an incentive to players to stop acting like imbeciles.

But hey, if Sheed wants to hurt his team, that is up to him.

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Charlie Sheen is a Blundering Idiot

I guess it was inevitable that I would give this Blog thing a try... Apparently they have the Internet on computers now (Homer Simpson).
Before I start, please don't blame me for any comments my brother may have made in the past; not all Wilhelms process information like he does.

Target: Charlie Sheen

Charlie Sheen has risen to number 14 on my nemesis list after his comments concerning 9/11. I should not say he has "risen" to number 14 because this is his first appearance on the list. I never felt that his infamous history of: 1) dropping out of High School for poor grades and legal troubles, 2) "accidental" shooting of ex-fiancee Kelly Preston while intoxicated, 3) payment for over 27 prostitutes (amounting to over $50,000) in 1995, 4) assault and battery charge on his girlfriend in 1996, 5) Various drug rehab stints, and 6) divorce from Denise Richards due to the fact that she feared for her life when she was with Sheen, were any reason to put him on the nemesis list. These actions are repugnant and shameless, but they did not seem like sufficient reasons to make him a nemesis.

It is Sheen's new comments about the "9/11 conspiracy" that put my animosity towards him over the top. Sheen, most likely beseeching his father Martin Sheen (an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration), has argued that the entire 9/11 event was pre-planned by the U.S. Government. 3,000 individuals were supposedly murdered in a carefully planned ruse. Sheen's main argument concerns the aesthetic aspect of the Trade Center Towers collapse, especially Building 7. He maintains that the collapse of this tower could have only been caused by a "controlled demolition," when a fire that debilitated the structure of the building is impossible.

"Anyone that cannot view this as a controlled demolition, I would have to say that their chair was not facing the television. Anyone that can look at this and say 'yes, that is a random event caused by fire' really needs psychiatric evaluation," said Sheen.

Oh really? I need a psychiatric evaluation? Considering I have never shot and abused my girlfriend , I will pass.

Sheen also goes on to argue that the attack on the Pentagon could not have been caused by a commerical airline. Other conspiracists like Sheen have even argued (with a straight face) that the U.S. Government shot a guided missile into the Pentagon.

First of all, why are our celebrities automatically given a writ of passage into public discussion of current events? A majority of actors in the U.S. fail to enter college ( let alone graduate) and yet their opinions are almost regarded as highly as any politician or media mogul. While a college education does not necessarily increase one's intellect, it provides a context for evaluating world events that is hard to develop without education.

I don't understand how these 9/11 conspiracists can actually believe the words coming out of their mouth/keyboard. Does their animosity towards Bush go so deep that they think every bad event in the world is caused by him? They fail to understand any of the evidence in the 9/11 Commission and can only reach for non-rational beliefs founded by their political leanings.

What is more discomforting is the CNN Poll taken on March 23rd which reaffirms Sheen's beliefs by over 4/5 of the population sample of the U.S. Although the poll question is vague, it shows that a majority of the country thinks that the U.S. Government had a part in the 9/11 events. Who are these people and where do they live? I know I have never come across one. The more these false sentiments are being expressed, the less focused our national unity becomes towards addressing the actual problem our country faces as a result of the 9/11 attacks (terrorism here and abroad!).

I wish people would use their commen sense and capacity for abstract thought rather than emotionally charged beliefs that lack evidence.

That felt good...

Saturday, April 01, 2006

Reorganization (Addendum)

Update to yesterday's post:

I forgot to mention yesterday that I've added Chuck Klosterman to the sidebar. He's an irregular columnist (by that I mean "infrequent" -- I can't vouch for the capabilities of his bowels) for ESPN.com, and also "author of "Killing Yourself to Live: 85% of a True Story" and is a senior writer for Spin magazine and columnist for Esquire." He comes at sports from a more pop culture and sociological perspective, which I'm starting to appreciate more and more when it comes to my personal filter for why things are entertaining/valuable or not or why they're worthy topics of conversation (P.S. This is definitely the case for Freedarko, as well). I haven't read either of his books (he has two, maybe three), although I did buy the one that was mentioned above for my sister for Christmas.

Digression: Buying books for the holidays is genius. All you have to do is think about all the books that are on your Unofficial Mental Reading List and then decide who would enjoy them most in your immediate family or friends and give them to those people. The best part is that once they're finished with them, you can "borrow" them back and read them from yourself. I can't believe I didn't think of this years ago. And plus, books are Good For You. They're like LDL cholesterol for the brain or something. Mental Oat Bran? I'm reaching here, and what's Good For You changes with each monthly addition of the New England Journal of Medicine anyway.

Back on topic, here a teaser. Chuck's most recent post is about the how the public's expectations of professional athletes are totally hypocritical. He refers specfically to the Winter Olympics and Bode Miller. The basic premise is that we all think we don't like Bode Miller because he doesn't appear to care about winning. We think it's "cute" when we hear about how hypercompetitive Michael Jordan was, cheating at cards, and trying to beat you at anything remotely resembling competition. If you knew someone in your real life like this, say at work, you would totally think they were douchetacular urinesniffer. If you WERE Bode Miller in real life, you'd probably think you have a pretty good life going. You just ski however the hell you want to and rake in the endorsement money from health insurance companies and High Times magazine. I think Chuck has a point.