The fate of MWP and Mom Harden’s elbow – updated

Since ESPN took down the MWP Elbow of Doom video, here instead is the kind of obliquely related Key & Peele Dr. Peace and Mr. Artest anger unmanagement video that the Preezy of the United Steezy would appear to have been referring to last night on the Jimmy Fallon show:

Key & Peele - Obama's Anger Translator - Meet Luther - Uncensored

Max Kampelman suggested that the league should give MWP a choice:  5 games suspended or one free shot for Harden’s mom and her elbow.  The fan theory is that he’ll get at least 8 games so that no matter what happens he’ll miss all of the first round and some of the second if there is one for the Ls. [changed my mind]

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

9 comments on “The fate of MWP and Mom Harden’s elbow – updated

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

    • Yubitsume is a very good idea. Mr. Miller might even approve of that.

      10 playoff games is the most I hear anyone discussing, enough to make it unlikely that MWP would play against OKC, since, if the Ls play them, it will be in the 2nd round.

  1. I do approve. See my wall comment regarding steroids. Can anyone explain why it’s become so un-PC to accuse people of doing steroids when they start acting crazy out of nowhere. MWP has been too peaceful for a couple years. He showed no signs of rage orientation at all. Then, right after a few weeks of resurgent physical capacity…BANG! So why can’t TV sports people speculate? Would they risk lawsuits? Is it considered sissy-like to go there? What?

  2. 6 playoff games if the Lakers make it that far.

    Apparently, there’s a general level of skepticism that PEDs are a big deal in the NBA, in part because it was thought, perhaps wrongly, that they didn’t apply all that well, in part because of supposed consciousness of their danger among team officials and team medical personnel.

    This article gets into it a little, from a skeptical perspective:

  3. I read the article. It does only get into it “a little.” One of my ideas is that guys who play in the Olympics are clean. You’d have to be really stupid or arrogant or stupid and arrogant to go there juiced. Kobe waited until he was clean to play and he no doubt has the means to time things super well. Shack never went even though he’s the kind of law-enforcement America first oriented kind of guy who would definitely had gone if he were clean. Bynum has good reasons (injuries) not to go now, but his best reason (being juiced) goes unstated of course.

  4. actually, Scott, they might not be clean, merely using something for which they’re not tested.

    There are vague rumors that Artest may have used MFPGH

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins