Men Would Like to Know: 'Baby, does this make me look fat?'

Before I jump into episode 4 of the "Men Would Like to Know" series, I'd like to just quickly wrap up my findings from episode 3 about the engagement ring. Now I fully expected to ruffle a few feathers with my question about whether you ladies would be willing to get engaged without an engagement ring, but I definitely didn't expect the massive amount of responses I received. I think the consensus response amounted to "BOY, you crazy!" To sum things up, fellas don't come between a woman and her engagement ring.

It's funny though because most women weren't golddiggery enough to say that they wouldn't marry their man if he didn't have the money for a ring (although one did tell me that she wouldn't even put herself in a position to even be with such a man). They would tell me, "I'm marrying HIM and it's about OUR love!" But once their man had enough money for the ring, all that "talk" went away and they definitely wanted their ring. I don't really blame them though. The engagement ring has become such a societal standard that most women feel like they are entitled to it. So be it.

In the end, I probably would get my fiancée an engagement ring. I just don't want to feel like I have to do so. I mean she's already getting me for life, so the ring would be icing on a wonderfully delicious triple-layer cake. But anyway, on to the next episode...

---

Fellas, it starts out innocently enough right? You and wife(y) are going out some place nice and you guys are getting ready for the occasion. In typical female fashion, she's trying on like 7,000 outfits (claiming she has nothing to wear) and she asks that dreaded question: "Baby, does this make me look fat?" There are only two questions that strike more fear into a man's heart: "Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife?" and "Is the line blue or pink?"

It's all good if your girl is looking phat (does anybody even still use that?) . That's easy. But if she really is looking fat, you're pretty much screwed. I still don't understand why women would ask this question in that situation. Sometimes I think it's just a test to see what we'll say which is just pure evilness. If she's looking less than stellar, we're in a lose-lose situation because we have only two options:

Option #1: Tell the truth
If we tell her that she doesn't look good in that dress, that would most likely result in her being mad/sad/angry/offended/hurt/insecure/depressed/etc and that could have like eternal ramifications. Plus we get no honesty points. But hey, at least she's not going out looking weak right?

Option #2: Lie through our teeth and say she looks fine
If she's setting us up, we're screwed. Otherwise, we're probably okay. But the problem is we'll feel guilty for lying AND it results in her going out looking less than her best. We don't want that do we?

So my questions to the ladies are first of all, why do you even ask us this question? What good can come of it? And secondly, if the question is legitimate what should we say? Is there even anything we can say that won't result in us sleeping on the couch? Men would like to know...

Just for fun, here are my suggestions:

"Hey, what about that other dress? I really liked that other one..."
"Hey do you wanna start rollin' to the gym with me?"

As always, please feel free to leave your comments. There's no poll this time around. On a side note, I have been asked to start an analogous "Ladies Would Like to Know" series because apparently women have questions for us too, but I haven't gotten any really debatable questions yet. So ladies if you have any suggestions, you can shoot them to me at ben@benmvp.com.

Why Bell's Shots Didn't Hurt

From: Me
To: Whoever didn't feel disgusted after hearing the Sean Bell Verdict

I'm infuriated, frustrated, and disappointed. And I'm tired of hearing you tell me that things have changed. If things have really changed, WHY isn't EVERYONE (not just some people) feeling the same way as I am right now about the Sean Bell Verdict. After years of discussions on race and race relations, it baffles me that you STILL do not understand why the Bell verdict would get underneath my skin. I'm sitting here wondering why we don't see eye to eye and why we did not come together to mourn with Sean Bell's fiancée, Nicole. This is not brain surgery. Think about it. This was a man. A father. A fiancée who was to be married the NEXT DAY. This man was unarmed and leaving his bachelor party only to be shot down by the police. But he wasn't shot once. Not even twice. Not ten times, but FIFTY! FIFTY TIMES?! 31 of those bullets came from the SAME officer! How did your blood not boil when you heard the verdict? How can you not feel the pain deep within? I'll tell you why. Because America... to this day... does not value the life of a black man. The murder said it. So did the verdict. And quite frankly, so do you.

~Miss Politica

The HD Wars: Cable vs. Satellite

If you watch TV at all, you have to have come across one of the many ads for cable and satellite high-definition (HD) programming. With the cost of HD TVs slowly dropping and more manufactures entering the market, many people are faced with the decision of which HD service provider to use. Is it cable or is it satellite? Living in the Bay Area, the dominant cable provider is Comcast Cable, and Direct TV leads the satellite market. Both have been running TV ads saying that they have more HD programming than the other.

How can both of them claim that they have more HD programming? It would seem that one of them has to be lying. They can't both have more right? It turns out that because of some marketing trickery, both are actually telling the truth.

Because Direct TV utilizes satellite technology, even though I live in the Bay Area, I have access to all of their channels around the country. For instance, we get Fox Sports Net Bay Area, but I could also watch FSN Southwest (Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, New Mexico & Oklahoma) if I wanted to catch a Rockets game. Because of this, Direct TV can not only offer me the HD channels in my area, but can also offer the HD channels across the whole country. That is Direct TV's claim to having more HD channels. There are only a limited number of stations that are available in HD, but Direct TV is able to tap into those stations that offer different programming for different areas of the country (like HBO East & West).

Comcast, on the other hand, does not have that ability. They are currently limited to only the regional programming (I can only get FSN Bay Area). As I said before, there are only a limited number of stations offering HD programming, so how can they claim to have more HD channels than satellite? Well Comcast has Channel 1 On Demand that basically lets you select from a list of "channels" that have movies (and other special programs) on a continuous loop. I use the term "channel" loosely because it's not a real channel like an ABC or TNT, but it does show programming. Those types of channels are what Comcast includes in their claim of having more HD channels.

So who really has more HD programming? Comcast does have more channels that you can go to with HD programming, but Direct TV has more actual HD stations. My vote would be for Direct TV since all of their channels are legitimate. However, if you are a big movie buff, then the Comcast service might be a better deal for you. In the end, I think pricing and other additional options (like high-speed internet) will be the determining factor in which service people will choose.


Many thanks to Sol for his insights on this issue.


CORRECTION: It turns out that I would have to have NBA League Pass in order to get Rockets games in the Bay Area. Even though I can watch FSN Southwest using Direct TV, the Rockets game broadcasts would be blocked out. Thanks to Tijani for pointing out that oversight.

There Can Only Be One

I gotta say that I'm pretty impressed with the NBA's marketing approach this year. The whole Where _______ Happens campaign they've been doing throughout this season has been pretty good. They've been using it for just about everything and it's made for hilarious spoofs too.

For the playoffs, they've introduced this new campaign entitled There Can Only Be One, in which they have two superstar players side-by-side in a split screen talking about what it takes to make it through the playoffs. From a production standpoint, it's pretty tight because they have the faces aligned perfectly so that the mouths, noses, eyebrows, and even edge-ups line up. I really wonder how long it took them to actually get that final product. My guess is that they had one player do it a couple of times and then the other player emulated.

Anyway, the first one I saw was with Kobe Bryant & Shaquille O'Neal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVl09aKmsW8

The next one I saw was with Jason Kidd & Steve Nash. Is it just me or is Nash actually darker than Kidd???


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcvsi8ZBbuc

I think I may have seen this next one with Chris Paul & Dwight Howard once on TV:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWXdTpAti7o

The fourth commercial between Kevin Garnett and LeBron James, I actually hadn't seen before on TV:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k-pNx3hynY

So which one of these 8 players will actually be hoisting the championship trophy in late June? Well it's definitely not looking like Shaq since he and the Phoenix Suns are down 3-0. According to Dr. Hoops' predictions, the Big Ticket will be rocking the ring this summer. I guess we shall see...

---

Update #1: The NBA has just started a user-submission component of this campaign. Fans can now download official NBA player faces and create their own split-screen compilation. As I said before, the NBA's marketing campaign this year was on point. This is just another way to get the fans more engaged with the league. With numerous roll-the-dice trades during the regular season, a speculated close MVP race, and a super-competitive NBA playoffs, the NBA is doing very well this year.

---

Update #2: Time Magazine will use the NBA's split-screen concept with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the cover of their upcoming May 5, 2008 issue about the 2008 U.S. Democratic race:



Kinda creepy if you ask me...

---

Update #3: Saturday Night Live took the Time Magazine cover even further and did a hilarious spoof:

Community Service Opportunity

If you're going to be in the Bay Area this weekend, there's an excellent community service opportunity in which you can participate. 2nd Mile is teaming up with my church, Abundant Life Christian Fellowship, to complete two construction projects benefiting youth programs in East Palo Alto on April 25th - 27th. Everyone is welcome - old, young, skilled, unskilled, and everywhere in between.

Project #1: Young Life & For Youth By Youth Program Facilities

Projects include:

• Construction of new 1,000 sq. foot building for art & music programs
• Electrical wiring & cabling
• Painting & landscaping
• Renovations to existing home

Project #2: Bayshore Christian Ministries Staff & Intern Housing

Projects include:

• Roof replacement
• New flooring
• Bathroom renovations
• Landscape improvements

The available shifts are today, Friday, April 25th from 12PM - 8PM, Saturday, April 26th from 8AM - 8PM, and Sunday, April 27th from 8AM - 6PM. For more information or to volunteer, you can contact Trent Wiesen at trentwiesen@gmail.com or visit www.2ndmile.cc.

Going the extra mile for others because that is what He did for us!

Clinton - Selfish or Selfless?

The "tide is turning" according to Hillary Clinton in her post-Pennsylvania Primary speech where she won the Democratic Presidential Primary race against Senator Barack Obama by what many call a significant margin. And it was significant. Her win by approximately 10 points was more than enough to convince many that she is still in the race and should not be discounted. It was certainly enough to silence (but not switch teams) even more superdelegates from proclaiming that they would back Obama in the 'final count'. And it should be more than enough to convince you members of Gobama to DO MORE as a supporter of Obama or prompt you to put tape over your mouth until he seals the deal.

Clinton is doing nothing less than what anyone else in her position would do. She is doing her part as a fierce competitor in a race where she is convinced she is the best person for the job. She hasn't given up on our country or lost her faith that she could still win this. While I hear many bicker and complain about how she should just "give up" and throw in the towel, I really must ask the question, WHY? When you run track, do you give up in the race when you are losing? NO! You keep running. If you are down in basketball, you don't just sit on the bench and mope, you keep playing. So in her mind, she can still get this and until she gets a huge slap-in-the-face loss, the Hil Show must go on.

~Miss Politica

Men Would Like to Know: will you marry ME?

It's a well-known fact. Men just don't understand women. We as men are partly at fault for not trying to understand sometimes, but I think women are mostly to blame. Not that it's you guys' fault, it's just that women are sooo wildly different. But that's not the purpose of this blog post, so I'll just leave it at that.

The purpose of this post is to kick-off a new series I'm calling "Men Would Like to Know". Since females are so different, all we can do is hedge our bets on the consensus response and hope for the best. So in this series I'll be asking questions that men have in order to find out what most women think. I'm also retroactively adding a couple of previous posts to the series: the name-calling post from two weeks ago and the month-old nutty buddy post. So without further ado...

---

Some people believe that the beginning of the end of a man's life begins when he gets down on one knee and asks those popular 4 words, "Will you marry me?" This is followed by him pulling out that coveted black box with a rock that she can't wait to show off to her girls (whispering: "he went to Jared..."). If all goes well, she accepts the ring & says "Yes!" (in that order), and they are officially engaged. Now, I'm here to ask if the diamond engagement ring really is necessary.

Before you get too bent out of shape, hear me out first. The engagement ring is something that guys in the Western culture give to their bride-to-be out of tradition. I don't think anybody really knows why they are doing it. And because it's tradition, women have come to expect it. But would a woman marry a man who didn't give her a ring?

Let's look at the safety issue first. Popular culture has dictated that the man is supposed to spend one to two month's salary on the ring. Depending on how he stacks his paper, that could turn into a fairly expensive ring (I can see the ladies nodding & cheesing in excitement). Now, his fiancée is walking around daily with thousands of dollars on her left ring finger. Sure that keeps (most) dudes from hollerin' at her, but what if she was robbed? That'd be the first thing the thief would go after because it's easy to conceal and easy to pawn. Even if getting robbed is an unlikely situation, think of it this way. How comfortable would a girl be walking around with the cash equivalent in her purse?

So let's say she's willing to take a shank in the abs in order to have her finger blinging like Ca$h Money, but let's say he isn't ballin'. He's not dirt poor, but dropping a few G's on a ring isn't exactly in his monthly budget. Now if they are talking about marriage, it's safe to assume that she knows about his current financial state. It's likely that in order to get his honeydip that ring she desires, he'll have to incur some appreciable debt. I'd say if a girl is willing to let her man go into debt just for a diamond on her finger, her head isn't in the right place. To me, that sets a materialistic precedent that can be difficult to break. Moreover, what she's failing to realize is that once they are married, what was once his debt becomes their debt. Is starting of the marriage in debt worth it?

Let's flip the script and say that dude has money and has been living rather comfortably as a bachelor (no he's not the Black Bill Gates). Two month's salary for him is going to be a decent snack for his little bunny rabbit. But what if instead he'd rather spend that $15k on a tighter wedding (more guests, better food at the reception, etc.), on a longer & more romantic honeymoon, or towards their new life together (nice lil' down payment on a house)? In all those cases, more than just the fiancée is benefiting. Isn't that better than just her being iced out?

There are other issues, such as the likelihood of her misplacing the ring or the fact that it seems as if he's buying her love ("it's a symbol of our love!"), but those are minor and I don't really want to get into them.

So ladies, what do you think? Would you say "yes" to your man if he didn't have the little black box in tow? Would you walk down the isle with your beau if you had never felt carat weight on your left ring finger? Men would like to know...

Feel free to leave your comments as well as fill out the poll on the right-hand side of the blog. Fellas, if you have any questions you'd like me to ask in this series, hit me up at ben@benmvp.com.

Update: You gotta watch this engagement prank. It's simply hilarious. This guy set up his best friend by putting up a fake marriage proposal from his friend while his friend's girlfriend was there. She actually said "yes" before the friend could explain he had nothing to do with it...

Update #2: Check out the imported facebook note version of this blog entry for many more comments on this topic.

Earth Day!

Today, April 22nd, is the day where we're supposed to help the Earth out by taking the train to work or only eating out of reusable/recyclable containers (among other things). Unfortunately I had to go into work today or I would have worked from home in order to save the world from 30 minutes of my exhaust (and save me 30 minutes of gas).

We really do need to do something about this global warming problem because it's getting quite crazy. A week ago it was in the mid-80s here in the Bay Area and I was afraid of what the summer was going to be like if it was already that hot. A couple of days later the temperature dipped like 20 degrees. The last couple of nights I've been contemplating turning on my space heater because it's still 40 degrees and it's only 10 days before the beginning of May.

If you're interested in advertising your love for the earth, ZAZZLE has a lot of options for you. Checkout ZAZZLE's collection of organic t-shirts for men and women as the ZAZZLE Earth Center. ZAZZLE also has an exclusive limited edition edun LIVE t-shirt that is only available until the end of this month. Get it now before you have to pay twice as much on eBay to get this collector's item.

I recycle Girlfriends T-shirt / Earth Day T-shirt
by earthday

Down with Facebook Ads!

Three weeks ago, I wrote a blog post lamenting the fact that I was being bombarded with Gayborhood.tv ads on facebook. I commented that prior to my 40-day Lenten fast from facebook, I didn't see any of those types of ads, but when I came back, it was literally being thrown in my face. I suggested that facebook was getting desperate for advertising revenue and thus allowed these new types of ads in the name of money.

Well I am pleased to say that since then the Gayborhood.tv ads have stopped, but rather unpleased to report that they have been replaced by many, many more ugly stepchildren. It's as if 100 gay website owners were on facebook and were like "oh snap, we can advertise like this on facebook now?!?! Let's go, let's go!"

I came across this blog post that talks about why we are seeing "these" types of facebook ads. It pretty much is inline with what I had guessed. Basically these ads are part of Facebook Social Ads that let individual users set up advertisements targeted at a specific audience. Social Ads lets the advertiser target based on location, gender, age, education, work history, relationship status, and keywords in descriptive fields like interests, music, movies, etc. What you'll notice missing is the ability to target on "Interested In." Since there is no way for the advertisers to target men interested in other men, they just target all men. I guess it allows them to also market to those closet or curious dudes, but it seriously annoys guys like me, which is definitely not cool.

So how do you get those ads to stop? Well you can change your facebook profile so that your gender is no longer listed. All of my female friends have told me that they haven't seen any of these ads. But that's whack and I shouldn't have to do that. My boy Tijani (a.k.a. "Dr. Hoops") has actually started reporting the ads as offensive or containing pornography. At first I thought this was just funny, but he actually might have a case for doing so. Rule #6 in facebook's Advertising Guidelines says:

Language and image content

• Provocative images will not be accepted.
• Ads may not contain, facilitate or promote adult content, including nudity, sexual terms and/or images of people in positions or activities that are excessively suggestive or sexual.
• Ads may not contain, facilitate or promote offensive, profane, vulgar, obscene, or inappropriate language.
• Ads may not contain, facilitate or promote defamatory, libelous, slanderous and/or unlawful content.

Seems to me that two topless dudes hugged up on each other with one's chin on the other's shoulder is a position that is "excessively suggestive or sexual." It seems that facebook has gone lax in adhering to its guidelines. A few months ago, my boy Sol wanted to advertise a shirt that he had created on ZAZZLE that featured a female model wearing his design on a spaghetti strap shirt with her finger in her mouth. If facebook's gonna reject that ad as being "too suggestive," then these new ads definitely need to be taken down as well.

So until facebook improves its advertising system and/or removes "those" types of ads, you can click on "More Ads" to go to the Facebook Ad Board and report the inappropriate ads. Maybe if they get enough reports, they'll get the message. Honestly, I really don't want to see those "Hot & Sexy Single Ladies are waiting for you!" ads either, but at least those have women in them. It's getting to the point where I don't even pay attention to the ads at all.

Single-ish
by Solamente

Mother's Day on ZAZZLE!

Better than freshly baked cookies! Create and shop for the very best in personalized t-shirts, cards, postage, mugs and more for a perfect Mother's Day gift and receive free shipping on orders of $75 or more! Enter MOMDAYZAZZLE in the shopping cart when you are ready to order. Don't delay, the free shipping offer ends May 6th.

ZAZZLE has a bunch of great products to choose from. Or if you're really artistic, you can create your own. Here are a few ones that I like:

Shiney Mom with Hearts Mug
by mrssocolov

MOM
by rdwnggrl

I Love My Mom Mother's Day Ringer Mug
by koncepts

Happy Mother's Day Greeting Card
by SBCSTUDIO

Fry that chicken!

I don't know how long this has been around for, but Popeyes' website allows you to not only search for store locations near you, but also print out coupons for that location. No longer do you have to hope and pray (like some people I know) to get a Popeyes coupon in midst of all that junk mail. At anytime you can just log on to the website and print out a coupon. The best thing about it is that you're not just limited to one coupon. Not limiting chicken intake is always a good thing.

And for your viewing pleasure...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDsHp3K1ZBg

"You hear me?" Just sad. If I were one of those kids, I'd be disappointed in my parents for letting me do that in about 6.5 years.

Fried Chicken, Yum!
by annienbart

Entire NBA Playoff Predictions

Who will be holding the trophy like the man above? Detailed analysis will come before these series start. I just want to get my predictions on record.

Conference Semis

EAST

1. Celtics vs 4. Cavs

I expect a highly entertaining series but the Celts are too dominant. Celtics in 6

2. Pistons vs 6. Raptors

The Raptors ain't ready for the big boys. Pistons win easily. Pistons in 5

WEST

1. Lakers vs 4. Jazz

Should be a high scoring well played series. The Lakers are better so they win lol. Lakers in 7

6. Suns vs 7. Mavs

Another great match-up. No way the Mavs can handle Shaq and STAT. Suns in 6

---

Conference Finals

EAST

1. Celtics vs 2. Pistons

The Eastern showdown everyone has been waiting for. This is a tough call for me but Celtics in 6

WEST

1. Lakers vs 6. Suns

Kobe vs Shaq! Kobe vs Shaq! Kobe vs Shaq! MOST HYPED CONFERENCE FINALS EVER! Kobe vs Shaq! lol Lakers in 7

---

Finals

1. Celtics vs 1. Lakers

The two most storied NBA franchises face off in the finals for the first time in over 20 years. Does KG finally win a ring? Does Kobe win a ring without Shaq? As much as it pains me to say Celtics in 6

Dr. Hoops

My block is hot!

So I was walking down the sidewalk to my car this morning to go into work and I saw a grip of police vehicles in front of this apartment complex next door to mine. There had to have been at least 7 vehicles there. I know I saw a couple of SVUs and even a motorcycle. Unfortunately for me, I parked on the street right in front of where all the action was, so I actually had to walk towards the cops.

As I approached the scene, I saw like 10 cops walking in and out of this one apartment. After moving a couple of steps closer, I saw one of the officers walking around with a semi-automatic weapon! He was wielding it like it was nothing. I don't think I've ever seen one that close.

So one of the cops closest to the sidewalk saw me walking by and asked how I was doing. I responded, "I'm fine, how are YOU doing?" He said something to the effect of "I'm alright. It's just one of those days. People just don't know how to act." As I surveyed the area, I saw a woman talking to a few officers off to the side. My initial suspicion was that there was some kind of domestic disturbance. And since one of the cops had a semi-auto, I'm guessing someone had a deadly weapon in the altercation.

My interest was piqued and I wanted to ask the officer what happened, but my better judgment kicked in and told me that it'd be best to not hang around. I should hop into my car and bounce. I didn't want to risk her looking at me, saying "There he is! That's him! I told you he was between 5'5" and 6'4" with a extremely swole build!" Then I'd find myself face down on the concrete and probably missing a day of work.

The unnerving thing is that nothing like this has ever happened on our street. It's generally quiet and safe. That sort of stuff happens on the other side of the neighborhood (the Eastside). I just hope when I get home tonight I won't have to walk around a makeshift memorial...

Can I get $10 on pump #4?

So fellas, do you remember back in the day when you would take a date out to the movies, and you'd ask your parents for $20 - ten bucks for the movie tickets, and the rest to put some gas in the tank? Ladies, remember when you'd have $50 and you didn't have to calculate precisely how many gallons of gas you'd need to get to and from the beauty shop so that you'd have enough money left over to get more than just a trim of those pesky split-ends?

Seems like a really long time ago huh? That's cuz it has been! I remember when giving the gas attendant a $5 bill wouldn't get you laughed at, and $5 gas could last you a couple of days. Now, $5 might not be enough to get you to work. Shoot, I remember when I bought my first whip, I used to "splurge" on Plus gasoline because I wanted to treat my baby nice. But not anymore. She'll have to make do with good ol' Regular.

Gas is off the chain. Plain and simple. I just spent $56.77 putting nearly 15 gallons of gas in my car yesterday morning. Regular unleaded is $3.85 now by my house in Sunnyvale and it's not even summer yet. It'll definitely hit $4/gal before then. I'm sure it's already $4 in places like Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton. And to think, in 2001 when I had my first car in Houston, I was spending around $1.25 on gas. Now I'm spending more than 3 times that amount and its only 7 years later.

What really makes me mad is that while we are nearing $4/gal, the oil companies are making record profits! The five biggest U.S. oil companies, Exxon Mobil, Shell Oil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP America, made $123 billion in profits last year. They recently met with Congress to argue for why they should continue to receive their tax breaks. I didn't even know they were receiving tax breaks. What do they need tax breaks for when they have over $120 billion in profits? And they have the nerve to claim that if they get taxed more, their renewable energy research, which is already severely underfunded to begin with, will have even less money. Man I can almost guarantee that if they invested even half of those billions o' profits into renewable energy research, they'd come up with something very substantial.

I'm not an economist or a politician, so I won't begin to suggest what the government should do, but something has to be done. This is getting out of hand. In fact, it has already gotten out of hand. It's just getting further and further out of hand. And there's nothing we can do about it cuz we're just way too dependent on oil. It's not like I'm gonna stop going to work. The $600 from the economic stimulus package will help, but that'll cover like 9 fill-ups. That won't last me through the summer and beyond. I guess I'm going to have to cop this crazy new hybrid motorcycle car or even worse move to New York City where I can take the subway everywhere, so I wouldn't even need a car.

If you've got time, check out this funny story about a Wilmington, NC gas station that last week accidentally set the price of premium gas at one pump to 35 cents instead of $3.35 and it caused such a traffic backup that the cops were called in. Hilarious.

Oh and if you want to know where to find the cheapest gas is in your area, holla at GasBuddy.com.

Bend Over
by classictshirts

The NBA Playoffs are Here!

I'll save the best for last, so I'll start with the East.

THE EAST

1. Boston Celtics (66-16, +10.3 pts) vs 8. Atlanta Hawks (37-45, -1.8 pts)
season series: 3-0 Boston

I know the 1-8 upsets are possible (as evidenced by the Warriors last year), but the Hawks absolutely have no chance. The Celtics won the season series 3-0 with all victories coming by double digits. The Celtics play the best defense in the league, and while the Hawks have been better offensively since the trade for Bibby, they are still not an elite offensive team. The Celtics have the two best players in the series in KG and Paul "The Truth" Pierce, but there is an outside chance Joe Johnson, Bibby, Josh Smith and of course Josh Childress could steal a game, but I don't think so. Celtics in 4

4. Cleveland Cavaliers (45-37, -0.4) vs 5. Washington Wizards (43-39, -0.3)
season series: tied 2-2

This is easily the most interesting Eastern Conference 1st round series. The Cavs have knocked out the Wizards in the first round the past two years. Two years ago in 6 games when the Wizards were healthy but couldn't guard LeBron, and last year in 4 games when Arenas and Caron were hurt. The Wizards have been integrating Hibachi back into the lineup pretty well and the Cavs have been middling since the trade for Big Ben, Wally, and Delonte West. This is a very tough call. On paper the Wizards look better but I still don't trust their defense (19th in OPP FG%) and LeBron is simply a step (maybe even two) above Gilbert, Caron, or Jamison. I also don't think it was wise for Deshawn Stevenson to call LeBron overrated or for Gilbert to call out the entire Cavs team. Homecourt advantage is crucial and LeBron averages at least 30, 8, and 8 in this series. Cavs in 7

2. Detroit Pistons (59-23, +7.4) vs 7. Philadelphia 76ers (40-42, +0.4)
season series: tied 2-2

This series is not interesting at all to me. Philly is a nice little story as most people expected them to be in the lottery this year, but they're still not very good. If I can cross up Dalembert (true story) imagine what Billups and Co. are going to do hahaha. But seriously the Pistons are clearly the better team in every conceivable way. The Zoo Crew (their young players they bring off the bench) has been killin' recently, so their starters are going to be rested too. Philly will be competitive in some of the games and I think they might be able to steal one. Pistons in 5

3. Orlando Magic (52-30, +5.5) vs 6. Toronto Raptors (41-41, +2.9)
season series: Orlando 2-1

This series has the potential to be very entertaining. Dwight Howard and Chris Bosh are some of the best big men the East has to offer. Both teams can score a lot of points by going inside to their big men and also outside to their shooters. Although Toronto hasn't played great down the stretch, I believe momentum going into the playoffs is overrated. Toronto clearly has the better point guards - Ford and Calderon vs Nelson, Arroyo, and Dooling. That along with Howard's inability to create his own shot consistently will be the downfall of the Magic. The Magic are not a great home team, so I expect Toronto have some success in Orlando. Raptors in 6

THE WEST

The Western teams are more evenly matched and will require some deeper analysis - brace yourself haha

1. Los Angeles Lakers (57-25, +7.3) vs 8. Denver Nuggets
season series: Los Angeles 3-0

Even if I wasn't a Laker fan, this would be the easiest Western series to pick. The Lakers are clearly the better team. Although the Nuggets average more PPG, the Lakers are arguably the better offensive team because they have a higher FG%, higher 3FG%, and higher efficiency. The defense is not even up for discussion. Lakers are 20th in PPG allowed and Denver is 29th. Lakers are 6th in FG defense and Denver is 14th. Although Denver probably has the 2nd and 3rd best players in the series (AI and Melo ,after Kobe of course), the Lakers are more diverse offensively, better defensively, and have the best player on the planet. Denver doesn't seem disciplined or mature enough to overcome those things. Because Denver is great at home and AI has a lot of heart (even though he hates practice) - Lakers in 5

4. Utah Jazz (54-28, +6.9) vs 5. Houston Rockets (55-27, +4.7)
season series: Utah 2-1

This is a rematch of last year's 1st round series. Just like last year, Utah is the 4 and Houston is the 5 but with homecourt advantage. But Houston is missing Yao even though they have had a record streak this year. Utah is better than what it was last year with the addition of Ashton Kutcher, uhh I mean Kyle Korver. Houston w/o Yao is better defensively (because Yao is slower than molasses on D), but significantly worse offensively. Players like Scola and Landry have been stepping up, but Houston is still 21st in PPG and 20th in FG%. I don't think they have enough offense to match Utah (5th in PPG and 2nd in FG%). Utah has been terrible on the road this year (17-24), so that gives Houston a solid chance but I don't think they have enough weapons to keep up. Boozer, Deron, Okur, AK-47, etc. will be too much for T-mac to overcome without Yao. T-mac gets screwed once again. Jazz in 6

2. New Orleans Hornets (56-26, +5.3) vs 7. Dallas Mavericks (51-31, +4.5)
season series: tied 2-2

Usually the 2-7 matchup is a mismatch (see Detroit-Philly above). This however is a different story. The teams split their four meetings and are pretty similar in W-L record and point differential. Also they are similar in PPG and FG%. Dallas has the slightly better FG% defense and New Orleans shoots the three better. Because the teams are so evenly matched on paper a lot is going to be decided by matchups and intangibles. Kidd can't guard Chris Paul, but in their game tonight, the Mavs found a way to get the ball out of his hands. The Hornets essentially have no playoff experience outside of Peja and they are a young team compared to the Mavs. The Mavs have seemed to regain their swagger with their trade for Jason Kidd. CP3 (legitimate MVP candidate) and David West (all-star) are sure to get theirs, but I'm not sure who else is going to step up for the Hornets (Peja is not really known to be clutch). The Mavs' offensive versatility, veteran leadership, and regained "huevos grandes" lead them to victory. Mavs in 7

3. San Antonio Spurs (56-26, +4.8) vs 6. Phoenix Suns (55-27, +5.0)
season series: Suns 3-1

Saving the best for last. Talk about a ridiculous 3-6 matchup. The teams combined for 111 wins and although San Antonio has the better seed, Phoenix has the better differential. If Ali-Foreman was dubbed the Rumble in the Jungle, I'm going to call this the Slugfest in the Southwest. Hopefully Horry doesn't go all Ronnie Lott again and ruin the integrity of the series. Thankfully, Tim Donaghy won't be on the sidelines for this one. I don't want to see players ejected and/or suspended, but it would be cool for Steve Nash to be bloodied again. Ok enough with the side stories based off last year. There are two big changes. The Suns traded Marion and Banks for the Big Catcus aka The Real Superman aka Diesel aka the Big Aristotle aka Shaquille O'neal. Many people (including myself) ripped the trade when it happened, but Shaq has seemed to find the Fountain of Youth (or Balco) in the desert. The Suns look a lot more prepared to do damage in the postseason than ever before. The other big change is that the Spurs simply haven't been as dominant as last year (highest pt differential in the league). Their veteran role players like Finley, Horry, and Barry have lost a step and are banged up. Duncan is still Duncan but he has fallen off some this year. Shaq has always bothered Duncan in the past and the Suns are 2-0 against the Spurs with Shaq. I do worry about how the Suns are going to matchup with both Parker and Manu w/o Marion, but then again the Spurs can't match up with both Shaq and Amare. I can't see Phoenix winning game 7 in San Antonio, so Suns in 6

If you don't agree with my predictions, remember I'm a doctor (at least a future one) so listen to what I say haha.

Dr. Hoops

ZAZZLE 1040EZ Discount

Fight the tax day blues with the Zazzle 1040ez discount! Now through 4/21, get all your favorite Zazzle products for 10.40% off (no W-2s, or audits required). Start shopping Zazzle now because there are no extensions on this deal!

Stanford allowing students to shack up

Stanford University is proving to be one of the most progressive universities in the country. Less than two months after announcing free tuition to students whose families earn less than $100k (free room & board is thrown in if you earn under $60k), Stanford just announced its new "gender neutral" housing pilot program. In the proposed pilot, during the upcoming '08 - '09 academic school year, 5 residences (Narnia, Terra, Castaño, Mirrielees and Rains) will allow for males and females to room together. The goal is to better serve transgender students and offer more choices to those who want to live with friends of the opposite sex.

I actually think this is a pretty cool idea. It only applies to sophomores, juniors, and seniors so you don't have to worry about freshmen wilin' out. Plus, as we all know, many people were "sneaking" into Escondido Village (EV) in pairs, pretending to be sets of homosexual couples in order for two unmarried heterosexual couples to live together. Now, if a guy and a girl want to live together, they can. And co-ed draw groups will be less likely to get screwed in the draw.

Side Note:

My friends and I got completely screwed in the draw the two times I participated in it with them. When I applied for my sophomore year housing, my draw group got a draw number of 1906 (out of 2000). But it only got worse the next year when we got a 1921. We essentially wasted two preferred years. I didn't take any chances senior year, and was an RA in Lantana.

As my boy Sol mentioned, it'd be interesting for Stanford to track sexual activity during this pilot program. This gives couples free reign to live together without the hassles of sexiling roommates, so you'd think things would be crackin' more often. I also know of many situations where one roommate's significant other essentially lived in the dorm room, so there were basically 3 people cramming into a room that could barely fit two. That's gotta pretty uncomfortable for the third wheel.

But this brings about an interesting question. If given the chance, would you actually want to live with your boyfriend or girlfriend? I mean, if things go south in the middle of Winter quarter, you're pretty much screwed right? You've got nowhere to go. In my opinion, having a boyfriend/girlfriend is already distracting enough (some say it's like adding a 5-unit class), without adding all the aches and pains of living together. Even if everything is peachy keen, I really can't see too much studying happening since they are always right there.

So I'd like to hear people's thoughts. Would you or wouldn't you live with your boyfriend or girlfriend if you had the opportunity? Feel free to leave your comments as well as fill out the poll on the right-hand side of the blog.

Update: Check out the imported facebook note version of this blog entry for more comments on the issue.

Playoffs?

With every NBA team only having 1 or 2 games left, the playoff picture is starting to become clear (at least in the East).

All the matchups are set in the Eastern Conference:

1) vs 8)
4) vs 5)
2) vs 7)
3) vs 6)

The West has cleared up some, but figuring out all the potential playoff pairings will still give you headaches.

The Lakers have clinched a top two seed and will clinch the top seed with a victory against the Kings Tuesday or a loss by the Hornets in one of their final two games (Clippers, @Mavs)

The Hornets are in 2nd, but can drop to 3rd if they lose their final two games and the Spurs beat the Jazz at home on Wednesday.

After that, stuff gets really messy. If the Jazz beat the Spurs in San Antonio on Wednesday (which they haven't done in about a million years) there is a possibility of a 4 team tie between the Jazz, Spurs, Rockets, and Suns all at 55-27. This would happen if the Rockets and Suns won on Wednesday. Based on complicated tiebreakers, the Jazz would be 3rd, Suns 4th, Rockets 5th, and Spurs 6th.

Given the opponents of the Rockets (Clippers) and Suns (Blazers) and the recent struggles of the Spurs, this crazy scenario doesn't seem too far-fetched. I say it happens.

For the 7 and 8 spots, it's simple. If Dallas wins against New Orleans or Denver loses against Memphis, then Dallas is 7th. If Dallas loses and Denver wins, then Denver is 7th.

My predicted Western Conference match-ups:

1) vs 8)
4) vs 5)
2) vs 7)
3) vs 6)

Playoff predictions to come when the match-ups are set in both conferences...

Dr. Hoops

Bring Your Guns To Work!

According to Reuters, the Florida Congress has just passed a law to allow Floridians to bring their (registered) guns to work, provided that they keep them in their car. The law can still die if Florida's governor, Charlie Crist, decides to veto it. But just from the way he looks, that doesn't seem likely.

The purpose of the law is to prevent business owners from prohibiting people from keeping their semi-automatics locked in their cars on private business property. The law actually applies not only to the business' employees, but also to customers and other individuals "invited" to the premises.

There are so many things wrong with this, I don't even know where to begin. Proponents of the measure claim that the law will provide people with additional self-protection in case of an emergency as well as uphold their Constitutional right to bear arms. First of all, I can't remember a time where I was at work, thought to myself "dang I wish I had my gat right now," and it was for self-defense purposes. Usually it's when I'm in a boring meeting or someone is getting on my nerves (not at ZAZZLE, but other places I've worked lol).

Sure there are times where people have shot up the workplace, but they are usually disgruntled workers! At least before when the boss fired someone, he could give his other employees 30 minutes to an hour to dip out before dude came back from his house with his heat. But now Florida's allowing those crazy employees to take a one minute stroll to the parking lot to get strapped up??? How much sense does that make?

Plus, what are the workers going to do if someone does come into the office spraying bullets? It's not like they are gonna run out to their car and come back doing their favorite Jack Bauer impersonation. No, if they are fortunate enough to make it to their car, they are most definitely driving home. It just seems to me that allowing guns on the premises will just increase the likelihood of office rampages and not "protect" people from them.

And of course the National Rifle Associate (NRA) is very excited about this new law. In fact, they were the ones who pushed it through Florida Congress. I bet Charlton Heston is LOL right now from the dark fiery depths of... Naw I'm not gonna even take it there. Speaking of getting shot at:

I Went Hunting With the Vice President
by irregulargoods

Anyways, in my best Hubie Brown impersonation, I'll say this. If you are a worker in Florida, you had better be kind and sweet to all of your coworkers, because you never know when that one slight or offensive comment will leave you looking like swiss cheese... I'm just sayin'...


Yup, this is the world we live in...

Dude!

I'm definitely not a fan of beer, but I really like the "Dude!" Bud Light commercials. It's definitely a great idea and the commercials are pretty funny too. Someone definitely got paid for that idea. Here was the first one that came out last October.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmFBOVZ6BLM

So apparently there was a video contest that ended in March where people could create their own "Dude!" commercials for Bud Light. The top 3 videos were to receive $5,000 and have a spot in the March Madness playoffs. I'm not sure if I saw any of the ads, but this is definitely one entry that should have made it. It could easily be a real one in my opinion...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-aR8jxO9FYI

Anyway, this commercial inspired me to create some ZAZZLE gear. I created a "Dude..." product line in my ZAZZLE store. There are 14 different styles of the same shirt design from which to choose. I think this is my favorite:

Dude... (Red)
by BeneSol

Doing the Al Bundy?

Responding to recent charges leveled against him, Nittany Lion basketball player Stanley Pringle told police he was touching his penis but was not masturbating in the Pattee Library stacks last Thursday.

When I read that first sentence in The Collegian, Penn State's independently published newspaper, I wasn't sure if I wanted to continue reading. But one of my homies sent me the article and said the rest of it was filled with comedic foolishness so I had to continue on. At first, I just thought Pringle was being falsely accused for just chillin' with his hands in his pants, Al Bundy style. In fact, he told police that he has a "bad habit of putting his hands down his pants" and that's just how he chills.

After continuing reading, however, I'm no longer sure if he was "just chillin" after all. According to the woman who witnessed the "open lewdness and disorderly conduct," Pringle sat down on top of a desk behind her. He asked her if she wanted to buy some hand lotion that the basketball team was selling. That right there is pretty sketchy to me. Why is the Penn State basketball team selling hand lotion? I don't remember the Stanford basketball team selling anything. And of all things, they're selling hand lotion??? Yea right! What really makes me really believe this wasn't legit is that The Collegian tried to talk to Sports Information Director, Brian Siegrist, and he declined comment. You'd think if they really were selling hand lotions he would have said so.

But it only gets worse. The woman told police that after about 15 minutes of chopping it up with Pringle, she heard the sound of him "adjusting his pants" followed by a "smacking sound," as if Pringle was hitting his hand against his skin. She didn't turn around to actually look at what he was doing (can you take a guess??), but she felt like she saw his hand moving back and forth from the corner of her eye.

When Pringle started making moaning sounds, she texted one of her girls to call her immediately to give her an excuse to leave the library stacks. I guess she didn't want to offend Pringle by just leaving him mid-stroke? Who knows. But as she was walking away after answering the call, she saw Pringle rubbing his hands together as if he had put lotion on them. Man, I hope it was lotion or that'd be really nasty. She also claimed to have seen him tying the drawstring of his sweatpants.

After hearing the whole story now, I'm pretty sure Pringle was involved in some sort of shady business. It seems unlikely that the chick would make it all up although the story sounds absolutely ridiculous. If it is all true, this dude definitely has issues. I can only imagine what kind of jokes fans of opposing teams will have when the Penn State Nittany Lions play on the road. But it's a good thing that she didn't fall asleep at the table while he was handling his business or she might have ended up like this very unfortunate woman.

You can thank Tijani for this one.


Yup, this is the world we live in...

Hypothetical for the ladies...

So my friends and I were arguing about how a female would react to a certain (hypothetical) situation and we couldn't come to a consensus about the issue. Before I get into the situation, I would like everyone to know that I am not the gentlemen in this situation. He is actually a friend of mine... who shall remain nameless for his benefit (and possibly his safety as well). haha. Without further ado...

So let's say my friend was watching this TV show that he watches regularly one night when his girl called him up. The show was good and it was almost over so he asked her if she could call him back in like 15 minutes (she has to call him after 10PM). She said "ok" and he went back to watching the show. She never called him back and when he hit her up the next day (when he could call her), she had an attitude. He asked her if she was mad and she responded, "I'm fine." When she still had the same sour demeanor 30 minutes later, he called her out saying, "I know you're mad about something, so why don't you just come out and say it?" She responded angrily, "I'm not mad!"

Not to get into too much detail about this (hypothetical) situation, but let's say he had been through this many times before. He knew that she was mad that he decided to finish watching his show instead of talking to her right then. At this point he was fed up and frustrated. Many things were running through his head, and there were two things he was thinking of saying to her:

1. "Man, I'm tired of you acting like a such a b!@$#!"
2. "Man, I'm tired of you acting like a such a female!"

He's no dummy and knew saying that wouldn't be a good idea and that she'd drop bombs on him like she were George W. Bush, so he didn't actually say it. But when he told us about it, we got to wondering. We were curious as to which one of those responses would actually be worse to say to a woman. At first we all just assumed it'd be the b-word because... well, it's the b-word and you just don't call women that. But upon further review, some of us were thinking that actually saying she was "acting like such a female" might be worse because it could potentially have more long term effects. The explanation being that if he calls her the b-word, she'd get heated, but the heatedness would most likely be short-lived. However, if he says she's "acting like such a female," there are all sorts of hidden implications in that statement. Not only is he displeased with her current attitude, but he's saying that her attitude is typical illogical female behavior. That's like a double bang (or in latin bangumums dooblay). I won't go into any more detail because I would like to have a wife someday...

But anyway, we're curious to hear what the ladies think. Not that we would ever even think of saying either of those two statements, but we are still curious as to what women think. So ladies, if you have an opinion either way, please feel free to share your thoughts. Thank you.

lol

Update: Check out the imported facebook note version of this blog entry for more comments on the issue.

Trent Johnson planning to dip to LSU

ESPN.com is reporting that Stanford basketball coach Trent Johnson has verbally agreed to be the new coach of LSU after a tenuous 4 years at Stanford. Coach Johnson got his first tournament wins with the Cardinal this season when the team made it to the Sweet 16 for the first time since 2001. The tournament wasn't so sweet after they lost to the Texas Longhorns, 82-62. Johnson has one more year remaining on a 5-year contract.

Well, I can't say that I'm really surprised about this. At the end of every season it seemed like he was always in danger of getting fired after quick exits from the NCAA tournament. Plus LSU can offer Johnson double what he's making currently at Stanford. Given a much higher salary, the stringent restrictions on the types of players he can recruit to Stanford, the high bar for academic eligibility, the Lopez twins leaving the program for the NBA, and that Stanford athletic director Bob Bowlsby didn't seem like he wanted to keep Johnson around for the long haul (his contract still hadn't been renewed), leaving seemed like the sensible thing for him to do. I definitely can't blame him for making that gwap. haha

I'm just mad because his timing definitely screws us over. I mean, ex-Stanford coach Mike Montgomery just accepted the job over at rival Cal. I'm sure Monty would have much rather come back to coach the Cardinal than the Bears. He had been some sort of consultant/liaison for Stanford the past couple of years too. Moreover, the team is right in the middle of recruiting season. In fact, Stanford had a recruit, Ryan Kelly, from North Carolina who was scheduled to fly out to the Bay Area today with his parents for an unofficial visit. Scout.com reported that once he heard about Trent Johnson leaving Stanford, he and his folks turned right around and went back home. They didn't even get on the plane and just canceled the whole trip! Bowlsby needs to find a replacement quick before more recruits follow suit.

It seemed like Coach Montgomery would have been the perfect guy for the job. Is there anyway he can back out of his deal with Cal? Sure it'll be much easier to recruit and keep players academically eligible at Cal, but he has such an affinity with Stanford that I think he'd be willing to deal with all the extra hassles that come with being a Stanford coach. I mean he dealt with it just fine for 18 years before leaving for the Golden State Warriors right?

I'm afraid that Stanford's going to have a tough time even keeping the next coach they hire because those hassles will still be there. I'm not sure if this is true, but I heard that Stanford cannot pay its coaches more than the highest-paid professor. It's in the bylaws or something like that. So unless one of the professors discovers the cure for AIDS, it's unlikely that the coaches will be paid significantly more in the future. They're going to need someone who both loves the school and has enough money where it's a non issue.

An already difficult next year for the Stanford program is looking even more rough...

Don't crucify Jeremiah Wright just yet...

I don't write about politics often (unless it's a politician getting himself/herself) because frankly I don't know too much about it. I don't follow politics in depth enough to be able to analyze or critique. However, Tijani sent me this article from last Thursday's Chicago Tribune that I found pretty interesting and insightful. It's about Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and how the media has criticized and condemned the comments he made in a couple of sermons, but has failed to acknowledge his six years of service in the U.S. military. My dad actually attends Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, IL (where Rev. Wright is senior pastor) and was telling me that news cameras have been posted outside the church every Sunday since the comments were released. Churchgoers can't even attend service in peace. Now I definitely agree that some of his comments were inappropriate and better left unsaid, but they are portraying him to be unpatriotic, which appears to be far from the case. In any event, I've included the article below:

---

Factor military duty into criticism

By Lawrence Korb and Ian Moss

April 3, 2008

In 1961, a young African-American man, after hearing President John F. Kennedy's challenge to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the Marines.

In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.)

The man did so well in corpsman school that he was the valedictorian and became a cardiopulmonary technician. Not surprisingly, he was assigned to the Navy's premier medical facility, Bethesda Naval Hospital, as a member of the commander in chief's medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon B. Johnson after his 1966 surgery. For his service on the team, which he left in 1967, the White House awarded him three letters of commendation.

What is even more remarkable is that this man entered the Marines and Navy not many years after the two branches began to become integrated.

While this young man was serving six years on active duty, Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as the Marine/sailor, received five deferments, four for being an undergraduate and graduate student and one for being a prospective father. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger than the African-American youth, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968. Both then avoided going on active duty through family connections.

Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country?

After leaving the service of his country, the young African-American finished his final year of college, entered the seminary, was ordained as a minister, and eventually became pastor of a large church in one of America's biggest cities.

This man is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the retiring pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, who has been in the news for comments he made over the last three decades.

Since these comments became public we have heard criticisms, condemnations, denouncements and rejections of his comments and him.

We've seen on television, in a seemingly endless loop, sound bites of a select few of Rev. Wright's many sermons.

Some of the Wright's comments are inexcusable and inappropriate and should be condemned, but in calling him "unpatriotic," let us not forget that this is a man who gave up six of the most productive years of his life to serve his country.

How many of Wright's detractors, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly to name but a few, volunteered for service, and did so under the often tumultuous circumstances of a newly integrated armed forces and a society in the midst of a civil rights struggle? Not many.

While words do count, so do actions.

Let us not forget that, for whatever Rev. Wright may have said over the last 30 years, he has demonstrated his patriotism.