5.15.2009

We Touch Your Ears (Podcast #55)

md_4226_Image_03080027

This was recorded Tuesday night, but its apocalyptic reachings are probably the sort of thing that benefit from being found in a clay pot several thousand years after the fact. Also, I've been a little busy with my new joint, The Baseline, which more than warrants your attention. At least this harried state of things prompted the following hilarious line from Dan: "'Blame it on the Baseline' sounds like an Eric B and Rakim record."

But now you have it before you, and it's a good one. We look for the future, ponder the interchangability of point guards and centers, say "ball-stopping" dozens of times without giggling, and discover the science of the Ewing Theory. We also manage to make the unflappable Tom Ziller misty by taking a trip deep into the collective Kings memory we all share.

THE PODCAST:



Playlist:

"Hanging By a Thread"- The Forty-Fives
"Drizzle" - Burd Early
"Ride Tonight" - Z-Ro
"Terminator X" - Public Enemy
"Down South Blues" - by Old Crow Medicine Show

For other means of obtaining this program, try iTunes and the XML feed.

Labels: , , , , , ,

17 Comments:

At 5/15/2009 3:22 PM, Blogger The Secretary said...

Is the "smart money" still on the Lakers? FD ♥♥♥ the Lakers.

 
At 5/15/2009 3:28 PM, Blogger Bethlehem Shoals said...

we gay them in the butt.

On this series? Yes. I'd like to see you, or anyone, bet against them. The championship? Maybe you should read a little post I wrote on this very subject:

REMEMBER THE CELTICS

 
At 5/15/2009 3:47 PM, Blogger The Secretary said...

Touchy.

I read the little post on this very subject. And you're totally right. Doubting the Lakers is a predictable and boring cliche: it should not be done! We need to find a third way to understand our Lakers, "we have no choice but to find new language for praising them."

Go Kobe forever!

 
At 5/15/2009 3:49 PM, Blogger Bethlehem Shoals said...

By "them," I meant "championship teams that don't sweep their way to a title."

The point: Sure, doubt the Lakers. You should; this shit is stupid. But that doesn't mean it has anything to do with the next round.

 
At 5/15/2009 3:57 PM, Blogger The Secretary said...

I knew you would say that, and I won't bore you with further comments, but the point of your article is as follows: people should not bail on the Lakers simply because they are having trouble with the Rockets. They may well rise again, stronger, faster, better, more Kobelicious. See, e.g., Celtics 2008.

The article's ostensibly about "champions that struggle to get to the promise land" (NOT a cliche) but it's specifically about the Lakers. My take-away: don't stop believing.

< / hatearade >

 
At 5/15/2009 4:04 PM, Blogger Bethlehem Shoals said...

IT WAS ABOUT HOW A TEAM WINNING A CHAMPIONSHIP FORCES US TO VIEW WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THEM IN THE PLAYOFFS IN A FAVORABLE LIGHT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT MIGHT HAVE NOT SEEMED THAT WAY AT THE TIME. AND HOW LIKELY IT IS THAT THERE WILL HAVE BEEN TIMES WHEN WE SAID "THEY SUCK."

/punches something

 
At 5/15/2009 4:11 PM, Blogger The Secretary said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intentionality

 
At 5/15/2009 4:35 PM, Blogger DJ Slick Watts said...

Malcolm Gladwell is sitting behind me in the coffee shop (in New Orleans). Should I write out the rosters for the 1996 Kentucky, UMass, and Syracuse (the 2 UK beat in the Final 4) basketball teams, to illustrate how much NBA-level Goliathish talent Rick Pitino was working with?

By the way, posting a wikipedia link to (I can only assume) Barthes and Foucault is fucking hilarious.

wv: repiggz. Oliver Miller is making a comeback.

 
At 5/15/2009 4:44 PM, Blogger Bethlehem Shoals said...

Tell him I said what's up.

 
At 5/15/2009 11:02 PM, Blogger Rebar said...

is it just me or has denver not only had the toughest two draws in the playoffs, but has also played them the best? think about it. NO is very likely better in 7 games than utah, detroit, or chicago, only houston had a tougher draw in portland. And then in the second round, the Nuggs play Dallas, which is definitely better than the hawks, and arguably competitive (especially with nova Dirk) with Orlando, Boston, and Houston. Both of those teams were dispatched in 5 games. Only the Lebrons have played less basketball, and against two teams several degrees worse than both of those the Nuggers faced. If Melo beats Bron in the finals, then the Nuggets were flat dominant this year. If Bron beats Melo, it's because the Cavs were destined and pulverized everyone. This could be a very fucking climactic and ridiculous finals.

Nobody would say those two teams didn't earn it, but I think its interesting to juxtapose them with the Lakers and Celtics, two teams who have struggled more and more, and the two teams who could be likely conference finals foes. And on the Lakers, if they win, does beating an 8th seed and 5th seed in 12 total games mean more than beating a 7th seed and a very good 6th seed (taking over the functional 3 seed) in 10? To me, no.

wv odslama: sean hannity has a stroke and slurs the President's name on live TV

 
At 5/15/2009 11:02 PM, Blogger Rebar said...

is it just me or has denver not only had the toughest two draws in the playoffs, but has also played them the best? think about it. NO is very likely better in 7 games than utah, detroit, or chicago, only houston had a tougher draw in portland. And then in the second round, the Nuggs play Dallas, which is definitely better than the hawks, and arguably competitive (especially with nova Dirk) with Orlando, Boston, and Houston. Both of those teams were dispatched in 5 games. Only the Lebrons have played less basketball, and against two teams several degrees worse than both of those the Nuggers faced. If Melo beats Bron in the finals, then the Nuggets were flat dominant this year. If Bron beats Melo, it's because the Cavs were destined and pulverized everyone. This could be a very fucking climactic and ridiculous finals.

Nobody would say those two teams didn't earn it, but I think its interesting to juxtapose them with the Lakers and Celtics, two teams who have struggled more and more, and the two teams who could be likely conference finals foes. And on the Lakers, if they win, does beating an 8th seed and 5th seed in 12 total games mean more than beating a 7th seed and a very good 6th seed (taking over the functional 3 seed) in 10? To me, no.

wv odslama: sean hannity has a stroke and slurs the President's name on live TV

 
At 5/17/2009 2:06 AM, Blogger Admiral Jameson Sax said...

Just finished Kobe: Doin' Work. Has sort of a Soviet-era propaganda feel to it.

 
At 5/17/2009 5:06 AM, Blogger Alexander J said...

'By the way, posting a wikipedia link to (I can only assume) Barthes and Foucault is fucking hilarious.

wv: repiggz. Oliver Miller is making a comeback.'

Huzza to that, also forget Oliver Miller; Oliver Platt was doing halftime trampoline dunks in my dreams last night.

Remember when Malik Hairston was considered the elite player on Oregon for several years? Interesting to see that Pac-10 has a way of making future NBA rotation guys/stars look human; well, this logic definitely applies to B Roy, I want to see how the rookie years of Jordan Hill, James Harden and others coming out of that conference go.

 
At 5/17/2009 12:58 PM, Blogger DJ Slick Watts said...

I have been thinking a similar thing about Pac-10 basketball (and wondering, in particular, what Aaron Brooks means for Jerome Randle--probably nothing. Go Bears.) while watching Brooks and Farmar. Because was there anyone who thought Brooks was the better player when they were at UO and UCLA? But here we are.

 
At 5/18/2009 3:38 AM, Blogger Alexander J said...

DJ SLICK WATSS: Yeah yeah!

From Stanley Fish's blog on the NYT website, FreeDarko butterfly effect; "But suppose, you think (in the manner of Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault) that the idea of the individual author is a myth that emerges alongside the valorization of property and property rights so central to Enlightenment thought? Suppose you believe that the so-called author is not the source of the words to which he signs his name, but is instead merely a site transversed by meanings neither he nor any other so-called “individual” originates? (“Writing,” says Barthes, “is the destruction of every voice, of every point of origin.”)"

 
At 5/18/2009 1:41 PM, Blogger The Secretary said...

Sorry everybody for posting a link to Wikipedia. Everyone knows it's totally unreliable! LOL.

Next time, I'll UPS highlighted copies of S/Z to everyone!

 
At 5/18/2009 3:13 PM, Blogger DJ Slick Watts said...

OK OK, sorry for being a snob about Wikipedia. Teach undergraduates sometime and see how you end up feeling about it.

Plus I think you really wanted Stanley Cavell there, since the Foucauldian author-function that=Shoals is not really identifiable in the sentiment "don't stop believing [presumably in LAL]," but still, we must mean what we say.

Knowing is knowledge.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home