The Truth About Obamacare

Motown Marxist, hope you aren't offended....Also, I'm putting aside my own views here and attempting to lay this out as objectively as possible.

By now you are probably already sick to your stomach hearing people get all melodramatic over the recent SCOTUS decision on "Obamacare". The truth is that this ruling doesn't mean anything has been decided and it will take years for all of this to play out. Johnny Bagels has commented that people don't even want to have a logical argument about what we should do but instead want to cry and cheer like they are watching a Yankees-Red Sox game. I agree, enough with all of that, it's time to boil this down to the fundamental question we need to answer as a society:

"How do we handle poor (sometimes because they are lazy) people who show up sick and don't have money or insurance". The way I see it, we have three choices.

A) If they have no money or insurance, they are denied medical care unless a doctor decides to provide services for free. If they happen to end up dying, we have to accept that.
B) Even though it sucks and isn't fair we pool resources and extend health care benefits to everyone....including lazy slobs who smoke crack
C) Provide a very basic crappy level of health care to poor people so we don't feel too bad..basically what we do now.

None of these options are great, but logically these are the choices since healthcare isn't free and there will always be people who are in the gutter with no money and no insurance. It would be interesting to see what would happen if we had an open vote on these choices. Instead we can continue to hear annoying diatribes that make this into an emotional issue rather than an important logical decision for society.

A PTU Salute to WFAN

The idea that there was ever a time without sports radio is crazy to most of us. For as long as any of us at PTU can remember, 660 on the AM dial has been nothing but middle aged men yakking about New York sports. Any extended trip in a car with your father or a stop in a pizzeria for a slice was accompanied by a WFAN host arguing with a caller. You had Steve Somers and his creepy uncle vibe late afternoons with Russ Salzberg (who would later take his sweaters to UPN/My9 News), Bill "you had no idea I was black until I worked on MSG" Daughtry in the evenings, Mike and the Mad Dog all the damn afternoon along with John Minko and 20/20 sports updates and Don Imus before the world hated him and his cowboy hat in the morning. World spanning NBC sports anchor Len Berman was an original host, as was HBO boxing guy Jim Lampley and Greg Gumbel. Mike Breen and Clyde Frazier did the Knicks games (one a national announcer now and the other the coolest man in the world), and of course the Fan has been the home of the Mets for decades now (Let's go Mets! F.A.N.) It all seems commonplace now but in the late 80s it was revolutionary. Today, it's a formula that's been replicated all over the country. Two assholes sit in a studio for 4 hours taking calls like this:


Host: Vinnie in Bayside on the line, how ya doin Vinnie?

Vinnie: How ya doin, Mike? First time, long time. I wanna talk about the Mets.

It's really simple but that kind of exchange didn't exist until July 1st, 1987. Now you have nationally syndicated shows, and every city has at least one station dedicated to talking about their sports teams. Sports fans are almost all obsessive, and we don't go a day without talking about some type of sport for at least a couple minutes, be it on e-mail, text, social media or even sometimes in person. Blogs like this wouldn't exist without people's insatiable appetites for all things sports (ok this blog would probably still exist) but it's hard to fathom that there was ever a period in this country during which people thought there wouldn't be a market for that kind of stuff. For better or worse (probably for better), WFAN blazed the trail for the round the clock sports culture. A lot of the voices have changed but it's still the same basic format and Vinnie is still mad at the Mets. I'm going to get a slice of pizza this weekend and listen to the bickering.

Top 5 Hottest Female Athletes

You may have heard the saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", probably as some ugly person's Facebook status. That's true, as one person's "hottest girl ever" is another's "fat, plastic cow" (often known as the Kim Kardashian theory). Even more important than the beholder, though, is the setting that the person is placed. For example, that one girl in your office who everyone drools over wouldn't get a second look walking through Manhattan. She's "office hot". This phenomenon translates to the world of sports as well. It's a well known fact that most female athletes at the professional (or at least televised) level are testosterone packed freaks of nature, and are decidedly unhot. Any woman who doesn't look like Jim Carrey's amazon character on In Living Color is suddenly deemed "so hot!" by us horny male viewers. You're going to see a prime example of this over the next couple months as we'll be forced to hear how ridiculously hot Lolo Jones is, the 29 year old virgin Olympic athlete, who is basically the definition of "athlete hot". She's built like Michael Johnson but does have some pretty eyes. Still, she's already reached over rated status, and the Olympics haven't even started. There are a few female athletes who would be hot anywhere though.

5) Maria Sharapova


A mainstay for years on people's hottest female athletes list, Sharapova is still keeping her spot in the top 5 alive. While Anna Kournikova was undoubtedly hotter (and still is) Code 73.4 of the Pervy Sports Fan Blogger sanctions (and Mr D) forbids us from adding her to this list since she hasn't been an active athlete for many years and now mostly lays on the beach with Enrique Iglesias, Sharapova is still a winning player. The fact that she's married to Sasha Vujacic detracts from her hotness a little though.


4)Danica Patrick


While slightly overrated because she can drive a car better than most dudes, and is surrounded by rednecks, Danica is still hot. It seems like she tries to overcompensate for constantly being in a helmet with the Go Daddy commercials and swimsuit modeling, but that doesn't take away from the fact that she could get it.


3) Jennie Finch


While some (like Hater J) might think she looks like a random white chick you could pick up at Off The Wagon after a pitcher of Coors Light and some chicken wings, you can't deny that she is one of the hottest athletes ever. It helps that the majority of softball playing women look like this but I think you could stack her up against any group of 9 chicks and she would still stand out.


2) Natalie Gulbis


On the totem pole of hot female athletes sports golf is somewhere at the bottom (with a few exceptions), next to field hockey and bowling but there's one golfer who catches our eye, and not because she wears pants like Chi Chi Rodriguez. No, it's because she has big ol' boobs and stretches like that. Fun Fact: That pic has been Snoot's screensaver on his computer for the past 3 years.

1)Malia Jones


Ok, so technically Malia is a model as well as being a surfer, so she barely counts as a professional athlete, but why don't you try coming up with 5 really hot female athletes? It's like picking the 5 best shows on BET, or the 5 most interesting things to do in Staten Island. So we're going to stick with a surfer/model as number one. Any excuse to post pics of her is fine with me.

PTU Summer Movie Preview

Ok, so summer technically started last week, appropriately on a day that approached 100 degrees in the shade in NY, and the summer movie season started around Memorial Day, but there's still a lot of popcorn to be popped in the next 2 months and change. Movies released at this time are notorious for being, well, garbage, but at the very least the theatre will be air conditioned. You've probably already seen the Avengers, but will anything come close to making as much as scratch as that movie did? Let's take a look at a couple of flicks that will be making noise at your local multiplex/arthouse/African guy's sheet on Atlantic Avenue during the dog days.

The Amazing Spiderman


I was as big a Spiderman fan as there could be growing up, at least until they did all that business with the clones and Peter Parker's parents, and Aunt May died, etc. I was a big fan of the first two Sam Raimi directed Spider movies, but I'm a little skeptical about this one (that's not an official clip from the movie above). Franchise reboots are nothing new, of course, and Marvel had some luck with the Hulk reboot a little while ago. But the first Hulk movie was a piece of shit, so it was more of a Ed Norton starring do-over than anything else. Starting a franchise over that was already a success seems pointless (although I know what the point is). I'll probably still see this, but am not really too excited about it.

The Expendables 2


Once you get past the stunt casting of having every action star ever besides Steven Seagal in one movie blowing shit up for nearly 2 hours, you were left feeling kinda empty. Maybe it was the fact that the plot was thin, or the acting was Dolph Lundgrenish. Or maybe it was just that Chuck Norris wasn't in it. This movie's going to be awesome on HBO on a Sunday when you're hung over.

Magic Mike


With the release of this movie and the world domination of 50 Shades of Grey, horny girls are so in right now. If your girlfriend or wife told you she didn't want to see this, she's a liar and not to be trusted, break up with her tomorrow. This movies going to make 8 zillion dollars this weekend, and maybe 12 of those dollars will be from a straight guy, who only accidentally bought a ticket because he thought it was called Magic vs Mike the story of the 91 NBA Finals. It won't matter if no guys want to see this though, because unlike horny dudes, who prefer to be horny by themselves and watch women strip on computers lest they be met with a thousand judging eyes, and shame wash over them, women will go see this movie in PACKS. It's going to be girl's night out at the AMC. And since it probably cost 30 bucks to make, it's going to be a huge success for Stephen Soderbergh, Channing Tatum and the rest. Never underestimate the buying power of the horny woman.

The Watch


Funny story about The Watch. It was originally called Neighborhood Watch until actual neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. Ok, it's not funny at all, but the movie looks like it could have it's moments. With a cast like Vince Vaughn, Jonah Hill and Ben Stiller there's bound to be a few LOL moments. And at least Adam Sandler's not in it.

To Rome With Love


Woody Allen's latest continues his Europe fetish. I love Woody (no homo) but as any one who's ever seen The Curse of The Jade Scorpion can tell you, his output over the past 20 or so years has been spotty. Recently, he's had more luck with the European set films. There are still a few clunkers in there, but Match Point was cool (even if it was just a remake of Crimes and Misdemeanors without the comedy) and Midnight in Paris was his biggest commercial success ever, as well as critically loved. Will To Rome be more vintage Woody or another dud? I could see Jesse Eisenberg doing a neurotic Woody impression all movie being annoying (also Roberto Benigni is in this), but reviews have been mostly positive.

The Dark Knight Rises


You know you're going to see this. Don't even front.

Why Did The Killing Suck So Much?

We watch a lot of tv at the PTU offices (with the exception of Bottle). The 15 inch monitors that hover over all of our desks as we toil away at crafting that perfect post that will touch the hearts and minds of millions are always tuned into the latest in sports and tv shows. One such show that Snoot and I began watching last year was AMC's The Killing. AMC has developed a reputation as the basic cable home for quality, thought provoking and kick-ass drama but, for many reasons, The Killing sucks. Big time. And it started out so promising too.

Based on a Swedish show, the premise revolved around the murder of a teenage girl, the ensuing investigation and the aftershocks felt by the surrounding community as well as the girl's grieving family. It was set in a very dreary, and very, very rainy Seattle, employed a cast of great actors and had a seemingly fool proof dramatic gimmick. So what the hell happened? How'd show runner Veena Sud and her writers fumble what seems like such an easy touchdown of a show? As only worthwhile character Holder once said: "It starts at the top!"

Head writer Veena Sud seemed to think of this show as above most procedural crime shows (i.e. CSI, NCIS, Law & Order) and would use this as a defense whenever people would point out that her show didn't, ya know, make sense, or the mystery just wasn't interesting. She also used this refrain in response to the uproar over last season's finale. Instead of coming through on their promise to reveal Rosie Larsen's killer, they instead pulled some BS about Holder suddenly becoming corrupt (a plot line that was quickly abandoned). The whole "this isn't your normal tv show" was just a cop out to avoid things like a sensible plot or an entertaining storyline. It would sometimes almost be deep, or touch on something a little deeper than the normal cop show, but would then instead spend 45 minutes on a subplot that had nothing to do with anything like female circumcision or this guy.

There were waaaaay too many red herrings. This is well documented by the snarky bloggy types, but every fucking episode ended with an ultra dramatic montage, with that ever increasingly nervous music that just screams "hurry up and get to next week's plot point, Mad Men is almost on". They'd close up on exactly who looked like must have been the culprit....and then the next week of course it wasn't them for some insanely stupid reason. Of course, you have to keep them guessing but after the 18th tiime this happened, it was just silly.

The show was too unrealistic for even television standards. You have to suspend your disbelief whenever you're watching a fictional movie or show, but this show might as well have had fairies riding unicorns trying to crack the case. Again, some of the show's few defenders will argue that this was a pulpy show not meant to be taken all that serious. Except it also tried to be a serious show, with ultra realistic values (again with the "not your normal tv show") but also wanted to be a wacky, out there show when it couldn't come up with any better, plausible ideas.

The writers were just lazy. Really, really lazy. Kind of like how lazy I'm being writing these couple sentences.

The one saving grace of the show was top 5 wigger Detective Holder, who was almost always the high point of the hour. Here's hoping that Joel Kinneman finds a new home on a much better show in the not too distant future.

Don't Blame The Refs: The Thunder Are Killing Themselves

It's a common practice of haters such as ourselves to try to find a reason, any reason, that the target of our hate is succeeding. In the case of PTU whipping boy, LeBron James, the thought of his actually winning a championship could send any basketball fan scrambling for a Kennedy assassination level conspiracy theory. The most common theory is the fix is in and the refs are going to make sure the Heat win a title. I think this is baloney. Big market teams (and the teams that get the highest ratings) do sometimes get a boost from the officials. There's been a couple games in the past 10 years that appeared to show blatant favoritism towards a team like the Lakers, but I believe that there's a greater chance that Tupac is tanning on the beach on an island somewhere than David Stern called the officials into his office and said "Make sure the Heat get the majority of the calls in this series. And for God sakes, get Durant off the court however you can!". Let's say the NBA does occasionally conspire to fix games for the sake of argument. Even if they worked to get a particular team in the Finals (and it would be the Lakers not the Thunder playing the Heat if they did), once that team was there, the most important thing would be to prolong the series. The league does not benefit from one team winning a series in 5. They would also not purposely put the third biggest superstar on the bench, as some people have implied, through manipulated foul calls. The Finals have been marketed by the league as Magic vs Bird 2.0. They wouldn't then purposely get Magic in foul trouble. The fact of the matter is Kevin Durant has committed dumb fouls throughout the series.


Are some of these fouls a little ticky tack? Sure. But I can't see a scenario in which the NBA would mandate it's referees to take one of the best players off the court in a Finals series. Of the four fouls in the video, the worst call is probably the first. A jab step and a shoulder used to clear some space that Durant and LeBron do all the time. A bad call, maybe, but not sinister if you ask me. The other calls are all legit; a hold as LeBron goes around a screen, a hand across the face of Bron on a layup, and leaving his feet on a Wade layup. All of these could probably have been no calls, but could also have been avoided by KD.

Even if all of these fouls were to get him off the floor in key moments, and the Heat took a lot more free throws, the Thunder really shot themselves in the foot through other dumb mistakes that were not contingent on the officials. Namely, back to back fouls on Heat three pointers (of which the Heat hit all 6 shots) that trimmed a 10 point lead to 4 in about 2 minutes of game time towards the end of the third. Even with the sloppy play on defense and offense by the Thunder they were still within striking distance, but again beat themselves by doing something that was beyond the referee's control: missing foul shots in the fourth quarter. Had they knocked down their shots, not made silly turnovers and stayed composed in crunch time (something that they have mostly been able to do throughout the playoffs), OKC would have won by a few points and the conspiracy theorists could go back to investigating the draft lottery (which actually is fixed) or something until tomorrow night. The truth is the Thunder didn't make enough winning plays, and in a turn of events even more painful for us haters, the Heat did.

100

Congrats to us.

Sorry That Your Breastfeeding Makes Us Act Weird

Breast feeding is a big topic these days. First, there was the wacky Time cover with the toddler hanging off his mother's breast, and now there are the military women who are under fire for some questionable photos, and by questionable I mean really kind of weird (see above). As a mature adult, on behalf of the male species, let me just say: I'm sorry, ladies, but boobs make us act weird. I know it's in keeping with the neo feminist ideals to view breast feeding as as natural as a sunset, and if people are either creeped out or curious about it then they are neanderthals or sexists (or both), but we have been conditioned to look at boobs a certain way. When they come out of your shirts, we look at them. Bring a baby into the equation, and that creates problems. We want to look but then it is just gross and weird. To expect people not to feel a little funny about women just whipping out their breasts on the train or in a crowded Applebees is expecting a lot more of American people than I think is fair. Say what you want about how society has brainwashed people into looking at nursing as weird or whatever, but it is what it is. Recently, I read an article with a feminist bent that was supposedly exposing the unbelievably horrible new fetish that is "men peeping on women breast feeding". The author disgustedly detailed how these degenerates were using hidden video cameras to capture co workers breast feeding. THEY GET OFF ON INFANTS DRINKING MILK!!! While it's true that those guys are sick pervs who should be punished and I'm not apologizing for them, I guarantee they just wanted to see their co worker pop her boob out of her shirt. And that's the problem we will always have with public breast feeding. Women (especially mothers) see it as a natural loving act between a mother and child (which it is), and everyone else just sees your titty out.

Things Bottle Says Are THE BOMB

If you know PTU's LeBron lover Bottle, you know he has a favorite saying: "Such and such" is THE BOMB. Over time, he has assigned this description to many different things. Here's a quick list:

Iced Coffee
LeBron James
The band Best Coast
Milk of Magnesia
Kate Upton
Tom Brady
New Orleans
Williamsburg
Taco Tuesdays
Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros
Hippie Tang
Europeans
Chinese food in Park Slope
Hot coffee
Thailand (particularly the Phuket Islands)
Obscure documentaries
Surfing
Jewish girls
Craft beer
Organic donuts
Skateboarding
Brooklyn Cyclones games
Laying in grass
Iceland
Treme
Yammin

If I missed anything, feel free to add whatever else it is that Bottle thinks is THE BOMB in the comments.

Who Wins a Fight Between Drake and Chris Brown?

Recently, M@d $cientist posted about fights he would like to see including a bear and a shark in outer space. Meanwhile, in reality, there has been a serious beef brewing between two of the most hated (and loved) guys in hip hop. Everyone's favorite Canadian Jew rapper Drake has recently been Twitter tussling with everyone's favorite woman beating punk Chris Brown, and it's recently erupted into bottle throwing cat fighting. All this reportedly over Rhianna, who every day seems to fall faster into cracked out Linsday Lohan territory . I'll admit the alleged first shot that is Drake's "I'm still fucking Rhianna" note is extremely badass but that doesn't take away from the fact that neither of these guys will probably ever have an actual fight. Who would win if these two were to ever let their entourages take a day off and really shoot a fair one? Let's break it down.

Both of these guys main strength is the ability to be simultaneously misognystic and loved by women at the same time. Drake's recently had lyrics like "she could have a grammy, I'll still treat her ass like a nominee" and Chris Brown punches women in the face. This ability doesn't really translate to street fighting though. Still, Drake has seemingly never been in a fight in his life (unless he got into at the craft service table on the set of Degrassi) and we KNOW CB can throw a punch. Also, Brown stands nearly 6-4 and is very athletic. Drake played a basketball player on Nickelodeon, but by all accounts is as athletic as every other Jewish Canadian. That is, not very. This isn't to say that Chris Brown would mop the floor with Wheelchair Jimmy. On the contrary, I think this would be a fairly even fight with neither participant landing many blows, and some occasional wrestling on the ground. In the end, Chris Brown wins an ugly, feminine fight. This will never happen because their vast entourages, agents, label heads, and hanger ons will ensure that these two are never in the same room again, close enough to scratch each other's eyes out. And even if they were, as tough as they talk on twitter, both of these douche bags would most likely prefer to say they're sorry, curl up with the latest sequel to 50 Shades of Grey, and have a cup of green tea than actually fight. I'd still rather see the shark and the bear.

Top 5 Marv Albert Calls

Happy belated Birthday, Marv Albert! It's sure been a tumultuous career for Marvelous. The voice of the Knicks for over 30 years (including their only 2 championships) was fired twice by MSG, first for biting on his hoes (to quote Cam'ron) and then, after being rehired, was then fired again for speaking his mind about the terrible team that the Knicks had become. Despite those bumps in the road, Marv's been the unmistakable voice for so many big NBA moments (along with a host of other sports). He coined the phrases "on fire", and "from downtown" among many others. You might have read Complex's extremely lame list today, replete with errors, and corny jokes, written in that way that only Complex can. These are the real top 5 Marv Albert broadcasting moments. Yes!

5) Reggie's 25 point 4th Quarter

All of the moments on this list are impossible to separate from Marv's calls. You can't think of Reggie's spike baiting performance in the 94 ECF without hearing "From waaay downtown" along with Matt Guokas's stunned "look at this shot!". "And once again, has something to say in the direction of Spike Lee". Nobody does drama better than Marv.

4) Jordan's Shrug

One of the biggest mistakes the NBA has made in the past 25 years (besides thinking that owning one of it's teams would be a good idea) is letting it's partnership with NBC end. ABC and ESPN are ok (aside from their studio commentators) but nothing can match the NBA on NBC for sheer nostalgic joy. Just the first couple notes of John Tesh's theme music and I'm a little happier. The NBA on NBC heyday also coincided with the Jordan (and PTU) 90s heyday. And Marv was a part of much of Jordan's signature plays. The shrug might have been the signature Marv/Jordan call if not for....

3) A spec-TAC-ular move

.....this move by his Airness. Even though the switch to his left hand was kind of unnecessary (he claims he saw Sam Perkins about to put his hand up but could Sam Perkins ever block Michael's shot?)it's still one of the iconic Jordan moments made even more so by Marv's call. This Finals was the changing of the guard, from Magic and Bird's 80s to Michael's 90s.

2) The Dunk

I've already written extensively on "the dunk" so I'm not going to say much about it except it was a great moment and Marv said just enough about it without overdoing it. "The Garden..is rocking".

1) "Here Comes Willis"

That Complex didn't have this high on their list is a crime. I assume it's because most of their writers are in their early twenties or really stupid (or both) or do busy drooling over the Yeezy 2's to actually remember that this might be the biggest moment in NY basketball of all time, and Marv's call was a part of it. It's one of those cheesy moments that you think only happens in movies, and that you probably wouldn't see today. If Willis Reed were thinking about playing, David Aldridge would tweet it at 4 pm and it would lose some impact. Back then, Marv was the only messenger and he played the role well.

Championships Are Over Rated

The NBA Finals are here. Tomorrow, the Finals are under way in OKC and we're already hearing all of the usual championship hype. Who's going to step up, who's going to shrivel under pressure, what legacies will be created and which will be tarnished forever? But while championship rings are of course an important symbol of a great career (you have to have done something right to win one), they are also undoubtedly over rated in regards to a player's success. Whenever the topic of greatest players ever is brought up, it always comes back to the rings. Kobe fans can throw that in the face of the haters, "he's got 5 rings, bro!". Gretzky's worshippers can tell you how unreal his number of rings are, Jeter supporters always have the hardware argument to fall back on, and people in the Bill Russell is the greatest basketball player ever camp love that picture of him rocking his rings on every finger like he's Slick Rick. But while those are undeniably among the greatest to ever lace up sneakers, cleats and skates, does not having a ring mean a player's career was a complete bust? Of course not. Barkley, Ewing, Reggie Miller, Karl Malone, the list goes on and on of great players who don't have rings and who's reputations have taken hits because of it. Ewing leads the Knicks in nearly every statistical category possible but there's a large portion of Knicks fans who will list him behind Willis Reed or Clyde Frazier on the all time Knicks list because he wasn't ever able to win in June. That's crazy. Is Nazr Mohammed a better former Knicks center because he has a ring (and may get another this season) and Ewing doesn't? Robert Horry and Steve Kerr were very good role players who hit a ton of big shots (hence the nickname Big shot Bob) but the fact that they were a part of 9 straight championships from 1994-2003 shouldn't overshadow that they were not even all star worthy players. They hit huge shots but also were just really, really lucky to ride the coat tails of some of the greatest players ever. If not for Jordan, Pippen, Olajuwon, Kobe, Shaq and Duncan, Robert Horry and Steve Kerr would be Cedric Ceballos and Tim Legler. That one piece of jewelry causes most people to over rate a player's worth even if winning a championship requires a huge amount of factors to fall into place just right. A couple bounces one way or the other and we view Barkley as a top 5 all time player, rather than a second tier superstar who's good for a funny quote. There is no shame in falling just short against the greatest athlete of all time. Those guys on the previous list just happened to be born around the same time as MJ.

This isn't to say that we should disregard championships altogether as measuring sticks. In certain cases, a player's failure to deliver in the clutch or lack of a competitive instinct (we're looking at you, LeBron and Karl Malone) were/are symbolized by their empty mantles (well, I guess they have MVP trophies and other things that billions of dollars can buy you but no ring). But, we shouldn't let the magical ring overpower a player's entire career in either direction. In a couple weeks, LeBron could very well win one, and then everything will be forgiven. Or Derek Fisher could suddenly have as many rings as Jordan and Nazr Mohammed could have as many as Olajuwon. Only a fool would put those guys in the same class simply because of their jewelry collection, but are they any more "winning guys" than the players who weren't in the right place at the right time? We'll never know, but let's not let championships over rate, or under rate, athletes'legacies.