This year, however, has been a regression, to say the least. Josh started off fine, but then dinged his ankle early in the year, causing him to miss some time. He came back a little shaky, with his shot blocking taking the most noticeable dive. I didn’t think too much of it, his ankle was probably still bugging him and maybe he wasn’t too confident taking off on it. Things never turned around on that front, and he’s dropped off in basically every category but steals. The most bizarre thing has been his Shaq-like free throw shooting; a career 70% shooter suddenly dropping to 55% (including a recent stint where he missed 10 in a row). He looks like a shell of his former self, at least if you only looked at box scores.

I live in Southern California, so I very rarely get a chance to watch him play live. I watched both times the Hawks visited the L.A. teams (both at the actual game), along with the recent Cavs game on ESPN. And after watching these games, I can say that a lot (not all) of Smith’s decline can be attributed to the way he is used by head coach Mike Woodson. Most of Atlanta’s offense is run through Joe Johnson in the post; Josh is often left sitting in the weak side corner for a pass in case Joe gets doubled. This does two bad things. First, it takes Josh out of the post, where he is at his most effective. Second, it puts him in a position to hoist low percentage jumpers, since he’s often catching the ball wide open outside. While some of the pressure to should be on Josh to turn these shots down, I think more pressure is on the coach to not put his players in low percentage situations. On top of that, it takes Josh away from working the offensive glass.

Also, Josh is probably only behind LeBron in terms of finishing in transition. The Hawks also have Mike Bibby, who’s great at throwing passes on the run or shooting jumpers on the move. Joe Johnson, Al Horford and Marvin Williams are all above average athletes at their positions. So how do we take advantage of this unit? How about by playing at the 22^nd fastest pace in the league (according to Hollinger’s Pace statistic). Atlanta basically walks the ball up, and I saw them turn down numerous running opportunities in the games I saw.

Mike Woodson was an assistant on the championship Detroit team a few years back, that’s how he landed his gig in Atlanta. His system is very similar to the one run in Detroit. The thing is that Pistons team had multiple effective post-up guards (Billups and Hamilton) and a big man who can space the floor with his shooting in Rasheed Wallace. This is another example of the stuff I talked about a few articles ago, about finding talent that matches a system or vice versa. The worst instances of coaching are forcing a structure on players who aren’t capable of playing in it. It cost Terry Porter his job (although the blame isn’t exclusively his) and should cost Woodson his at some point. However, since Atlanta is a young team and young teams have a habit of getting better, Atlanta has won more games each year since Woodon started coaching (not that win totals of 13, 26, 30, and 37 are the most dramatic improvement ever seen) there is really no risk of Woodson going anywhere. And until that happens, or he adjusts, Josh will likely continue to play below his ability.

A lot of this will come off as making excuses for Josh. That’s probably part of that, and I will admit that his lack of effort frustrated me at times against the Lakers and Cavs. However, the larger issue remains. Players play certain ways, and it’s up to coaches to find the most effective ways to use their players given how they are most effective. And walking the ball up and shipping him to the weak side corner like he’s Bruce Bowen doesn’t cut it. I guess the best I can hope for is an off-season trade to the Golden State Warriors (Andris Biedrins? How about Corey Maggette and Brandon Wright?) so Don Nelson can show the world what Josh can do.

If you’ve have fallen behind on your bills or credit cards or struggle with high interest rates then get help from the Nations number one most respected debt management and credit counseling organization.

Let’s ignore the violence that’s been perpetrated against the English language and focus on the heart of the matter: Christian Credit Counselors is a dirty liar. I guarantee that a business run by Christians is not “number one” in any part of the financial services industry. Need proof? Christian Credit Counselors offers to pray for you if you fill out a handy-dandy prayer request form, which doesn’t bode well for how your refinancing is going to go. (My accountant usually holds off on appealing to a higher power until after we’ve finished the initial consultation.) Christian Credit Counselors will help you get rid of debt “in accordance with principles found in the Holy Bible,” which is a nice idea until you try to trade your daughter for next month’s car payment. (It won’t work; women depreciate faster than SUVs.) Christian Credit Counselors proves that you can theme a business after anything and still find a customer base. In fact, I’m going to start a company called Small Business Loans for Cubs’ Fans. Our motto? “We’ll get ’em next year!”

Then I found United Martial Artists for Christ, a non-profit, for-prophet organization. UMAC uses martial arts as a vehicle to show Christ’s love, because nothing says “turn the other cheek” like a foot rammed up your ass. According to its website, UMAC strives to create “unity between all Christian martial artists from all over the country, regardless of style.” Look how inclusive they are! It doesn’t matter if you do taekwondo or kung fu; as long as you believe in zombie Christ, you can beat the crap out of Christians. United Martial Artists for Christ is a totally heterosexual outlet for mustachioed men to watch boys of all ages wrestle each other into submission . . . to the Lord!

If the thought of women in tank tops makes you cringe, the Lord’s Gym is for you. Leotards and sports bras aren’t allowed, but you can take “praisercise” and “yo-god” classes, which I like to do before I “Je-blow-vah” my head off. My favorite thing about Lord’s Gym is the logo, which shows a ripped Jesus carrying a cross on his back. It’s as if they’re saying, “You too can experience the intense physical workout of dragging a giant crucifix to your own execution! Jesus died for our sins, but it’s a small price to pay for those lats.”

Feel the burn!

You know you’re in trouble when Wanda Sykes has a point.

Ok, I get it: using “gay” to say that something is stupid, ridiculous, or, well, gay is offensive. But here’s the problem: I like calling things gay. “Gay” gets across a whole host of connotations, and the open “-ay” sound at the end has tons of potential for humor if delivered with enough enthusiasm. There’s something delightfully juvenile about the word. Anything can be gay. Uggs? Gay. The cotton gin? Gay. Going to the Renaissance faire? Gaye gaye gaye. It doesn’t make any sense, and that’s the point. “Gay” is the go-to filler for situations when “your mom” and “that’s what she said” just won’t do. In fact, you can have a pretty meaningful conversation with just a middle-school vocabulary.

“You’re gay.”

“Your mom’s gay.”

“That’s what she said.”

“Wait, your mom says she’s gay?”

“Yeah.”

“That’s so gay.”

“That’s what she said!”

I’ve been calling things gay since 1989, before I even knew how babies were made (or not made). I had no idea people were walking around calling themselves gay. When I found out that was happening, I figured it was like women calling themselves “bitch” or white men calling themselves “Republican”—someone would write a song about taking the word back and then we’d return to normal. Losing “gay” feels like I’m losing part of my adolescence, but I guess it’s the price you pay to make Chris Crocker shut up.

I need an alternative. I need a pithy, monosyllabic word that tells people the noun it’s modifying is painfully lame, comically incompetent, and fingernails-on-a-chalkboard annoying. And then it hit me: Bush!

Black socks with sandals? That’s bush. Going to see a Coldplay concert? Way to go, bushlord! Assless chaps? Burning bush. I’ll make you a deal, gay community: I’ll stop using the word “gay” if you’ll help me get “bush” into circulation. We can make sure that years from now, when the Republican Party is just a ghost story to scare small children, people far and wide will still use the word “bush” as the default insult for Babylon 5 conventions and over-exuberant facial hair. Can we do it? Yes we can!

The NBA trade deadline turned out to be much ado about nothing. Rumors were swirling around that some huge names could be had on the cheap. From young building blocks (Tyson Chandler, Amare Stoudamire) to premier veteran players (Vince Carter, Shaq I guess), all sorts of players were rumored to be on the block. At the end of the day, very little action took place, with only two significant deals that weren’t primarily motivated by shuffling around the books. Orlando got a point guard to band-aid the Jameer Nelson loss in Rafter Alston, while Chicago and Sacramento pulled off one of the classic “Re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” style swaps with the Brad Miller/John Salmons deal. What this means is that all the teams should be constituted as they are now for the rest of the year, barring injury or some veteran being bought out and signing with the Celtics. With that in mind, there are a few teams that I would pay special attention to for the rest of the season.

Houston Rockets:

Before I go any farther, I need to preface what is about to come. I don’t think many players are naturally “winners” or “losers”. Many players are unfavorably tagged one way or the other based on circumstances that are outside of their control. Remember how Kevin Garnett was viewed during those horrible years in Minnesota? How about Ray Allen in Seattle, or Paul Pierce in Boston? Those players were all branded as “losers”, talented players who lacked the requisite moxie or strength of character to win important ball games. So what happened when you put them all together? Turns out they can be pretty big winners when they aren’t expected to have players like Ricky Davis play Robin to their Batman. Remember, basketball is a team sport, and even the most talented players require some amount of help to win anything significant. But Tracy McGrady, at this point in his career, is clearly nothing more than a loser. With the most talented supporting cast he’s ever had, he started off the year complaining about injuries. He took more time off than doctors said were required for various knee injuries. He dogged it in multiple games upon his return. He wanted to shut it down for the whole year, but couldn’t find a doctor who would agree that his injury was serious enough to require immediate surgery. He shut it down anyway.

If the Houston Rockets are able to gel in the absence of T-Mac (and early signs point to this happening), and especially if Houston advances past the first round of the playoffs this year (something Tracy has never accomplished, which I only point out to comply with the “You must mention Tracy McGrady’s postseason impotence in any scathing article about him” rule), Tracy will be forever branded as a loser. I never thought the term “addition by subtraction” would apply to one of the most talented all-around players of this decade, but it appears we might be heading in that direction with T-Mac and the Rockets.

Detroit Pistons:

I wrote about this team a month back; more specifically the Iverson/Billups swap. At the time, I figured the worst Detroit would end up would be as the 5^th seed, and perhaps would still end up the 4^th best team in the East. Clearly that hasn’t’ been the case. Watching this Pistons team, it’s surprising how out of synch they look offensively; combine that with the Iverson’s defensive limitations and it’s no surprise how much this team has been struggling. What is surprising is how poorly they play as a unit. I think a lot of this can be traced to Iverson as well. When Iverson spends multiple possessions in a row hoisting bad jumpers early in the shot clock or spends 10 seconds dribbling all the air out of the ball, it causes other players to start taking bad shots because they don’t know when they’re going to see the ball again. Now it’s not even clear if this team will make the postseason. On the other hand, this is a talented, veteran team, and maybe the process of adapting to a new point guard is just taking a little bit longer than expected. I don’t think Cleveland or Boston would want to face this team in round 1 compared to Philly or Milwaukee, so I’m curious if this operation can be straightened out, or if this is a less than dignified end to a great era of Pistons basketball.

Charlotte Bobcats:

Look out playoffs, it’s the Charlotte Bobcats! While this might be a stretch, the Bobcats are poised to make their first serious run at postseason play in franchise history. A lot of this can be traced to Larry Brown, who has made two classic Brown trades. For starters, he shipped out Jason Richardson for Boris Diaw and Raja Bell. This trade was positive for a number of reasons. First, the Bobcats lack a density of actual, functional NBA level players, so swapping one guy for two guys who can play helps them get closer to a respectable rotation. Diaw is a versatile offensive player whose defensive liabilities are shored up somewhat by Gerald Wallace and Emaka Okafor. Raja Bell is a typical Larry Brown player (and was part of the Brown-coached Philadelphia team that made the Finals back in 2001) whose toughness and playoff mettle add a lot to a young, green team like Charlotte. After that, there was the Morrison/Shannon Brown for Vladimir Radmanovic trade. Vlad is a talented airhead who can stretch the floor, and both Brown and Morrison had fallen out of the rotation, so this was a nice “something for nothing” deal from Charlotte’s perspective. Combine this with their tough defense, and the emergence of Okafor as a franchise guy, and the Bobcats could be making some post season noise. This is also an indictment of the depth of the East, but Charlotte has a great shot of fighting for the final playoff spot and a heinous beatdown at the hands of the Cavs or Celtics.

Miami Heat:

Of all the likely playoff teams in the NBA, Miami is the hardest team for me to gauge. Some nights, they look like they could give Boston or Cleveland a real series in the second round; other nights they look like a fringe playoff team at best. A lot of this has to do with how much this teams leans on Dwayne Wade. D-Wade is the best shooting guard in the league (yes, ahead of Kobe) and is registering an MVP season. His teammates, however, leave a lot to be desired. Udonis Haslem is a quality starter; Jermaine O’Neal might not have a lot left in the tank. After that, you have a nice mixture of rookies, fringe rotation players, and Jamario Moon. If Beasley or Chalmers can grow up fast and take some of the heavy lifting off of Wade, this team could probably overtake Atlanta for home court in round 1. If JO can at least be a dominant defensive force and a non-nightmare on offense, this team could piece together a special run. But if this team has too many games where they play like “Dwayne Wade and The D-League All-Stars”, they could be looking at Orlando and a quick exit in round 1.

Phoenix Suns:

The most interesting gets saved for last. They decide not to trade Amare at the trade deadline, only to lose him for the rest of the regular season (and possibly beyond) to an eye injury. They fired Terry Porter and replaced him with Alvin Gentry, and now this team is getting back to its roots. They’ve been running and gunning, putting up some impressive offensive numbers against schlubs like the Clippers and Thunder; on Sunday they got hammered by Boston. The team has looked somewhat inspired at least, and Steve Nash especially has looked a lot more comfortable reverting back to the way things were. However, it’s still too early to tell where this team will ultimately lie. Obviously, there is a big wide range of skill level that would let you wail on the Clips and get crushed by the Celtics. There’s also the question of how many 35 minute games you can expect players like Nash, Shaq and Grant Hill to log making a big playoff push. Still, with Dallas losing Jason Terry (and not looking impressive besides), the playoffs are still within striking distance for the Suns. And if they were to make the postseason and Amare were to return, they could give the Lakers a run for their money in round 1.

Patrick.

39% believe in evolution

25% do not believe in evolution

36% have no opinion either way

1% have no answer

According to this survey, a quarter of Americans don’t believe in evolution—just plain don’t believe it, dag nabbit! This I expected. Religious resistance to science dies hard, especially when science calls any religious metaphors into question. Just the other day I saw a brochure that defended geocentrism (talk about beating a horse that’s been dead for 400 years). Rejecting science is as American as steroids in baseball.

I wanted to learn more about this swath of Americana, so I visited Conservapedia.com (“The Trustworthy Encyclopedia”) to read up on evolution. This is what I found.

[Evolution] is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). . . . Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the theory of evolution . . . have been atheists. Although the defenders of the theory of evolution contend there is evidence that supports the theory of evolution, there is a multitude of serious problems with the theory of evolution which will be discussed shortly.

This website doesn’t beat around the bush. In the very first passage, we’ve learned that evolution is deeply flawed and its standard bearers are nothing but godless atheists who teach methodological naturalism and homosexuality at accredited universities.* Just for the purposes of comparison, let’s look at the Wikipedia entry for evolution.

In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection. Genes that are passed on to an organism’s offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. These traits vary within populations, with organisms showing heritable differences in their traits. . . . In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are also produced by genetic recombination, which can increase variation between organisms.

Whoa there, hippie! Can’t you go two minutes without mentioning sex? And what’s all this nonsense about biology and genes? When I look up a scientific theory, I don’t want a bunch of jargon—I want to know how I’m supposed to feel about it.

If, like me, you want to know the damaging social consequences of evolution, look no further than Conservapedia.com (the “family-friendly encyclopedia”).

Evolutionary ideas significantly influenced the thinking of the nineteenth and twentieth-century communists. The atheist Joseph Stalin was greatly influenced by the work of Charles Darwin who was also an atheist. . . . [The] mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to atheistic communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.

Makes sense to me! Here’s a brief outline breaking down the logic of this argument.

Evolution -> Atheistic Communists -> 110 million people dead worldwide over a 70-year period

The link between evolution and genocide is that Joseph Stalin, among other unnamed Communists, was influenced by Charles Darwin. (None of these fellows believed in the god that keeps on giving, so right away we know they’re suspect!) Adding up the body count of every Communist leader from Lenin to Pol Pot to Papa Smurf yields a number that’s about ten times the size of the Holocaust, proving once again that atheism is worse than the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and Hitler combined.** According to Conservapedia.com (“the encyclopedia that doesn’t allow liberal censorship of conservative facts”), even Hitler was influenced by evolutionary ideas, using natural selection to justify the Nazis’ extermination of the “weaker” races. I, for one, see no problem with these arguments: it’s like the time I cited the law of inertia to explain why I had to eat 27 cupcakes. (A Cate eating cupcakes stays eating cupcakes!)

Inertia -> Cate Gary -> Patti Smith cries at her own birthday party

Evolution Deniers – 1, Nazis – 0

What I didn’t expect from the Gallup poll was that more than a third of us are too chicken-shit to have an opinion about evolution. The poll wasn’t asking if we think Jessica Simpson looks fat; it was asking if we accept the prevailing theory of human biology based on an extensive fossil record. Natural selection has had a target on its back since The Origin of Species was published one hundred fifty years ago, and to this day we have yet to replace it with a better framework. Many wealthy religious patrons would give anything to prove evolution wrong, and many scientists would study anything for a lucrative grant. At the very least, we have to admit that Darwin’s theory is an important artifact in scientific history, and it’s the best guess we have right now based on the scientific method.

Maybe these “no opinion either way” people are ok with the idea of evolution but don’t want to say it out loud, lest an angry god smite them for impudence. (I can only assume that the 1 percent who had no answer at all were smote by said god.) In a way, I can respect people who don’t believe in evolution, because at least they’re standing behind their beliefs despite all the evidence to the contrary. That’s real faith. What I can’t respect is someone who sits on the fence and won’t commit either way. These people have a vague sense that there might be a vengeful god who wouldn’t cotton to them believing in evolution, but they don’t have the strength of conviction to deny evolution outright. These are exactly the kind of people who blithely go through life without examining the big questions, only to become hugely “spiritual” once their own mortality gets a little too real. Such a person might become born again, but it’s more likely they’ll join some hippie-dippy, namby-pamby cult in Encinitas, California, where Jesus accepts the tenets of Wicca and psychics accept credit cards. Either way, these people need to be stopped.

Love,

Cate Gary

* You can only learn what Conservapedia.com is teaching at home school.

** I imagine someone would teach this in the public school system if it weren’t such a haven for the socialists and gays. I know I went through public school during the 1980s, a.k.a., “the Soviet-lover years.”

With the NBA trade deadline approaching, two of the most valuable trade assets on the market, Amare Stoudamire and Shawn Marion, were rumored to be part of numerous deals. The two players are valuable for different reasons. Amare is the most talented player reported to be on the market by Suns team in midst of a fire sale, and Shawn Marion was the largest expiring contract (about $17 million) out there. Marion’s expiring contract would be valuable for any team either looking to re-build through free agency this summer or simply shed salary in these tough economic times. As of last week, one of these players was moved, while the other still awaits his final destination. I’ll look at the Marion deal more closely, and then try to speculate on possible destinations for Amare.

Marion and Marcus Banks (along with $3 mil straight cash) were sent to the Toronto Raptors in exchange for Jermaine O’Neal, Jamario Moon and a conditional first round pick. For Toronto, the deal is basically a mulligan on the O’Neal trade from this off season. This allows them to pursue a free agent over the off-season in an attempt to convince Chris Bosh to stick around past 2010, or to trade Bosh over the summer and completely rebuild the team. For Miami, the benefits are numerous. In the immediate future, JO balances out their lineup. Since they can just slide Michael Beasley into Marion’s vacated starting spot, it allows the Heat to trot out a solid starting lineup of Mario Chalmers, Dwayne Wade, Beasley, Udonis Haslem and JO. Jermaine also allows Haslem to his natural power forward position while taking away minutes from suspicious NBA level players like Joel Anthony and Mark Blount. They got to shed Marcus Banks and his awful contract, acquire a player who will certainly be in the rotation in Moon, and effectively purchased a first round pick for $3 million dollars. In all, I think this is a reasonable return on the tremendous value Marion represents.

What this trade also signals was Miami’s lack of interest in Amare. Phoenix is looking for a combination of financial relief and young talent for Amare; a package of Marion and Beasley would foot the bill. It looks like Miami still values Beasley very highly in spite of his early inconsistent play. I guess there is also the minor issue of who would play small forward if both Beasley and Marion were shipped off. Still, it looks like Miami is content to use Marion’s deal to make a variety of minor upgrades over the short and medium term rather than push everything in the middle with a DWade/Amare paring.

Also on the Amare front, Memphis was rumored to turn down a deal of Rudy Gay, Mike Conley and some combination of expiring deals for Amare Stoudamire. On paper, this looks like a great trade for Memphis. The Grizz are always going to struggle to acquire star power (look at how much they gave up for a shot at O.J. Mayo), and Amare would immediately inject some serious star power. In addition, for as compelling as Rudy and Mike are, both are very movable pieces in my opinion. Gay has been made somewhat redundant by the emergence of O.J. Mayo as an elite perimeter talent, while Memphis eventually has to make a decision on who the point guard of the future is going to be (Conley or Kyle Lowry), so just finally turning the keys over to one of them is addition by subtraction to some extent. What prevented Memphis from pulling the trigger was likely one of two things 1) Memphis is in a constant state of salary shedding (look at what they “got” for Pau Gasol, who even had a reasonable contract, relatively speaking) and Amare requires a large financial commitment on their part or 2) it seemed unlikely that Amare would be willing to resign with Memphis after the 2010 season. Rookie contracts have a ton of value to teams like Memphis in large part because of the restricted free agency part; it basically forces players to resign if the team has serious interest in keeping them. For small market teams who struggle to attract marquee free agents, rookie contracts are often the only way to develop and keep real talent. Add it all together, and a year and a half lease of Amare in exchange for two promising players on rookie deals just doesn’t add up for a rebuilding team like Memphis.

Chicago seems like the most likely destination. They can offer up a nice young prospect like Tyrus Thomas and a fairly large expiring contract in Drew Gooden, the question looms of what else would be required out of Chicago. Joakim Noah seems like an awesome fit since he can defend, rebound and run the floor, but coming away with a second front court player might not be as desirable as one front court and one back court player. Maybe Thabo Sefolosha, another player who, while not very productive yet, at least fits in theory with what Phoenix wants to do. All the other assets on Chicago are either untouchable (Derrick Rose, of course) or committed to deals so long term that Phoenix has no interest (Kirk Hinrich, Nocioni). However, a package of Thomas, Gooden, another young player and a future first rounder sounds like it would meet all of Phoenix’s wants.

Detroit is another team with some chips to play with. Rasheed Wallace has to be high on Phoenix’s wish list. He has a giant expiring contract (in the neighborhood of $14 million) and still plays at a very high level. Making this trade would allow Phoenix to still compete for a playoff spot this year, as opposed to the Chicago trade described above, which would basically be a concession of this season. Detroit could pair Wallace with Amir Johnson, a young, promising shot blocker/defender. I could see Phoenix wanting this more than the Chicago package if they aren’t interested in Chicago’s pieces, and instead simply go for as much financial savings as possible. For Detroit, this trade makes a lot of sense. They traded for Iverson with the intent of grabbing the goods this off season, why not just get it over with now by getting Stoudamire? Also, Iverson/Stoudamire could be a really good screen-roll combination.

Wherever Amare ends up, the team acquiring him is going to get him at a real discount. The real question is where Phoenix decides to go from here. They are purportedly “rebuilding”, but what in the world are they rebuilding around? They’ve already publicly stated that Nash is untouchable. Shaq couldn’t be swapped for an expiring contract, in spite of his improved play. Neither Robin Lopez nor Gordan “Tragic” Dragic have looked like rotation level players early in their career. Barbosa doesn’t have the same value that he had during the D’Antoni era. Their only young, valuable player is Stoudamire, and swapping him for expiring contracts and tier two prospects doesn’t sound like nearly enough value for a team without any other prized assets. To paraphrase John Hollinger over at ESPN, some sort of alarm has to go off that many of the teams looking to get in on Amare are rebuilding teams themselves. For a franchise that has been characterized by indecision, cheapness and poor management for the last half-decade, trading Amare Stoudamire for 40 cents on the dollar would be the ultimate cherry on top of the crap cake.

People often hold positions that are really a Trojan horse for other, more radical views. I know I do. For example, when I say I want to legalize medicinal marijuana, what I’m really saying is I want to legalize all marijuana. Similarly, when people say they want to ban same-sex marriage, what they’re really saying is that faggery is wrong—but making it illegal just isn’t practical right now.

Take the example of Christine Brody. Citing her religious beliefs, in 1999 she denied infertility treatment to Guadalupe Benitez, a lesbian. Benitez sued Brody for discrimination. During the proceedings, the doctor said she refused to perform the procedure because Benitez was unmarried, not because she was a dirty lesbian. While the distinction is a bit tortured—Benitez had been with her partner for the last eight years, and they were registered as domestic partners—it isn’t outright bigotry yet.

Fast-forward ten years. Right before California’s highest court ruled in favor of Benitez, it legalized same-sex marriage in the state of California. Great news for Benitez and her partner—who were still together and raising three children—and supposedly neutral news for Brody, who swore she wasn’t discriminating based on sexual orientation. Except, as it turns out, she was: about two weeks after the California Supreme Court ruled on same-sex marriage, Brody opened her checkbook to the “Yes on 8” campaign. Brody wouldn’t help Benitez reproduce because she was unmarried, but as soon as the law allowed Benitez to get married, Brody helped finance the campaign that made it impossible.

So, is Brody a bigot? Let’s spell out her positions.

It’s immoral to help unmarried women get pregnant.

Lesbians can’t shouldn’t marry.

Therefore, it’s immoral to help lesbians get pregnant.

Let’s assume Brody believes that being gay is a choice, because the alternative is that she believes people should be discriminated against based on something they have no control over (and that would be wrong). Brody could argue that lesbians have the same right to marry and reproduce as straight women, only they have to partner with a man just like everyone else. According to this line of thought, it doesn’t matter if you’re straight or gay; as long as you can get someone with a penis to vouch for you, you’re worthy of special privileges. It’s sort of like believing in Jesus.

No one chooses to be a lesbian—just ask anyone who’s been to a Melissa Etheridge concert. If a woman wants to be with another woman, and she isn’t in college or drunk, then she really means it.** Your religious beliefs are a lot more about choice than your sexual orientation. You can go to one church, or you can go to another; you can emphasize community building and charity, or you can emphasize discrimination and fear mongering; you can use your beliefs to lift your spirits, or you can use them to tear others down. The Bible is full of vagueness and contradiction, and people regularly pick and choose what parts they want to apply in their lives. (It’s a wonder the Mormons haven’t funded any ballot initiatives making divorce illegal; we’d see how much religion is a matter of choice then. Suddenly, everyone’s a Unitarian!) Religion is a Rorschach test, and the way you choose to express your religious beliefs tells me a lot more about you than it does about your religion.

Imagine you’re a doctor, and one of your patients is asking you to help her start a family. You know intimate details about her life that few others do, and you’ve seen intimate parts of her body that few others want to. Now let’s say you’re preparing to tell this patient, to her face, that you won’t help her because of her lifestyle. Most of us would need a very good reason to do this. Brody said her reason was because Benitez was unmarried—her words. She didn’t say “single,” because Benitez wasn’t; and she didn’t say “un–civil unioned,” because that would’ve left the door open for Benitez to raise children, which Brody obviously didn’t want.

People have a right to their beliefs, but let’s call them what they are. Christine Brody’s religion doesn’t discriminate against gays. She does.

~Cate Gary

* Carlsbad resident Robert Hoehn of Hoehn Motors donated $25,000 in the final days of the campaign. Given that car sales have hit a 26-year low, I bet he wishes he had that cash on hand now.

** I’m just saying there’s a higher instance of lesbianism when women are in college and/or I’m drunk.

It all started when a high-school classmate emailed to tell me about my hilarious video doing stand-up on YouTube. I immediately smelled a rat: no one ever thinks my videos are funny. If cornered, my friends will usually acknowledge that they’d seen them before abruptly changing the subject. Intrigued, I did some investigating, which led me to make the following horrifying discoveries:

1) The video misspells my name, both in the heading and the Timothy Leary–inspired intro. The material is attributed to a “Kate” Gary, which explains why my regular regime of Google-self-stalking and email alerts hadn’t turned it up.

2) This video has been on YouTube since September 8, 2008, during which time it has gotten more than 2,800 views. I’ve uploaded videos of my stand-up before, and even with my best efforts I’ve only managed to get about a tenth of that many hits. Even my greatest PR outing, my series of MySpace blogs written as Sarah Palin, only got me 72 views and a marriage proposal from Rush Limbaugh, providing yet another example of how I have the Midas touch of shit. It’s obvious that my personal involvement in promotion has only retarded my career. I’m sure there are agents out there dying to sign Kate Gary, but I don’t think me sticking my nose in will help her out in the least.

3) As this video was posted without my knowledge, I had no control over which category it would appear in, which turns out to be “Chick Comedy.” So not only is my biggest Internet debut filed under the wrong name, but it’s also summed up in a way that immediately alerts the viewer that what they’re about to witness is your garden-variety man-hating crap. I wonder if anyone watched the video before categorizing, or if they stopped at the all-important “Vagina: Y/N?” litmus test, giving all my observations about the Middle East peace process the same regard as jokes about whether Ryan Seacrest is gay. (My Middle East jokes were edited out, but you can still hear the one about my thong being on sideways. . . . Classic!) Likewise, I had no control over the video’s title (“Too Lazy for Divorce”) or the tagline (“Kate Gary would consider divorce if it wasn’t for all the paperwork.”). I don’t even want to think about what my husband is going to do. Between this and the time he caught me looking at the Ashley Madison website “for research,” I’m not looking very good. On top of that, my video runs ads directing the viewer to local divorce attorneys’ websites—even I’m starting to think I might be trying to say something.

For what it’s worth, here’s the video for your viewing pleasure. I’m not actively promoting it, but I would like to push the views past Rebecca Corry’s stupid impression of Madonna. (Don’t click on this link unless you hate yourself.) If I’m going to be on the comedy short bus, I’d at least like a seat in the front!

~Cate “Kate” Gary

MVP: LeBron James

Usually, the MVP is some mix of 1) Best Player on Best Team and 2) Lifetime Achievement Award. I think LeBron qualifies on both accounts (even if you want to argue about which team is the best, the Cavs have to be at least in the Top 3) and is the best player in the league to boot. LeBron is doing all the usual stuff—rebounding, making his teammates better, scoring at an efficient rate—but what is really scary is that he’s patching up whatever “weak” spots there were in his game. His man defense is starting to catch up to his ball hawking (one of the best in the league) and his weakside help defense (some absurd highlight in nearly every game now it seems). His jumper is now becoming a real weapon, and when that’s clicking he is simply unstoppable. Combine that with the Cavs record, tied with the Lakers for 2^nd best in the league, and I think this has to be LeBron’s year.

Also in contention: Dwayne Wade, Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard

Rookie of the Year: Derrick Rose

O.J. Mayo caught a lot of hype for ROY honors back when Memphis was stringing together a bunch of wins a few months ago, and Russell Westbrook has started to turn it on for the Thunder. I still have to give the nod to Rose, for a few reasons. 1) He’s playing the most difficult position in the league at a very high level. 2) With all due (dis)respect to Memphis, I think Chicago might be the most dysfunctional, poorly assembled team in the league. For Rose to blossom on a team with no regular rotations or starting lineup, with no other playmakers to take any of the load off of him, with the horrendous Gooden/Gray/Ty Thomas/Joakim Noah “frontcourt”, with a rookie coach with no coaching experience is very impressive. 3) Both players have met expectations. Rose’s are much much higher, playing for his hometown in a big market, and being the first overall pick in the draft. 4) Mayo actually has a lot more to work with, with Rudy Gay being better than any of Rose’s teammates and Marc Gasol being a far better PF/C than any of the dubious aforementioned Bulls bangers. 5) Most importantly, I don’t think that based on what has happened so far this year that anyone would rather have Mayo than Rose straight up.

Also in contention: O.J. Mayo, Russell Westbrook, Brook Lopez

Coach of the Year: Stan Van Gundy

I almost went for Mike Brown here. Not because I think he’s a great coach, but because he is now showing more creativity in his offensive sets than the previous years of “Isolate LeBron and let him go 5 on 1”. However, the Magic have unexpectedly turned the Eastern Conference into a three team race (at least prior to the Nelson injury), and Van Gundy deserves a lot of the credit. The team’s philosophy matches the talent (surround Howard with a bunch of awesome shooters), which is a refreshing thing to watch. The primary playmaking responsibilities being divided between Nelson and Turkoglu is a great move, especially considering how many mismatches those two create (Nelson against slower guards, Turk against smaller forwards), and he’s even found time to get minutes for developing players like Courtney Lee and J.J. Redick (not sure you can call him developing at this point but whatever). More than anything else, I think the Magic are the one team that is playing well beyond expectations, and usually that is the best indicator of who wins the Coach of the Year.

Also in Contention: Mike Brown, Nate McMillan

Sixth Man of the Year: Jason Terry

This award always gets a little dodgy in my opinion. That is, the award is usually given to someone logging starter’s minutes, which to me seems to go against the spirit of the award. I don’t think there should be some sort of minutes per game cap, but I like it a lot more when someone like Barbosa wins the award playing 25 minutes a game compared to Manu winning it logging 35 minutes a game. With all that said, I think Jason Terry (and his 34 minutes a game) is running away with this award. How many small, speedy guards put together their best season at the age of 31? He’s averaging a career best 20.3 points per on 47% shooting, and is capably playing both guard positions. What’s more, he does all the intangible things that a Sixth Man is supposed to do; energizing his teammates, getting the crowd hyped up, taking the game over when Dirk is in a slump, etc. I don’t think this one is very close, really.

Also in Contention: Andrei Kirienko, Mickael Pietrus, Lamar Odom

Defensive Player of the Year: Tim Duncan

It just is what it is. Based on Defensive Efficiency (opposing scoring per 100 possessions) San Antonio is 4^th in the league and 1^st in the Western Conference, which is important because they play more games against the generally more potent Western Conference teams than the top Eastern teams. The Spurs were without Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili for a large stretch of the season, and were often fielding a team that looked like a YMCA threw up. The only constant was, of course, Tim Duncan. The blocks and rebounds are there as always, but the way he defends the pick and roll, his rotations, his man defense (constantly destroying Amare, something else no other player can say) are things that don’t show up on a stat sheet, and are what makes the Spurs the defensive force they are year after year. People might like to give Garnett more credit because his “intensity” (codeword for “Being a Giant Douche”) is more visible than Duncan’s quiet mastery, but Tim is the more important piece for a superior defense.

Also in Contention: Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, Marcus Camby

Most Improved Player: Rajon Rondo

Giving an award to any Celtic is like a thousand daggers slicing through my testicles, but I have to give credit where it’s due. While my man Devin Harris is tearing it up, he’s (don’t look too closely now) largely the same player he was last season, except he’s getting more shots per game. Rondo has actually improved in basically every facet of his game. He’s emerged as the premier defensive point guard in the whole league (nearly as many steals as Chris Paul while playing vastly superior man defense) while shooting at a 50% clip, averaging 8 assists per game (good for sixth in the league) and 3.18 assist/turnover ratio (fifth in the league). He’s doing this all on the best team record-wise in the league, as opposed to Harris who’s gunning on a lottery-bound team with a whole offensive structure set up to maximize his scoring chances. Just because a player was clearly already something special doesn’t mean they can’t win Most Improved, and so my choice goes to Rondo.

Also in Contention: Devin Harris, Kevin Durant Chris Duhon