No ring in Kobe's future - Dr. Buss & the diva at small forward

Being a Boston Celtics fan living in the land of the purple and gold has its ups and downs. Beating the Lakers in the finals in 2008 with a series-clinching 40-point win was definitely an "up." As a card-carrying member of the Kobe Haters Club, Mr. Bryant earning my respect by winning a championship last year without Shaquille O'Neal was an obvious "down."

The turmoil around the Lakers after what coach Phil Jackson called their "meltdown" against Kevin Durant and the Oklahoma City Thunder in game four on Saturday night has very much been the highlight of the season for me so far.

I would have loved seeing 20,000 of the best basketball fans in the world chanting "Beat L.A." as the C's win our 18th title this season, but that won't be possible this year or any year in the near future. The Kobe Bryant-led Los Angeles Lakers won't make it back to the finals, might not even make it out of the first round, and an off-season of questions about the future of the organization and whether or not to re-sign the best coach in NBA history (not named Red Auerbach) could start as soon as Friday night. It's like 2004 all over again — and I'm loving it.

I don't know how last night's game five ended because this column went to print before tip-off. However, I do know that there is only one acceptable outcome for a Lakers team that dominated the Western Conference during the regular season (because it was focused on having home court advantage throughout the playoffs) and for a player who is supposed to be among the top five all-time Lakers and the best closer in the NBA. If you're the No.1 seed playing the No. 8 seed — a defending champion led by seasoned veterans going against a team with no real playoff experience — and you've been outplayed for the better part of all four games, you should have come out and made a statement of dominance.

That probably didn't happen and even if it did, for Lakers fans it's too little, too late. Through the first four games of the series, the Thunder gained the confidence that they can win; and in three games at OKC this season, the Lakers basically haven't shown up. Kobe's team has played down to their competition all season and now faces its second and third consecutive must-win games against the lowest-seeded team in the west. Last night's game was a must-win because the Lakers don't want to go back to OKC facing elimination and Friday's game is a must-win because whichever team won last night will want to close the series out and avoid a game seven.

Even if they do manage to find an answer for UCLA's Russell Westbrook and advance to the next round, these Lakers lack the chemistry, toughness, and heart it will take to get to the finals. So as this off-season starts, Dr. Jerry Buss will have Bryant under contract along with centers Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum and forwards Lamar Odom and Ron Artest. What he won't have are reliable guards, a serviceable bench, or a coach. And without Phil Jackson, no free agents will want to come and play with Kobe, the petulant diva who Dr. Buss decided was the future of the (second) most storied franchise in the NBA.

Why would they? Any free agent who could help this team will look and see that when Shaq was so frustrated with Kobe that he wanted to "pound the chump," Dr. Buss chose Kobe over the most dominant player of the decade. Then, when Phil was so frustrated that he'd "had it with this kid" and wouldn't return to the team if Bryant was on the roster, Dr. Buss chose Kobe over the (second) greatest professional basketball coach of all time. And if two first-ballot Hall of Famers couldn't break through Jerry Buss' "Kobe Derangement Syndrome," nobody can.

The Los Angeles Lakers are going to sink or swim with Bryant, so get used to Kobe going into the locker room for treatment with four minutes left to go in a blowout loss, leaving his teammates to suffer the public humiliation without him (cry me a river about his knee — ice up and sit there with the guys). Look for him to skip practices like he did after that same blowout loss, despite the fact that his team obviously has adjustments to make. And look for him to make squeaky, outlandish statements like, "Who said our backs are against the wall? It's a 2-2 series. What the hell is going on around here?"

I'll tell you what's going on, Kobe. When you were criticized for shooting too much and you decided to send a message by deliberately choosing not to shoot the ball for the entire first quarter of game four, you cost your team that game and a chance to take control of this series — all because somebody hurt your little feelings. What's going on is your legacy in the game is more important to you than your teammates; and until Dr. Buss makes you go sit facing the corner wearing a pointy hat, the Los Angeles Lakers will never win another title.

Calling for Hollywood equality - In support of black comedic actors

Readers of this column should know by now that I handicap the good speaking roles for black actors in the movies I pay to see. Generally speaking, I will pay to see a movie with a handicap of three or less if the story is compelling enough or if it stars actors I trust. My personal rule when it comes to supporting black comic actors is if a movie has a handicap of six or higher, I will pay to see it twice — no matter how bad it is the first time.

But that's me. I may have a little chip on my shoulder because I grew up in the 1980s under the tutelage of the Black Comedy Triumvirate (Robert Townsend, Bill Cosby, and the immortal Richard Pryor) while watching Hollywood struggle to properly utilize the talents of the greatest comedic performer of his generation, Eddie Murphy. So I want to see more black comedic actors in the movies and on TV. If you're like me, you should go see "Death At A Funeral" because there are no fewer than eight good, funny, speaking parts played by eight talented, funny black actors; and the only way we're going to see more movies and TV shows like it is by putting our money where our mouths are.

I will warn you that it's directed by Neil Labute, and he can't make a good movie without Aaron Eckhart. But it's written by the same writer who wrote the same movie (with the same title and the same plot) that was in theaters back in the summer of 2007. So if you liked Frank Oz' "Death At A Funeral" three years ago but thought it needed more pratfalls, swearing, hallucinogenic drug use, and nudity, then you're going to love Neil Labute's version. He even throws in a totally cringe-worthy sight gag involving a wheelchair-bound Danny Glover (who has to make a "number two"), Tracy Morgan (who has to help him onto the throne), and a bathroom mirror.

But scat aside, I like this story because it takes place in a world where black dudes like Tracy Morgan and white dudes like Luke Wilson actually know each other, know each other's families, do things together, and (God forbid) care about each other. It's a world where black women like Zoe Saldana are pursued by two different suitors and her father prefers the one who isn't an idiot, not the one who isn't white (he doesn't have a choice on that one, they're both white dudes). It's the same world that millions of us wake up in every single morning, but for some reason it doesn't exist in Tyler Perry movies or Mike Nichols movies.

In that world, people of different colors exist in totally different spheres and almost never the twain shall meet. Unfortunately for black and brown actors, that's the "default world" when it comes to movies and TV. It hasn't just been white, it's been all white all the time. In that world, black and brown characters aren't typically developed, rather they depend on some obvious frame of reference like working as a mailman or a construction worker in order for white audiences to be able to relate to them. That has led to some of the racial and ethnic clichés we've learned to reject; but it's also given rise to the more subtle shallowness of simply classifying black and brown people by their job. The negative stereotype is easily recognizable as being prejudicial, the occupational stereotype is no less dehumanizing. You don't know who someone is because you can see what they do.

I've used a lot of space in this column over the years to advocate for the reinstatement of the position of "The Other Black Guy" on "Saturday Night Live." I understand that Kenan Thompson is so talented that he's believable as Charles Barkley and The Rev. Al Sharpton. That doesn't mean the show only needs one black actor in the cast. There has been an unbroken string of first ladies on "SNL" going back to Betty Ford, but Michelle hasn't been on the show since Maya Rudolph left.

Whether or not they realize it or are aware of it, white people generally suffer from a hysterical, irrational fear of black dudes. We don't blame you, it's how you were raised. Our best assets for dispelling that hysterical, irrational fear are our truth-telling comedic performers. You can't be afraid of Robert Townsend, Bill Cosby, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Martin Lawrence, or Chris Rock because you're too busy laughing with them. And we need guys like them to build bridges between Tyler Perry-world, Mike Nichols-world, and George Lopez-world.

So, please support black comedic performers, even when they're not on top of their game, because they serve an important function. I'm not saying you should go see this movie for me, white people, but I think it's only fair considering I paid to see "The Men Who Stare At Goats."

We have to park somewhere - Santa Monica and the LUCE

The first time I tried to park in Downtown San Francisco, I figured taking the car would be a piece of cake because of the rows of meters I saw lining the streets. I ended up having to pay $20 to park in a garage that day as those meters — which seemed so plentiful and friendly — proved to be treacherous and vindictive because no matter how many quarters I fed them, they only gave me 15 minutes.

I've since learned the way it goes in that town is you can bring your car into the city, but if you don't want it ticketed (or damaged), you'd better keep it off the streets. You drive in San Francisco and you pay the price, one way or another. Pretty soon afterward I was introduced to BART, the incredible Bay Area Rapid Transit system that can literally get you door-to-door faster than a car.

After last week's meeting to discuss Santa Monica's Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) as it moves toward a final City Council vote, it becomes necessary to talk about public transportation's benefits and, more importantly, its limitations. Because the plan for how to deal with the rise in the number of new car trips into and out of Santa Monica as our city grows over the next 25 years is a little suspect. It would appear that the Expo Light Rail line and its three local stops are expected to mitigate part of the increase in vehicle traffic and we residents of Santa Monica are supposed to change our driving habits to make up for the rest (unlike San Francisco, we are not going to make our city's visitors take responsibility for their vehicles).

If that's going to be the plan for how to deal with the massive influx of non-resident cars clogging our streets for scheduled events like the L.A. Marathon, Twilight Dance Series, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and Labor Day, plus the weekly or even daily visitors who come here just to walk around, then the City Council simply cannot vote to certify the LUCE.

Public transportation systems in cities like Boston, New York, Washington, D.C., and Chicago are safely shuttling people to and from shows, sporting events, monuments, and museums while minimizing the negative impact from cars. Those cities are designed (dare I say "planned?") around efficient public transportation infrastructure that maximizes the jobs/housing balance. We don't have that here because Los Angeles is designed around freeways, not subways. L.A.'s jobs/housing balance is out of whack, which is all the more reason why Santa Monica has to find our own solution to our traffic problems. To rely on the Expo Light Rail line alone to serve as enough of a counter-balance to meet our stated goal of "no net new trips" is unrealistic at best. We have to ask ourselves how likely it is that Angelenos en masse are going to abandon their cars when they bring their families to Santa Monica?

I think that critical question was overlooked in the drafting of the LUCE and I think that was a predictable outcome when non-locals were hired to consult on very local issues. If the number of actual riders of the Expo Light Rail line doesn't match up with the number of projected riders, then the pressure will fall on Santa Monica residents to reduce our vehicle usage to stay on track. Essentially, the LUCE envisions us as leading the charge to get the city of Los Angeles to embrace public transportation, despite the fact that it's never happened before. And there will be traffic hell to pay if we don't succeed.

Keep in mind the fact that we already use the Big Blue Bus, shuttle services for our hospitals and Santa Monica College, bike lanes, electric cars, and our city fleet is the greenest in the country. If you live in Santa Monica and you're not using some alternative form of transportation it's because you can't or you really, really don't want to. I don't blame you, either. I know what it's like to live within a mile of your kid's school and still be scrambling to get them dropped off and picked up on time. And since it's your money that pays to keep the city functioning, it's perfectly reasonable for you to expect to drive your car.

Instead of relying on squishy concepts like "transportation demand management (TDM)" and requiring residents to pick up the slack if TDM and Expo Light Rail service don't work as advertised, Santa Monica should take the same approach that other destination cities and beachfront communities have taken: We could give local vehicles a resident sticker and reserve a certain amount of parking capacity for locals only. At the same time, we could make Bergamot Transit Village into a transportation hub where visitors could "park and ride" rented bicycles, scooters, and local cars (electric or hybrid) to get around town.

What we can't do is just keep building and hoping for the best because if we build it, they will come. And when they come, they'll have to park somewhere.

Teaching more than the pick 'n' roll - The madness of big-time college basketball

I love Major League Baseball because it has the best season in sports and I love the National Football League because it has the best day in sports, but I love basketball the most because it is by far the best sport. Boy or girl, big or small, fast or slow, and old or young; anyone can play, anyone can be good, and you don't have to be good to have fun.

Until recently, the Division I men's NCAA basketball championship tournament had been a very happy time for me. Not so much any more.

As the amazing documentary "Hoop Dreams" fades further and further in the collective memory and another generation of college basketball fans grows up pondering the name "Krzyzewski," I can't seem to revel in the madness of March like I did as a younger guy. Now that I've seen the blatant hypocrisy of the NCAA and the shameless lie of "amateur athletics" that it hides behind, it's difficult for me to see the tournament as anything other than the exploitation of young black athletes by the 1,100 member schools and their corporate partners.

Spend enough time in poor communities and you'll meet your fair share of poverty pimps. Some are big-time Division I college coaches with promises of pro contracts, and some are the well-intentioned children of privilege working to provide some desperately needed thing for under-served members of forgotten "populations."

But unlike the coach who just wants to win some postseason games and remain his state's only employee with a multi-million-dollar annual salary, the typical Trust-afarian with a heart of gold doing development work in the third world is only exploiting the natives for their own personal satisfaction. And at least when they're done, they leave behind something useful like a clinic. A degree in economics isn't all that helpful when four years of college taught you more about how to screen-and-roll in the high post than how to shield assets in a down cycle.

The NCAA's corporate teammates — CBS, AT&T, Capital One, Coca-Cola, Enterprise car rental, The Hartford, Hershey's Chocolate, LG, Lowe's, Kraft Foods, and State Farm Insurance — aren't exactly noble in their goals, either. Their primary motivation in exploiting these players is money. In addition to telecom, financial, car rental, and insurance services, they have food, beverages, and home improvement products to sell to the millions of viewers watching the games. In the case of CBS, a $10 billion company that agreed to pay $11 billion over six years for the broadcast rights, the games are so important to the bottom line that Sean McManus, president of CBS Sports and CBS News, said, "There is no more important event at CBS, not just at CBS Sports, than the men's basketball tournament."

The same could be said for the NCAA, which derives about 90 percent of its revenue from March Madness and most of the rest from ticket sales at "championships." Recently, talk of expanding the tournament to 96 teams has, surprisingly enough, coincided with talk of the NCAA opting out of the last three years of the CBS deal and soliciting offers. What nobody from the NCAA will talk about is how the expanded field would lead to players missing weeks of school. I guess when you've found a way to get each of the 600-plus players in the men's tournament to generate about $1 million for you every year, those billions of dollars can make you forget all about the "student" half of the student-athlete, even if you're a non-profit educational organization.

This is most troubling for the poor family, the black family, and the poor black family because in poor and black communities, athletics are seen as a means to an end. And that's the end of poverty. But somehow the Rick Pitinos and John Caliparis at the basketball factories like Louisville and Kentucky (which only graduate about a third of their men's basketball players) keep convincing poor and black families that they will provide their sons with the skills they'll need to be successful in life — provided that during their prime income-earning years as athletes, these young men remain "amateurs."

It's been 16 years since we learned about William Gates, Arthur Agee, and their visions of basketball stardom in "Hoop Dreams," and I'm sorry to report that we've learned very little since 1994. There are still only about 500 jobs available playing in the National Basketball Association, but that won't stop coaches from the universities of Tennessee, Washington, and Maryland from selling some 18 year old the fantasy, knowing the kid's chances of making an NBA team are slim and that his chances of even graduating from the school offering him a scholarship are only slightly better. If colleges and their coaches won't do a better job preparing young black athletes for life after they've used up their NCAA eligibility, then maybe it's time for black families to stop accepting those useless scholarships.

With all the money that schools stand to lose, it wouldn't take long before they started sending more people than just scouts and coaches to do outreach in poor and black communities.