In some political organizations there's a method of removing leadership from power called a vote of no confidence.  A vote such as this proves useful in public situations where the laws of the land or the rules of the body provide no clear mechanism for removing a ruler from power .  

Every state has a method for removing leadership in cases of proven corruption, treason or transgression of law.  But, in most cases it's very difficult to prove any accusations.  Thus, the vote of no confidence allows a body to remove a leader from power with specious knowledge of crime or even merely for incompetence.

While we're no body of ruling figures and the NBA's no democracy, we can still judge the body and let them know where we stand.  The poll below is a vote for no confidence in David Stern and the NBA as an organization of officials governing the league as a whole.

I have no confidence for this particular and unprovable (by legal standards) reason: The NBA fails to take action to ensure fairness to small market teams and to players with lesser reputations.

That's enough for me.  I won't even bother to mention the regard given to home teams in order to shore up ticket sales, opaqueness in the face of public scandal, and etc.

I could rant here for a while, but I'd rather see what you think.

Well, that was demoralizing.  But, it was just a game.  One game.  We lost.  As I texted my stupid L*ker fan friend, we can still go 81-1. 

Greg's out for .... who knows.  That's sad.  Poor Greg.  I'm not exactly worried, and I don't know why.  My brain's screaming things like ... well I'm not even going to say. 

We've been beat down with the whole "don't expect too much too early" jargon from all the analysts.  Good call by them.  The Blazers were NERVOUS.  You could see the pressure on them.

Does this lift the pressure?  Maybe a little?

Did you see that stuff Oden had on Bynum?  Did you see Rudy come in and provide some ENERGY?  Did we see Outlaw start coming back to life at the end of the game?  Did we see Roy regain his shot?  Did we see Bayless throw his body into K*be?  Did you see Batum with the steal?

That game sucked, but I saw so much that makes me wanna see the next game.  I'm not happy at all about how that went down.  Still, they're playing again.  There's so much to be excited about.  I'm so happy to be a Blazer fan.

So.... the game hurt.  Every loss does.  How do you feel about it?  Am I retarded (please only use this post as an example)?  Are you jittery or still excited?  Does anyone else think the real season begins on Friday?

At the end of the Olive podcast yesterday (http://blog.oregonlive.com/blazers/2008/10/1023_quick_chat_oden_improving.html) Quick had a few comments for the fans about his article on Oden.  He wasn't all that pleased with us as a fan base.

I'm with him. 

I won't defend him based on the tenor and tone of his article.  It needs no defense.  If you thought he was somehow incriminating Oden, you simply misread and misintrepreted the article.  A writer has an obligation to make his point obvious, or apparent, only to a certain degree.  He did so.  If you misread it, you'd do well to seek interpretive assistance at a community college prior to posting comments again.

Let's get things very clear: reading doesn't mean recognizing the language and forming an opinion based on nothing more than the concomittance of a few sentences.  There is an implicit obligation on the part of the reader to try to understand the point of the author.  The project of journalism is discursive (a matter of discourse).  A reader who does not attempt to interpret the point of view of the author is guilty of trangressing the intellectual endeavor.  In lay speak, if you don't try to understand what the author is trying to say, you make the world dumber (it doesn't have electrolytes).  Why bother reading if you don't try? 

Our population has become accustomed to hearing and reading what it wants to read and hear.

Journalism is a business.  Because of business interests in an ever more crowded market, Panda Bear journalism replaces the critical and fact checking press we used to have (or at least I pretend we used to have).   Big money figured out that if you tell people what they already think, they give you their money: the lesson of Fox News.  Can we blame Murdock for trying to make a buck?  Not really.  But, because it worked, it totally destroyed television news' coverage of political events.  You simply cannot trust what you see on TV. 

This is the audience that reacted so vehemently to Quick's article.  These readers didn't want to read that Oden was 'underwhelming.'  Nothing in their worlds taught them recently that they ought to attempt to understand why Quick wasn't telling them what they wanted to hear.  Instead of considering the point, they lashed out, telling Quick he had no right to write or say such things.

He had the right.  Even the obligation as a journalist.  As a beat write, Quick creates a narrative with his columns.  They aren't isolated snapshots of time.  He gives us a sense of how things are moving, shaping and developing.  It's a peek into the world the Blazers let him see everyday. 

Part of the narrative he created was that Oden would be AWESOME.  Quick reported more than a few times that that would be the case.  He's still reporting that.  He probably mentioned that he thought Oden wasn't quite playing as well as he'd expected (and thus relayed to us) because he felt obliged to update us on the narrative he brings us.  But, that hardly seemed like the point of the article that drew the ire of so many.

Quick lamented publicly that Oden had a lot of pressure on him, that he was part of it.  Anyone that's read Quick knows he loves this team and cares for them tremendously as people and players.  That article read as an apology to Greg, and a map for fans to show support and a possible indictment on the fans and media for putting so much pressure on Greg.  It read of an impending tragedy: Greg might lose his personality under the weight of our combined gazes.  The tone Quick struck was clearly a message to us, not to Greg. 

Well, maybe he was subtextually saying sorry for calling Greg underwhelming.  But that seems a stretch.  Quick had no need to apologize.

Quick's care for the team, and diligence in reporting on the team should be recognized and appreciated.  He clearly established a relationship that is something beyond what the casual reader understands. 

I've been following Quick since he arrived at the Oregonian.  He's dedicated, intelligent, and committed to writing solid narratives of the team.  He KNOWS BASKETBALL, and what he ought and ought not to say.  He's established that many times over.  It's time we respect him for the things he gives us: his insight, expertise and access.

Quick, you took a beating on this one.  Totally underserved.  I'm embarrassed to be categorized with the fans that bashed you so harshly.  (Also, I've been drunk for like 8 years, so if I wrote something to bash you, I'm so sorry, but I don't think I did, and if I did, I didn't mean it that way)

As an aside: the comments on Olive never seem well thought out.  I never bother posting over there because it seems like the riff raff get to it and dominate it.  One liners are lame. 

So, by now everyone knows that KP reads BE, even posting once in a while.  But, for some strange reason (I think it has to do with elves) he won't tell us who he is. 

While it would be fun one day if KP outed himself, we can't really encourage it right now because his posts would be a matter of record.  We KNOW Canzano would be trolling through old posts.  If KP's who I think, he's said some very, very funny things.  But it's not the sort of professionalism he'd need to publicly maintiain.  On the other hand, if KP just posts informative NBATV boring types posts he's pretty safe.

Now, this all changes if KP delivers the mother of all treats, and NBA Title, he won't need to hide behind a moniker.  At that point, he'll be so popular nothing (and I mean nothing) could bring him down. 

THIS IS MY CHALLENGE TO KP.  IF/WHEN THE BLAZERS WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP, PLEASE REVEAL YOURSELF TO US  You're already the best GM in the league.  It's not only because you nail nearly all your decisions, but because you interact so well with fans.  This would be your Blazers Edge coup de grace ( meaning awesomeness not mercy).  It'd be sort of like shaving your head or getting a faux hawk (which would just be sooooo cool, but maybe a bit much to ask).

Well, KP, if you see this, let us know.  I get my Blazer news mainly from Dave and Ben here, O-live (Quick or Freeman, but I think quick qould be a funnier person to relay such a message), Barret's Blog, and of course from Senor Holdhallllllllll.  I'm sure if you told someone else, we'd all the word though. 

In the meantime, let's get some suggestions about who KP might be.  I've long thought it was Mortimer, but this guys zaruga sounded pretty KPish lately.  If I can get some suggestions, I'll throw a poll up and we can all vote. 

Sean at O-live posted this link to Fox Sports  http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8519894/Which-NBA-coaches-make-biggest-impact?

Pretty sweet.  I'm not sure how much I like the Jackson stuff, but saying that Nate's the next coach to win with a dynasty sounds nice.  Here's my favorite quote (it's from the Byron Scott section), "He ranks just behind McMillan as the probable heir to the championship legacies of Jackson and Popovich."  Take that Hornets.

So, how about it?  Is it time to start valuing our coach as much as our players?  If Nate's really that good, shouldn't we start trumpeting him as a reason we're going to have a dynasty?  Some people say LA only opened their window when Jackson got there. 

I'm sold.  I was sold during the playoffs.  Rajon Rondo is the best player today.  Just kidding.  But, Chris Paul is the best.  He may not be as athletic, score as much, flash as much as Kobe, but he makes his team more betterer overall.   He's also not as ugly as LBJ (kidding aside, the Hornets without Paul are worse than the Cavs without LBJ, that sounds scary so maybe it's real close).

Why do people call Kobe the best?  Is it the big marketness?  Past history?  The idea that LBJ has to win a title before we can incorrectly call him the best?

Am I nuts?  Paul is THEE guy that makes the Hornets so good.  It's right there and no one gives him enough credit.

In the poll below, you'll have the oppurtunity to agree with me.  Now, that's smart pilitickin'

For that matter he barely plays respectable D. 

I love Martell.  He's one of my favorites.  But, there've been numerous comments about Martell's D and how awesome it is.  I'd like to get a little perspective here because it looks pretty shabby to me.

Everyone used to agree with me.  Then Webster talked about how was going to work hard on his D.  Now, everyone keeps talking about him as if he shutdown Kobe, Lebron in a two on one fastbreak. 

He's got the potential.  Sounds like he has the will.  He hasn't shown the skill yet, though.

If I didn't know BEers were the smartest people in the world, I'd suspect a few people were only listening to comments instead of watching games.

Does anyone agree with me, or has he shown something in the offseason that's got folks all happy?  Mortimer, Dave, Ben, Uppercut, wanna weigh in and let me know why I'm wrong?  I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. 

I just posted this on the Kings Blog:

I think it's the least we can do for them.  If you would please now refer to the Kings as the 2002 NBA Champs, I'd certainly appreciate the correction. 

First off I'm a Blazer fan.  I came over to read the draft thread from last night.  You guys are seriously funny.  We certainly appreciated all the good humor and 'in good nature' Blazer hating.

You're also a small market team, much like Portland.  The cities are different in many ways, but you're culture is fairly similar.  You're going through what we went through a few years ago. 

Last night was especially tough for you.  Maybe Thompsen works out.  He looks good to me, but I'm stupid.  We'll see.  Either way, missing out on Bayless and Augustin must have been torture.  I felt it for a few minutes before I realized what KP was up to.  I love Petire, but you probably could have had one of those players if Petrie really did his homework.

Because you seem like a great blog, and because of the similarities I mentioned and the tough times you've been having, I'd like to do two things for you. 

First, I'd like to invite you to become Blazer fans.  The timing's right, and now that you've had a formal invitation it's not like you're just jumping on some bandwagon.  You harcore fandom is not in question because we're pretty close as far as teams go, we all hate the living bejeezers out of the L*kers, and other reasons.

The other thing I'd like to do for you is to award the Kings the 2002 NBA Championship.  I don't care how many times I'm called a conspiracy theorist, that was your championship, and from now on when anyone ever asks me who won the 2002 NBA Championship, I will say it was the Kings.  I'll also make sure to ask my fellow Blazers Edge bloggers to do the same (though I can't promise they will).

I hope this helps you guys feel a little better about last night.  It's been a long time coming, but the 2002 Kings are finally awarded the title they deserve.  If anyone knows of a good and extremely cheap jeweler, I'd be happy to collect funds to get some rings made.  We can send them to each of the players.  Maybe we could have them made in LA.  Anyway, you now have bragging rights.  Have fun guys.