Instead of making this a weekly feature with a new question each week, why don't you pose one question, let him respond, then let Salon readers ask FOLLOW-UP questions? Right now this feature seems like space-filler, and it is no more enlightening than listening to a conservative or Republican Party official talking on Fox News: He's talking around the questions and is never challenged on any of his responses. Is this journalism?

This might be the lamest edition yet.

Why are Republicans afraid of science?

We're not.

The End.

They bring in a young African-American man to be a doll at the end of episode 7 (I think it was 7; it's the one where the crazy drug gets released on a college campus).

Although if you want to hang on to your moral indignation, the black character was lying and murderous.

SPOILER ALERT!

I think that what Wyman is arguing is that the documentary doesn't deal with the fact that if you don't like your sentence, you can't flee. And if you feel the judge acted improperly in the case, you appeal.

And it's not as if Polanski is a poor black kid charged with drug possession being represented by an overworked public defender. White people, particularly rich ones, do very well in the American judicial system.

I remember something Barkley said as a player many moons ago to the effect that he wishes the league would go back to only two refs. He thinks having three means that when one of them doesn't make a call, they argue that the other two also blew it. He thought it allowed refs to not take responsibility for bad calls.

Dear NBA,

All will be forgiven and forgotten if you start whistling Ginobili for his patented traveling layups and Iverson for palming the ball on his "crossover" dribble.

huh, King?

Donaghy is trying to get his sentence minimized.

Explain to me how making up these kind of allegations would do that, exactly.

These allegations were in a letter to the judge explaining how Donaghy deserves leniency because he has been completley honest and helpful in helping the FBI. These allegations were listed as the instances of him being helpful and honest.

There are other stories on the Web, should be easy to find, that also explain how this letter was sent in a way that made it available to the public -- many of the documents in this case are private -- and that Donaghy's lawyer was also responding to the NBA's demand that Donaghy pay the league $1 million -- the cost it says it spent in investigating Donaghy.

The lawyer is arguing, he shouldn't have to pay the $1 million, look at all the info he has given.

One of the elements about the Van Gundy incident that always throws me is that somehow Stern is trying to promote the game in China, as someone in this thread posted, but then would encourage the refs to foul out Yao (or at least put him on the bench), the NBA's biggest attraction for those Chinese fans.

But I guess that's what happened at the behest of Mark Cuban, who I guess then lost all of his behind-the-scenes mojo by the time the Mavs played the Heat and Wade went to the line over and over.

And then it's all about the ratings and the money, so series are rigged to go long. But this season, L.A.'s team has played in really short series. They went 4-0, 4-2, 4-1.

Then the Boston-L.A. series was destined to happen because the NBA rigged it. But then the NBA would pass on the Suns and Shaq playing the Lakers. A Shaq-Kobe series would have been a ratings bonanza. Also, why would the NBA pass on moving the Hornets past the Spurs in Game 7 of that series? Wouldn't a New Orleans-L.A./MVP vs. CP3 series also have been a big (or bigger) TV draw?

I am not trying to confuse the issue by raising these questions, but trying to point out that a lot of people who claim the NBA is rigged and games and series are fixed always grab the examples that back their argument and ignore the ones that don't.

If you had gone to the Arizona Republic web site during the Suns-Spurs series you would have seen a wealth of posts about how the Suns were being jobbed by the "Sterns" on the floor who wanted the Spurs to move on to the next round, a theory that is completely laughable when you look at how bad the Spurs do in the ratings.

I can keep going: Vlade Divac was on the line in Game 7 against the Lakers AT THE END OF THE GAME. He could have won it in regulation but he missed. Why would they put him on the line if they wanted the Lakers to win? Was Divac in on it, too?

Where were all the pro-L.A. fixes when the Lakers were getting clubbed to death by the Jazz (and its humongous TV market) year in and year out in the '90s?

The Lakers had a 3-1 lead in the series against the Suns only to lose 3 straight. So was that the make-the-series-go-to-7 gremlins beating out the team-from-the-bigger-market-moves-on gremlins?

The NBA made the Grizzlies trade Gasol to the Lakers, but the NBA would let its biggest TV market, New York, languish when it has that kind of power? I think one of the NBA's biggest problems for years is that the team in the flagship market is nonexistent.

Oh, and there's that little thing about the Celtics falling off the face of the planet for 20 years, but I guess the NBA was too busy making sure the all-important Cleveland market got its local superstar.

I am sure most Lakers fans and I were screaming much worse things at our TVs -- about Odom and Gasol -- than what Kobe was saying. And I bet only, like, half of us are rapists and egomaniacal monsters.