Vines sent me this Wednesday morning, and I just got around to giving it the read it deserves. Great stuff here that has nothing to do with the NBA. I think we have the makings of a weekly guest column. Enjoy the World According to Vines:
So after watching Kobe get interviewed at the end of Game 4 last night with that great look as he said, "No foul", I turned my attention to what really matters, watching "Rounders" for the 250th time. What hasn't been said about this movie? Well, two things that haven't been said (at least to my knowledge), are (i) why did Mike McD not return the $10K to Professor Petrovsky in person and (ii) why didn't he pay the man interest on the $10K? This frustrates me every time I watch the movie. I mean Petrovsky wrote the kid a $10K check (which was cashed that same night with no "check-cashing fee"), totally on a flier. For those of you who don't already know, I am likely the token Jew on this site and I know all about doing a mitzvah (which is what Petrovsky called his act of kindness towards Mike). But what an act of kindness! Mike asks for $15K from a self-proclaimed "not a rich man", but Petrovsky still comes up with $10K? I wonder if the professor had given Mike the $15K (which would have cleared him of the trouble he was in) if Mike would have just paid the debt and gone back to school, instead of making the run at KGBs. Good thing the "not a rich man" could only come up with just enough scratch to make Mike work for the rest. Then after turning the $10K into just under $60K, Mike pays Petrovsky back (in cash) (yeah, I want the sequel to start with Petrovsky walking into the bank with that envelope of cash and trying to deposit it), but with nothing extra. Not even a thank you. He doesn't even go himself, but sends the only girl that can move out of a New York City apartment in less than three hours to deliver the envelope thick with only the $10K that Mike borrowed. Give the guy a grand for his troubles, at least. That would be 10%. Hell, double the guys money for his kindness. He took quite a risk on some guy that wasn't even smart enough to disregard the holding Texas v Schneider (actually I don't remember the name of the case, but you get the reference). I don't know, it just rubbed me the wrong way.