A few thoughts from NBA All-Star weekend:
Dwight Howard was robbed. He should have at least made the finals. His sticker dunk was one of the most creative and athletic I’ve ever seen. That’s not taking away anything from Gerald Green. He was flying through the air. It also gives the Celtics something to be happy about in the midst of an abysmal season.
Kobe vs. D Wade in the finals of the skills competition was great. I really hope the Heat and the Lakers play for the finals this year. LA was up on Phoenix 3-1 last year before self-destructing – the same Phoenix team that almost beat Dallas in the conference finals. Who wants to play Kobe and the Lakers in a seven game playoff series?
Jason Kapono proved once again that Dirk Nowitzki can’t handle pressure. When Kapono set the 3-point contest finals record out of the gate, I knew Dirk was toast. Dallas will never win a championship if he is their #1 guy. He’s too soft. He’s like the A-Rod of basketball.
The players need some incentive to try in the actual game itself. What that is exactly, I’m not sure. I don’t like the “winner gets home court in the finals” approach like baseball does, but I’m sure there is something. It appeared that most of the players were exhausted and hung over during the game, which they most likely were. The game was in Vegas for goodness sake. The Sports Guy calls All-Star weekend the “Hip-Hop Woodstock” and I couldn’t agree more.
And now, onto more basketball:
As a die-hard Laker fan, it should come as no surprise that the Lakers are my pick to win the west. The only team that worries me is San Antonio and that is because of Tim Duncan and Pop. Why not Dallas? See above. Why not Phoenix? Phoenix got rid of Tim Thomas, the guy who single handedly beat the Lakers last year in the playoffs with his clutch three pointers. Who can do that for them this year? Plus, you think Kobe’s forgotten about Raja Bell and his clothesline? I don’t think so. Other teams in the west that might scare me? Maybe Houston, but only if McGrady and Yao are both healthy and develop some good chemistry over the next few months. And that is only because Yao is almost 8 feet tall. Speaking of Houston, whatever happened to Rudy T? That’s about it.
What about the East? Besides trying to lower the bar of the worst conference in the history of professional sports, the East has two teams that could legitimately compete. The Pistons and the Heat. Both of these teams could beat any team that comes out of the West. The Pistons won’t get it done because of Flip Saunders. The Heat will get it done because of Pat Riley, Shaq, and D Wade. The Heat will make the finals again.
Heat vs. Lakers in the NBA finals? That’s a ratings dream come true. You’ve got Shaq vs. Kobe, Kobe vs. D Wade, Pat Riley vs. Lakers, Phil Jackson vs. Pat Riley and I’m sure a few others if I thought about it more. That would be fun. Plus, media members would be more than happy about splitting their time between LA and Miami. I hope it happens. If not, at least LA will get another shot at the Pistons.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
It is what I do, not who I am
This was originally posted 3 November 2006.
Who am I? Who are you? If you were asked to describe yourself succinctly, what would you include? How about if your best friend was asked to describe you? What would they include? Many people define themselves by their hobbies or interests. ..I am a runner... ..I am a musician... ..I am a Red Sox fan... You could think of many others .. and you could also assign many of your friends and acquaintances to a category of some sort. Often, a person will so narrowly define themselves, as to become fully focused in that area. For example, I compete in both triathlons and running races. I really enjoy these races and I enjoy the fitness level that I have from training for them. I have met people in my training and racing that are wholly consumed. They declare, ..I am a triathlete,.. and live their lives accordingly. They subscribe to triathlon magazines, they eat a traithlete..s diet, over time they even make new friends who are as wholly consumed in triathlon as they are. It becomes their life and who they are. Substitute any interest or hobby for the word triathlete or triathlon in the above sentences and you..ll see what I mean. Try substituting the word scrapbooker, dancer, NASCAR fan, or anything else you can think of. It can quite revealing. Other ways people attempt to define themselves is by their occupation. ..I am a teacher... ..I am a doctor... ..I am a scientist... This way of introducing yourself can be an innocuous way to start a conversation or a statement on how your live your life. I personally work in science. I am surrounded by people who wholly define themselves as scientists. Their research encompasses everything. It is all they discuss, all they work on, and even all they think about. Substitute other professions into the above example and again it can be revealing. A wise man told me about science, but is universally applicable .. ..It is what I do, not who I am... I learned much from these 9 simple words. This statement is what I attempt to use when describing my job, my hobbies, and my interests. Yes, I like to cycle. That..s what I do, but that doesn..t define me as a person. It is interesting to think of stereotypes in this fashion. So often, stereotypes are used from an outsider making generalizations about a specific group of people. But just as often when a person identifies themselves with a certain group, they tend to change the way the act and who they are just to fit that generalization. Take the triathlete example above. One could stereotype triathletes as nutrition freaks who spend too much time working out. But, a person beginning to define himself as a triathelte can assume that in order to be accepted by others in the group, he must act the part, and become a nutrition freak who works out too much. Human beings are very social by nature and will go to great lengths to feel accepted or part of a group. Once we find a group that accepts us, we tend to take on the personality and beliefs of that group and define ourselves as members of the group. Some more examples of how people categorize themselves are by skin color, nationality, religion, and even sexual orientation. ..I am black... ..I am Mexican... ..I am Jewish... ..I am gay... People tend to define themselves by nationality when in a foreign country. You rarely hear an American, when asked to say a few things about herself, list that she is an American if the question is posed in her native country. But ask the same question while she is traveling overseas and one of the first things that she will list is that she is American. Religion is a powerful defining factor that ironically can breed hate and intolerance. The war this country is fighting now is being fought on basis of people defining themselves by their religion and not accepting that others can believe differently from them. I am referring both to the ..war on terror.. and the ..culture war.. being fought at this time. In the former, Islamic fundamentalists want all non-muslims to convert or die. The latter pits ..Christians.. against secular progressives. Both are being fought in the name of religion and both are examples of religion breeding hate and intolerance. What about sexual orientation? This form of defining one..s self is typically only in one direction. You never hear anyone introduce their friend as ..heterosexual... There are no ..heterosexual pride.. parades or anyone that defines themself wholly by their heterosexuality. Yet, if you..re a homosexual, this is very common. This is who you are and how you live. The intimate relationships you have in your own bedroom, you broadcast to the world. I quote another wise man, ..expand your horizons beyond simply gender orientation. Find fulfillment in the many other facets of your character and your personality and your nature that extend beyond that. There..s no denial that one..s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person, but it..s not the only one... This is where I..ll begin to conclude. This advice, though given to those who define themselves by their sexual orientation, can be applied to any area. So, how should you define yourself? A key is to find many areas of your character and personality to develop. I think the first defining moment is as a human being who is surrounded by other human beings. You are no better or worse than anyone you encounter. Don..t consider yourself above anyone. Likewise, have the confidence to know that you are not below anyone either. This doesn..t mean don..t respect authority for laws and management help keep order in society, but don..t ever feel like your less important than anyone else. Define yourself in the way you treat others .. treat others as you would like to be treated. This is a bit cliché, but if everyone did this, the world would be a much better place. Expand your interests, magnify your talents, and continually learn new things. You will be better because of it. Try to avoid falling into the trap of complacency. There is more to life than narrowly defining yourself to one group. Make these areas, whether is be your job, your hobbies, your skin color, your religion or whatever it is ..what you do, not who you are...
Who am I? Who are you? If you were asked to describe yourself succinctly, what would you include? How about if your best friend was asked to describe you? What would they include? Many people define themselves by their hobbies or interests. ..I am a runner... ..I am a musician... ..I am a Red Sox fan... You could think of many others .. and you could also assign many of your friends and acquaintances to a category of some sort. Often, a person will so narrowly define themselves, as to become fully focused in that area. For example, I compete in both triathlons and running races. I really enjoy these races and I enjoy the fitness level that I have from training for them. I have met people in my training and racing that are wholly consumed. They declare, ..I am a triathlete,.. and live their lives accordingly. They subscribe to triathlon magazines, they eat a traithlete..s diet, over time they even make new friends who are as wholly consumed in triathlon as they are. It becomes their life and who they are. Substitute any interest or hobby for the word triathlete or triathlon in the above sentences and you..ll see what I mean. Try substituting the word scrapbooker, dancer, NASCAR fan, or anything else you can think of. It can quite revealing. Other ways people attempt to define themselves is by their occupation. ..I am a teacher... ..I am a doctor... ..I am a scientist... This way of introducing yourself can be an innocuous way to start a conversation or a statement on how your live your life. I personally work in science. I am surrounded by people who wholly define themselves as scientists. Their research encompasses everything. It is all they discuss, all they work on, and even all they think about. Substitute other professions into the above example and again it can be revealing. A wise man told me about science, but is universally applicable .. ..It is what I do, not who I am... I learned much from these 9 simple words. This statement is what I attempt to use when describing my job, my hobbies, and my interests. Yes, I like to cycle. That..s what I do, but that doesn..t define me as a person. It is interesting to think of stereotypes in this fashion. So often, stereotypes are used from an outsider making generalizations about a specific group of people. But just as often when a person identifies themselves with a certain group, they tend to change the way the act and who they are just to fit that generalization. Take the triathlete example above. One could stereotype triathletes as nutrition freaks who spend too much time working out. But, a person beginning to define himself as a triathelte can assume that in order to be accepted by others in the group, he must act the part, and become a nutrition freak who works out too much. Human beings are very social by nature and will go to great lengths to feel accepted or part of a group. Once we find a group that accepts us, we tend to take on the personality and beliefs of that group and define ourselves as members of the group. Some more examples of how people categorize themselves are by skin color, nationality, religion, and even sexual orientation. ..I am black... ..I am Mexican... ..I am Jewish... ..I am gay... People tend to define themselves by nationality when in a foreign country. You rarely hear an American, when asked to say a few things about herself, list that she is an American if the question is posed in her native country. But ask the same question while she is traveling overseas and one of the first things that she will list is that she is American. Religion is a powerful defining factor that ironically can breed hate and intolerance. The war this country is fighting now is being fought on basis of people defining themselves by their religion and not accepting that others can believe differently from them. I am referring both to the ..war on terror.. and the ..culture war.. being fought at this time. In the former, Islamic fundamentalists want all non-muslims to convert or die. The latter pits ..Christians.. against secular progressives. Both are being fought in the name of religion and both are examples of religion breeding hate and intolerance. What about sexual orientation? This form of defining one..s self is typically only in one direction. You never hear anyone introduce their friend as ..heterosexual... There are no ..heterosexual pride.. parades or anyone that defines themself wholly by their heterosexuality. Yet, if you..re a homosexual, this is very common. This is who you are and how you live. The intimate relationships you have in your own bedroom, you broadcast to the world. I quote another wise man, ..expand your horizons beyond simply gender orientation. Find fulfillment in the many other facets of your character and your personality and your nature that extend beyond that. There..s no denial that one..s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person, but it..s not the only one... This is where I..ll begin to conclude. This advice, though given to those who define themselves by their sexual orientation, can be applied to any area. So, how should you define yourself? A key is to find many areas of your character and personality to develop. I think the first defining moment is as a human being who is surrounded by other human beings. You are no better or worse than anyone you encounter. Don..t consider yourself above anyone. Likewise, have the confidence to know that you are not below anyone either. This doesn..t mean don..t respect authority for laws and management help keep order in society, but don..t ever feel like your less important than anyone else. Define yourself in the way you treat others .. treat others as you would like to be treated. This is a bit cliché, but if everyone did this, the world would be a much better place. Expand your interests, magnify your talents, and continually learn new things. You will be better because of it. Try to avoid falling into the trap of complacency. There is more to life than narrowly defining yourself to one group. Make these areas, whether is be your job, your hobbies, your skin color, your religion or whatever it is ..what you do, not who you are...
I've moved and Dr. Agre
For some of you who followed me from myspace, thank you. All of my future blogs will be here. I will eventually post my previous blogs on this site as well. Why the transfer from myspace? I thought this would give me an opportunity to reach a larger audience. Additionally, I am not using myspace as often anymore, so this will also help me to blog more frequently. Most of my blogs focus on current issues. I try to tell both sides of the story, but admit that at times personal bias is present. I try to point out when I know my bias is coming through, but at times I may not even recognize it myself.
I recently had the opportunity to spend some time with Dr. Peter Agre, a Nobel prize winnning scientist. His science is excellent and having the chance to have lunch with him and just chat was great. Since winning his prize, he has become a vocal activist, using his recognition and fame to advance ideas that he feels are very important. We talked a bit about the media, which I have previously discussed in my blog, and the dangers in believing what you hear. You'll see the same topic reported very differently on CNN than it is on Fox News. Each network claims the other is 'spinning' the news to fit their political agenda while as a network they maintain rigorous standards of objective journalism. Who is to believe? I don't know. That's why I try to get my news from both. I would bet that the truth lies somewhat in the middle.
Anyways, Dr. Agre was very vocal about a certain scientist, whose legal fund he has donated to, that was accused of terrorism. This is a very hot issue today. I will not name the accused for his protection, but his lab studied a microorganism that conceivably can be used in a bioterror attack. Apparently, this scientist could not account for some of his samples that had gone missing. The FBI showed up one day, closed his lab, and he is awaiting trial, with the possibility of prison time if convicted. He of course proclaims his innocence and said the samples must have been destroyed without the proper documentation. As a current lab employee lab myself, I find this explanation quite plausible. We have dangerous samples, some of which are radioactive, that require careful documentation and tracking. There are occasions when it takes us a day or two to figure where samples have been placed. Would I be happy if the FBI showed up and shut down the lab because of poor accounting? Not at all. But, who would get the blame if the FBI turned a blind eye to this scientist and he actually had given some of this material to a terrorist cell? The FBI. They are really in a no win situation here. There are so many possible leads that could be the next 9/11, but many innocent people are being harassed for the 'what if?'.
When is it okay to sacrifice personal liberties for the greater good. Some say now, as we are at war. Some say never, that personal liberties should always be in place regardless of the situation and that if this leads to another terror attack, than it was worth the risk in order to maintain our freedoms. Often, maintaining are freedoms depend on which party you most closely affiliate with. What about guns? Some want stricter control over gun ownership and some want to go the way of Australia and rid society of guns completely. Others want to keep the government out of our gun safes and let us own as many guns of whatever type you want. So, the freedom to have a gun, which some would argue is protected by a constitutional amendment, is thought of differently by different groups. Now take convicted felons. One group wants to keep them in prison indefinitely or kill them, then treat them as second-class citizens even after they have served their debt to society. Others want to reduce prison sentences, try and rehabilitate them and give them a second chance in society. When you combine the two issues, it gets confusing. The group who would take guns away from law-abiding citizens, doesn't want to dole out harsher punishments when guns are used to commit a crime. On the other hand, the group that claims a constitutional amendment protects our right to own guns, doesn't want to allow people to get guns who have committed a crime, despite having served the time. So, which is correct? Does one sacrifice personal liberties because of a crime, even after the sentence has been served? Which is more important, our right to privacy or our national security? Both sides have valid points. I don't know who is right or wrong. I would not like the government listening to my telephone calls or reading my emails, but if doing so would prevent innocent lives from being taken, I might allow it, as I have nothing to hide. But the question of who oversees the government? The group that wants to keep government out of our gun safes doesn't have a problem with the government intruding into our lives via telephone or email tapping. Contrast the other side who wants the government to control guns and gun owners, but stay the hell away from my telephone lines and my email. This logic makes no sense. I think the most important thing to do is to learn the issues from a variety of sources and make up your own mind. Individual thought is a freedom that can never be taken.
I recently had the opportunity to spend some time with Dr. Peter Agre, a Nobel prize winnning scientist. His science is excellent and having the chance to have lunch with him and just chat was great. Since winning his prize, he has become a vocal activist, using his recognition and fame to advance ideas that he feels are very important. We talked a bit about the media, which I have previously discussed in my blog, and the dangers in believing what you hear. You'll see the same topic reported very differently on CNN than it is on Fox News. Each network claims the other is 'spinning' the news to fit their political agenda while as a network they maintain rigorous standards of objective journalism. Who is to believe? I don't know. That's why I try to get my news from both. I would bet that the truth lies somewhat in the middle.
Anyways, Dr. Agre was very vocal about a certain scientist, whose legal fund he has donated to, that was accused of terrorism. This is a very hot issue today. I will not name the accused for his protection, but his lab studied a microorganism that conceivably can be used in a bioterror attack. Apparently, this scientist could not account for some of his samples that had gone missing. The FBI showed up one day, closed his lab, and he is awaiting trial, with the possibility of prison time if convicted. He of course proclaims his innocence and said the samples must have been destroyed without the proper documentation. As a current lab employee lab myself, I find this explanation quite plausible. We have dangerous samples, some of which are radioactive, that require careful documentation and tracking. There are occasions when it takes us a day or two to figure where samples have been placed. Would I be happy if the FBI showed up and shut down the lab because of poor accounting? Not at all. But, who would get the blame if the FBI turned a blind eye to this scientist and he actually had given some of this material to a terrorist cell? The FBI. They are really in a no win situation here. There are so many possible leads that could be the next 9/11, but many innocent people are being harassed for the 'what if?'.
When is it okay to sacrifice personal liberties for the greater good. Some say now, as we are at war. Some say never, that personal liberties should always be in place regardless of the situation and that if this leads to another terror attack, than it was worth the risk in order to maintain our freedoms. Often, maintaining are freedoms depend on which party you most closely affiliate with. What about guns? Some want stricter control over gun ownership and some want to go the way of Australia and rid society of guns completely. Others want to keep the government out of our gun safes and let us own as many guns of whatever type you want. So, the freedom to have a gun, which some would argue is protected by a constitutional amendment, is thought of differently by different groups. Now take convicted felons. One group wants to keep them in prison indefinitely or kill them, then treat them as second-class citizens even after they have served their debt to society. Others want to reduce prison sentences, try and rehabilitate them and give them a second chance in society. When you combine the two issues, it gets confusing. The group who would take guns away from law-abiding citizens, doesn't want to dole out harsher punishments when guns are used to commit a crime. On the other hand, the group that claims a constitutional amendment protects our right to own guns, doesn't want to allow people to get guns who have committed a crime, despite having served the time. So, which is correct? Does one sacrifice personal liberties because of a crime, even after the sentence has been served? Which is more important, our right to privacy or our national security? Both sides have valid points. I don't know who is right or wrong. I would not like the government listening to my telephone calls or reading my emails, but if doing so would prevent innocent lives from being taken, I might allow it, as I have nothing to hide. But the question of who oversees the government? The group that wants to keep government out of our gun safes doesn't have a problem with the government intruding into our lives via telephone or email tapping. Contrast the other side who wants the government to control guns and gun owners, but stay the hell away from my telephone lines and my email. This logic makes no sense. I think the most important thing to do is to learn the issues from a variety of sources and make up your own mind. Individual thought is a freedom that can never be taken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)