The idea of writing a blog about a literary novel which illuminates the human condition could not have come at a more perfect time. During this past spring break I got the urge to read a classic piece of literature and decided on one of my favorites The Grapes of Wrath. John Steinbeck has always been one of my favorite authors. His use of language is colorful and incredibly engaging, but even better than that is his insight into human nature.
For those of you poor souls who have not had the pleasure on taking the journey that is Grapes of Wrath the story is set in the Great Depression and is about a family moving west from Oklahoma to California. The family, like many others, is looking for work. They encounter many hardships on the way out west constantly telling themselves that things will be better in California, but they are not. The book is a deeply moving insight into the psyche of countless Americans facing those hardships during the era.
One of the best aspects of the story is the way Steinbeck alternates from one chapter about the Joad family specifically to the next chapter being a general illumination of typical scenes played out on such a journey. This gives the reader an understanding that the story he is telling is not some isolated fantastical creation; it is real life and commonplace during the time period.
Steinbeck also brilliantly illustrates the psychological effects such dire circumstances had on individuals. Though different characters in the story reacted differently throughout the story there was a general theme of frustration and despair caused by a system where the deck was stacked against the poor working class. The misery and anguish experienced by people simply looking for a decent days pay in order to feed their family is so great it causes some to shut down and give up and some become angry and fight and steal. Still others actually see the system and its unfairness for what it is, but are unable to do anything about it. Just reading the story gives the reader a sense of empathetic desperation like no other novel I have experienced.
The illumination of such a system when millions of Americans were unable or unwilling to acknowledge it is a very valuable aspect of the book. Even today remnants of such a system can still be seen and may possibly be shown on a much grander scale if the economic woes intensify. However, the illumination of human nature and the human condition by Steinbeck is invaluable and truly timeless. Man always exhibits the same general traits and falls into the same patterns of either, selfish and cruel oppression, or apathetic ignorance. The only way to combat this is to continually remind ourselves as individuals and as a collective consciousness that this is the case.
I now leave you with a quote from the book:
“It ain't that big. The whole United States ain't that big. It ain't that big. It ain't big enough. There ain't room enough for you an' me, for your kind an' my kind, for rich and poor together all in one country, for thieves and honest men. For hunger and fat.”
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
How to Play Texas Hold 'em (Angelos)
If you watch any of the ESPN’s or the Fox Sports channels between the hours of midnight and say 8AM (though it is randomly on other times) you are bound to catch some scintillating televised Poker action. Many people click right past these shows because in all honesty for most people it is like watching paint dry. But for some watching these masters of the green felt card table do battle is the most thrilling form of entertainment any sports channel can offer. This is because they play they game, they know how it feels to lose and win and they have felt the exhilaration and disappointment of both ends of the spectrum.
Whether you just want to understand whats going on in those incessant card tournaments on TV or if you are looking to join in a game some time soon you need to know the rules, procedures and etiquette of Poker.
First it is important to understand the different hands a player can have. A hand can range from a simple high card to the coveted royal flush. I will not go into explaining every hand because almost any new deck of cards will have a list of them all and what beats what.
There are many forms of Poker and though I have been playing for years I must admit I still do not understand them all. The most common and popular form of the game is Texas Hold’em. It is what you see on almost all of those World Series of Poker events and is the game of choice for almost all home games you may be invited to. This form of Poker combines gives each player two individual cards and the entire table five community cards to make the best five card hand possible.
To start a game of Texas Hold’em the action begins before the first card is even dealt. Thre are things called the “blinds” where the player immediately to the left of the dealer puts in half of whatever the blind amount is and the player to their left puts in the full amount. These are called the “big” and “small” blinds. After that the cards are dealt with each person receiving two cards face down. These are your “hole” cards and only you may look at them.
Once everyone has looked at their cards the betting begins with the person to the left of the big blind. The minimum you must bet is the amount of the big blind, but a player can “fold” or give up their cards if they feel they do not have a good enough starting hand. After everyone has bet there is a “burn and turn” where the dealer places one card to the side face down and three more face up. Those three are called the “flop” and are community cards. Another round of betting occurs in the same manner as the first, but this time and every subsequent time the person immediately to the left of the dealer starts. Another slight difference from the first round of betting is the “check.” If no one has bet or raised a player can “check” and see what those after him will do or if they are the last to go the next burn and turn will occur.
The second burn and turn involves another card being set aside face down and a fourth community card being turned face up. Again players bet just as before, then a final burn and turn and one more round of betting. If everyone folds and only one player is left in that player wins whatever money has been put into the pot. If two or more players go all the way to the end matching all bets placed on the table all remaining players flip over their two hole cards and the person with the best five card hand wins the pot.
This is just a basic overview of how to play Texas Hold’em Poker. There are many other nuances and strategies which a player must learn to play the game effectively. Those will come with experience. For now you are ready to join a friendly game or begin to understand what is going on with all of those odd card playing characters on the television. Enjoy!
Whether you just want to understand whats going on in those incessant card tournaments on TV or if you are looking to join in a game some time soon you need to know the rules, procedures and etiquette of Poker.
First it is important to understand the different hands a player can have. A hand can range from a simple high card to the coveted royal flush. I will not go into explaining every hand because almost any new deck of cards will have a list of them all and what beats what.
There are many forms of Poker and though I have been playing for years I must admit I still do not understand them all. The most common and popular form of the game is Texas Hold’em. It is what you see on almost all of those World Series of Poker events and is the game of choice for almost all home games you may be invited to. This form of Poker combines gives each player two individual cards and the entire table five community cards to make the best five card hand possible.
To start a game of Texas Hold’em the action begins before the first card is even dealt. Thre are things called the “blinds” where the player immediately to the left of the dealer puts in half of whatever the blind amount is and the player to their left puts in the full amount. These are called the “big” and “small” blinds. After that the cards are dealt with each person receiving two cards face down. These are your “hole” cards and only you may look at them.
Once everyone has looked at their cards the betting begins with the person to the left of the big blind. The minimum you must bet is the amount of the big blind, but a player can “fold” or give up their cards if they feel they do not have a good enough starting hand. After everyone has bet there is a “burn and turn” where the dealer places one card to the side face down and three more face up. Those three are called the “flop” and are community cards. Another round of betting occurs in the same manner as the first, but this time and every subsequent time the person immediately to the left of the dealer starts. Another slight difference from the first round of betting is the “check.” If no one has bet or raised a player can “check” and see what those after him will do or if they are the last to go the next burn and turn will occur.
The second burn and turn involves another card being set aside face down and a fourth community card being turned face up. Again players bet just as before, then a final burn and turn and one more round of betting. If everyone folds and only one player is left in that player wins whatever money has been put into the pot. If two or more players go all the way to the end matching all bets placed on the table all remaining players flip over their two hole cards and the person with the best five card hand wins the pot.
This is just a basic overview of how to play Texas Hold’em Poker. There are many other nuances and strategies which a player must learn to play the game effectively. Those will come with experience. For now you are ready to join a friendly game or begin to understand what is going on with all of those odd card playing characters on the television. Enjoy!
Defamation of Religion? (Banner)
Recently the United Nations adopted a non-binding resolution that urges it’s members to “effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular.”
You have got to be kidding me! What is the UN doing? Why are they taking such steps backwards toward the dark ages of ignorance and intolerance?
It is not the fact that this resolution specifically names Islam as the offended party (though that is an issue I will discuss). I actually do agree that in this post Sept. 11th world Islamic peoples are unfairly profiled and discriminated against. It is sad that such a dichotomy has been created between Muslims and non-Muslims and that we, as a world community, do not see the true enemy infiltrating all societies: violent fundamentalist perversion of all religions. Instead of realizing this as the problem we make blanket generalizations and treat entire countries and races as sworn enemies.
So what does the UN do to combat this problem? They fight intolerance with more intolerance. Granted the resolution was pushed through by the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) and does not represent the view all countries associated with the UN. In fact most all Western European and North American countries were opposed to the resolution. But the fact that such a blatant disregard for free speech could find the worldwide support to get passed through the UN is scary.
There are several fundamental problems with this resolution. First off, how do you define defamation? Defamation of character in the US applies to libel and slander against an individual but as Kevin “Seamus” Hasson, founder and president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, is quoted by Fox News as saying, “ideas can’t be defamed. Ideas don’t have rights, people have rights.”
Second why is only Islam named in the resolution? The resolution is being pushed forward by countries were open hatred and defamation of western governments and peoples is violently expressed in the streets. That is worse than irony.
People should be allowed to freely criticize thoughts and beliefs they disagree with, without fear of reprisals. The free and open exchange of ideas is crucial to a forward progressing society. The idea of homogeneity of thought and belief was something that Adolf Hitler advocated in Mein Kampf. We have seen this sort of silencing of critics in nearly every tyrannical totalitarian regime in history. All this resolution is, is a step in that direction.
For some this stroy is relatively old news, but for many this may be the first time you are hearing about it. National media has been somewhat silent on this topic and I believe it needs more attention so that proper outrage can be expressed. I heard Lou Dobbs talking about the issue a while back, and when I searched the topic on the web most of the articles were not from major news outlets (the Washington Times had a column about it, and I found one Fox News story). We have to wake up and make sure our government does not give in to international pressure to restrict our or anyone's freedom of expression.
You have got to be kidding me! What is the UN doing? Why are they taking such steps backwards toward the dark ages of ignorance and intolerance?
It is not the fact that this resolution specifically names Islam as the offended party (though that is an issue I will discuss). I actually do agree that in this post Sept. 11th world Islamic peoples are unfairly profiled and discriminated against. It is sad that such a dichotomy has been created between Muslims and non-Muslims and that we, as a world community, do not see the true enemy infiltrating all societies: violent fundamentalist perversion of all religions. Instead of realizing this as the problem we make blanket generalizations and treat entire countries and races as sworn enemies.
So what does the UN do to combat this problem? They fight intolerance with more intolerance. Granted the resolution was pushed through by the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) and does not represent the view all countries associated with the UN. In fact most all Western European and North American countries were opposed to the resolution. But the fact that such a blatant disregard for free speech could find the worldwide support to get passed through the UN is scary.
There are several fundamental problems with this resolution. First off, how do you define defamation? Defamation of character in the US applies to libel and slander against an individual but as Kevin “Seamus” Hasson, founder and president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, is quoted by Fox News as saying, “ideas can’t be defamed. Ideas don’t have rights, people have rights.”
Second why is only Islam named in the resolution? The resolution is being pushed forward by countries were open hatred and defamation of western governments and peoples is violently expressed in the streets. That is worse than irony.
People should be allowed to freely criticize thoughts and beliefs they disagree with, without fear of reprisals. The free and open exchange of ideas is crucial to a forward progressing society. The idea of homogeneity of thought and belief was something that Adolf Hitler advocated in Mein Kampf. We have seen this sort of silencing of critics in nearly every tyrannical totalitarian regime in history. All this resolution is, is a step in that direction.
For some this stroy is relatively old news, but for many this may be the first time you are hearing about it. National media has been somewhat silent on this topic and I believe it needs more attention so that proper outrage can be expressed. I heard Lou Dobbs talking about the issue a while back, and when I searched the topic on the web most of the articles were not from major news outlets (the Washington Times had a column about it, and I found one Fox News story). We have to wake up and make sure our government does not give in to international pressure to restrict our or anyone's freedom of expression.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Christian Environmentalism
Recently I have become much more passionate about conservation and being sensitive to and aware of environmental issues. I believe as Christians this should be a topic where we are at the forefront of conservation efforts, but sadly that is not the case. For many Christians the term environmentalist conjures up images of the hemp wearing hippy that chains themselves to a tree in protest of one thing or another. This is an image a lot of people do not associate with and therefore see environmentalism as someone else’s cause not their own. Some Christians see environmentalism as just a belief by Darwinist scientists that we are ruining our world and do not feel that is the case at all. Some do not even believe it is possible for us to ruin our world because God would not let that happen. Or finally, and most disturbingly in my opinion, people just do not care, they are wrapped up in their own lives with no regard for the effects which every day actions have upon our planet.
I believe that environmentalism should be a topic that is discussed and promoted within our churches. As a Christian you hear the occasional “we need to be good stewards of our planet,” thrown around, but how much action follows that hollow phrase? How many churches actually have programs which give their parishioners practical applications of that sentiment? I would love to see the idea of responsibility when it comes to taking care of the world God gave us talked bout in sermons, promoted in programs, and accepted by all who believe in God all mighty as the supreme creator of the Universe. I want to see this idea become as much a part of Christian thought and life as “love thy neighbor.”
I think there are some practical ways this can be done. First there can be groups or studies which educate people on the many ways we are wasteful in our everyday lives, like how many disposable non-recyclable items we use, or ways we can conserve water and electricity. We can push the idea of ride sharing and using public transportation where it is available. We can educate people on the devastating effects our wasteful ways have had on natural habitats and why that is a terrible thing, something I think our urbanized society loses perspective on. Even pollution is a topic which needs addressing. I know it’s effects are debatable and there is no consensus on global warming or global cooling or if there is no global climate change at all, but whatever your stance is all the chemicals we are pumping into the air is not a good thing.
These are just a few ideas that I have come up with and I know there are many more out there. I encourage all of you to read blogs and articles in newspapers, magazines and on the internet about this subject. Educate yourself and educate others because if we do not come to a consensus as human beings, believers or not, that we would like this planet to be an enjoyable place to live for centuries to come I see a rather ugly and miserable existence ahead.
I believe that environmentalism should be a topic that is discussed and promoted within our churches. As a Christian you hear the occasional “we need to be good stewards of our planet,” thrown around, but how much action follows that hollow phrase? How many churches actually have programs which give their parishioners practical applications of that sentiment? I would love to see the idea of responsibility when it comes to taking care of the world God gave us talked bout in sermons, promoted in programs, and accepted by all who believe in God all mighty as the supreme creator of the Universe. I want to see this idea become as much a part of Christian thought and life as “love thy neighbor.”
I think there are some practical ways this can be done. First there can be groups or studies which educate people on the many ways we are wasteful in our everyday lives, like how many disposable non-recyclable items we use, or ways we can conserve water and electricity. We can push the idea of ride sharing and using public transportation where it is available. We can educate people on the devastating effects our wasteful ways have had on natural habitats and why that is a terrible thing, something I think our urbanized society loses perspective on. Even pollution is a topic which needs addressing. I know it’s effects are debatable and there is no consensus on global warming or global cooling or if there is no global climate change at all, but whatever your stance is all the chemicals we are pumping into the air is not a good thing.
These are just a few ideas that I have come up with and I know there are many more out there. I encourage all of you to read blogs and articles in newspapers, magazines and on the internet about this subject. Educate yourself and educate others because if we do not come to a consensus as human beings, believers or not, that we would like this planet to be an enjoyable place to live for centuries to come I see a rather ugly and miserable existence ahead.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Liberal and Conservative
The terms “liberal” and “conservative” are very polarizing concepts in our society today, a fact which was very evident in this past year being that it was an election year. We have apprehended the two words to represent political views of those on the left and the right in a very specific manner, however in reality the terms liberal and conservative are much more general in their respective original uses. Neither term is necessarily being used incorrectly, but I think many people forget that it has not and will not always represent the exact political views which it at present does.
Conservative is the best example of this metamorphosis of meaning. The word conservative, in the political sense of the word, really only describes those that have a desire to hold on to the values and traditions of the past and who generally resist change. In our society those views that are considered conservative are ones such as; being anti-abortion, or pro-guns, or even anti-big government. These are just generalized examples which do not even apply to all people who consider themselves conservative, but it shows the specific nature of the commonly held connotation of the word. The specifics that are associated with conservative views today are not the same as those held 100 years ago or even 50 years ago for that matter, and they will not be the same as those held 100 years in the future. Values and traditions will inevitably change as time goes on no matter how much people want to hold on to those of the past. As times change those that certain individuals feel are being lost and need to be preserved will be the ones deemed conservative not necessarily the ones we see now.
The term liberal is a bit of a different case. Liberal is commonly used to connote those holding more progressive political views contrary to the conservative holding on to the past. This term in its actual historical use has usually been used to talk about something being free as in liberal democracy or liberal capitalism. Instead of being just a narrower definition, today’s usage of the term is something different all together, again defining specific political views of those deemed to be on the “left.” I must admit ignorance as to how the term was apprehended for its modern definition but nonetheless it is something almost completely different.
Conservative is the best example of this metamorphosis of meaning. The word conservative, in the political sense of the word, really only describes those that have a desire to hold on to the values and traditions of the past and who generally resist change. In our society those views that are considered conservative are ones such as; being anti-abortion, or pro-guns, or even anti-big government. These are just generalized examples which do not even apply to all people who consider themselves conservative, but it shows the specific nature of the commonly held connotation of the word. The specifics that are associated with conservative views today are not the same as those held 100 years ago or even 50 years ago for that matter, and they will not be the same as those held 100 years in the future. Values and traditions will inevitably change as time goes on no matter how much people want to hold on to those of the past. As times change those that certain individuals feel are being lost and need to be preserved will be the ones deemed conservative not necessarily the ones we see now.
The term liberal is a bit of a different case. Liberal is commonly used to connote those holding more progressive political views contrary to the conservative holding on to the past. This term in its actual historical use has usually been used to talk about something being free as in liberal democracy or liberal capitalism. Instead of being just a narrower definition, today’s usage of the term is something different all together, again defining specific political views of those deemed to be on the “left.” I must admit ignorance as to how the term was apprehended for its modern definition but nonetheless it is something almost completely different.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
I need Africa more than Africa needs me (final)
I need Africa more than Africa needs me is a difficult concept which I believe can be explored two ways. On one hand we can look at it from the physical and literal standpoint on who needs the most immediate help, but also the topic can be viewed form a more spiritual and holistic standpoint of what kind of help is really needed.
As for the first approach there are people starving and dying all over the world. No continent, however, has a more widespread epidemic of war, disease and starvation than Africa does. We see it almost daily on the news and in the papers that tragedies are occurring in that part of the world at an alarming rate. As a privileged western society it is our duty to help those less fortunate and there is no better place than Africa to fulfill that duty. So in that sense the need is really focused on that continent.
If we view the topic from a spiritual standpoint things are reversed. I once heard that the Christian church was spreading at a faster rate in Africa than any other place in the world. There are miraculous acts of faith demonstrated by people throughout various African nations despite the great hardships constantly being faced. This is something that is being lost in western Christianity because we do not face the type of tests that those who live through severe life trials do. Even if you are not a religious person you can see that those of us who do live privileged lives have lost a sense of perspective about what really matters in life and we do not know how to truly be thankful for the little pleasures and even necessities of life. Seeing how the African people respond to the dire circumstances they face can offer new perspective to a society jaded by the trappings of opulent wealth and that is something infinitely difficult to put a price tag on.
As for the first approach there are people starving and dying all over the world. No continent, however, has a more widespread epidemic of war, disease and starvation than Africa does. We see it almost daily on the news and in the papers that tragedies are occurring in that part of the world at an alarming rate. As a privileged western society it is our duty to help those less fortunate and there is no better place than Africa to fulfill that duty. So in that sense the need is really focused on that continent.
If we view the topic from a spiritual standpoint things are reversed. I once heard that the Christian church was spreading at a faster rate in Africa than any other place in the world. There are miraculous acts of faith demonstrated by people throughout various African nations despite the great hardships constantly being faced. This is something that is being lost in western Christianity because we do not face the type of tests that those who live through severe life trials do. Even if you are not a religious person you can see that those of us who do live privileged lives have lost a sense of perspective about what really matters in life and we do not know how to truly be thankful for the little pleasures and even necessities of life. Seeing how the African people respond to the dire circumstances they face can offer new perspective to a society jaded by the trappings of opulent wealth and that is something infinitely difficult to put a price tag on.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Showtime Revived
The Lakers had their first two games of the season and not a moment too soon for this disappointed sports fan. I already blogged on my depressing baseball team, the Chicago Cubs, and how their postseason collapse really left me hanging. Now, however, it is basketball season and hope springs eternal.
The Lakers are the preseason favorite to win the title and most of that hype is due to the revived health of the team and the depth up and down the lineup. Young center Andrew Bynum was the talk of the town for the first half of last season. The somewhat lanky, baby-faced kid from New Jersey was having a breakout season and looked to be helping the Lakers toward a playoff run before he hurt his knee and missed the rest of the season. That kid is back and his lanky teenage frame has filled out into a muscular 7 feet tall and 285 lbs. His knee is healthy and he has played significant minutes in the teams first two wins, starting both. Fans, players, and Laker team officials alike all hope that Bynum will provide the size and toughness that was lacking when they lost to the Boston Celtics. Early results are promising.
The depth of the Lakers bench has been the real improvement at the start of this season. The newly healthy Trevor Ariza has been a great compliment to the up tempo style of the Jordan Farmar driven second unit. With Lamar Odom coming off the bench, Farmar running the break at the point, Ariza and either Sasha Vujacic or Luke Walton on the wing, the Lakers have a second unit that could start on other teams around the league. This unit is fast and explosive and are the reason why I see some of the run and gun showtime Lakers style of the 80's. Farmar and Ariza can flat out fly, and Odom, who at times is the second best player on the team, starts fast breaks with good defensive rebounding and excellent outlet passing. Walton's passing ability and Vujacic's outside shooting give the team options in the half court offense not to mention Odom's ability to score with great versatility. Even having the oft injured Chris Mihm healthy again helps by giving the backup squad a serviceable center. All this and I haven't even mentioned the starting lineup which features the greatest player in the world Kobe Bryant.
Traditionally the triangle offense which coach Phil Jackson runs is a half court oriented offense, but with this new plethora of weapons coach Jackson has opened up the team's game. This mix of half court prowess, and relentless fast break scoring gives the Lakers a recipe for a sensational scoring season. Fans (myself included) are hoping for an entertaining style of play that leads all the way to another title for this already storied franchise.
All this said I must admit that the Lakers are still not the favorites to win the title, in my opinion. Though the majority of analysts are picking Los Angeles to win it all they are still unproven. On paper this team seems capable of scoring 120 every night, but can they stop their opponents from putting up 130? Defense is necessary and the Lakers still need to show that they can get stops when it really matters. What about the fact that Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom seem to disappear when it counts? How can anyone be sure that won't happen again? Can Andrew Bynum be counted on when the pressure is on or does he still have some growing up to do in that area? The future is bright but questions still abound. As much as it pains me to say it the Celtics are still the team to beat. They play D like no one else and until I see someone put together a seven game series of consistent scoring against them, they are still king of the hill.
I know there are plenty of Laker haters who have comments for me so lets hear them. People are talking all over the Internet about the Lake show, get out there and check it out.
http://lakersblog.latimes.com/
http://www.forumblueandgold.com/
http://www.thelakersnation.com/
The Lakers are the preseason favorite to win the title and most of that hype is due to the revived health of the team and the depth up and down the lineup. Young center Andrew Bynum was the talk of the town for the first half of last season. The somewhat lanky, baby-faced kid from New Jersey was having a breakout season and looked to be helping the Lakers toward a playoff run before he hurt his knee and missed the rest of the season. That kid is back and his lanky teenage frame has filled out into a muscular 7 feet tall and 285 lbs. His knee is healthy and he has played significant minutes in the teams first two wins, starting both. Fans, players, and Laker team officials alike all hope that Bynum will provide the size and toughness that was lacking when they lost to the Boston Celtics. Early results are promising.
The depth of the Lakers bench has been the real improvement at the start of this season. The newly healthy Trevor Ariza has been a great compliment to the up tempo style of the Jordan Farmar driven second unit. With Lamar Odom coming off the bench, Farmar running the break at the point, Ariza and either Sasha Vujacic or Luke Walton on the wing, the Lakers have a second unit that could start on other teams around the league. This unit is fast and explosive and are the reason why I see some of the run and gun showtime Lakers style of the 80's. Farmar and Ariza can flat out fly, and Odom, who at times is the second best player on the team, starts fast breaks with good defensive rebounding and excellent outlet passing. Walton's passing ability and Vujacic's outside shooting give the team options in the half court offense not to mention Odom's ability to score with great versatility. Even having the oft injured Chris Mihm healthy again helps by giving the backup squad a serviceable center. All this and I haven't even mentioned the starting lineup which features the greatest player in the world Kobe Bryant.
Traditionally the triangle offense which coach Phil Jackson runs is a half court oriented offense, but with this new plethora of weapons coach Jackson has opened up the team's game. This mix of half court prowess, and relentless fast break scoring gives the Lakers a recipe for a sensational scoring season. Fans (myself included) are hoping for an entertaining style of play that leads all the way to another title for this already storied franchise.
All this said I must admit that the Lakers are still not the favorites to win the title, in my opinion. Though the majority of analysts are picking Los Angeles to win it all they are still unproven. On paper this team seems capable of scoring 120 every night, but can they stop their opponents from putting up 130? Defense is necessary and the Lakers still need to show that they can get stops when it really matters. What about the fact that Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom seem to disappear when it counts? How can anyone be sure that won't happen again? Can Andrew Bynum be counted on when the pressure is on or does he still have some growing up to do in that area? The future is bright but questions still abound. As much as it pains me to say it the Celtics are still the team to beat. They play D like no one else and until I see someone put together a seven game series of consistent scoring against them, they are still king of the hill.
I know there are plenty of Laker haters who have comments for me so lets hear them. People are talking all over the Internet about the Lake show, get out there and check it out.
http://lakersblog.latimes.com/
http://www.forumblueandgold.com/
http://www.thelakersnation.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
