It's Everywhere You're Going to Be....

Instant karmas gonna get you, gonna knock you right on the head...

I could help but think of those words last night as I was flipping around the television stations and stopped at ESPN. I can't recall who it was that was telling me that Miami Heat guard Dwyane Wade had hurt his shoulder against the Houston Rockets, I just recall my reaction. I smiled slightly and shook my head.

Now before you think I'm some insensitive jackass, please understand that I wasn't smiling because I was happy that Wade was hurt. Far from it. I enjoy watching Dwyane Wade play basketball and I want him to be healthy and playing so I can enjoy him playing basketball. The reason for my reaction was due to Heat Coach Pat Riley and his recent actions.

The breakdown is as follows. Miami Heat season not going well. Shaquille O'Neal hurt for long portion of season, major reason why things for Heat not go well. Wade also dealing with some injury issues, another reason for things not going well for Heat. Miami is also defending NBA Champion, which only makes stuggles look worse. Some players on the Heat (Antoine Walker, James Posey) not playing nearly as well since they won title last year. In the middle of the season Pat Riley announces he is taking a leave of absence for health reasons (to have surgery on hip and knee). Heat assistant coach Ron Rothstein takes over coaching duties. While he coaches Wade is healthy and Shaq comes back, he gets Heat record back to around .500, then Riley comes back. Couple games after Riley is back, Wade dislocates shoulder against Rockets and is now considering whether or not to have season ending surgurey on the shoulder.

Pat Riley, this is Karma, Karma this is Pat. Karma, please don't bite Pat in the ass too hard.

Now I'm not enough of an ass to suggest that Pat Riley doesn't deserve to take time off in the middle of the season to take care of health issues. If he needs to have the issues taken care of he should, health should come above all else. However, by his own admission he stated he knew he needed these surguries since the end of last season. He also stated that were his teams' won-loss record better, he probably wouldn't have taken a leave of absence.

So Riley, a coach notourious for wanting his players to be in top shape (except for Shaq because he does as he pleases) and ready for the season was himself not ready for the season essentially since he knew he needed the surguries, but decided to put them off. Then when the season is going less than swimmingly he decides, "Ya know what, I need a break. You guys keep playing hard and when I'm ready I'll be back." Then ironically, Riley is ready to return right around the time Shaq comes back and the Heat reach .500. Yeah, maybe some of this is a little circumstantial, but when there's enough smoke there's usually fire.

The point here is this. What goes around, does indeed come around. Riley's actions were at the very least dubious (especially last season, when he forced out head coach Stan Van Gundy so he could coach the team and ultimately win a title). Everything seemed to be falling into place for the Heat. Shaq was gaining steam, Wade was his usual amazing self and sportswriters and talking heads everywhere were already slobbering on the Heat to make another run to the finals.

Well apparently the basketball gods saw all this and said enough was enough. They decided, "You know what? NO! The Heat don't get to make another run this year. Even if it means punishing Dwyane Wade. Pat Riley has done plenty good for the sport (Showtime) and plenty bad (the Knicks), but this is too much. He tipped the scale to bad and he has to pay."

OK, so it's possible that could be a little far fetched, but honestly it's also reasonable. What goes around comes around and it certainly seems to be coming around for the Heat, well for Pat Riley at least. And yes, it's a little sadistic for me to take pleasure in some one else's (Riley's) suffering. Now just as long as my bad will in the present doesn't turn into bad actions in the future I'll be all set.....hey wait a minute, you don't think that this could bite me in the ass do you? Well in that case I feel nothing but empathy for Pat Riley and his beleagured team and his string of bad luck. I wish them well, I hope for them that nothing that the best happens the rest of the way.

OK, ya know what, outright lying is worse than ill will I think, so screw it. Enjoy wallowing in mediocrity for the rest of the season Coach Pat Riley (I know I will), it's at the very least what you deserve.

It's OK to admit that you can be wrong

Hi, I'm a person doesn't believe that they're wrong, ever. Even if I have multiple facts from multiple points of view offered to me in multiple ways that completely disprove what I am saying, I'll still cling to the belief that I am correct and that you and the rest of those like you are flawed in your thinking. I know that I'm right because I've been involved in things relating to what we're arguing about and since I have more experience than you, I have to be right.

OK, obviously I'm not describing myself here. I'm not right nearly enough to even imagine that I'm not ever wrong. But I'm pretty sure the person I just described is a person who we've all encountered at some point or another in our lives. Usually this person, while driving you nuttier than the fellow on the Planters tins in a top hat, can't actually mess up too much of your life or cause you a hug insignifcance. At the very least it's a person you know, so you're at least used to it and you know how to go after their train of thought or idea. Well imagine for a minute, that you don't know that person, that you've just met them a few days ago, but now your general existence is tied to their insistance that they are right. Welcome to jury duty.

Yes, I was one of those fortunate few citizens that was recently drawn for jury selection (the second time I've been drawn in 3 1/2 years by the way). And I was one of the lucky few during the selection process to be chosen as a juror. Now I know that it's easy to deride jury duty and the whole process, but it is actually important in many regards. Still, it can be something of an annoyance and not neccesiarly because of the trial you're sitting in on.

While my particular trial wasn't all that enthralling it still required paying attention and being attentive to testimony and documents provided so a verdict could be rendered. I served as a juror for a civil trial, which means there was no guilty or not guilty verdict. Instead, we (the jurors) were given a list of questions that we either had to answer in the affirmative or the nagative. Answering in the affirmative would have found for the plaintiff and the negative would have found for the defendent. Each question could have been answered independently of one another so there could have been in theroy finds both for an against the plaintiff.

Well at the conclusion of arguments and evidence presentation us lucky folks got to go deliberate over the matters at hand. Most of the items we were able to find our way throught without issue, we all understood them as the same. But then, oh then there was a glorious item that had us stuck. When I say us, I refer to the jury as a whole, since the jury has to render a unanimous decision in regards to what we're presented with. So the issues that had "us" stuck didn't have most of "us" stuck at all. There was one of "us" that was stuck and well, that proved to be a sticking point.

Let me refine something here. Initially there was more than one of "us" stuck on this point at hand. There were like three of "us". But after presenting logical arguments in conjunction in presenting them with facts, they became unstuck, well at least two of "us" did. There was still one that didn't quite see things that we were seeing. And that was all well and good. It gives a different perspective and a different idea. That's why you have a mix of people, so you get a diversity of ideas of opinions. In fact, read the play or watch the movie of 12 Angry Men, that's part of what the whole thing is about.

HOWEVER, when you a presented with FACTS and LAW in regards to your opinion that differ from your opinion, you don't really have much of a choice anymore. You have to concede. Not because what the rest of us are telling you, but because of what the law is telling you. Then when you see the point you're arguing has no basis, please don't try and argue your point again using a different idea, through which the LAW says your opinion is invalid. Then please don't argue yourself in circles because all that does is create confusion as to what you are arguing anyways.

And worst of all, don't say what you BELIEVE to be right in the case, because in the end what you BELIEVE has nothing to do with it. It's what you believe in regards to the application of the law. You might believe one thing, but if the law says the other you have to apply the law regardless of what you believe. That's why we have laws, to prevent folks from doing what the believe is the right thing all the time, because sometimes what they believe really isn't right. Case and ponit, there are plenty of peolpe that BELIEVE that it's OK to hit kids, but that's why we have laws that tell us it's not.

At any rate, this one of "us" (gooble gobble gooble gobble) chose to express what they believed instead of what the law told them they had to believe. At some points they expressly disregarded the law we had been told that we had to regard. After a while it became apparent that this one of "us" didn't want to admit their initial view point was wrong regardless of how many ways we tried to point them in the correct direction. This was espcially apparent when they said "I'll just vote whatever way you want me to."

Well that sentiment is nice, because sitting in a tiny room arguing in circles for more than four hours over the same point isn't fun, but that's not how this process works. That's coercion, making you say something that you don't agree with and that's not how this process works. You can't convince other jurors to change their view simply because you want them to. You have to present ideas and opinions that will cause them to change it. They can't just go along with the pack and pretend everything is peachy, that's not how the process works, or at least how it's supposed to anyway.

The "I'll just vote whatever way you want me to," was a nice way of saying "I refuse to admit that I am wrong, but I'll do what you want so I can appease you." There are greater tragedies in the world than admitting that you were wrong, in fact it's OK to do, even good to do in most cases. It's not neccessary to continue to stick to your guns for the sole purpose of sticking to your guns because that's who you are and that's what you do. When you refuse to accept logic and law then you are refusing to accpet the fact that you were incorrect.

So do you sense some frustration here? Imagine this but over the course of four hours with a 10 minute break sprinkled in there somewhere. These four hours also came after a previous session of nearlty 2 1/2 hours previsouly. This boys and girls is what jury deliberations for my trial was like. A refusal to accept fact and law and a belief that they couldn't be wrong. My point of all this I guess is this. You're never 100% right, no one is. Not the Pope, President, your gradma or that kid you knew in high school the teachers always called on when they wanted the correct answer. Don't prolong things by holding to your convictions about something when you know you're wrong over a matter that in the grand scheme of things doesn't matter. Don't disregard fact and logic simply because you don't like what they say.

In the end I guess what I'm trying to say is get over yourself. No one should be so self serving just because they like the way it makes them feel. Just stop it, it's not worth your time to do so and certainly, it's not worth anybody elses'.

I Just Can't Take It

Hi, my name is Matt and I'm a Bston Celtics fan. I've been rooting for the Celtics longer than I can remember. I grew up idolizing Larry Bird. I loved Kevin McHale and Robert Parrish. I was excited in third grade when I received my basketball jersey and got the number three because I was going to wear the same number as Dennis Johnson. (Consequently, Dennis Johnson could have been in the room at the time and I would have been the only kid that would have known who he was). I watched Reggie Lewis collapse on the Garden floor during a playoff and then he was gone only a few months later while shooting free throws in a gym. The Celtics were one of the most fabled and magical franchises in all of sports once upon a time and well, now they're far from it.

The Celtics have set a franchise record for futility. They have lost 17 consecutive games and it could be 18 today if they don't beat Minnesota. Despite the fact they have been playing largley uninspiring and unproductive basketball I still watch them, in hope that they will find a way to win a game. Yup, you read that right, I'm rooting for the team I like to win.

Sounds crazy huh? The team you follow, you want them to win. See that's normal, that's what you're supposed to do as a fan, root for your team to win. Well, there's a growing contingent of folks who root for the Celtics that are hoping the Celtics lose, well keep losing since they all they've done recently is lose. The logic to rooting for losing goes to the idea of the worse off you finish the season the better chance you have at landing a high draft pick come the spring. I can't rationally explain this idea to you for reasons I'm about to ramble on for, but Bill Simmons of ESPN.com tries to lay it out here.

So as the Celtics lose the greater chance they have at landing the top overall pick in the 2007 NBA Draft, a draft that is supposed to be one of the deepest in a long time, with two gems at the top of it. Greg Oden of Ohio St. and Kevin Durant of Texas are the two gems in case your wondering and if you have chance to watch them on TV, don't pass it up. Oden, a freshman center is just a beast down low. He's a shot blocker, gobbles up rebounds and he's scoring just over 15 points a game while predominently using his non-dominant left hand because his right hand is in a brace due to ligament surgurey. Basically, the guy is really good not using his strong hand. I can't put into words how good he is, so just watch and if you even remotely understand basketball (put ball through one hole, stop other team from putting it through the other hole...there now you basically understand basketball) just watch and you'll get it.

They other guy everyone is fawning over is Kevin Durant out of Texas. Durant is also a freshman and he's a guard/forward/whatever. He can absolutley light you up offensively. He can shoot from deep, he can drive to the hoop, he can finish in transition, he does it all. He rebounds well too which is a plus and he's a sneaky shotblocker (meaning he gets beaten off the dribble a lot, but his recovery speed and long arms allow him to swat shots from bvehind). He's good too and right now it's a dogfight between these two to see who gets taken first in the 2007 NBA draft, or at least that's what some folks would have you believe.

OK, now I'm going to go backwards before I go forwards here. A couple of paragraphs ago I mentioned how if the Celtics keep losing, they would have a chance of securing the top overall pick in the upcoming draft. See in the NBA, they have what's called a draft lottery. I could try to explain it, but it's just easier to link you to here. The NBA uses a lottery system to deter a team from tanking (lose games on purpose essnetially) their season just to secure the top overall pick. This system came about due in part to the Houston Rockets doing just about everything short of playing with blind folds on during the 1982-83 season to secure their shot at the number one overall pick. Then the following season, the Rockets played yet more uninspired basketball and got the number one pick again. So the lottery was put in place starting in the 1985 draft and it's been there ever since, though it has been considerably tweaked over time.

So where the hell am I going with this and why the hell are you still reading (Isn't that cute, I assume that someone is still reading this)? Well, I'm going here. I can't root for the Celtics to lose to get a high pick, I just can't do it. Now I would be lying to you if I didn't say that secretly I try and picture Oden or Durant in Celtics green. Of course for that to happen, both of them would have to declare for the draft and leave school. I'm pretty confident that Durant is a goner after this season, but I'm a little weary about Oden leaving and I can't put my faith into a player that isn't even a lock to be available come draft time.

The second thing with all this is the pick. Since it falls into the hands of a lottery there are no guarantees. During the 1996-97 season the Celtics trotted out a team that was truly terrible, even worse than this years edition. I will save you the pain of mentioning players that you have never heard of, but just know that they won a total of 15 games. Since the team with the worst record that season, the Vancouver Grizzlies was still in it's expansion beginings, were not in line to get the top overall pick. Also, the Celtics had the rights to the Dallas Mavericks pick that season. Combining the odds of the two picks game the Celtics around a 36% chance to get the number one overall selection. The number one pick in the draft was going to be Tim Duncan, then a senior at Wake Forrest. Everyone knew it, it was a no brainer. I was elated as a 14 year old kid at the thought of having Tim Duncan on the Celtics. I watched every Wake Forrest game I could and it only made me more excited.

Well the draft lottery came and guess what, no number one overall pick for Boston. In a draft where the Celtics should have ended up the first and thirds picks, they instead ended up with the third and sixth. I remember watching the lottery and the horror that crept over me when the Celtics were announced with the sixth pick, but I calmed down because they still had another one. Then when the came up at three I couldn't believe it, I was in shock. The Spurs ended up getting the top pick that year, by virtue of the fact thier superstar David Robinson, injured his back early in the season and the Spurs made sure he took his time in getting healthy (in other words, stay away, we want a shot at this Duncan kid). Since the Spurs picked Duncan, they've won three NBA titles in the last nine seasons and the Celtics by contrast have had a winning record in three season. So quick recap here, Spurs three titles; Celtics three winning seasons.

So yeah, it hasn't been pretty for the Celtics in the last decade....or the last 20 years for that matter. And as tempting as it may be to want them to lose so they can get the pick to get Oden or Durant, I can't do it. I've been here before, I saw this story and I really didn't like the ending. I can't understand how there seems to be an entire fan base that's slave to the idea that Oden or Durant is coming and all will be well. Were they not alive in 96-97? Did they just choose to forget what happened that year? I can't put my eggs into a basket of false hope and since I'm a fan of the Celtics and I can't root for them to lose because all that lines up is more uncertainty I root for them to win and honestly I find it odd why I have to explain that.

So I'll continue to watch and hope they win, though they probably won't win that often. I hope they go on a min win streak just for my sanity, which will be quelled out by all those people who will be saying they're messing up their draft status. In all honestly, I'm tacking my draft hopes to a dead guy. I'm hoping that from beyond the grave, Red Auerbach will make the ping pong balls fall in a magic way, leading for the Celtics to get their man and then it will be back to glory for the green. I figure that is no more illogical than rooting for my team to lose, but hey, I've been wrong before.

Thanks a lot David Stern

David Stern is the commisioner of the National Basketball Association....we'll call it the NBA for short. Stern pretty much has complete power over the league, though his power has wilted some this season, what the controversey around the new ball the league tried to introduce and they ended up switching back to the old ball. At any rate, Stern has made me mad recently for suspending Lakers star Kobe Bryant for a game.

In case you're not familiar with why Bryant was suspended, I'll lay it out for you. In a game against the San Antonio Spurs, Bryant attempted a shot at the end of regulation that would have won the game for his team, the Los Angeles Lakers. Bryant was being defended by Manu Ginobili of the Spurs. Bryant's shot missed and the game went to overtime. In the course of his shot though, Bryant flung his right arm (shooting arm) to his side where Ginobili was in hopes of creating contact and bilking the officials into whistling Ginobili for a foul. Well, Bryant did make contact with Ginobili, but there was no foul called and quite honestly one could have been called, it should have been on Bryant. He cracked Manu across his face, giving him a hell of a whack to his nose and across one of his eyes. Ginobili had cotton stuffed up his nose to stop the bleeding and had to ice down around his eye to reduce the swelling.

So there's the situation. No foul called either way, probably a good no call. Game went to overtime and the Spurs ended up winning. The Lakers then embarked to the east coast to start an eight game road trip. Well, before their first game in New York word came down from the league (Stern) that Bryant was suspended for one game for his actions in the Spurs game (the whole making Manu bleed thing). When I heard that Bryant was suspended I quickly became worried.

So why would I worry about this you ask? It was simple really. The first team the Lakers would play on their trip was the Knicks, the game Bryant would have to sit out. Their second game was against my beloved Boston Celtics who were in the midst of a twelve game losing streak, one loss away from tying the franchise record for consecutive losses.

I knew that Bryant wasn't going to be happy that he was suspended and so if he had to sit out the Knick game that he could come back with a vengence and torch the Celtics. Plus, if the Lakers were playing the Celtics sans Kobe, Boston actually stood a chance to win. With Bryant in the line-up for the purple and gold though, chances of a win for the Green decreased dramatically.

Well, it didn't work out that way. Kobe appealed his suspension and it was denied in like record time, so it would have to be the Knick game he would have to sit out. So he sat it out and the Lakers ended up losing and then the next game against the Celtics he was back and guess what happened? If you said he scored 43 points in the Lakers 111-98 over the Celtics then you either saw the game, the highlights or checked a box score to ruin the surprise. But yeah, Kobe came out and torched the Celtics, just as I had feared. He started off slow, but he got hot as the game went on; hitting shots from 24 feet away while being closely defended, you know that kind of hot.

So the Celtics tied a franchise record with 13 consecutive losses (and would set a new record two nights later with a loss against LA's other team, the Clippers) and yet somehow that wasn't the worst thing that happened that night.

You must understand that I despise the Lakers, I loathe them. I started watching the Celtics when I was very young, around the time I was 4 1/2, 5 years old. At that time the Celtics and Lakers had quite a rivalry. If your rooting interests lied with one team then you despised the other it was that simple. Nothing was more fun than hating the Lakers. Well after Bird and Magic retired and the Celtics and Lakers descended from great to mediocre the lust wore off the rivalry. Well, the Lakers got good again and the Celtics, well they didn't. Kind of hard to rekindle the old passion.

Still I thought there were enough people who carried the distaste for the Lakers, I was wrong. Watching the game, the crowd in Boston was littered with people wearing th purple and gold of the Lakers, most of it Bryant jerseys. Never in the past would those people have worn such a thing into the Garden becuase they knew they wouldn't make it out alive. But this wasn't the case. In fact as the game went on and Bryant kept making ridiculous shot after ridiculous shot cheers were resonating from the Boston crwod. Initially most of them came from the Lakers fans in the building, but the cheers became to loud and it was evident that Celtics fans were rooting for Bryant and well that drove me to the edge.

I couldn't believe peole at a Celtics home game were cheering for a Laker. When these two teams used to play it was said you could feel the anger in the building. All of Boston used to hate the Lakers. In the 1982 Eastern Confernce finals, with the Philadelphia 76ers on their way to beating the C's and facing the Lakers in the finals a chant of "Beat LA" resonated through the Boston Garden. That's right, instead of being depressed that their team lost a chance to go to the finals, they made sure to try and lift up the Sixers and make them aware they had a more important task at hand. For any true Celtics fan the most recent game against the Lakers should have been torture. There should have been no cheering for a Laker, at all.

Honestly, I've learned to live with the losing the Celtics are going through. I'm older than half of their current roster, they don't have much experience or depth and they can't seem to play consistently. I don't like the losing, but I've learned to live with it. I just simply can't live with Celtics "fans" cheering for a guy on a team we're supposed to despise. Red Auerbach, long time Celtics coach and GM, the patriarch of franchise passed away just before the season started and it was probably a good thing because if he had been alive to see the day when a Laker was being cheered in Boston, well he just might have killed some one and no I'm not joking about that.

So now I roll everything back to David Stern. He is a very smart man, much smarter than I am. Surely if I could see the pain this suspension was going to bring the Celtics, once one of the leagues signature franchises and a reason why the NBA was able to make itself and establish league, then he could have seen it. So why Mr. Commisioner did you make me go through all that? How could you have let that happen? Well the answer is simple conspiracy theory boy and girls.

Stern is a Knicks fan. Suspend Bryant for the Knicks game, Knicks have a chance to win. Make Bryant angry for being suspended, he comes out and set the game on fire for his next game, that being against the Celtics. The Celtics of course being a major rival to the Knicks over the years. So Stern's team wins, the team he quietly and deep down and secretly resents loses and causes its fans pain by tying a record for consecutive losses and setting everything up for a new record.

So thanks again Mr. Stern, really it was quite a treat to see a team I despise pound the team I love into the ground while the team I despise star player has a game that makes people in the home crowd cheer for him and make the loss that much more worse. Really that was great. So you and I commish are no longer on speaking terms, until weigh down some of those ping pong balls the Celtics have in the draft lottery to give them the number one overall pick.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to cheer myself up by going to the Barbaro message board and reading tributes and bible verses dedicated a race horse.....if you can't find humor in that, then where can you find it?