He finally did it.
He finally reached the mountaintop after several years and close calls.
All he needed was two other superstars and a bare-bones supporting cast that actually showed up in the NBA Finals.
Yes, LeBron James is an NBA champion.
Sure, there will be an asterix next to the year to indicate it was a lockout-shortened season, much like 1999-2000, but the championship still counts the same, the ring is still going to be his once awarded next season.
Say what you want to say about him as a person, he stepped up big in the finals and showed why so many believed when he came into the league that he could end up being mentioned among the all-time greats. He finally thrived in a big game situation rather than wilting and deferring to Dwayne Wade.
Of course, it helped that the Oklahoma City Thunder threw the ball over the place, Russell Westbrook shot the ball miserably, and James Harden had a terrible series. It helped that Mario Chalmers actually had a good series and that the rest of the role players took turns stepping up (an aspect that was noticeably absent in their loss to the Dallas Mavericks).
The Miami Heat finally did it. What does it mean for Cleveland fans?
Nothing.
If you still aren't over James leaving, what's the reason? He left over two years ago now. As some have pointed out, he gave us 7 remarkable seasons. He shouldn't have gone on national television to leave, but he did, he moved on, and everyone else needs to as well.
Instead, all that was heard were reasons why his championship isn't legitimate.
It was a shortened-season filled with injuries. Yes, it was. Derrick Rose's ACL tear in the Chicago Bulls opening game against the Philadelphia 76ers remains the defining moment in the playoffs, the moment that told everyone that the season was compacted too much, the players didn't get enough rest, and that the injuries were excessive.
IF Rose were healthy, the Bulls would've moved on. He was healthy last season when they lost. The Bulls again were the best team in the NBA record-wise, but it was no guarantee they would've beaten the Heat in the playoffs with a healthy Rose. It would have been a great season.
He needed help to win while other greats didn't. This is perhaps the worst argument. Remember, Magic Johnson's Lakers were loaded with talent, the Bulls with Michael Jordan had Scottie Pippen, who was better than most other team's best player, and Larry Bird had Robert Parrish and Kevin McHale. Point being, most championship teams have at least two legitimate All-Stars. When did LeBron consistently have that with the Cavs?
He's still a douche for leaving. Yes, yes he is. But he was also within his right to do so.
He's overrated. This one's highly debatable amongst some, but after watching him for 7 years here, he's definitely not overrated. He's put up numbers that frankly haven't been seen in the NBA. If he has any fault, it's that he doesn't play off the ball very well, which causes some to consider him a ballhog. But when you average 7+ assists a season on a regular basis, you're far from a ballhog. If anything, if his teammates would consistently hit their shots off of passes from him, he could conceivably average over 10 assists a game. Unfortunately, his teammates miss a lot of shots.
Look, I hated that he left Cleveland, but as much as I dislike him as a person, I can't take away from his abilities on the court. Being a dick doesn't make you a bad basketball player, it just makes you a dick off the court. While I wish he would've stayed and won that title here, that's not what happened. And while I'll always root against the Heat, it's more for how they went about building a championship, not because of one specific player.
Frankly, the city needs to get over it. The fans need to let go. The media needs to stop reporting on him like he's still here. We have our own team, our own budding superstar to follow, and new players drafted last night to follow.
Speaking of the draft...
I know the Cavaliers didn't exactly set the world on fire with their selection of Syracuse guard Dion Waiters last night. I know the immediate reaction was "how could they screw this draft up so badly?" before the kid has even stepped foot on the court. Then they traded for Tyler Zeller and the hands went up in the air again.
"We gave up 3 draft picks for him?"
*sigh*
It's like a tradition for Cleveland fans to immediate overreact to things like this. Neither has stepped on the court yet, but already legions of fans are experts on what kind of careers these two are going to have.
The best comment I read was someone on Facebook who said "We picked a bench scrub. A bench scrub."
Last I checked, a guy who won 6th man of the year in the Big East on a nation championchip contending team is not a mere bench scrub. This is a guy who played limited minutes, but put up some decent numbers given the time he was playing. His skill set is what the Cavs need and I don't care what anyone thinks, I was never sold on Harrison Barnes as an option. I had mild hope that Michael Gilchrist-Kidd would fall to them, but that didn't happen.
As for Zeller, if he plays like he did in college, the Cavs will be all right. One of the problems they had was consistently rebounding and Zeller can grab boards with the best of them.
The moral of the story is you can't grade a draft until the season is over, much like you can't grade a trade until a significant amount of time has passed. Sure, you can look at what they did in college and think you know how it will translate, but you don't.
Kyrie Irving was a question mark, remember? Many "expert" fans wanted Derrick Williams over Irving, that Williams was the sure thing. Well, Irving won rookie of the year, Williams was unremarkable, and now the pundits are starting up again with the most recent picks.
Listen, give it a season. If Waiters and/or Zeller fall flat on their faces and the Cavs stink even worse, then you were right.
Until then, calm down and breath. Like with the Browns, it's just a game. No one's life is going to end because of how their sports team performs.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Zombie apocalypse? I need a shotgun
If it's not the Mayans trying to kill us, it's the zombies.
After a few reports of people "eating" other people (or children in one case), the idea of a zombie apocalypse coming has been picking up steam, so much so that one gun magazine has started a spin-off magazine detailing all you're going to need to survive the oncoming onslaught of zombies.
Now, before I go further, let me remind everyone that the incidents reported do not necessarily mean that people are becoming zombies and we're all going to die. In a couple of cases, people were extremely high off of bath salts (not calgone either), which caused a crazed state of mind. This is NOT an indication of a problem with zombies, just a problem with stupid people, which is a battle that's been fought since humans appeared on the planet.
In any case, one of the more popular things to look up is how to survive the zombies when they do come. Video games and movies have been offering up scenarios and solutions for years (Wikipedia lists the first zombie movie back in 1919), the recent craze has caused people to contemplate again what would happen if zombies attacked.
Zombies have traditionally been portrayed as slow, lumbering creatures that just continue to come after you until you fill their heads with enough bullets or chop off the head entirely (although sometimes movies and games take liberty with this rule if you fill the body up with enough bullets). It seems impossible that normal people could get caught by the creatures, often leading to insults hurled at the screen as the "victims" continuously get caught by the slow-moving zombies.
George Romero's movies in the mid 80's are notorious for this type of zombie, usually surrounding a cabin in the middle of nowhere filled with teenagers doing things their parents probably don't approve of.
Lately though, movies and games have been using much faster, more agile zombies. Movies such as "28 Days Later" have used Zombies that can move very quickly, thus making them much more terrifying. Wikipedia has "I Am Legend" listed as a zombie movie, but I'm not sure if it counts. If it does, then we have a zombie movie where the zombies not only are frightenly quick, but learn and adapt to what the regular people are doing. Videogames have also been utilizing faster and more hostile zombies in recent games as well, adding a new level of fear to the player.
So if a zombie apocalypse is to occur how do we know what to prepare for? Do we prepare for the slow-moving, lumbering zombie? Do we prepare for the insanely fast zombie? Or is it some kind of hybrid of the two?
The problem lies in the fact that zombies are generally one of those creatures of myth. We see them in movies and games, but outside of that, they've only existed in stories without any concrete proof. Movies and games are based upon conjecture and the imaginations of movie and game designers. There is very little scientific fact to go on.
If it's as simple as getting a shotgun and blowing the head off of a zombie, then weapons experts should have no problem surviving. If it isn't that simple, then who knows if anyone would stand much of a chance of surviving.
Which brings me to the various methods I've heard people talk about using to survive. I'm going to list them, the advantages, and the downfalls.
Climbing up in a tree: Sure, it gets you off the ground and if you have a tree house with a nice load of supplies, you could survive a while. Just hope you don't have to go the bathroom frequently. Also, you could be in trouble if it turns out that birds can be infected.
The boathouse method: It's widely assumed that zombies can't swim. Therefore, finding a boathouse and loading it up with supplies seems like a good bet. Just don't run out of supplies. Or run into aquatic life zombies.
Holing up in a house: The downfall of most zombie movies, as long as they can't bust into the house, this is a pretty safe idea. Again, supplies would be the biggest issue. Anything that requires you to leave the house jeopardizes your ability to be safe. That and zombie pets.
Running and gunning: If they're the slow-moving zombies, grabbing some guns, some ammunition, and running around town killing every zombie in sight seems like a fun alternative to waiting for them to come to you. Just don't find yourself surrounded and out of ammo. That could be bad.
Just keep driving: Getting in a car and driving seems like a nice idea, unless you run out of gas. Best to keep a few guns at your side for the trip and you should be fine. Unless you do actually run out of gas and can't find a gas station that has any gas left. Or that isn't surrounded by zombies.
Hide in a bunker: Grab as many supplies as you can, as many magazines and books as you can find, and duck down into a bunker and wait. They can't get in to get you and with any luck, the zombie threat will have dwindled by the time you climb out of the hole looking for supplies. The downside? Zombie gophers.
There are many more survival theories floating around on the internet, but in the long run it's going to come down to having enough supplies to survive the onslaught. That and it seems like in video games the biggest threat isn't the zombies themselves, but the other people fighting for the limited supplies available.
So if the zombies start coming, you better have a good plan and a lot of luck on your side.
Oh, and a shotgun probably wouldn't hurt to have either.
After a few reports of people "eating" other people (or children in one case), the idea of a zombie apocalypse coming has been picking up steam, so much so that one gun magazine has started a spin-off magazine detailing all you're going to need to survive the oncoming onslaught of zombies.
Now, before I go further, let me remind everyone that the incidents reported do not necessarily mean that people are becoming zombies and we're all going to die. In a couple of cases, people were extremely high off of bath salts (not calgone either), which caused a crazed state of mind. This is NOT an indication of a problem with zombies, just a problem with stupid people, which is a battle that's been fought since humans appeared on the planet.
In any case, one of the more popular things to look up is how to survive the zombies when they do come. Video games and movies have been offering up scenarios and solutions for years (Wikipedia lists the first zombie movie back in 1919), the recent craze has caused people to contemplate again what would happen if zombies attacked.
Zombies have traditionally been portrayed as slow, lumbering creatures that just continue to come after you until you fill their heads with enough bullets or chop off the head entirely (although sometimes movies and games take liberty with this rule if you fill the body up with enough bullets). It seems impossible that normal people could get caught by the creatures, often leading to insults hurled at the screen as the "victims" continuously get caught by the slow-moving zombies.
George Romero's movies in the mid 80's are notorious for this type of zombie, usually surrounding a cabin in the middle of nowhere filled with teenagers doing things their parents probably don't approve of.
Lately though, movies and games have been using much faster, more agile zombies. Movies such as "28 Days Later" have used Zombies that can move very quickly, thus making them much more terrifying. Wikipedia has "I Am Legend" listed as a zombie movie, but I'm not sure if it counts. If it does, then we have a zombie movie where the zombies not only are frightenly quick, but learn and adapt to what the regular people are doing. Videogames have also been utilizing faster and more hostile zombies in recent games as well, adding a new level of fear to the player.
So if a zombie apocalypse is to occur how do we know what to prepare for? Do we prepare for the slow-moving, lumbering zombie? Do we prepare for the insanely fast zombie? Or is it some kind of hybrid of the two?
The problem lies in the fact that zombies are generally one of those creatures of myth. We see them in movies and games, but outside of that, they've only existed in stories without any concrete proof. Movies and games are based upon conjecture and the imaginations of movie and game designers. There is very little scientific fact to go on.
If it's as simple as getting a shotgun and blowing the head off of a zombie, then weapons experts should have no problem surviving. If it isn't that simple, then who knows if anyone would stand much of a chance of surviving.
Which brings me to the various methods I've heard people talk about using to survive. I'm going to list them, the advantages, and the downfalls.
Climbing up in a tree: Sure, it gets you off the ground and if you have a tree house with a nice load of supplies, you could survive a while. Just hope you don't have to go the bathroom frequently. Also, you could be in trouble if it turns out that birds can be infected.
The boathouse method: It's widely assumed that zombies can't swim. Therefore, finding a boathouse and loading it up with supplies seems like a good bet. Just don't run out of supplies. Or run into aquatic life zombies.
Holing up in a house: The downfall of most zombie movies, as long as they can't bust into the house, this is a pretty safe idea. Again, supplies would be the biggest issue. Anything that requires you to leave the house jeopardizes your ability to be safe. That and zombie pets.
Running and gunning: If they're the slow-moving zombies, grabbing some guns, some ammunition, and running around town killing every zombie in sight seems like a fun alternative to waiting for them to come to you. Just don't find yourself surrounded and out of ammo. That could be bad.
Just keep driving: Getting in a car and driving seems like a nice idea, unless you run out of gas. Best to keep a few guns at your side for the trip and you should be fine. Unless you do actually run out of gas and can't find a gas station that has any gas left. Or that isn't surrounded by zombies.
Hide in a bunker: Grab as many supplies as you can, as many magazines and books as you can find, and duck down into a bunker and wait. They can't get in to get you and with any luck, the zombie threat will have dwindled by the time you climb out of the hole looking for supplies. The downside? Zombie gophers.
There are many more survival theories floating around on the internet, but in the long run it's going to come down to having enough supplies to survive the onslaught. That and it seems like in video games the biggest threat isn't the zombies themselves, but the other people fighting for the limited supplies available.
So if the zombies start coming, you better have a good plan and a lot of luck on your side.
Oh, and a shotgun probably wouldn't hurt to have either.
Flashback! why I didn't follow in my dad's footsteps
Some who have followed the things that I've written over the years (and those who just have known me) know that the relationship with my dad has been frosty at best (and non-existent at the current time).
Some have given me a little grief about it, saying I should let bygones be bygones, but it isn't always as simple as that. There are just some things that in my mind, are unforgivable, things that you just can't shrug off and say oh well.
My dad is the type where if you don't do things the way he thinks you should do them, he gets mad at you and tries to force you to.
Case in point: when I was signing up for classes initially after high school, my mom and I had talked about how many credit hours I wanted to take. I wanted to work as much as I could and figured since it was just Tri-C, I wasn't going to overwhelm myself right out the gate. In a couple years when it was time to get more serious about it, I'd cut back on work and pick up classes.
My dad was furious about this. The whole time I was up there signing up, he was arguing with both my mom and me about how many classes I was taking. Even after I told him it was up to me, he continued to insist on taking more classes.
This post isn't about college or things like that though. This about what happened when he found out what kind of work I was doing.
He never really cared for the things I liked. He didn't like the things I watched, the music I listened to, or how I went about my business. He especially didn't like that I was working in a pharmacy. When he was sober, he was just not thrilled with it, when he was drunk or high, I was a pipeline for my mom to get whatever drugs he thought she was taking.
His favorite was to accuse me of stealing Demerol from the narcotic safe to give to my mom. While the "safe" (kind of hard to call an unlocked cabinet a safe) at the store I was at wasn't the most secure, there was still the matter of the perpetual inventory that was kept on all class II narcotics. If I had ever taken any Demerol (or whatever else he thought I was stealing), someone would notice.
He just didn't like what I did, was bitter towards my mom because she wouldn't get back with him, and generally wasn't in his right mind, which I fear has been permanently lost.
No, he wanted me to follow in his glorious footsteps as an iron worker.
Now, I have nothing against iron workers. I think a lot of them do a job that most wouldn't envy, whether it be on the ground or several stories up in the air. It didn't even have to do with getting dirty on the job. Hell, I probably could've dealt with the height issue for a good paycheck.
What worried me was how unstable the industry was. My dad was having a hard enough time staying employed (despite the drug/alcohol issue, he was an excellent worker) and jobs weren't exactly sprouting up. Sure, I could've taken an apprenticeship and gotten lucky, but it didn't look good. Most jobs were laying off workers or postponing work and many of the factories that produced steel were shutting down.
It just didn't seem like a very stable career choice and that's something I've always been conscious of. It's why I've stayed in the environment I've been in (although there's currently a saturation of pharmacy personnel).
My dad would try on occasion to convince me to try, saying the invitation was open as long as I was interested, but after a couple years, he finally dropped it.
Funny to think that a few years after that, the steel industry almost completely collapsed overall in the United States and iron workers were being laid off left and right. Granted, it's stablized in recent years as even my dad has at times gone back to work, but it's still not an industry I'd feel very good in.
I think if my dad hadn't gone down the road he went down and a lot of things had played out differently, I would have strongly considered the idea of following in his footsteps. There was a time when he was a good dad, someone I would've loved to look up to, but when he started to spiral out of control, that's when I stopped looking up to him.
Instead, he fell into the drug/alcohol addiction and to this day has been unable to turn things around. While things may not have played out exactly as I had envisioned, I don't regret anything that has happened.
I certainly do not regret the decision to avoid his footsteps.
Some have given me a little grief about it, saying I should let bygones be bygones, but it isn't always as simple as that. There are just some things that in my mind, are unforgivable, things that you just can't shrug off and say oh well.
My dad is the type where if you don't do things the way he thinks you should do them, he gets mad at you and tries to force you to.
Case in point: when I was signing up for classes initially after high school, my mom and I had talked about how many credit hours I wanted to take. I wanted to work as much as I could and figured since it was just Tri-C, I wasn't going to overwhelm myself right out the gate. In a couple years when it was time to get more serious about it, I'd cut back on work and pick up classes.
My dad was furious about this. The whole time I was up there signing up, he was arguing with both my mom and me about how many classes I was taking. Even after I told him it was up to me, he continued to insist on taking more classes.
This post isn't about college or things like that though. This about what happened when he found out what kind of work I was doing.
He never really cared for the things I liked. He didn't like the things I watched, the music I listened to, or how I went about my business. He especially didn't like that I was working in a pharmacy. When he was sober, he was just not thrilled with it, when he was drunk or high, I was a pipeline for my mom to get whatever drugs he thought she was taking.
His favorite was to accuse me of stealing Demerol from the narcotic safe to give to my mom. While the "safe" (kind of hard to call an unlocked cabinet a safe) at the store I was at wasn't the most secure, there was still the matter of the perpetual inventory that was kept on all class II narcotics. If I had ever taken any Demerol (or whatever else he thought I was stealing), someone would notice.
He just didn't like what I did, was bitter towards my mom because she wouldn't get back with him, and generally wasn't in his right mind, which I fear has been permanently lost.
No, he wanted me to follow in his glorious footsteps as an iron worker.
Now, I have nothing against iron workers. I think a lot of them do a job that most wouldn't envy, whether it be on the ground or several stories up in the air. It didn't even have to do with getting dirty on the job. Hell, I probably could've dealt with the height issue for a good paycheck.
What worried me was how unstable the industry was. My dad was having a hard enough time staying employed (despite the drug/alcohol issue, he was an excellent worker) and jobs weren't exactly sprouting up. Sure, I could've taken an apprenticeship and gotten lucky, but it didn't look good. Most jobs were laying off workers or postponing work and many of the factories that produced steel were shutting down.
It just didn't seem like a very stable career choice and that's something I've always been conscious of. It's why I've stayed in the environment I've been in (although there's currently a saturation of pharmacy personnel).
My dad would try on occasion to convince me to try, saying the invitation was open as long as I was interested, but after a couple years, he finally dropped it.
Funny to think that a few years after that, the steel industry almost completely collapsed overall in the United States and iron workers were being laid off left and right. Granted, it's stablized in recent years as even my dad has at times gone back to work, but it's still not an industry I'd feel very good in.
I think if my dad hadn't gone down the road he went down and a lot of things had played out differently, I would have strongly considered the idea of following in his footsteps. There was a time when he was a good dad, someone I would've loved to look up to, but when he started to spiral out of control, that's when I stopped looking up to him.
Instead, he fell into the drug/alcohol addiction and to this day has been unable to turn things around. While things may not have played out exactly as I had envisioned, I don't regret anything that has happened.
I certainly do not regret the decision to avoid his footsteps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)