Monday Morning Quarterback

The Reality of Homicide in the United States

2008-10-28T13:16:00.000-07:00

Homicide is a crime of major interest to many Americans because of its severity and its threat to public safety. Murder threatens the social and moral order of society and it remains the biggest concern to the American public. Intentionally taking another person’s life is considered the worst act a person can commit, and therefore, preventing and controlling homicide is always a top priority of law enforcement. Because of its seriousness, homicide offenders receive the harshest and most serious criminal sanctions of all offenders, and these sanctions may include life imprisonment or even the death penalty. Homicide incidents receive a lot of coverage from the media and a lot of attention from the American public because of its brutal nature, but the public’s perception of homicide and its trends is not necessarily a realistic picture. The perception of the extent and seriousness of homicide in the United States is distorted due to the media’s focus on celebrity-based and horrific homicides (gang killings, school shootings, Child murderers, serial killers, murders by strangers) and special victims (White females, children).

Because of the pervasive role of the media today in reporting serious and heinous violent crimes, along with the multitude of crime dramas and reality crime shows on television that portray serial killers, violent sex offenders, and psychotic murderers as common entities walking among us everyday, there is a public perception that violent offending, and murder in particular, is more of an epidemic today than it was in past history. Politicians even play a role in the misconception of murder in our society when they pledge to implement aggressive, get-tough strategies to do away with the growing number of gangs on the streets. Despite the vast amount of attention and publicity the crime of homicide receives and the call from politicians to win the war against the growing number of gang members and murderers, current homicide rates today remain drastically lower than they were in previous history. Official statistics contradict the common perception of a crime wave and a high murder rate and suggest that we are currently experiencing a downward trend in homicide. Official statistics of homicide are also thought to be the most reliable and accurate measure of crime. Significant decreases in homicide have been recorded every year since 1991, when a peak rate of 10.5 per 100,000 was recorded (Riedel &Welsh, 2008). The murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate of 5.5 per 100,000 recorded in 2000 and 2004 was the lowest recorded since 1956 (Maguire and Pastore, 2006d). Currently, homicide rates have declined to the levels last seen in the late 1960’s. After murder rates reached a peak in the late 80’s and early 90’s, they have declined drastically into the 2000’s and have since remained stable (BJS, 2007). The number of homicides is also currently at the levels below those experienced in the 1970’s (BJS, 2007). Besides today’s murder rates being as low as they have been in awhile, murder also remains one of the rarest forms of crime. According to the Uniform Crime Reports, murder accounted for only 1.2 percent of the overall estimated number of violent crimes in 2007 (FBI, 2007).

A persistent finding in homicide patterns is the predominance of males, especially black males, as both murder victims and offenders. Using estimates from the FBI’s Crime in the United States report in 2004, 16,137 murders occurred that year, and 90 percent of known homicide offenders were male, while 78 percent were victims (FBI, 2006). 90.2 percent of the victims and 91.7 percent of the offenders were adults over the age of 18 (FBI, 2006). Blacks represent approximately 16 percent of the population, but they disproportionately represent 50 percent of known offenders and 47.6 percent of victims. According to UCR data from 2004, when the victim/offender relationship is known, 76.8 percent of homicide victims, or 3 out of every 4, knew their killers. Only 23.1 percent of homicide victims were killed by strangers when the relationship between the offender and victim was known. The most common relationship between homicide offenders and victims was the acquaintance. The offender was an acquaintance to the victim in 53.9 percent of the homicides when the relationship is known. The victim was killed by a member in his or her family in 22.9 percent of homicides when the relationship is known. The most common circumstances surrounding murder are arguments and disagreements over money or property, brawls due to the influence of alcohol or narcotics, and other arguments (BJS, 2007). The UCR data from 2004 indicates that 44.4 percent of all murders result from arguments and disputes. The next common reason for homicide is that it occurred during the commission of another felony, such as forcible rape, robbery, or burglary. Despite popular myths about the pervasive role of gangs in homicides, gang killings, including gangland killings and juvenile gang killings, are only directly connected to a small portion of homicides. Based on UCR murder by circumstances data in 2004, gangs can only be linked to homicide in about 1 in 10 cases where the circumstances surrounding the murder are known. Murder trends also show that homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. Of the incidents in which the murder weapon was specified, 70.3 percent of the homicides that occurred in 2004 were committed with firearms. Of those firearm-related incidents, 77.9 percent involved handguns (FBI, 2006).

The 2004 data from the Uniform Crime Report reveals that murder is disproportionately concentrated in large cities. Further examination shows that cities collectively had a rate of 6.6 murders per 100,000 residents. The largest cities experienced the highest murder rate among the city population groups with a rate of 12.5 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, while the smallest cities had the lowest murder rate of the group with a rate of 2.4 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants (FBI, 2006). However, it’s the pockets of high-risk, impoverished neighborhoods within these larger cities that contribute to the high murder rates. What these homicide trends and patterns suggest is that homicide is more prevalent among some groups than others, occurs more in some places than others, and involves certain types of situations and participants more than others. Based on the official data from Uniform Crime Reports and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the real picture of murder looks a lot different than the one portrayed by the media. The portrayal of the most horrific murders, serial killers, mass murderers, school shootings, gang killings and special child or female victims distorts the reality of homicide. Official homicide data indicates that homicide is disproportionately concentrated in a small number of disadvantaged, poverty-stricken areas, and black males are disproportionately represented among homicide offenders and victims. Homicide is also likely to be the result of an argument between an offender and victim who know one another.

Nightlife in Cancun

2008-05-26T11:39:00.000-07:00

The Night scene in Cancun is so different than any other place I have ever experienced. The people there seem like they are a different breed or from a different planet. And the city also seems to induce a metamorphosis out of the tourists who travel there. I met a woman from France at a sports bar in downtown Cancun and she told me she moved to Cancun 8 years ago because people in Mexico are much more fun, friendly and easily approachable than people from France and the rest of Europe. For example, in Cancun you can start a conversation with any stanger in the street or dance with anyone at a club or bar without any akwardness at all. Everyone there is so laid back, easy going and fun. In Europe and in the States, a lot of times people can be too stuck up and unapproachable. She told me that if you tried to initiate a conversation with an attractive woman in Europe, she would normally be too cold and stuck up to respond with any interest.

There really is no better place to party in the world than Cancun. Every night is like the weekend and most bars and clubs are open until sunrise. One thing that makes Cancun extremely fun is that tourists come here to party hard, and they leave social pressures, anxieties and their own insecurities back at home. We all know the saying ¨what happens in Mexico, stays in Mexico". Everyone here is looking to have fun and no one cares about what other people are thinking of them. It´s not like in the States where girls and guys hang out in their own private groups and play cat and mouse games. Men look creepy when they awkwardly try to approach a stranger of the opposite sex, while even mediocre women reject the advances of a lot of men because they fear the scrutiny of their friends and peers. Girls in Cancun don´t get all dressed up just to dance with their other girlfriends and to compete for attention from men like they do here. Club and Bar-hoppers in Cancun also don´t judge each other as much as we do back at home. Anytime I notice a girl try to flirt and be sexy at a bar in Boston, she starts getting those disapproving looks and head shakes from other women who are really just jealous that they aren't as confident about themselves to let loose in front of a room full of strangers. I honestly believe that it has reached the point that girls here just go to clubs to compete against each other rather than look to meet men. And of course Men are as much to blame as well. There are lot of Men who are quick to judge and degrade any kind of adventurous female, who parties hard and looks to have fun, as promiscuous and slutty. Therefore, it's our judgmental culture and the pressures that come from social and gender norms that prevent the nightlife scene here from being as fun as it is in Mexico, and consequently makes meeting people at the bar scene here a lot more difficult.

Mexico brings out an exciting side of probably even the most timid and reserved people. And you just can´t go out for 1 or 2 drinks in Cancun. Some of the other students and I went out one time to the Hotel Zone and we planned on only having a drink or two at one of the bars because we had to wake up early for school the next morning. However, the atmosphere at the bar was so lively and exciting that it became impossible to leave early. Before we knew it, it was 2 in the morning and we were still at the bar. The staff that works at the bars and clubs play a big part in promoting the party atmosphere. I don´t know why places in the States haven´t adopted this strategy. The dancers and the staff are like the "ice breakers" and "party starters". They have their own choreographed line dances to warm up the dancefloor and get the party started. They also are very active and aggressive when getting everyone's participation. You can't just stand in a corner like a wallflower at a bar or club in Cancun. A female dancer will grab a shy guy and lead him to the dancefloor to dance or start giving him tequila shots. The male staff will do the same with non-participatory females.

So if you are a person who likes to go out, have fun and enjoy the nightlife, and you are sick of the same discouraging scene back at home, I recommend checking out Cancun or the othet tourist spots in Mexico next time you are planning a trip.

Mi primera semana en Mexico

2008-05-18T11:25:00.000-07:00

Voy a tratar de contarle las historias de mi primera semana en Español porque necisito practicar. Esta es también mi tarea para la clase, así que realmente no tengo otra opción.

Hoy es domingo y que hace una semana que llegué a Mexico. Cuando llegué al aeropuerto el domingo pasado, tuve mi primera problema (patear el culo) del viaje. Pensé que la familia iba a recogerme al aeropuerto pero había una mala comunicación y tuve que tomar un taxi desde el aeropuerto a la familia de acogida de la casa. Se terminó costando 60 dólares! Pero estas cosas pasan a veces. El primer día fue muy abrumadora. Cuando llegué a la casa de la familia, yo estaba inmerso de inmediato en el idioma español. La primera persona que conocí fue Elizabeth. Ella es la madre de la familia y también uno de mis maestros en la escuela. Ella me mostró todo el apartamento y mi habitación hablando sólo en español. Entonces me presentó a sus tres hijas, Nimibia, Daniela y Vera, y su esposo Helmut. Sus tres hijas son muy bellas y su marido es un hombre muy agradable. Las hijas son alrededor de mi edad con excepción de Vera quien sólo tiene 15 años. Sin embargo ella se ve como podría ser 18. Infortunamente todas tienen novios. No hay suerte para mi. Helmut es de Ohio y recientemente se casó Elizabeth. El ensena en una universidad de Ohio y pasa sus veranos con Elizabeth y su familia en Cancún. Él es un gran aficionado de los deportes y hemos tenido muchas conversaciones sobre deportes.

Salvo cuando estoy pasando el tiempo con los estudiantes fuera de la escuela, no hay Inglés hablado aqui. No importa si estoy alrededor de la casa, comiendo desayuno o almuerzo con Elizabeth y su familia, o estoy en la escuela, cada conversación es en español. Durante el primer día de escuela conoci los estudiantes y otros maestros. Los estudiantes son de todas partes del mundo. Hay algunas de Alemania, Japón, Inglaterra y los EE.UU. Estoy en la clase intermedia y Elizabeth fue mi maestra para la primera semana. No es como la escuela secundaria clases de español en nuestro pais donde el profesor siempre traduce en Inglés para los estudiantes. Los maestros enseñan y explican todas las lecciones en español. Las clases comienzan a las 8 de la mañana y terminan a la 1 de la tarde. Las clases son muy pequeñas y más personal. No hay más de 3 otros estudiantes en cualquiera de mis clases.

Cuando no estoy en clase o en la casa de la familia, normalmente salgo con algunos de los otros estudiantes de la escuela. La primera semana fuimos al cine, comímos en algunos restaurantes, fuimos a la playa, y fuimos a las barras y discotecas en el área del centro y la zona hotelera. Ya he tenido algunas noches locas en Cancún. El último par de noches salí a los bares y clubes hasta el 4 de la mañana. He conocido muchas turistas y chicas mexicanas. Salí a comer con un par de chicas agradables y atractivas de Canada que yo conoci la otra noche en el camino hacia la playa. En las bares y clubes, muchas de las mexicanas y latín mujeres han mostrado interés en mí, porque ya sé que las palabras de canciones reggaeton (lol). Un chico blanco cantando canciones en español, obviamente, es impresionante para ellas. Dos chicas mexicanas Ana y Margarita han insistido en que les llamo la proxima semana. Yo sabía que uno de los pocos chicos blancos que le encanta regggaeton iba a trabajar para algo. En tu cara, Shukis!

Bueno, eso es todo por ahora. Ya no me siento a escribir. Voy a tratar de escribir mas sobre mis historias y aventuras de vez en cuando si no estoy tan perezoso. Hablare con todos pronto.

NBA PLAYOFFS 2008: FIRST ROUND PREDICTIONS

2008-04-17T10:39:00.000-07:00

With the highly anticipated NBA playoffs tipping off this Saturday and the buzz and excitement of the league being at its highest since the Michael Jordan era, I figured what better time to write an NBA playoffs column. I have never been as excited for the start of the NBA playoffs in my lifetime. The Celtics have a legitimate chance of winning a championship for the first time since 1986 and the entire playoff tournament offers intriguing match-ups.

This season the NBA has a playoff picture that can actually come close to rivaling the competitiveness and overall hype of the NFL. Considering that the interest in the NBA playoffs the last few years had regressed to the levels of indifference associated with the MLS championship, this is quite a remarkable feat. In years past, if your home team wasn’t in it, the casual fan would lose interest quicker than a healthy, rational and sociable human-being would listening to Shukis talk about his avatar and his quest to besiege the enemy’s kingdom in War of Conquest. Who besides the Detroit and San Antonio fans were ever that excited about the NBA in May and June? This year the casual fan can be enthusiastic about the playoffs even if their home team isn’t involved. Any real basketball fan has to be intrigued by the playoff match-ups of the intense Western conference and the plausible playoff scenarios in the conference and NBA finals. What basketball fan doesn’t love the idea of a potential Celtics and Lakers final? The amount of star power headlining the 2008 playoffs also catches your attention. Kobe, Lebron, KG, Chris Paul, Shaq, Dirk, Dwight Howard, Arenas, Pierce, Nash, Ray Allen, T-Mac, Iverson, Carmelo, Stoudemire and Duncan are all involved in the hoopla this season.

The Wild, Wild West is evenly stacked with so many great teams and it’s actually conceivable that any Western team could make the finals. The first round involves match-ups that you would expect to see in the conference finals. The Phoenix Suns will be battling the defending champs, San Antonio, Dallas is trying to rebound from last year’s opening round loss to Golden State against New Orleans, the top seeded Lakers are squaring off against a dangerous Denver Nuggets team and the Houston Rockets are taking on a great Jazz squad. The East isn’t as strong top to bottom as the West, and the Eastern conference has certainly been overshadowed by the most competitive and exciting Western Conference in years, but the Celtics and the Pistons may still be the two best teams in the playoffs. There could also be some potential marquee match-ups in the later rounds between foes like Boston and Cleveland, Orlando and Detroit, and possibly Boston and Detroit in the conference finals. Yeah, it’s not Brady vs. Manning, there isn’t an undefeated team making history that everyone is rooting against, and there isn’t a feel good story as good as Brett Favre’s, but this year’s NBA playoffs will certainly blow March Madness out of the water, make people forget about the Red Sox for awhile and should generate the most excitement and interest in the league in a couple of decades.

Now it's time for the picks.....

My NBA correspondent Josue Nascimento and I will try to channel our eagerness for the upcoming playoffs and make our first round predictions.

Eastern Conference:

Atlanta vs. Boston

Steve: Atlanta is a good, young team and they should only get better when guys like Josh Smith and Al Horford fully develop, but they have no chance of upsetting the Celtics this year. The Celtics may come out a little rusty in the first game because of the lack of minutes played by the Big Three recently, but don’t confuse Atlanta with the 2007 Golden State team that overwhelmed the top seeded Dallas Mavericks last season. Garnett, Pierce and Allen have been working too hard to have a let down and they will dispatch the Hawks relatively easily. The Hawks will also be walking into the jungle on Sunday night and I can see their young guys being affected by the home crowd advantage and the intense defensive play of the Celtics.

STEVE'S PREDICTION: CELTICS IN FOUR

Josue: I think the Bibby/Rondo matchup is the most interesting aspect of this series. Perkins will have to work hard to contain Al Horford but besides that there is not much to talk about. This should be a good warm-up series for the Celts.

JOSUE'S PREDICTION: CELTICS IN FOUR

Philadelphia vs. Detroit

Steve: Philadelphia looked like a dangerous team for awhile in the 2nd half of the NBA season, but they lost the last 4 games of the season and finished 3-7 in the final 10 games coming down the stretch. I think this team went on a hot streak against a fairly easy schedule and played above their heads. The young studs like Thaddeus Young and A.I. will fold like Joe Walker's fantasy teams against the more experienced and savvy Piston players. I can see Philly winning one game on their home court because of the inevitable Detroit stink bomb game (see Cleveland series last postseason) that the Pistons concede because of some lackadaisical play and lack of killer instinct. However, there is no Lebron on the 76ers who can carry the team the entire series and push the Pistons to the limit.

STEVE'S PREDICTION: DETROIT IN FIVE

Josue: The Pistons don’t have the same fire as years back but can still roll past a less experienced Philly squad. Expect to see Hamilton’s intensity and points total increase when Rasheed shoots poorly and gets in foul trouble.

JOSUE'S PREDICTION: DETROIT IN FIVE

Washington vs. Cleveland

Steve: This is the most interesting first round series in the East. I think both of these teams are over-rated, but that’s why it’s a great match-up. They are two even and similarly over-rated teams that some experts think can beat superior teams like the Celtics, Pistons and Magic. I can see a bunch of bandwagon analysts and fans jumping on the bandwagon of the team that comes out victorious in this series and making the predictable “Nobody wants any part of Lebron and the Cavs” or “Washington with Arenas back is the team nobody wants to face” comments. Then reality sets in, the Cavs or Wizards get ousted by the Celtics in 5 games and we hear the excuses that Lebron didn’t have any help or Arenas wasn’t healthy yet. Regardless, this series should be exciting and I think it will come down to Cleveland finishing off Washington in the deciding game 7. I could also be way off base and I may be over-rating this series just like the NBA experts are over-rating these teams. We’ll see.

STEVE'S PREDICTION: CLEVELAND IN SEVEN

Josue: This will be the most exciting series of the first round in the Eastern Conference. Why? Because the overated Cavs meet the underated Wizards and all the hype and assumptions about the Cavaliers will come crashing down when they break down on defense. The Wizards will have to keep the Cavs under 90 points and to do that they will have to shut down Lebron. Don’t expect Varejao or Big Ben to be much of an offensive OR defensive threat. This will be a sexy series.

JOSUE'S PREDICTION: WASHINGTON IN SEVEN

Toronto vs. Orlando

Steve: So is Orlando a true championship contender or a decent team that took advantage of the 3rd seed in a weak conference? I think they are the later. I am not convinced that Dwight Howard can carry a team and I don’t know how much longer this team can rely on Hedo Turkoglu as their go-to guy. Not to mention, Jameer Nelson may be the worst starting point guard on an Eastern Conference playoff team. However, those concerns won’t come up in this series because Diego’s “International Ball” Toronto team has been a complete joke for much of the season. The NBA deciding to schedule 3 out of the first 5 games of this playoff series on NBA TV gives you an idea about how much the NBA values this series and how much of a joke this Raptors team is. Besides maybe the Hawks, I don’t think Toronto could defeat any team in the playoffs. Look for “International Ball” to be eliminated from contention in 5 games.

STEVE'S PREDICTION: ORLANDO IN FIVE

Josue: I’m sorry Toronto but you guys are just not consistent enough. The Raptors can put on a show when all their guys are playing their best at the same time. Unfortunately for them, that will not happen. D-Howard owns Nesterovic in points and boards, the T.J.Ford/Calderon duo are better than Jameer Nelson in the point and will spread the ball well. In the end, the Raptors will miss critical shots and Turkoglu will be the difference maker. Expect a couple of contested games and Toronto breaking down in the 4th quarter.

JOSUE'S PREDICTION: ORLANDO IN SIX
_________________________________________________________

Western Conference:

Phoenix. vs. San Antonio

Steve: This is an unfavorable match-up for both teams in the first round. I think either one of these teams would have been happier playing Utah, Houston or even New Orleans in the 1st round. I hate to pick against the Spurs, a team that always brings their game up a notch in the playoffs, but I think Phoenix is primed for a big run this season. The addition of Shaq has made Amare Stoudemire a more dangerous player than ever and has loaded the Suns with the interior defense against Duncan that they didn’t have in previous years. Since the Shaq trade, the Suns are actually 2-0 against the Spurs. The Suns are also kind of flying under the radar a little bit because of the Lakers love affair, and less pressure and lower expectations may work in the Suns favor this season. Ginobli is banged up and some of the aging players like Bowen and Horry have not been nearly as effective either. The key for the Suns is to split one of the first two games in San Antonio, and if they can do that, they can win this series. I have a feeling this series is going to come down to a deciding 7th game thriller.

STEVE'S PREDICTION: SUNS IN SEVEN

Josue: The aging Spurs had a little help from the referees last year and that will not happen again. Not only is the NBA sick of San Antonio, but so are the fans. Bruce Bowen will not get away with his malicious tactics because the Suns have learned how to deal with him. Steve Nash will show everyone one more time why he is a two time MVP and will expose Tony Parker’s failure to beat anyone one on one (his teammates will be too busy covering Shaq, no easy picks for Parker).

JOSUE'S PREDICTION: SUNS IN SIX

Denver vs. LA Lakers

Steve: The Nuggets are an enigma. Sometimes they can play with the best teams in the league and sometimes they look downright awful. One thing for sure is that guys like Carmelo and Iverson will put the points on the board. However, it won’t be enough because their defense is as pitiful as Bravo’s during an STG hung-over pick-up game on a Saturday afternoon. Denver actually allowed 151 POINTS in a loss to the Sonics a few weeks ago. And don’t confuse the Lakers with the Laker team from last season. The acquisition of Gasol has transformed this Laker team into a legit contender and they are playing extremely good basketball at the right time. Kobe, who has become a better all-around player this season, has also developed more trust and confidence in his teammates. The Lakers may lose a game or two because of some explosive offensive nights from the Nuggets, but I don’t see the Nuggets scaring the Lakers in this series.

STEVE'S PREDICTION: LAKERS IN FIVE

Josue: Write this down: the Lakers will plow through the Nuggets and will enjoy extra days off while waiting for the winner of the Utah/Houston match-up. There is no way that Iverson can handle Kobe when he is hot. Kobe will out-rebound and out-defend Iverson while Lamar Odom’s incredible reach will allow him to outplay Carmelo Anthony. Carmello and his problems with the law emphasize the many off-court issues in Denver. Lack of chemistry and poor shooting will combine to a grand disaster in this series. Denver better hope that J.R. Smith can pull his Antwain Walker style to keep the Nuggets in contention. I say the Lakers take two games in La La Land, drop one in Denver, and then finish them off in game four and five.

JOSUE'S PREDICTION: LAKERS IN FIVE

Dallas vs. New Orleans

Steve: This will be another great opening round series. It’s just crazy to think that the Dallas Mavericks are a number seven seed. Similar to the Suns, I think Dallas may be facing less pressure this postseason and that can work in their favor. A lot of people wrote the Mavericks off when they went on the slump after the J-Kidd trade. On the other side, New Orleans seems to have all the pressure in their corner because they are no longer the underdog, under the radar team. The Hornets are now the number 2 seed and they have arguably the best point guard and MVP of the NBA. Therefore, they have to come out strong and prove that they can handle the pressure of the playoffs. I expect this to be an up and down series that goes the full 7 games, but in the end I expect the Mavericks experience and the playoff tested Dirk Nowitski to overcome the more inexperienced Hornets in this big, pressure-filled series.

STEVE'S PREDICTION: DALLAS IN SEVEN

Josue: This is a tough one. New Orleans can win this if they manage to get Jason Kidd to work for every jump shot and double team Dirk whenever possible. Kidd’s shooting percentage is worse than Shaq’s free throw percentage when someone puts a hand on face and Dirk will probably wear himself down in the late games of the series when the Hornets gang up on him. I, however, think that Dallas has too much to prove and will manage to find their way to the Western conference semifinals.

JOSUE'S PREDICTION: DALLAS IN SEVEN

Utah vs. Houston

Steve: I want you to think about these three points. 1) Since their 22 game winning streak, the Rockets have only defeated one playoff team. 2) Tracy McGrady has NEVER won a playoff series. 3) Rafer Alston is the Houston Rockets second best player. That’s equivalent to going into a flag football game against Sig Ep and having David Shukis as your second best player. Unless the best player on the team is LaDainian Tomlinson, your team is going to get their ass kicked. Now how do you pick Houston in a playoff series against a strong Utah squad that defeated virtually the same Rockets team that had a healthy Yao Ming playing last year in the playoffs? I give the Rockets a lot of credit for their amazing winning streak and for persevering in the tough Western Conference without Yao, but we all know the playoffs is a totally different atmosphere. Utah made it to the conference finals last year, and in my opinion they have improved even more this year because of the added contributions of guys like Ronnie Brewer and Kyle Korver. Deron Williams, who is quickly becoming one of the best point guards in the league, should be able to penetrate and create a lot of opportunities for the Jazz. At least T-Mac can look at the outcome positively because he will still probably be one of the best players to have never won a playoff series of all time.

STEVE'S PREDICTION: UTAH IN SIX

Josue: Fortunately for Utah, they have a better chance in the playoffs against Houston than the Spurs. No offense to Dikembe Mutombo, but Okur is too much for the old man to handle. Add DWill, AK47, Brewer, and Boozer and you can see why anyone would be afraid of facing this starting lineup in the playoffs. Unfortunately for Houston, a 22 game winning streak means nothing when playing a team that plays so well at home and won’t give them easy victories like the sub 500 teams they faced during the streak.

JOSUE'S PREDICTION: UTAH IN SIX

Tell us about whether you agree with our predictions and/or write your own first round predictions in the comment section.

Change in the Social Divide

2008-03-21T06:56:00.000-07:00

A few days ago Barack Obama addressed the controversial remarks of his former pastor Jeremiah Wright in an inspirational and riveting speech. Wright, who Obama has been affiliated with for 2 decades, has come under fire recently for his harsh sermons condemning white racism. Obama tackled this issue and the bigger picture of race in America in his speech for the first time in his campaign. The senator declared that he doesn't agree with his former pastor's views, but he does believe that America should be more understanding toward black anger and resentment, and the factors affecting racial tension in this country. Instead of being in denial about prejudice and racism in America, we should all come together to talk about the issue and find a real solution. Americans need to unify and empathize with others in order to allieviate the social divide that continues to exist in the United States.

Despite this influential speech that should have catapulted people's confidence in Obama's leadership and character, many Americans have instead become skeptical of Obama and have started to diverge from his corner. New polls have indicated that Wright's remarks and Obama's recent speech have hurt the presidential candidate in the national electorate. Surveys have also shown that negative views of Obama have grown in recent days and that the Clinton campaign has grabbed the momentum in the democratic race.

The recent backlash from the American public and the momentum swing away from the Obama camp validates exactly what Obama said in his speech. There is a social divide in this country and there is still a lot of resentment between racial groups. Every time the race issue is brought up, two separate and distinct sides emerge. By no means are these sides mutually exclusive, but in simple terms, one side is white and one side is black. A lot of white people get annoyed whenever a race issue or the race card is brought up and vehemently deny that prejudice still hinders any opportunites for blacks to reach their goals. This of course can explain the sudden dissent against Obama. Black people and other minorities claim that prejudice is still a concern and that social barriers still block opportunities to reach racial equality in this country. I agree with the latter, but it's not important what side I am on, or what side anyone else is on for that matter. What's important is figuring out a way to close this gap, and that starts with being open about racial issues and being sensitive to the ideas of others. It's unfair for someone from the white majority to judge the words of minorities or dismiss race when most do not know the experiences of black America. The main point of Obama's speech was to promote change, awareness and an understanding of both sides of the race issue. He wasn't saying one side was right or one side was wrong. He's not turning this into a black vs. white issue despite what some delusional talking heads like Rush Limbaugh may lead you to believe. It's an issue about uniting, not separating, Americans. If we continue to avoid addressing racial inequality in America and continue to dismiss these problems as irrelevant, then we can expect the tension and animosity between racial groups to continue. Until we can come together and search for a solution to fix the disparity, we will always be divided as a nation.

Many have questioned the leadership of senator Obama since this speech and the advocates from both sides have emerged once again. Many voters are siding with Clinton or switching parties to vote for McCain because of the perception that Obama is making this is a black vs. white, majority vs. minority issue. I, on the other hand, am more confident than ever in Obama's leadership. Obama's bold move to address the racial climate, a subject so sensitive to the American public, and his devotion to handle it, shows me that he is the right man for president. Rather than adhering to the same old, conservative rhetoric of many other politicians, Obama demonstrated that he is sincere about striving for change. Obama declared in his speech on Tuesday that he is ready to make progress in the racial quarrel, however many Americans still cannot come to terms with discussions on race and cannot accept that racial inequalities are still a problem in the United States. This will probably be the deciding factor in a tight race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and subsequently in the potential race between Obama and McCain if he wins the democratic nomination. Is America going to be able to accept the nature of the problem and strive for change, or are we going to remain sastisfied with the status quo and adhere to the same conservative values and rhetoric?

Show me the Money!

2008-03-05T07:32:00.000-08:00

In the movie Jerry Macguire, there is a now famous scene when Cuba Gooding Jr's character shouts "Show me the Money!!!" on the phone to his sport agent, who was played by Tom Cruise. In a lot of ways, this depiction accurately reflects the perception that many individuals hold in regard to professional athletes. The perception that it's all about the money. Professional athletes do not care about loyalty to a team, city or community. All they care about is getting paid mucho dinero. Players like Johnny Damon, Pedro Martinez and Adam Vinitieri enjoyed their time playing for their respective teams in Boston, but when another team offered them a more prosperous contract, they packed up their belongings, parted ways and moved on. This kind of unloyal and self-serving behavior evokes a lot of anger and frustration in a lot of dedicated sports fans. Many people cannot understand why their favorite stars show no affiliation and connection to their city or team. The common man making around 50 grand a year has a difficult time relating to professional athletes who decide to move on because an annual salary of 10 million isn't sufficient.

But aren't we being a little hyprocritical by expecting our beloved sport stars to turn down bigger money and better financial opportunies for a home town discount? Should we be condemning these players for doing what most people in society do, including all of us reading this article, which is looking out for our own end. Isn't it human nature to look out for your own self interests? If this wasn't true, then communism would have thrived as an economic system by now. If this wasn't true, then inequalities and disparities between the upper and lower classes would have been mediated a long time ago and social barriers impeding some disadvantaged groups would have at least been alieviated by now.

One thing this country is absorbed in is material success. We all want to acheive the "American Dream". We all want to be rich, drive a nice car, live in an enormous house and enjoy all the fine luxuries of life. Our social class and status are measured by how much money we make and how much power we have. So why in a country that promotes and embraces material success to an extreme, would we expect our athletes to act any differently than the rest of us? Why do we expect our favorite athletes to be supernatural and to not give in to the social constructs that we have created and maintained? The answer is that we can't. In a culture where individuals are defined by wealth, power and resources, we shouldn't be surprised by these self-serving outcomes. I know there are a lot of people who love their jobs, the company they work for, and the people they work with, but if you tell me that you wouldn't take a similarly situated job that offers more money and financial growth, you are lying to yourself. Whether it's the difference between a professional athlete making 15 rather than 10 million a year or an average Joe making 75 rather than 50 grand a year, the high probability of that person going to where the better money is remains the same.

This brings me to the recent negotiations between Randy Moss and the Patriots. The way the circumstances played out with Randy Moss and the Patriots this past Monday took me by surprise and gave me a whole new reason to be enamored with the character of the best wide receiver in the NFL. Randy Moss is a guy who has been labeled as selfish and egotistical over his career. He earned a bad reputation from his playing days, or lack thereof, in Oakland. The baggage that he is perceived to carry and his label as a team distraction was substantiated by some incidents in his past, including the occassions he was seen taking plays off during games, along with off- field problems involving drugs and an altercation with a meter maid. However, a great deal of his negative image and publicity had been completely overblown and distorted by the media as well. The playoff game against the Packers a few years ago comes to mind. During that game Randy Moss pretended to moon the Green Bay fans after scoring a touchdown and Joe Buck's reaction to the incident was so over-the-top that it would have made you believe that Moss had left his excrement on the field.

I didn't buy all the notions, influenced in part by the media, of Randy Moss being a distraction to the Patriots. And apparently neither did Bill Belichick and the Patriots organization, who were one of the few suitors for Moss' services last season. Because teams were so convinced that Moss carried too much baggage and that his skills were deteriorating, the Patriots were able to pry him from the Raiders with a 4th round draft pick. In retrospect I don't know who made out better, Marko Jaric stealing Adriana Lima or the Patriots stealing Randy Moss. The Patriots brought in Randy Moss with the expectation that he would fit into their system and their team just like any other player on the roster. As we all know by now, the acquisition of Randy Moss proved to pay off in every way. Moss even exceeded everyone's expectations and unleashed the player we were all accustomed to seeing in Minnesota. The doubters were looking for the honeymoon to end and for the wheels to fall off eventually, but it just never happened. Moss worked just as hard, if not harder, than anyone else on the field, got along well with all his teammates, and never griped all season. His strong relationship with Brady was also evident all season long. Anytime the offense was off the field, you would see Brady and Moss communicating on the sideline. The two shared adjacent lockers in the locker room and were so close that Randy started referring to Brady as "Tommy" with reporters.

Randy Moss rejuvenated his career with the Patriots and appeared to be as happy as ever in his new situation. When the season ended and Moss expressed his desire to remain a Patriot and to continue to play with Tom Brady, I think a majority of New England fans were confident that Randy would resign with the team. However, as sports fans, we have learned to take the words of star athletes with a grain of salt. When players talk about their desire to return to the team after their contract is up, we acknowledge it only with a great deal of reservation and skepticism. Many times we have heard players promise their fans that they will be back, yet to the dismay of many loyal fans, they sign with another team for a more lucrative offer.

When news started spreading last weekend during free agency that Randy Moss was pursuing offers from other teams, many Patriot fans started grumbling about Randy's half-hearted and friviolous claims of really wanting to stay with the Patriots. The pessimism reached a peak when word was out that teams like the Philadelphia Eagles were offering Randy a lot of money. There were also rumors circulating about interest coming from the Dallas Cowboys, and meanwhile former teammate Daunte Culpepper was also contacting Moss in hopes for a reunion in another uniform. For many, it seemed like just a matter of time before another one of our favorite athletes would break our hearts and sign with another team.

Then on Monday things appeared bright again and Patriot fans regained hope. Moss finally re-signed with the Patriots and did the opposite of what most players in his position would have done. He stayed true to his word and remained a New England Patriot. He could have received more money playing for the Eagles, but he decided that the situation in New England had intangibles that were too good to overlook. His friendships and relationships with his teammates, his coach Bill Belichick and the rest of the coaching staff influenced his decision to honor his committment to the team that rejuvenated his career. This is the same guy who had been labeled as selfish, immature and egotistical, but his decision on Monday showed otherwise and his true character was revealed. Moss proved on Monday that it isn't always about the money. He knows what it is like from his experience with the Oakland Raiders how unhappy a situation can turn out when money is the prevailing motivation. Moss chose quality, happiness and a chance to win a championship over a higher salary. Yes, I know that Randy will still be making 9 million a year with the Patriots and he's definitely not going to have any difficulty supporting his family because of his decision to take the less lucrative offer, but given the emphasis our country places on material success and money, even small sacrifices like this that place quality over quantity is admirable.

Henry David Thoreau once said that it is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly. Randy Moss learned this when he hit the bank and signed with the Oakland Raiders. He wasn't going to make the same mistake twice.

Why Family Guy is Over-rated

2008-02-21T10:24:00.000-08:00

I know speaking critically and negatively about Family Guy is looked upon as blasphemy by many of its ardent supporters, but I can't help by being unimpressed every time I watch this show. I don't watch the show very frequently so my analysis will be general at best, but all I can say is that, although the show may be funny sometimes, there is no way it should be as highly regarded and glorified as it is among the young TV viewing public. I am a person who appreciates good comedy and funny jokes, but when jokes are non-sensical, uncreative and bear no substance or relation to the plot, I tend to disagree with notions that Family Guy is the greatest thing since the G-String.

Contrary to what many avid Family Guy viewers will tell you, this show is anything but intelligent or creative. Family Guy is a show with a fanbase that predominantly ranges from pre-pubescent teenagers to college students and young adults in their twenties. The show caters to an audience who appreciates shallow and simple jokes, and markets to the same segment that adores the easy laugher, popcorn flicks like "The Water boy", and "Dude, Where's my Car". We are currently a part of a "Jackass" culture that embraces mindless entertainment over plot and point. Writers and producers can essentially throw substance out the window and insert a limitless amount of stupidity to the story as long as the subject matter can keep people entertained. This is precisely why movies like "Snakes on a Plane" and "Beerfest" can create more buzz and sell more tickets than "No Country for Old Men", a movie that won 4 Oscars, including best picture, last night at the Academy Awards.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with people who find this shallow kind of humor funny. We all, myself included, like to indulge ourselves with simple humor and some form of escapism just to get a laugh. That's why I can understand why Family Guy is popular. The creators of the show know their audience and they do a great job delivering the shallow, gag humor their market demands. The show's popularity is probably at its peak regardless of how redundant, baseless and tired the humor is. However, the way some people worship Family Guy like it is the greatest cartoon ever made and look down on anyone, who doesn't share the same adoration, amazes me. I respect TV shows or movies that can make people laugh, but calling Family Guy brilliant and innovative is shortsighted.

What I have induced from my experience watching Family Guy is that the quality of writing and the animation is horrendous. The jokes are usually baseless and repetitive. The signature aspect of the show is the frequent depictions of cutaway or flashback jokes involving Peter Griffin that have no apparent relation to the plot at all. The jokes are not used to advance the story, but to rather get a quick laugh from the viewers. The jokes are so random and interchangeable that they could have been created by a group of teenagers jumbling whatever bunch of unrelated, random ideas that pop in their head into a Family Guy joke. The quality of the animation is also very poor. The creator of Ren and Stimpy expressed his thoughts on the quality of animation for Family Guy. "If you're a kid wanting to be a cartoonist today, and you're looking at Family Guy, you don't have to aim very high. You can draw Family Guy when you're ten years old. You don't have to get any better than that to become a professional cartoonist. The standards are extremely low."

Is Family Guy a funny show? Sure, even a Family Guy dissenter like me thinks it has its moments sometimes. However, I think if you look critically at the show without bias, even the most passionate fans can probably acknowledge its shallow nature. It's probably the least original and least intelligent cartoon in its genre, behind the likes of Southpark and The Simpsons. I think of Family Guy similar to the way I think of Britney Spears. I like Britney's music and she has some good dance tracks that can create some excitement and get the girls warmed up at the bars, clubs and parties, but I don't think too many people would argue that Britney is one of the most talented musicians. Family Guy, just like Britney, is popular, catchy and entertaining, but the overall substance is lacking and the show falls extremely short of the intelligent and creative identity that some Family Guy fans may lead you to believe it has.

The Celtics Analogy to Life

2008-02-19T11:08:00.000-08:00

The following article was written by Diego Nascimento, a contributer to Monday Morning Quarterback.

Over the years, I have come up with many Celtics-related analogies. Many make sense, others make sense up to a point, then I get carried away, and others are completely out there. So, in this beautiful, cold Valentine's day, I would like to share with you my latest Celtics analogy. This one is actually pretty deep, it's about life.

Well, last year, the Celtics sported one of the worse records in franchise history. Due to lack of experience, injuries, and bad coaching, the Celtics were incredibly horrible, and even the ping pong ball didnt bounce the Green's way. That's also how my year was. Academically speaking, I didnt have a very good season. In life, I worked like a mad dog just so I could have enough money for school. I didn't excel at anything that I want to do long term. And my fraternity, well, we were on the verge of extinction due to lack of brothers and leadership.

Then, during the Celtics offseason, they acquired the Big 3, which turned everything around. All of a sudden they are a championship team. Hope was restored. The great memories of Celtic history came to our minds and the dream that the new Celtics can reach those heights again seem realistic. The national media is talking about us again. Well, when I was named president of my fraternity, I had to go to a conference. During my "off season" (winter break), I went to President's Academy that may have very well turned things around and reverted myself to turn into a championship team, which is ultimately my goal in life.

To get to the championship level, the Celtics had to get the Big 3, KG, PP, and RA. Three guys that alone could not do well, but together worked like a charm. Well, in order for me to get my championship, I also have to get a Big 3 (and excel at it). My Big 3 are Academics (perform well academically), Life Goals (start seeking and achieving my life goals) and Fraternity Responsibilities (learn and develop myself as a person through my fraternity). Without one or the other, I could very well fail.

This is the thing, KG alone cannot get it done. We know that Pierce alone can't get it done either, but when all 3 of them are working together, then things change. That's the way I feel about my Big 3. By achieving my academic goals (pick the right classes, study, get good grades), I can achieve my Life Goals (get a job on my area of expertise, buying a car, find a place to live). With my Fraternity Life (developing leadership skills, accepting responsibilities) I can achieve my Academic and Life Goals (such as networking, using my leadership skills, developing study hours). All of them come together. So I cant just be good at one, I've gotta be great in all areas, and I think I can truly get a Championship.

However, even these guys, no matter how good they are, they still can't get it done all by themselves. That's why you need the role players. The role players keep the momentum going, gives the Big 3 rest, and develop chemistry. That is the same thing in life. My James Posey is equivalent to working out at the gym. By keeping up with this daily routine, I can refresh my mind and take breaks from studying. I can't play Posey 48 minutes every game, just like I can't work out all the time and ignore everything else. But having him on the court is extremely beneficial.

There are other players on the court that are great role players. The support from family and friends, the networking, things like that. Then you have the end of the bench players. The Pollards and Pruitts (normally I would use Scalabrine, but he's been playing). These guys are okay to play when you're beating the team by a lot and you need to rest your players and let the young guys play. But if you let them play all game, every game, then you're not going to win. You're going to lose momentum and consistency. The same is with alcohol and other things. When you have a good week, you have achieved a lot of goals, got a lot work done, then yeah, go have a beer. Relax, let them play. But if you're gonna allow them to play all game, then you lose momentum and consistency, and when they play too much, you lose.

So that is my Celtics analogy. Now I just hope that the Celtics get a championship this year, because if they do, it'll be a great sign. And who knows, then I might just have to sign the Big 3 and the 2007-2008 Celtics longer and create a Dynasty. Reply if you have any comments or would like to add more to the analogy. Perhaps next week I will share with you my thoughts on 'how under-rated bathing suits are as workout gear'. Until then, happy Valentine's day and have a great weekend!

19 and OH NO!

2008-02-06T04:52:00.000-08:00

I really wanted to avoid this topic. Ever since Sunday, I have been trying to refrain from watching anything ESPN or football related. I didn't want to endure the agony of listening to the delighted Mercury Morris, Don Shula or any of the other 1972 Dolphins, and I didn't want to watch the ESPN flip-flop analysts make a complete 180 and jump off the Patriots bandwagon. I mentioned in one of my previous articles about Peyton Manning that we live in a what have you done for me lately society so there is no surprise that now everyone thinks the Patriots were over-rated and vulnerable, and their loss completed the biggest Superbowl upset ever.

I don't know if I was really demoralized as much as I was just shocked and confused. How did one of the greatest teams in the history of football come out so flat in the biggest game of the year? The Giants were a formidable opponent and they were certainly on a hot streak, but if the Patriots play their best football, they should win that game 9 out of 10 times. For the best scoring offense in the history of the NFL to come out and only put 14 points on the board against a Giants team that had an adequate secondary (and that's putting it nicely) at best is shameful.

So how exactly did we lose this game? Say what you want about the last drive of the game by Eli Manning and the Giants. Yeah, Eli should have been sacked and that catch by Tyree was luckier than the way Kevin Federline made out at the end with Britney Spears, but this game was won at the line of scrimmage. The strength of the Giants is their defensive line and they made our All-Pro offensive line look like the feeble linemen from that Matt Hasselbeck State Farm commercial. I kept thinking that at some point the mastermind Belichick and his coordinators were going to adjust and find a way to give Brady some more time to throw or come up with some designed schemes to offset the defensive pressure, but it really never materialized. When the Patriots marched down the field for the go-ahead score near the end of the game, I was more annoyed than I was excited because I was wondering where that explosive offense we had come accustomed to seeing all season long had been for the entire game and why it seemed like the Patriots had no sense of urgency until the waning minutes of the 4th quarter. The body language of the Patriots was telling me that there was something wrong. I didn't see the same glaring confidence and intensity in the eyes of Brady, Bruschi, Rodney Harrison and the other guys. It almost felt like the Patriots expected a push-over game where they could just go through the motions and still win (and they almost did). There was no agressiveness or killer instinct on the offensive side of the ball. Brady and the Patriots offense suddenly transformed into the anemic Kyle Boller led Baltimore Ravens.

And then there was the game planning by Belichick. Belichick is a brilliant coach and I hate to be critical of him just because of one bad game, but that could have possibly been the worst coached game in Bill Belichick's career with the Patriots. As I previously mentioned, he couldn't find anyway for his team to adjust to the pressure of the defensive line. Brady was on his back during that game more often than he is when he is with Giselle. The Patriots had two weeks to prepare for this team and they had already played the Giants previously this season. Needless to say, I think most expected to see a lot more from what is probably the greatest offense and greatest coach in NFL history. The most egregious decision of the game occured when Belichick decided to go for it on 4th and 13 rather than kick a 48 yard field goal. I know it's 20/20 hindsight now, but I can't believe that Belichick made that decision. The Patriots offense wasn't exactly prolific at the time and the points were hard to come by for both teams. I just don't see any good reason to go for it at that moment given the situation in the game. There would have been a much greater chance for Gostkowski to hit a 48 yarder through the uprights in warm weather conditions than it would be for a struggling offense to complete a 13 yard play on 4th down.

Was this the most demoralizing and painful loss in Boston sports history? That is up for debate with other heartbreakers like the Billy Buckner game in 1986 and the Red Sox loss to the Yankees after the Aaron Boone walk-off home run in 2003. If the Patriots loss to the Giants isn't the most demoralizing, it certainly is the most terrible. The difference between this Superbowl loss and the Billy Buckner and Aaron Boone games was that the Patriots were not expected to lose. The Patriots were one game away from undoubtedly being the greatest team ever. While those Red Sox losses were so excruciating and depressing, the Sox weren't the unanimous favorite to win those games.

Even with that said, we shouldn't buy into ESPN and the talking heads' notions that this season was a failure. In my eyes, the 2007 Patriots team will still go down as one of the greatest teams ever despite the anti-climatic finish. It's disappointing knowing that the Patriots were one game away from perfection and the chance of going 19-0 probably won't come that close ever again, but that shouldn't take away from one of the greatest seasons by a team ever. No team has ever accomplished what the Patriots did this year, going undefeated for 18 games and breaking all the coveted offensive records in the process. Tom Brady said it best after the end of the game last Sunday, "We had a great season; we just didn’t win the game. Tonight doesn’t take away from anything we have done over the course of the season. We had a great year." Say what you want about the Patriots season being a failure or a disappointment, but nevertheless, we just witnessed one of the greatest seasons in modern sports history. The truth is that there is no such thing as perfect, and even if the Patriots finished the season with an improbable 19-0 record, they would probably still concede that they are not perfect and that they need to spend the offseason trying to improve on some of their weaknesses. And that's really what makes the Patriots so great. It's not just their record that indicates their greatness. The Patriots are just plain better than any other team at understanding their weaknesses and going out to correct them. The Giants may have caught lightning in a bottle and won the Superbowl this year, but we all know which of the two teams that played last Sunday will be back again next year, and the year after that, and so on, with the best chance to win the championship. The Patriots are never satisfied and they are always trying to improve. With every failure, there is something that can be learned from it. Any Patriot fan can count on the Patriots learning from their mistakes, regrouping and coming back next year with another impressive run for a 4th Superbowl championship.

Boston vs. New York

2008-01-23T12:53:00.000-08:00

After Brett Favre made what seemed like his 12th horendous decision in the NFC Championship game and the Giants shocked the world, my initial thought was "Boston and New York, here we go again". Another big game between Boston and New York, but not in the same context we have become so accustomed to seeing. Usually when we talk about the Boston/New York rivalry in sports, the discussion is mostly geared toward the Red Sox and Yankees, but this year we all have the pleasure of seeing the rivalry carry over into America's real pass time and the biggest sports event of the year. America was pulling for Brett Favre and the Packers to win last week and to play in a dream match-up against the Patriots in the Super Bowl, but we all know by now that the best match-up usually never pans out. Lawrence Tynes was even doing everything he could to send Favre to Arizona besides packing Brett's bags and buying his plane ticket, but in the end Favre couldn't stop making critical mistakes, and the Packers lost the game to the streaking New York Giants.

So is America a little bummed out that they are going to have to spend the next two weeks watching ESPN over-hype the two big market, East Coast cities like they do every season in baseball? I'm sure some people are turned off to some extent, but in reality this game will be much different than the typical Red Sox and Yankees battle. First of all, the Patriots play in Gillete Stadium, which is closer to Providence than it is to Boston, while Giants Stadium is located in the Meadowlands in New Jersey. While the Yankees and Red Sox have a historic rivalry between the two organizations and are as familiar to each other as a plumber is to a clogged toilet, the Giants and Patriots are as foreign to each other as the Spanish language is to the average American. The Patriots and Giants play in different conferences and rarely ever see each other on the same field. Both the Patriots and Giants have storied franchises, but rarely have these teams crossed each other's paths. One of the biggest parts of the New York/Boston rivalry is the rivalry between the teams' fans. Considering the Patriots and Giants do not play in the hubs of New York or Boston and they do not play against each other consistently, the intensity between the teams' fans won't be as high. Sure, there will be bragging rights for either teams' fans after the outcome, and especially for New York fans who have gone through a decade long title drought, watching their beloved Yankees lose their mystique and enduring the constant failures of the Jets, Giants and Knicks, but the Super Bowl isn't as exclusive to the fans of the New York City and Boston area as the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry is.

I think the Super Bowl presents many good storylines and a very appealing match-up. Besides the two teams representing big market cities, we also have a Manning/Brady Super Bowl. Yeah, it's not the Manning we have been accustomed to seeing in big playoff games over the years, but the Manning name alone still carries a lot of weight and popularity. Eli Manning being in the Super Bowl is a good story because he has been a quarterback who has been in the spotlight and has taken a lot of scrutiny, and now he has the opportunity to show his development and maturation as a quarterback. This could possibly be a game where Eli Manning transcends into elite quarterback status. And of course there is the story of the Patriots coming into this game with an undefeated 18-0 record and attempting to complete what is possibly the greatest achievement in modern sports history. The Patriots going for perfection is so big a story that I can't picture a scenario where this Super Bowl doesn't break the ratings record. The Patriots could be playing the Frankfurt Galaxy in the Super Bowl and still everyone in the country would watch that game. Seriously, do you know anyone, who knows anyone, who knows anyone, who is going to miss this Super Bowl? Everyone will be tuning in to at least root for the Patriots to lose, if nothing else.

As I pointed out, the intensity between the New York and Boston sports fans won't be as heated, but on a national level, this game will be more attractive than a Red Sox/Yankees championship. The Red Sox and Yankees rivalry is more exclusive to the East Coast, especially because New York and Boston are avid baseball towns. Throughout the rest of the country, however, football reigns supreme, and with the Patriots trying to make history, and the Giants having probably most of the sporting public outside of New England in their corner, this is going to be an exciting and highly anticipated game. There also shouldn't be as much hate from outsiders directed to this Boston and New York clash because there isn't the same disdain about teams "buying chamionships" casting its shadow over football. The Red Sox and Yankees have continued to be successful because their respective owners outspend every other team and buy the best players money can buy, but that's not the case with the Patriots and Giants. Yeah, fans around the country may be getting sick of ESPN's East Coast bias, and another sports championship involving teams from Boston and New York may be distasteful to some, but I think most Americans will feel that a Patriots and Giants Super Bowl is different than a Red Sox and Yankees ALCS because the Patriots and the Giants didn't need the financial push to get there. People will accept that this game features two legitimate teams that are the best in the NFL.

Back to Reality

2008-01-14T12:29:00.000-08:00

Before the Colts made a comeback to defeat a depleted Patriots team last year in the AFC championship game to go on and win the Super Bowl, Peyton Manning was labeled as the guy who couldn't win the big one. He always put up gaudy numbers in the regular season, but failed to come through in the clutch in January when it mattered the most. When Peyton Manning finally did get the monkey off his back last year by beating my Pats in one of the most heart-breaking defeats I can remember as a sports fan, I felt like Jerry Seinfeld in the Bizarro world episode. Peyton Manning was more clutch than Tom Brady in a big game? Tony Dungy outcoached Bill Belichick in the playoffs? What in the world had happened? It's one thing to lose in the playoffs, but losing to Manning and Dungy, our biggest rivals and annual playoff goats, was unbearable to watch. I was in Brazil at the time of the demoralizing loss to the Colts and I really believe that I was unable to enjoy the trip because that loss took so much out of me. Seeing beautiful, curvy, Brazilian women with their bikini wax, g-strings, and tan bodies wasn't even enough to cheer me up at the time. I kept replaying the game over and over in my head. Only if Caldwell didn't drop that wide open pass, or if Troy Brown ran the right pattern, or if our entire defense didn't get the flu, or if the refs didn't call the phantom pass interference against Hobbs. I dreaded the idea that the media and most of the casual, fantasy sports public were going to be salivating over Peyton Manning's jock strap more than ever and annointing Manning the greatest quarterback of all time. Many people were dumb enough to say Manning was a better quarterback than Brady before Manning even won a super bowl ring. I could only imagine how overwhelming the support for Manning over Brady would be now. Sure enough, Peyton Manning was seen on every commercial on TV, and he was everyone's favorite quarterback again. All of a sudden, analysts around the NFL were crowning Peyton Manning a big game quarterback and as clutch as Tom Brady. He had all the stats and now he had his ring.

Needless to say, this season couldn't get here quick enough for me and I had been waiting for the collapse of Peyton Manning and the Colts all year long. Pouring more salt on my wounds, the whole good vs. evil, pro-Colts, anti-Patriots campaign emerged this year amidst the Spy Gate scandal with Bill Belichick and the Patriots. The Patriots were the team everyone loved to hate, while Manning and Dungy were the good guys, the heroes that were suppose to conquer the evil empire. I was so fed up with the Manning and Dungy love affair, but thankfully the Patriots victory over the Colts in their house, the record breaking offense and their pursuit of the perfect season overshadowed the Manning/Dungy infatuation for awhile. Brady answered the critics, who said that he relied on the defense to win the championships and that he could never put up the big Manning numbers, by breaking Manning's TD record in the first season that he was awarded offensive weapons as good as Manning's. Then as expected, the playoffs began and the pro-Colts movement appeared again. Peyton Manning was everybody's hero, and in the eyes of many people, the last hope to defeat the Patriots run at perfection. There is even a new Gatorade advertisement and "league of clutch" promotion that began to air before the playoffs that depicted Peyton Manning, along with other stars like Dwyane Wade and Maria Sharapova, with the slogan "every game needs a hero".

Peyton Manning did win the Super Bowl finally, but league of clutch? Peyton would still be the A-Rod of football if every single break hadn't gone the Colts way against the Patriots in the 2nd half of the AFC championship game last January. Getting every favorable call imaginable, the Colts had a bigger home field advantage than when Hitler invaded Russia, and yet the Colts barely escaped a Patriot team that had Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney as their two best receivers. How did everyone completely forget that before last January Peyton Manning was the Picasso of choke artists? Not to mention, it could be argued that the Colts won the Championship last year despite of Manning, who finished the post season with 3 touchdown passes and 7 interceptions. When the Colts fell to the Chargers yesterday at the last game played at the RCA dome, and Peyton had his inevitable playoff collapse under pressure during the last drives of the game, followed by the infamous Manning face, the first thing that came to mind was "back to reality". It would have certainly been more satisfying to see the Patriots send Peyton Manning home packing, but I am not going to complain.

It still amazes me that every talking head and football fan outside of San Diego gave the Chargers absolutely no chance at beating the Colts. There were plenty of predictions of the Jaguars beating up the Patriots with their running attack and upsetting the Patriots, but no love for the Chargers. I know the Chargers have had their playoff struggles in the past, but how were we so confident that a quarterback and head coach, who have a history of losing in big playoff games, would dominate a team that has always given them trouble?

We live in a what have you done for me lately society, where people choose to look no further than the current times. This is why analysts and fans can ignore history and get away with calling Peyton Manning one of the clutchest quarterbacks in the NFL after he recently wins the big one for the first time in his career. This is why, without even flinching, Tony Romo is called the best quarterback in the NFC when his team gets off to a hot start and before he even proves anything in the playoffs. This is why Donovan McNabb, who was recovering from an injury that required surgery, can get criticized for being a mediocre and over-rated quarterback for not making the playoffs for only the 2nd or 3rd time in his career. This is why everybody believes in Brett Favre again despite almost a decade of mediocrity in Green Bay. Eli Manning has matured and grown as a quarterback right now, but if he throws a stink bomb in Lambeau next week, Eli will be just another inconsistent quarterback again. We live in a "right now" mode and if you're not good right now, then you're not good at all.

The Colts are now 0-4 at home after playoff byes during the Manning era. The so-called best quarterback in the NFL is now 7-7 all time in the playoffs. Yes, Peyton certainly didn't have a terrible game yesterday, but he wasn't able to come through again when it mattered the most. The officials certainly did all they could to give the sporting public the Patriots/Colts AFC Championship match everyone wanted to see, but give credit to the Chargers for keeping their composure, persevering and pulling off a gutsy win. For many, the Colts losing in the playoffs is a shock, but for me, this a scene all too familiar.

Don't Believe the Hype

2008-01-07T14:22:00.000-08:00

Here are some statistics I want you to mull over. 42nd in the league in total tackles, 71st in the league in interceptions, 24th in the league in total sacks, and 107th in the league in passes defended. How about another stat? ZERO forced fumbles. These are the statistics of defensive player of the year, Bob Sanders. Do these sound like the numbers of a player who is the supposed best defensive player in the NFL?

First off, I want to start by pointing out that it's not like me to define a player's worth solely on statistics and box scores. I have always been a person who truly believes in intangibles. That's why I have always said Brady is better than Manning. Manning has had better statistics in previous years, but Brady has that "it" factor. He has a coolness, calmness, and clutch abilty. That is also the beauty of football. It's not constrained by numbers as much as baseball and basketball are when determining a player's overall ability. With that said, I still believe that these statistics are revealing and speak volumes about the influence the media has on portraying professional athletes.

The only category that Bob Sanders probably leads the league in is highlights on ESPN. If there ever were evidence to prove how powerful and influential the ESPN machine really is, it certainly represented itself on Monday when 31 out of 50 media members who cover the NFL voted for Bob Sanders as the best defensive player in the league. The reason for the infatuation with Bob Sanders? ESPN and the media love to latch on to the David vs. Goliath story. Sanders is 5-8 and barely weighs 200 pounds. In terms of size of the average NFL player, Bob Sanders is certainly a small guy. Americans love the underdog and they love the hard working, little guy who makes it without having all the God given physical tools. Sanders compensates for his small stature with his physical style of play. He plays with a lot of toughness and swagger for a player who is very undersized. Bob Sanders is so physical and aggresive on defense that he often gets injured because of his lack of size, but that's also why he is revered. Sanders isn't afraid to get injured and he doesn't hold anything back when he is on the field. He plays like Ray Lewis in a wide receiver's body. Every time you watch a Colts game, you can see Sanders being extremely active and exploding to the ball. Guys like Bob Sanders are appealing because they are more human, and it's easier for the average 180 pound male football fan to relate to someone of his size and makeup. ESPN knows their market and they know how to attract their audience. This is why Bob Sanders is a household name and why he is regarded as the best defensive player in the league in 2007. We all know that ESPN is the world leader of sports and a very powerful medium. They can over-hype and inflate the value of a solid player with modest statistics and suddenly turn him into the best defensive player in the NFL.

Don't get me wrong. I think Bob Sanders is a good player and he plays with a tenacity that any defensive coach would want in a player. I would be lying to you if I told you that I wouldn't take Bob Sanders on my Patriots, but is he the best defensive player in the league? Is he better than guys like Ed Reed, DeMarcus Ware and Mario Williams? I can answer that with an emphatic NO.

Speaking of over-hyped and over-rated, what's up with this profound love affair for the Jacksonville Jaguars? All of a sudden the Jaguars seem to be everyone's cinderella team and bandwagon pick. To paraphrase Bill Simmons, if you turn on a sports program covering the NFL playoffs and they don't mention how much they love the Jacksonville Jaguars within 3 minutes, then you should call the police to be safe. All I keep hearing about is how physical Jacksonville is and how the Patriots are going to possibly struggle against their powerful running attack. Am I suppose to be impressed that the Jaguars barely defeated a banged up Pittsburgh Steeler team that handed the Jaguars the victory by committing special teams blunders, bad coaching decisions and crucial mistakes by Ben Roethlisberger? Not to mention the Jaguars defense was torched in the 2nd half by a Steeler offense that pales in comparison to the Patriots, and almost surrendered the greatest comeback in NFL playoff history. Nothing about that game on Saturday left me with any fear of the Jaguars. If anything, I feel more confident and relaxed after watching that game because the Jaguars looked mediocre and I was almost starting to believe in the media hype myself.

Everyone wants to talk about the Jaguars controlling the clock and running time consuming, methodical drives with Maurice Jones-Drew and Fred Taylor. Sure, that sounds great in theory, but what happens if the Jaguars can't stop the Patriots offense and the Patriots go up by two touchdowns? Then you can throw the run the ball, time consuming strategy right out the window. And if the Jaguars are down by two touchdowns to the Patriots, would you put money on David Garrard to put the game on his shoulders and dig his team out of the hole? I just don't think the Jaguars match up very well with the Patriots. Their offense is one-dimensional and I can't picture a scenario where their offense can put up a lot of points on the Patriots. A lot of people may disagree, but I think that Pittsburgh would have been the much tougher opponent for the Patriots. The Patriots already handled Pittsburgh earlier this season, but at the very least, the Steelers can have somewhat of an explosive offense and a quarterback who can carry his team at times. I think of Garrard as no more than a game manager. As long as the Patriots don't come out and play bad football, I don't see any possible way the Jaguars come into Gillete Stadium and steal a victory from a vastly superior Patriot team.

Making History

2008-01-04T08:47:00.000-08:00

The Patriots completed a perfect regular season last Saturday in the Meadowlands against the New York Giants. The Giants did the right thing by coming out swinging and giving the Patriots all they had in a game that really meant nothing to the team besides pride and confidence. Tom Coughlin could have pulled a Tony Dungy and sat all his starters after one quarter and rested his players for the playoffs, but Coughlin didn't pull the same conservative, or perhaps cowardly, move. The Giants had a chance at upsetting history in front of a national television audience in one of the biggest games of the season, and they almost pulled it off. I have a lot more respect for Coughlin and the Giants after their performance on Saturday night and I think the Giants will be a better team in the playoffs because of their decision to not back down and challenge the Patriots from start to finish. The Giants played with a lot of intensity and a mindset that suggested that this was an intense playoff game. Eli Manning showed some poise and held his own against the best team in the league, and although they lost, I would suspect that the Giants took plenty of positives from this game and gained a lot of confidence. The Giants had the biggest lead that any team has had on the Patriots all season long, and considering this Patriots team can possibly be the best team in NFL history and on their way to a 19-0 perfect season, the Giants can build on the momentum from this game and turn it into a successful playoff run. The Giants have to feel confident they can hang with any team it faces in the postseason now.

Now lets flip the coin and look at Tony Dungy and the Colts' approach. They were playing at home and had a chance to prevent a division rival from making the playoffs, but instead they chose to rest their starters for the playoffs. Essentially, the Colts were in the same situation as the Giants. Neither team had anything substantial to play for besides pride and momentum. The Giants chose to play and treat the game like a test for the playoffs, while the Colts decided to mail it in and rest up for the playoffs. There is always a heated debate at the end of every season about whether playoff teams that have already clinched and have nothing to play for should play or sit their starters. I have no problem with starters resting and it is probably the more prudent decision, but has there really been any definitive evidence that suggests that resting players is a successful formula? If sports has taught us anything at all, it's that momentum is a huge factor. Just look at the Colorado Rockies from this past season. The Rockies were just about eliminated from playoff contention until they went on a hot streak, winning 21 of 22 games and making it to the World Series. The Colts and Steelers, the last two Superbowl Champions, were playing meaningful games and playing their starters at the end of the season and into the playoffs when they went on their runs to win the Superbowl.

Now I know the Giants and Patriots had a little extra incentive to play because records and NFL history were on the line, but wouldn't the Colts have been better off if they treated the Titans game like a playoff game as well? The Titans would have been a good playoff barometer for the Colts because the Titans are a division rival that were desperate to win in order to get into the playoffs. NBC moved this game to prime time with the idea that this game was going to have a playoff atmosphere, but unfortunately the Colts decided to lay down and disappoint their fans who paid big money to come and watch their home team play. The Colts could have actually prevented the Titans from making the playoffs and ended their season at the RCA Dome. Do you think if the Red Sox had a chance to eliminate the Yankees from going to the playoffs by beating them in the last game of the regular season at Fenway Park, the Red Sox would do everything in their power to do so? Of course they would. Apparently Tony Dungy is indifferent to division rivalies and regular season games that can serve as preparation for the playoffs. In fact, the Colts have not defeated a playoff team since week 13 against the Jaguars. Now because of their bye week and decision to rest their starters for most of week 17, the Colts' big stars will go close to 3 weeks without playing a real, meaningful football game and 6 weeks without playing a playoff caliber team. Don't be surprised if the surging San Diego Chargers, who have won 6 straight games, come into Indianapolis and upset a rusty Colts team.

.....................................

Now how about those Patriots? The Patriots are not just making history. They are making history in style and in dramatic fashion. Talk about a theatrical conclusion to the regular season. The Patriots, with their undefeated record on the line, were down by 12 points late in the 2nd half against the Giants in a hostile enviroment. Not only did they make the exciting comeback and become the first team ever to go 16-0 in the regular season, but they also broke three single-season records in the process. Brady's 65 yard bomb to Randy Moss in the 4th quarter summed up the Patriots magical season. Tom Brady broke the single season record for passing touchdowns, Randy Moss broke the single season record for receiving touchdowns, and the Patriots scored the go-ahead score in that single play. The Patriots are not just breaking records, but more importantly, they are winning.

I don't know if anyone can really appreciate how significant this undefeated season really is. I would call this the greatest run in Boston sports history. I don't care what baseball town says, but this Patriots season is even better and more exciting than the Red Sox comeback against the Yankees and their World Series in 2004. If the Patriots win the whole thing and go 19-0, it could possibly be the greatest run in modern sports history. Just think about the situation for a second. In another week the Patriots will be putting their undefeated record on the line in the playoffs. Imagine a Superbowl that involves a Patriots team that is 18-0. Do you think most of the country will be watching that one? With every week that passes, the pressure and excitement is building up. Every team is bringing their "A+" game against the Patriots, as seen in past weeks against the Ravens and Giants. Everybody in the country is watching and most are probably rooting against the Patriots. It was an incredible scene being in Florida for the game this past weekend. Everybody at the sports bar was watching the game so intently and hating on the Patriots with a passion I have never seen before against a single team. Love them or hate them, the Patriots are capturing everyone's attention in the country. They have broken cable records this year on Monday Night Football, and for the first time in history, the game against the Giants was simulcasted on three channels because of the intense demand from fans. The Patriots are also starting to receive international attention as well from countries like Japan and Brazil. That says a lot considering the low popularity of football outside of the United States. Just remember to appreciate the moment because we are witnessing history right now. We may never see a scene in sports as big as this ever again.

Social Structure and Crime

2007-12-26T10:01:00.001-08:00

I spent a large part of the previous semester learning about criminological theories. There are many different theories and explanations for why people commit crime, but in a broader sense, the two main schools of thought are social/environmenal theories and biological/psychological theories. These theories are pretty much self explanatory. Social theorists claim that social and environmental conditions influence criminal behavior, while biological theorists focus on the individual and genetics to explain criminal behavior.

I am a person who strongly believes that the environment and society influences criminal behavior tremendously. This is not to say that the environment is the sole cause of criminal behavior or that biological factors are not a cause. Criminal behavior can't be explained by one theory alone. It is rather an interaction of a lot of variables, including both biological and environmental stimuli, that influence criminality. I'm sure there are individuals who are biologically disposed to crime or have traits such as aggressiveness and impulsiveness that are conducive to crime, but in most cases it is the unfavorable environment that triggers the individual's criminal tendencies. Yeah, there are evil people in the world like Jeffrey Dahmer, and biological or hereditary theories may better explain their psychotic personality and lack of empathy for others, but let's face the reality that most crime is not calculating and evil. We all know that crime takes place in the most deteriorated parts of town and most criminals are indigent and desperate. It is hard to pin the blame on the individual all the time when crime rates are so much different across our social stucture. Crime rates are generally much higher in areas marked by poverty and social disorganization. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that all people that have anti-social disorders, personality problems, brain deficiencies and physical abnormalities live in one section of the town or country.

Considering the unequal distribution of crime in poor, disadvantaged, lower class areas compared to affluent areas, crime is most likely a product of social and racial inequalites, poverty and strain. This should make us shift our focus away from an individual, micro level to a more structural, macro-level. One thing that some people always say is that everybody starts out the same in life. Everyone starts out with nothing and you have to go out and get what you want with hard work and effort. A lot of white people attribute crime as a "black" problem or "poor people" problem. If people just took the time to go to school and get a legitimate job, instead of complaining about inequalities and other shortcomings, they would be in the same positon as the rest of us in the more affluent social classes. The problem with that logic is that you are not seeing the big picture and you are looking at the problem with a narrow-minded perspective. It's easy for a person, living in a relatively wealthy family household and growing up in a middle class, suburban town with hardly any racial integration, to come out and say "Look at me, guys. I went to college, got a job and became successful". I say, get over yourself. Black people, poor people or whoever else have the same social and economic goals as any of us. The difference is the ability to obtain these goals is class dependent. Members of the lower class want to acquire a great job, become rich and successful, and achieve the "American Dream" just like everybody else, but they lack the education, social support and economic means to get ahead. Because they don't have the legitimate means to obtain their goals, they become desperate and have to acheive them through illegal means such as crime. This is why crime rates are so much higher in lower class areas. It's not because black people are lazy and don't want to go to school and get a job. It's not because they don't accept responsibility and blame white people for their problems.

The truth is people do not start out the same in life. A lot of people like myself have had the benefit of growing up in a nice, well-to-do suburban town with good schools and other institutions. My family is middle class and I have received a lot of financial support for my college education and other privileges I probably have taken for granted. Compare this to kids living in a disadvantaged, urban community. They live in segregated housing with a broken family, attend poor schools in which virtually every student is a minority, and rarely travel outside the boundaries of their immediate neighborhood. These kids basically have a lack of contact with individuals and institutions that represent mainstream society. These youths are cut off from the kind of daily routines that people like you and me witness, take for granted, and implicitly learn from. We see our parents driving SUVs and going off to nice jobs each day. We see our friends, brothers and sisters all going to college and studying abroad in Italy. For us, the American Dream is not a dream, but a cognitive expectation. This is not the case for inner-city youths, whose daily life is devoid of the same privileges we experience so frequently. Do you think poor, inner-city kids are taking trips to the summer beach house in the Cape every summer or sitting on the first base line at the Red Sox game? Are you kidding me? These kids are beatboxing together in the corner of their street because they can't even afford to buy an instrument. You, on the other hand, have three clarinets in your closet and go away to band camp every year. GET OVER YOURSELF!

Look, I am not making excuses for any criminal. I am not saying that crime is excusable for poor and desperate individuals, but is it not human nature for a desperate man to take more desperate measures? If someone is having difficulty getting laid, aren't they more likely to be more desperate and perhaps willing to lower their standards a little bit more than someone who is getting more ass than a rental car? Doesn't it make sense that lower class people, especially poor minorities, will be a little more desperate and frustrated because of their inability to acheive weatlth, power, prestige and other life comforts in a conventional fashion? They don't have the same resources, social support, educational and vocational opportunities that we have. It's time to stop blaming the individual all the time for being lazy and deficient, and start looking at the bigger picture. It's so easy to say "they could be as successful as me if they put in the time and effort", but you don't live in the ghetto and you didn't grow up in a deteriorated neighborhood flooded with gangs, violence and drugs. I have no idea where I would be right now if I were raised in that situation. I probably wouldn't have gone to Umass Amherst or be going to grad school right now. I probably wouldn't be writing this article that 5 people, including my father and Hodder, are going to read. It's time to shift our focus to the social stucture. There is a reason why the United States has a disproportionate amount of homicide and violent deaths compared to other countries. It's because social, class and racial inequalities are still large in this country, and until we fix this problem or at least close the gap at the structural level, crime rates will probably continue to be a problem in our society.

Crime Scene Investigation: Best Show on Television

2007-12-22T11:01:00.000-08:00

In the past year I have become obsessed with the television show, Crime Scene Investigation. I'm sure you've all heard of the CSI television series. Crime dramas like CSI have become a new television fad. Today there are more crime dramas than reality shows available for television viewers to watch. Crime Scene Investigation, Criminal Minds, Cold Case, Without a Trace, NCIS, Law and Order: Criminal Intent, 24 and many others have overwhelmed the television viewing audience to the point that some of these great shows are getting lost in this over-saturated market. Crime Scene Investigation was so popular of a crime series that the producers of the hit drama produced two alternate CSI shows that include CSI:NY and CSI:Miami to supply the viewers' strong demand. Jimmy Fallon joked on Saturday Night Live that The Early Show should be renamed CSI:The Early Show to boost ratings. A new episode of one of the three CSI series can be seen on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday night on CBS, while cable channels like SPIKE and A&E show hours of rebroadcasts of the show daily. CSI, more than any other crime drama, has seemed to found a winning formula that has made the show the number one drama on television and an emmy award winning series.

For those of you who have never given CSI a chance because of your distaste for the typical crime drama, you are making a big mistake. One thing for certain is that CSI is not your typical crime drama and if you are associating CSI with the influx of other typical criminal shows, then you are unaware of why this show is so great in the first place. Crime Scene Investigation is not your average crime drama that portrays a loose cannon, alpha dog, Serpico type of cop who chases down bad guys and battles the stress and anxiety of his job by abusing alcohol. This show is unique in so many ways. Rather than a focus on car chases, shoot-outs, explosions and other ordinary action elements found in crime dramas and movies, CSI demonstrates the scientific side of law enforcement and engages in a lot of psychological motivations to stir the plot.

The show centers around supervisor Gil Grissom and his team of forensic scientists that include Catherine Willows, Sara Sidle, Warrick Brown, Nick Stokes and Greg Sanders. The team gives the viewers a look inside criminal investigation and forensic science that is not seen in your typical, run of the mill, criminal program. There are graphic portrayals of crime reconstruction, bullet trajectories, blood spray patterns, organ damage and the human anatomy. Methods of evidence recovery from fingerprints, DNA, tire treads, gun shot residue and bullets are illustrated in great detail. The show looks at crime from many different perspectives. CSI constantly delves into the psychological nature of murderers and serial killers. Grissom and his team investigate the psychological/criminal profile of the offender and his or her signature and method of operation. They also discuss victimology and examine the characteristics of the typical victim.

What else makes CSI such an intriguing show besides the actual content is the characters. In my opinion, Grissom is the best television character I have ever watched. Yes, that includes George Costanza and Cosmo Kramer. I can't think of any character on TV as complex and yet as appealing as Gil Grissom. What makes Grissom so appealing is his mysterious nature. He is an enigma in every sense of the word. Grissom appears to be cold and emotionless because he is so passionate about his work and he doesn't want personal feelings or bias to ever hinder his investigation. He always preaches to his colleagues that they should listen to the evidence because the evidence is the only thing that doesn't lie. Grissom is so objective and emotionless that members of his team have been annoyed with him in the past. Sara and Catherine have been critical of Grissom in past episodes for never demonstrating compassion or empathy for victims, but Grissom maintains that emotion clouds the investigation and that their job as crime scene investigators is to interpret the evidence, not to empathize with the victims or demonize the suspects. Grissom relates more to science and his work than to people, but there is still an enthusiastic and quirky aspect about his persona. There are times when he opens up and demonstrates a sarcastic and witty sense of humor. There are a lot of other quirks about Grissom that seperate him from the typical protagonist in crime dramas or any other TV show for that matter. He doesn't like to dabble in office politics and has a strong distaste for carrying a firearm. Grissom likes to study bugs and he keeps bizarre specimens in his office, including a radiated fetal pig, a tarantula, and a two headed scorpion. Grissom is not only intelligent with science and his work, but he has proven in previous episodes to have a wide range of knowledge in history, literature and art. He has a tendency to quote a variety of literary and historical figures such as Shakespeare, Keats and Sigmund Freud.

Crime Scene Investigation is too great for me to describe in words. The only way to really understand the CSI love affair is to give it a chance and watch an episode or two. If you prefer more action, flashy characters and dramatic scenes, then I suggest you try CSI:Miami because it has a little more flare. Crime Scene Investigation doesn't try to be sexy, but it is a lot deeper, psychological, creative and has a much more unique identity compared to the rest of the class in the crime genre.

The Myths about the Patriots

2007-12-20T15:33:00.000-08:00

There has been a lot of talk lately about the "blueprint" to beat the New England Patriots. Writers, analysts and all the talking heads around the NFL have been talking about how exactly a team is going to beat the undefeated Patriots. It's quite laughable listening to ESPN analysts like Merill Hodge and Mike Ditka claim that the Patriots lack a physical toughness and efficient running game, and that a physical, balanced football team like the Jaguars or Colts would really rattle the Patriots in the playoffs. There have also been suggestions that playing in the cold and poor weather conditions at Gillete Stadium will work to the advantage of the Jaguars and Colts, rather than the Patriots. A lot of talk shows hosts and sports journalists have pinpointed to games like the Monday Night Football game against the Ravens and the snow storm game against the Jets as evidence of the Patriots vulnerability. When the Patriots play physical teams like the Ravens or battle the weather elements like they did against the Jets last week, Brady's offense becomes mortal and the team is very beatable.

The problem with this inductive reasoning is that not every team has the personnel to execute the same game plan that the Ravens did against the Pats. The Ravens weren't the first team all season long that tried to implement a game strategy that consisted of pressuring Tom Brady and being physical with Randy Moss and the New England wide receiver core. Pressuring the quarterback, winning the battle at the line of scrimmage, being physical with the wide receivers and running the football down a defense's throat to control the time of possession is a universal formula for success against any team in the NFL and is as groundbreaking of a concept as giving candy, toys and attention to a troubled prepubescent boy is for a pedophile. Seriously, that is the blueprint to beat the Patriots? Or should I say lose a close game to the Patriots? To quote Jeff Bridges from the Big Lebowski, that's ingenius, if I understand it correctly. That's a Swiss fucking watch. And since the Patriots aren't as effective with their passing attack in the snowy and windy conditions, they are going to have a disadvantage playing in January in front of their home crowd in Foxboro, where Tom Brady has never, and I mean NEVER, lost a playoff game in his career. The winning formula for the Colts, Jaguars, Chargers or Steelers is to play smash mouth football and pray that mother nature disrupts the Patriots' path to perfection. I'm sure the 14-0 Patriots will be stunned and absolutely flustered when they encounter such a creative and original game plan again. Look, I am not saying the Patriots are absolutely unbeatable. If an opponent brings their best game and a few balls bounce the other way, anything can happen. However, if any team has proven to be well-schooled, physical, composed, disciplined and able to make adjustments, it is Bill Belichick's New England Patriots. The Patriots are undefeated for a reason. The Steelers, the number one defensive team in the league, were suppose to come into Foxboro and manhandle the Patriots and their supposed "finesse" team, but we all saw how that game worked out. There's nothing in this team's history over the last 7 years that would indicate that they would be rattled by a team that tries to run the ball hard and over power them.

Really, who plays better in the adverse weather conditions? Why is it an advantage for the Colts and Jaguars to play in unfavorable weather conditions in Foxboro? Is Mike Ditka or Emmitt Smith going to tell me next that Peyton Manning and David Garrard throw better in 30 miles per hour winds than they do in clear, sunny conditions? Some critics will say that bad weather is a disadvantage for the Patriots because the Patriots can't run the ball and depend on a versatile passing attack to win games. The statistics however prove that this is yet another myth. The Patriots average 114.9 rushing yards per game, which is 4.9 more rushing yards a game than the Indianapolis Colts. Lawrence Maroney averages 4.2 yards per carry, while Joseph Addai averages 4.1 yards per carry. Those are the cold, hard facts, but if you listen to the talk show hosts and analysts on ESPN, you would come away thinking that the Colts have Walter Payton in the backfield and the Patriots have David Shukis. The Patriots are a team that prefers to pass because they are so effective at it, but to say that they can't run the football effectively when they need to is erroneous.

You know what makes the 2007 Patriots so great? This team isn't like the 2004 Colts team that was an all offensive, indoor, finesse football team. The Patriots are a complete team and can play well on both sides of the football. They are 1st in the league in total offense and 4th in the league in total defense. New England has a genius coach that can make adjustments better than any other coach in the league, and they have physical defensive players like Rodney Harrison, Vince Wilfork, Richard Seymour, Teddy Bruschi and Mike Vrabel who have the experience and ability to play nose to nose with any team in the NFL. There is a common misconception that a team is a finesse team if they have a great passing offense like the Patriots. The Kurt Warner led Rams and the 2004 Colts fit that description, but that is not the case with this current Patriots team. As they have already proven this year, the Patriots can blow teams out with their offensive prowess and win the tight, physical, pressure games in cold, windy weather.