Later Phil

          This is clearly not the way Phil Jackson wanted his career to end.  It’s actually a little sad and depressing; even Phil-haters will agree with this.  This has to be the most sour moment in Phil’s career as an NBA coach- getting swept in the playoffs by the Mavericks, an inferior team, in his last season.  Who would have predicted this would be the case just a little under a year ago when Phil was celebrating his 11^th NBA championship as a coach?  The answer is: not many.

            Phil Jackson is one of the best coaches in NBA history; there is no question about this.  He won 6 championships with the Bulls and 5 with the Lakers.  He holds the record for the most championships won by a coach in NBA history.

            Yet, some have always criticized Phil.  Phil-haters have continually devalued his achievements by arguing that he only won all those championships because he always had the best players of the era playing for the teams he coached.  Critics say that Jackson only won with the Bulls because he had Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen on that team.  Similarly, they say that he only won with the Lakers because he coached Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant.  Jackson’s critics like to use the argument that his teams only won because of the players and not because of the coaching to question this great coach’s legacy.

            I personally believe that these critics are wrong.  Phil was a great coach.  How can people disagree with this?  Have Jackson’s critics ever stopped to consider that maybe he had a lot to do with making his superstar players as good as they were under his coaching?  How can all of the credit for the Bulls’ and Lakers’ success be limited to just the players?  Jackson was an integral part of both of these teams.

            Either way, Jackson’s career has now come to a close.  Some will always see him as the best, while others will continue to downplay his success.  It is sad that Jackson’s career ends with an early exit in the playoffs.  Many of his fans will always wish that he had chosen to retire on top after winning one of his many championships.  In the end, however, the fact that he did not win in his last season does not tarnish his image.  After all, very few remember Jordan’s unsuccessful comeback with the Washington Wizards; most choose to remember Jordan’s domination of the league for over a decade while playing for the Bulls.  I hope Phil’s legacy will experience the same treatment.  I hope his fans remember his glory days and not the way his illustrious NBA path came to a close.

Derek Rose= Beast

I'll admit that I am a huge Lakers fan, but the most impressive player in the playoffs right now is Derek Rose.  He is absolutely amazing.  I never thought I could like another Bulls player as much as I used to like the great Michael Jordan.  Rose is the youngest player in the history of the NBA to win the MVP trophy.  He deserved this honor.  He has carried the Bulls this entire season.  I truly hope that the Bulls come out of the east and reach the finals.  Derek Rose is a true boss.

Here is a video of some impressive plays by Rose!

The Worst Movie Ever...Literally

       I have seen some pretty bad movies in my time.  Some have been incredibly awful, while others have simply failed to live up to expectations.  I do not consider myself an expert movie critic, but I love watching films; going to the movies is one of my favorite pastimes.

      Having said that, Battlefield Earth is literally the worst film I have ever seen or will ever see.  Wow!  That movie is bad on levels that I did not believe could possibly be reached.

      I had previously heard rumors about this movie being particularly bad, but I wanted to at least give it a chance.  I rented this movie this last week, against the advise of several of my friends.  After asking several people to sacrifice a night and watch this movie with me, only one other brave soul agreed to go on this adventure with me.  The rumors about this movie were not wrong.  It truly is awful.

      I would discourage any person I actually care about from watching this film.  The story is terrible; it makes no sense.  I cannot believe the head of a major Hollywood studio agreed to make and invest in this film after reading the script.  

      The acting is depressing- especially John Travolta's performance.  Travolta is one of my favorite actors, having starred in films like Grease and Saturday Night Fever.  I think he is very talented and has a very gifted acting range.  His character in Battlefield Earth, however, is clearly his worst acting decision in his career.  It almost hurts to see such an epic actor embarrassing himself on the screen.  I was very disappointed in Travolta for working on this film after reading the script.  No amount of money he may have been paid makes his choice to play this role ok.

      Thus, I would advise anyone even thinking of watching this to think twice.  Listen to your friends who have already gone through the pain of seeing this.  Don't try to be a maverick!  Do yourself a favor- avoid this film!

Here is the trailer for the movie so you can get a better idea of what I am talking about.

Best Workout Class Ever!

I really want to get in good shape this summer before going to graduate school.  I heard that P90X is one of the best workout routines out there to get you into the best shape of your life.  I'm sure P90X is awesome, but this class seems even funner...especially for guys.  The song is pretty awesome too.  Enjoy!

Environmental Law

              Environmental law is inescapable.  It affects all of us in many ways.  The Constitution may not mention the environment, but our laws regulate human behavior to protect it.  Grand part of our citizenry in the United States works very hard to shape our laws and regulations to better the environment.  However, the environment is not in good shape.  What we are currently doing is simply not enough.  More is needed.  Serious environmental issues, like pollution and smog, are very serious problems that seem to worsen as time goes on.  Many politicians choose to protect their government seats by protecting the pockets of their contributors instead of imposing stricter standards that will actually improve environmental conditions.  The system is flawed in many ways.  People in power many times place individual interests before the common good.  Human nature instinctively often makes us choose our own benefit first before thinking of others.  Unfortunately, the environment is likely to continue to suffer as long as this persists.  Yet, we have to hope that maybe future generations will change this.  Maybe they will care more about the common good and about the environment.  If they do, another fundamental year for the environment like 1970 will happen in the future.  The key is just not to give up.

This picture shows that there is still hope!

Thor Movie

I have always been a huge fan of movies about superheroes.  The Dark Knight is by far my favorite superhero film.  The new Thor movie is receiving a lot of media attention because it supposedly takes special effects to a different level.  I'm really excited to see this film.  The trailer looks awesome!  Here it is!

Plus 44

This is one of my favorite songs by Mark Hoppus' other band, Plus 44.  This band is not as good as Blink-182, but they do have some pretty cool songs.  Check this one out!

Are People the Problem?

For ten years, I lived amongst the suburban hilltops of a small city named San Dimas located about thirty miles east of Downtown Los Angeles.  Each morning on the way to school, I’d peer at the distant skyline and gaze at the buildings of Downtown. On most days of the year, especially during times of hot and humid weather, they seemed to be encompassed by a dark cloud of haze that rested atop the city.  I thought, ‘This is the result of condensing too many people and cars into a single area.’

The debate surrounding overpopulation has existed for over two hundred years.  Thomas Malthus was one of the first to propose the dangers of overpopulation in the early 19^th century.  Today, there is still great controversy regarding this topic.  There have been numerous studies that try to pinpoint the carrying capacity of the earth, with estimates ranging from 5.9 billion to 40 billion to 157 billion. 

I recently read an essay entitled “The Unjust War Against Population” by economist Jacqueline Kasun, in which she argues that population growth poses no threat to our society and that the earth has the potential to support population sizes several times larger than its current one.  She backs this claim with the assertion that the general standard of living across the globe has only improved with the continuous growing population and that new technological advancements will lead to greater productivity of both food and resources in the future.

Kasun elaborates how currently, there is enough food produced every year to feed the entire world’s population, and that if all farmers were to use the “best methods,” the earth could sustain 35.1 billion people. In addition, she points out that the entire world’s population covers only about 1% of the earth’s sphere and could fit within the borders of Texas alone.  Based on these statistics, she defies overpopulation as myth.

Another anonymous blogger, in sync with Kasun’s ideas, opposes the idea that a continuously growing population is a problem. He states the following:

“…if 5% of the United States were converted into urban area with a population density of 6,000/km², and 45% were converted into suburban area with a population density of 2,000/km², with the remaining 50% left for rural area, parks, and farms, there would be enough room and food for 3 billion in the urban areas, and 9 billion in the suburban areas, for a total population of 12 billion. This is in the US alone.”

Yet, Kasun and this blogger overlook some of the most essential factors important to the debate on population growth.  The primary fault I see in their argument is that they credit only two elements as responsible for sustaining the human race: food and space.

While these two elements are important, Kasun and other population growth advocates are turning a blind eye to what is really holding back the human race with regards to expansion: resource scarcity and pollution, which are the results of overconsumption and industrial byproducts.

 In the 21^st century and for the past couple of centuries (specifically since the industrial revolution), people have been avid consumers of not only food, but also of resources such as electricity, oil, wood, metals, and fabrics, clearly increasing the amount of capital that must go into supporting each individual.

As environmentalist Bill McKibben states in his essay “A Special Moment in History: The Challenge of Overpopulation and Overconsumption,” the average human being uses approximately 31,000 calories of energy per day, a number exponentially greater than the 2,500 used by hunter gatherers in the past, when people were consumers of only food and water.

In relation to this, Cornell biologist David Pimentel estimates that the earth in its current state can only support “two billion people at a middle class standard living” due to a lack of resources that include but aren’t limited to food.  This estimate may provide an explanation for why a great portion of the world’s population lives in poverty and hunger.

 Also, studies estimating the carrying capacity of the earth vary significantly. Yet, as McKibben points out, none of the studies could ever examine every variable. He notes, however, that the median low value for these studies was 7.7 billion people, and that the median high value was 12 billion. The fact that the average range for these estimates gives a number very close to our current population size is unsettling and enforces the idea that perhaps we are not too far from reaching the earth’s limits of sustainability.

Even if we are not running out of space to fit people, we are certainly running out of space to dump “the by-products of our large appetites” (McKibben).  Population growth advocates such as Kasun fail to address the issue of pollution and merely state that technology will be able to “offset the bad effects of industrial pollution”. 

In contrast, it is technology that has actually caused a steady increase in pollution.  The magnitude of coal smoke emitted into the air combined with other forms of pollution from industrial processes has changed the composition of the earth’s atmosphere.  Nitrous oxide is an industrial byproduct that upon entering the atmosphere traps solar heat, and carbon dioxide emissions from cars and fossil fuel combustion worsen this effect.

As McKibben states, before humans started burning fossil fuels, carbon made up 280 parts per million in the atmosphere. That number has increased to 360 up to date, and various effects include not only global warming but also increased incidences of asthma and other lung-related problems.  So contrary to a blogger opinion that, “A future of overpopulation is one of a number of hoary old objections to progress and longer, healthier lives,” the consequences of overpopulation may actually begin to lead to shorter and unhealthier lives.

Additionally, one of the biggest threats we face as a result of overpopulation and overconsumption is climate change.  Since 1900, total winter precipitation in the US has increased by 10 percent and ‘extreme precipitation events’ have increased by 20 percent.  Increased amounts of carbon in the atmosphere trap greater amounts of heat, and warmer air holds more water vapor. As a result, more water evaporates and higher amounts of precipitation fall.  In addition, hurricane speeds have increased by 50% over the past 50 years, and the combination of stormier weather and increased temperature has lead to drier landscapes (McKibben).

            McKibben elaborates on how the freezing level has been gaining altitude at fifteen feet per year since 1970 while the steady melting of tropical glaciers has caused ocean levels to rise. He provides evidence that average summer temperatures in the poles have risen by seven degrees in the past two decades and that temperature in the Greenland Icesheet rose eighteen degrees “in one three-year stretch.” The Artic tundra is in such a warm state that now “it gives off more carbon dioxide than it absorbs, making warming ever worse.”  McKibben proves that the evidence for global warming and climate change is there; something just needs to be done about it.

It isn’t entirely fair to say that Jacqueline Kasun is ‘wrong’ in her assertion that “People Aren’t the Problem”.  While the number of people inhabiting the earth may not pose a problem, it is the way in which people live their lives that puts pressure on the earth.  Yes, the earth may have the capacity to support 7 times its current population if “all the best farming methods are used”, if people do not over-consume, and if “technology is able to offset the bad effects of industrial pollution.” But the reality is that even if we have all the resources necessary to sustain a larger population, we do not posses the societal or economic infrastructure to distribute those resources efficiently without destroying the earth.

Will Playing Video Games Make You Depressed?

‘Will playing games make you depressed?’ is a question of irony, seeing as how the point of playing games in the first place is for relaxation and enjoyment.  A recent article in The New York Times titled “Video Games and the Depressed Teenager” suggests that there is a link between video game use and depression, decreased academic performance, and increased aggression among youth.

            This is a common argument that has been frequently heard throughout the years of the recent digital generation in response to young people’s rapid immersion in new technologies such as video games.  Yet, concrete evidence has never surfaced in support of the argument that video games are actually harmful, primarily because it is difficult to attribute one’s behavior or actions to video games to a greater degree than any other social or environmental factors. 

Personally, among my friends, several of the most successful ones are avid video games players, including a college athlete on scholarship and a student recently accepted into medical school. Neither is depressed nor shows any signs of academic struggle. In addition, I have never known anyone whose life has been drastically altered as a result of playing video games. 

But, The New York Times cites a recent psychological publication entitled “Pathological Video Game Use: A Two-Year Longitudinal Study”, stating that its findings “are discouraging”, and that “heavy gamers…were more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, and social phobias.”  The study followed 3,000 students in Singapore over a two-year period to see if excessive game play negatively impacted these youths’ lives.  Out of the 3,000 students tested, 9% were classified as ‘pathological gamers’, exhibiting symptoms of depression, anxiety, social phobia, or lower school performance believed to be a result of excessive video game play.

 However, this study has provoked a conversation about the influence of video games; it has garnered many critics who have raised important concerns about it.  Blogger Anne states that the study “mistakes correlation with causation.”  Similarly, another critic comments, “but this strikes me as a premium example of misreading the direction of a significant correlation and not considering potential third variables.” 

I believe these critics of the study make valid points.  Pathological game playing may not be as significant of an epidemic as many people think.

Certainly, 9% of a given population is a significant amount, but the statistical information from the Singapore study is somewhat skewed because the sampled group of students was not random, did not consist of an equal gender ratio, and was drawn from only a single location. 

Participating in the study were 2179 boys and 819 girls, which inevitably would drive up the percentage of students found to be pathological gamers due to the fact that boys typically play a lot more video games than girls.

In addition, the average amount of time played per week in this specific group of students was 20.5 hours.  Naturally, the researchers may have sought out students that played excessive amounts of video games in order to produce better results.  Yet, the average teen does not spend 20+ hours playing video games every week.  And although the average time of weekly game play was 20.5 hours, the students who were actually found to exhibit depression or other negative factors typically played more than 31 hours per week.

Lastly, out of the 9% of students classified as pathological gamers, 16% dropped their bad habits and symptoms by the end of the two-year test period.  If one were to recalculate the numbers, survey a population of equal gender ratio, and select teens at random, the 9% statistic would more than likely fall below 3%.  Moreover, it is not fair to say that teens who display signs of depression, lowered academic performance, or social inaptitude do so as a result of excessive video game play. Instead, excessive game play may just be one of the results of these pre-existing conditions.

            While this may be difficult to discern, I am not refuting the argument that spending excessive hours playing video games (i.e. 30+ hrs/week) can be harmful. Obviously, there are things more beneficial to one’s wellbeing such as playing a sport, practicing an instrument, or reading. Yet, I believe anything done to excess can be psychologically harmful- video games are not unique in that way.

When played in moderation, video games can have a beneficial impact on players through fostering creativity and increasing the capacity for problem solving skills. 

Some, however, such as this anonymous blogger, refute the usefulness of games altogether:

“They take away valuable young living time and they bring your mind to levels of stimulation that you can’t come back from. Try to have fun reading a book now… They also destroy creativity. Your brain just all around learns to shut down because it’s not working; it’s having the work done for it.  If you value these things in life, don’t play them that often.”

           

Personally, I know I have never played a video game that causes my brain to “shut down” or “have the work done for it”, as every game requires intellectual interaction in one way or another.  Games have lessons to teach, and they develop intuitive skills such as critical thinking, reaction time, and hand-eye coordination.  As MIT professor Henry Jenkins states:

“Games allow players to navigate an expansive and open-ended world, make their own choices and witness their consequences.”

This perspective is more informed. Our knowledge is a result of everything we see and experience through our external environment, and video games help constitute this environment.  So it is unfair to say that video games result in no brain processing or creative inspiration. The key is to avoid excessive addiction, and one will almost certainly suffer no consequences if he or she plays video games in moderation.