Is Muslim an ethnic distinction?

The headline reads, "Pope baptizes Italy's most prominent Muslim", but in the article it says,

Allam was born a Muslim in Egypt, but was educated by Catholics and says he has never been a practicing Muslim.

So how can one be born a Muslim? I understand how someone could be born a Jew, yet not be a believer in Judaism (there is a ethnic group called "Jews" and a belief system called "Judaism". I know that many of the Muslims in the Middle East are of Arab descent, but I was unaware that there is an ethnic group called Muslims. Where did they come from and where are they most prominently living now? It seem like a big deal that this guy, Magdi Allam, converted to Catholicism and was baptized by the pope on Easter weekend, but he says he has NEVER BEEN A PRACTICING MUSLIM. So why is he fearful of his life? If a person is born a "Muslim", yet don't practice Islam, is that considered Islamic apostasy? The only why I can grasp this at this point is if Muslims are an ethnic people group like the Hebrews where during the times of the Old Testament. In those days, being born a Jew meant that you were born into the family of Yahweh and any movements contrary to the Mosaic Law were considered apostasy. However, I feel fairly comfortable saying that for Jews under the Mosaic Law, not practicing the Mosaic Law as akin to apostasy. I don't think the apostasy flag went up only after Jew's began worshipping other gods, I think the apostasy flag was flying high at the point when the Hebrew ceased to practice the Law. Given this, I'm struggling to understand the dynamics in play with brother Allam. I do believe dude is in danger and that some Muslim people are mad at him. I'm just trying to understand why?!?!?!

If you're one of those diehard alumni, this is another reason to root for your school during March Madness

This takes the "my daddy can beat up your daddy" thing to a whole other level...

Sorry for the 2 week hiatus...

...I got a new laptop, router, reinstalled all my programs, moved over all my files from my old computer, and am now ready to start cranking out stuff like you wouldn't believe. Check out all of my new postings below...

Race Matters: Barack Obama

I find it interesting the oversimplified way in which Barack Obama is oftentimes characterized. However, it is interesting to me that he really doesn't fit into the neat little boxes that people (both black and white) want to put him in. For example:

• He is not simply a black man. Dude is mixed. White mother and African father.
• His dad isn't the typical American black man and his dad is the typical black man. Barack's father isn't the typical black man in that he grew up in Kenya, spent sometime in school in Hawaii and at Harvard, and ended up going back to Kenya. He is the like the typical American black man in that he was not present in the home to raise his child (according to government statistics only 35 percent of African American children between the ages of 0-17 lived in a home with two married parents)
• Barack was raised by a single white mother and later an Indonesian stepfather
• Barack spent significant time living overseas as a child
• He went to college (not the typical experience of the average black man in America)
• He went to Harvard (not the typical experience of the average person in America)
• At Harvard he was the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review

I do acknowledge that Barack is black, but a qualification must be given to that observation. His life experiences are far different than those of most black men in America and any characterization of him must be done with that in mind.

Lil' Wayne is a Christian?

Just when you thought that you had the good guys and bad guys separated into their neat little categories, up jumps this statement by Lil Wayne to the crowd attending a recent concert in New Jersey:

Lil Wayne had three things to explain. No. 1, a religious confession: “I believe in God and his son, Jesus. Do you?” He interpreted the roar as an affirmative response. No. 2, a professional confession: He said he was nothing without the fans, adding, “Make some noise for what you created!” Noise was made. No. 3: Same as No. 2. More noise.

This is quite interesting. I'm not sure I could find many people who would list Weezy F. Baby (Lil' Wayne for the uninitiated) as one who will be in the number when the "saints go marchin' in". However, is it possible that he could be a Christian? Several question come to mind as I ponder this:

• What does he mean when he says he believes in God and his son Jesus? Does he believe that Jesus was God in the flesh, was crucified, died, buried and was raised to life? Does he place all of his hope and trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ as being the sufficient substitute for his own deserved punishment (namely eternal separation from God) and that his trust/hope/faith in the work of Christ is the thing that makes him acceptable to a pure, loving, and just God?


• How can one really know if another person is a "believer"? 18th century theologian Jonathan Edwards, in his book Religious Affections, cautioned against making determinations about what a person believes based solely on external actions that seem to be "Christianly" (a new word that I just made up). It is true that you will know a tree by the fruit that it bears (cocoa trees don't produce mangos), but it is also true that God is the only one who truly knows our hearts and thus is supremely qualified to be the final judge. I'm not saying that Weezy is a believer, but I'm also not saying that he isn't...


• Are we even comfortable with the idea that Lil Wayne could be a brother in Christ? How gnarly would it be if we could know with certainty that dude is a Christian? Would you welcome him into your church all tattooed, sporting a wife beater and smelling like weed? For those who would welcome him, would you gravitate to him because of his celebrity and his uncanny ability to spit over anybody else's beat and make that song better than the original? Or would it be because he is someone who just like you realized that he needs redemption has found it at the feet of Jesus.

Lil' Wayne a believer???? hmmmmmmm......

This dude lost almost 1 BILLION dollars!?!?!

However, it must be nice to have a BILLION DOLLARS to lose. I can kinda feel his pain and then I kinda can't. I don't think his lifestyle is going to look any different tomorrow than how it did two days ago. It's paper money, so it's not the same as if somebody stole money from his savings account at Compass Bank, but still it is a BILLION DOLLARS.

Am I missing something here? What do I need to do in order to have a BILLION DOLLARS that I am free to invest?

Are there really new sins?

I didn't realize there was such a thing as new sins, but apparently there are:

Asked what he believed were today's "new sins," he told the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that the greatest danger zone for the modern soul was the largely uncharted world of bioethics.

I think the Archbishop was asked a bad question. I don't think there are any new sins under the sun. Maybe there are just new ways for us to manifest sin in our given context. I do feel him on his caution about bioethics.

I thought Kobe was supposed to be hurt

How is it a guy who was SOOOO hurt that...

• he couldn't play but 3 minutes in the All-Star game


• he needed to put an ice pack the size of Mt. Everest on his hand when while he sat on the bench during the All-Star game


• the team doctors recommended surgery


• he is being viewed as being a tough competitor because he's putting off surgery until after the Olympics

yet...

• dropped 50 on the Mavs


• destroyed the Heat


• beat the Suns


• and is dunking HARD with his supposedly injured right hand

I didn't do a lot of dunking during my basketball playing days (read: never), but it seems to reason that banging my hurt hand against the rim several times a night would not allow me to go out the next night and shoot over 50%?

This reminds me of the old story of Michael Jordan having the flu and then going out and scoring 38. I've had the flu before and I didn't even feel walking 10 feet from my bed to the bathroom, so how was it that Jordan not only scored 38 but trusted to dunk a missed Scottie Pippen layup on a fast break (see around 2:03 on the video)?

C'mon, these guys do seem to do superhuman things (like LeBron's "I believe I can fly" dunk vs. the Bulls), but do we really need to add tall tales to the legend? There may be something out of whack with Kobe's finger, but I'm having a hard time believing that he is hurt.

Are the Lakers better without Bynum?

As good as the Lakers were with Andrew Bynum in the lineup, I think they have been better with Gasol. AND I think it is possible that their best rotation is the one they have now. There is a mindset (proclaimed with much veracity by Stephen A. Smith) that when Bynum comes back, the Lakers will be even better and the favorites to come out of the Western Conference.

I must supply some caution to this way of thinking because addition of a good player does not always equate to a better team. The case study that gives me pause is the Phoenix Suns the year Amare Stoudemire came back from injury. Boris Diaw had been playing out of his mind including receiving the 2005-06 Most Improved Player of the Year. When Stoudemire came back the next year the team was good, but it did not necessarily improve. Diaw's production fell way off and has not been the same since (from 13-6-6 to now 8-4-4). Now, I know this example isn't a one-to-one correlation with the Lakers situation, but it is a cautionary tale. Maybe Bynum comes back and the Lakers cruise their way to Kobe's first Shaq-less championship, but I can see a scenario where the Lakers struggle to incorporate Bynum back into the mix. When Bynum returns: Gasol may not be as effective, Odom will have the potential to become even more nondescript than he at times is, and Kobe feeling the pressure to make good on the expectations that others place on the team (having such a potent line-up on paper) tries to do too much and ends up hurting the team.

Just a thought...

Update 3/17: I initially inked this to be posted over 2 weeks ago, but since then Mr. Gasol has sustained an ankle injury and it is showing how much the Lakers miss him in the middle.

A Theology of Breathing

I would like to share with you a piece written by my good friend and soon to be frequent contributor to this blog, Skeet...

God is everywhere. That brief statement is an extremely simplified affirmation of the Historic Christian understanding that the Living God is omnipresent and always near and available to the created world. If, as a Christian, I am compelled to affirm the omnipresence of the one true God, why don’t I think of Theology as being omnipresent? This is not to say that Theology is an entity or being that resides everywhere (that is not an accurate understanding of the omnipresence of God either), rather that everywhere I am my theology should be. I should interact with the World- God’s World theologically.

I find myself seeking God and doing Theology in certain places, at certain times, with certain questions. I see in myself a propensity to do Theology on my terms and in my predefined categories. I am on a journey to correct this tendency; to engage God’s World with a passion to know the God behind the scenes; the God of the average and mundane existing and spinning of this world, as well as the God of miracles and cosmic power. I need to see and know God in average everyday experiences, because that is where I live.

The Bible’s story of the creation the human race involves God forming a lifeless Adam and breathing into him the breath of life. (Gen. 2:7) In the ancient world they lacked the scientific understanding to distinguish between living and dead as we do in modern hospitals, but they knew one thing. If someone was breathing, life was still in them, and when breath departed life was gone. Breathing is the most basic and non-voluntary human activity. This basic function of the human body has amazing power. It energizes the body as oxygen flows through our blood to muscles and organs. It cleanses as we breathe out toxic gases that if processed would be harmful to our bodies. The constant flow of breath not only impacts my quality of life, but sustains my very existence.

The ancient poets understood that God’s breath brought life and repelled death in the life of every human being.

When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath,
they die and return to the dust.
When you send your Spirit, they are
created, and you renew the face of the earth.
(Psalm 104:29-30)

One thing you don’t want to miss here is the fact that “breath” in the first stanza is the same word as “Spirit” in the second stanza in the original language. Is the author trying to tell us something? The very Spirit or Breath of God is with us at every instance with every breath. This is why is some Christian traditions you will hear prayers thanking God for our very breath.

We are not guaranteed the next breath, but we can enjoy the one we are inhaling. Professor Robert Pyne writes, “We believe that God intends for us to experience this life as an ever-expanding gulp of fresh air.” (Life Space: the practice of life with God; p.8) One thing I do know is that as long as God is supplying me with breath, he is also with me in a way I will never truly understand or appreciate. Maybe you have wondered if God was done with you or if He had “left the building.” I offer a simple suggestion to help answer those questions.

1. Slow Down and Relax.
2. Place your right hand on your abdomen.
3. Feel the movement of your chest as you inhale and exhale.
4. Recognize that you are still breathing.

- Skeet

Hate 'em now, Love 'em later

Today is the big day (for the Texans in the room). It's our turn to decide who we want. Is it gonna be Hilary or Obama? (on a side note: Republicans can take the day off because regardless of Huckabee's courage, the brother just isn't gonna make it.) The much anticipated primaries in Texas and Ohio are here and the Democratic Nomination may be on the line. I'm not a political guru and honestly I really don't care who wins the nomination because I don't like my choices either way. Hilary is a retread of Bill, except more annoying. And Obama looks great but his ideas are second in emptiness to Miss Teen South Carolina.

What I'm looking forward to is the loser speech. At some point in this whole fiasco we call politics the loser of the race will be forced to endorse the very person they have been attacking for months on end. If Hilary wins we will watch Obama gracefully "forget" that he has spent the last few months telling everyone that Hilary's ideas are old and ineffective and with the CHANGE banners still waving he will endorse the candidate who, at present, represents status quo. And if Obama wins Hilary will sing the praises of a man she currently derides as too inexperienced to run our nation.

But regardless of who wins today we are in for a great show. On the stage will be an actor ( see politician) and he/she will read the lines on the script with great emotion and zeal. And the audience (that's us) is expected to place their trust in a person whose opinions change with the wind.

So, in the words of the great Derek Webb, "You can trust the devil or a politician to be the devil or a politician but beyond that friends you best beware because at the Pentagon bar they're an inseparable pair. And as long as the lobbyists are payin' the bills we'll never have a Savior on Capitol Hill."

Devin Harris: Future top-5 point guard?

I've heard several pundits, including those who have commented on this site that Devin Harris will/could be a top five point guard in the NBA.

Maybe so, but he won't be better than Chris Paul or Deron Williams and he will be lucky to be as good as Tony Parker, Jose Calderon, or even Brandon Roy. AND there are some monsters now playing college ball like Derrick Rose and O.J. Mayo who will soon be in the mix at the point guard position.

I think people are only thinking of Kidd and Nash getting old and thus there being a void that somebody must fill in the list of top-5 point guards. However, I don't know if they are taking into account how many fabulous young point guards are already or soon to be on the scene.

Blue-ray teaches us about capitalism

It's not about the best or cheapest products flourishing in the marketplace. It's simply about supply and demand. Sony got the suppliers (read: Hollywood) to embrace their format and thus you can put your HD-DVD player in the pile where your Dreamcast, cassette tape player, and your rotary phone reside. Or you can store it somewhere special and hope it becomes a collector's item one day.

LeBron Inc.

He's not another dumb jock. It's crazy that a guy so young understands so much about the game (yes, it's a double entendre...every once and a while I like to flex my literary device swag).

Jay-Z and LeBron

Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo Sports wrote an intriguing article discussing the relationship between Jay-Z and LeBron. As I was reading it, the first thing that came to mind was the NBA rule against collusion and tampering, e.g. Owners and GMs can't talk publicly about their interest in players under contract with other teams. Apparently, even when Jay-Z, part owner of the Nets, spoke publicly about LeBron potentially coming the the Nets, the league didn't punish him. The second thing that came to mind was how fascinating and how statistically unlikely it is that a guy who grew up in the housing projects of Akron and a guy who grew up in the housing projects of Brooklyn could one day be collaborators with both operating huge media conglomerates. The third thing I thought about was how cool it was that two guys who "made it" through the conduit of entertainment (read: playing sports and rapping) have translated their on court and on mike skills into successful business ventures. So many young people see playing ball or rappin' as their only way out of their 'hood. It is nice to see that 2 guys who are amongst the few who "make it" from their communities aren't content with the currency of fame and notoriety with somebody else receiving the bulk of the profits from their abilities. They both seem to understand how to exploit capitalism instead of being exploited by capitalism.

Politics ain't the only thing that makes strange bedfellows

I find it quite amusing that Bob Knight, one of the most polarizing coaches in the sports media landscape, is now going to do a stint with the worldwide leader. I vividly remember the interview of Bob Knight by Jeremy Schaap where he punked Jeremey by saying he had a long way to go before he could measure up to his dad (the late, great Dick Schaap). I also have read articles from others in the ESPN family that have provided stinging analysis of Knight's character. And now is all forgiven? What happens when Bob Knight bumps into Pat Forde at the snack machine (hopefully the .com people office in the same building as the on-air talent)? I would love to see how some of the ESPN talent interact with Knight when he's up in Bristol. Do they stay away from him? Or do they glad hand and suck up to him? I guess there are at least two lessons here: 1)It's easy to critique someone from a distance, but do so with the understanding of one day that distance might shrink considerably and 2) politics ain't the only thing that makes strange bedfellows. Money is such a powerful motivator...capitalism - ya gotta love it!

One of the best post by my favorite blogger

Henry Abbott of TrueHoop (available on ESPN.com), in my humble opinion, has the best blog on the 'net. He consistently brings meat on all things NBA and is insightful on issues on and off the court. As a basketball fan and coach there is not a week that goes by where I don't feel like I've learned something about the game, players, coaches, strategies, personalities, etc. This posting evaluating the role chemistry plays in a team's success is BRILLIANT!!! Here's an excerpt from an email response to Henry's team chemistry question from Noah B. Gentner, Assistant Professor of Exercise and Sport Sciences at Ithaca College (courtesy Henry Abbott of TrueHoop):

Another important issue to consider here is the overall psyche and confidence of a team. There is an amazing connection in humans between our thoughts and actions. If we consistently think about something we are more likely to do it. If right now you start thinking, "I'm so happy this is the best day ever," and you continue to think that you will notice yourself starting to smile and feel better.

The same thing happens with athletes. If they believe they have a team that can win the title they will play harder, with more confidence, and be more likely to work through adversity than those who deep down don't believe in their team's ability to win.

It essentially boils down to what I know more and more and that is if you have talent, you can win games. You don't have to like your teammate to win games, but you need your teammates to be talented. You can love your teammates like they are your own flesh and blood, but if they can't hoop, it doesn't matter how great you all get along. Tactical talent (talent put to good use) trumps social cohesion all day long.

Thoughts while watching the Mavs vs. Spurs on TNT

At halftime of the TNT telecast of the Mavs/Spurs game on Thursday, Kenny Smith said that Jason Kidd gets guys easier shots because he "pitches the ball ahead". This is something that I strongly advocate that the middle and high school kids I coach do. Most young players want to dribble the ball the length of the floor into "assist range" where they can make a pass that leads directly to a shot attempt. However, the easier (and I dare say smarter) play is to pass the ball ahead to an open teammate which
1) allows the offense to go against less defenders because it's a transition situation and
2) forces the defense to react (which increases the chances of them being out of position) because the ball has moved.

This approach of passing the ball ahead, rather than dribbling the ball into the half court, makes for easier basketball because most youth players are not skilled enough to operate effectively offensively in a 5 on 5 half court setting.

I think kids pick the wrong approach up from watching guys like Nash accumulate assist via sweet bounce pass and lobs to teammates for 3s and dunks. However, the vast majority of kids don't have an ability to handle the rock and pass the rock anywhere near the level of a Steve Nash. Plus in the pre-Shaq Suns offense, Nash was receiving the ball quickly on inbounds after made shots it was akin to another passing the ball ahead (and Nash was operating in so much space he could afford to dribble the ball more).

John Stockton made a lot of "assist range" passes, but it was a function of the Jazz offense being built around the pick and roll with Malone.

Magic made a lot of "assist range" passes as well, but he was 6-9, which allowed him to threaten a defender in a fast break situation in a manner that a 6-1 guard could not -- so he gets a pass(pardon the pun).

Need help: XP or Vista

I'm in the market for a new laptop, so I need some help from the community. I'm leaning toward getting a laptop running XP because I've heard some grumbling about Vista. Please provide guidance with either positive or negative experiences with Vista and whether or not you think it is wise to go with XP given that this laptop will be my primary computer for the next 5 years.

All athletes are not selfish

Saying that all athletes are selfish is an uninformed reductionist statement, but it seems to be an opinion that is levied when an athlete does something that seems to shine more light on himself than the team. I hate to hear athletes, especially football and basketball players characterized with such broad brush strokes. T.J. Ford is a great example of a athlete who is putting team first. Of course he won't be the lead on SportsCenter this evening because of this, but let him get caught on the wrong side of the law or demand that the coach start him or trade him and T.J. will become a household name.

Now, it does help that T.J. has a guaranteed contract and that there is no denying that Calderon is a legit point guard, but that shouldn't take away from the magnanimity of the gesture.

Something not often seen in the media today

I was really impressed when I read Steve Weinman's apology to Rasheed Wallace. The Detroit Pistons are my team in the NBA and I have appreciated what Rasheed had done on the plus side: helping us get the ring against the Lakers in '03, making those championship wrestling belts, the cool "get hype" dance he does at the beginning of games, even the pre-Pistons "both teams played hard" quote. However, I do hold two things against him: leaving fellow Crimson Tider, Robert Horry open for that game winning three in the Finals vs. the Spurs, and the meltdown in game 6 against the Cavs, especially when Anderson Varejao stuffed his supposedly unblockable baseline turnaround jump shot. That being said, the boy 'Sheed has been hoopin' this season and KILLED the Suns this past Sunday. If many members of the media would just watch the games and not carry personal biases against athletes, then I think we could get more balanced reporting on complex cats like Rasheed Wallace. So big ups to you Mr. Steve Weinman you have earned my respect (as if that means anything to you).

Women, Preaching and Pastoring

A discussion on this topic had begun in the comments section of the post about my boy planting a church in the A-T-L and I wanted to have this converstation in a broader context. The background:

jimmy said: "Since we are talking about Church planting, tell me what you think about women pastors and even women teaching the Church setting?"

rick said: The pastor of the church is also the leader in the home (1 Timothy 3:1-5). The scripture say how can a man led the church if he can't even led his home. Therefore, the issue is not about a woman's right to preach but a man's responsiblity to led.

My take:
I think there are two separate issues. a) Do women have the biblical authority to preach? b) Do women have biblical authority to pastor?

I think each of these begs a whole other set of questions. Here are a few:

1) The only offices of the church mentioned in the New Testament are elder and deacon.
Is this list prescriptive or descriptive?

For the sake of clarity, everyone needs to be on the same page as to what the terms that are used in this particular discussion mean. Pastoring is mentioned in the N.T. as a spiritual gifting. The term "pastor" now seems to be used in a colloquial sense as being analogous to the biblical office of elder. There are some who make the further distinction of saying that the office of "Senior Pastor" is equivalent to an elder.

2) So are we saying that women cannot be elders?

3) Or are we saying that woman cannot have the spiritual gift of pastoring?

4) Or are we saying that women do not have biblical authority to teach? (Notice I didn't say preach, because I don't find much distinction between preaching and teaching. If you give any sort of exhortation in your teaching, then you are preaching, regardless of the level of emotion involved the presentation.

5) Are spiritual gifts gender specific?

6) If woman can have the spiritual gift of teaching/preaching, how is this then “regulated”?

7) If a woman is not desiring to be an elder, but only to preach and is not allowed is this sexism?

Let the games begin...

TV Addiction

Opaque and I engaged in a fairly animated discussion on the pros and cons of TV watching. I took up the position that TV watching is okay when done in moderation (as most things that are amoral are such as eating junk food, playing sports video games, washing your car, etc.). Apparently, he's been on a four month TV diet and is really seeing how much of a time waste TV watching is for him. I, on the other hand, do not feel that I have a bad habit when it comes to ingesting boob tube. Getting a DVR about midway through football season last fall completely helped me better manage my TV watching. I use the DVR to record my favorite shows such PTI, the Boondocks, The Wire, and any sporting events I'm interested in watching. I have actually found that I spend less time idly surfing channels because I have specific, tried and true, programs on my DVR that I can turn to when I can't find anything of interest on "live" TV. I've never been a big renter of DVDs, so I guess I think I've convinced myself that I don't have a problem watching too much TV. Now, I do have other ways of wasting time, but at least it's not in front of the "idiot box".

Sacrilege or just good old fashion capitalism?

Is there a line where marketing or a TV show crosses into the realm of sacrilege? I was flipping between several TV shows and landed on an old Good Times episode where Fishbone the Wino was mistakenly thought to be dead and attended his own funeral dressed as a woman. When it was discovered that Fishbone was not dead, Willona, JJ and other cast members began clapping, jumping, and singing about Fishbone in a manner obviously parodying stereotypical black church exuberance (notice I didn't call it worship...that's a completely separate topic) in celebration of Fishbone not being dead. Was this sacrilege?

The second thing I came across to today was this post about the Christian imagery and themes used to promote LeBron James. Is Nike simply consistently using a transcendental motif to market and uplift "King James" to the rare, crossover, iconic status of M.J. and Tiger Woods? Or is it taking it over the line and prostituting Christian imagery and text for profit? Is Nike wrong for trying to do so? Or is this reflective of the ends that the producers capitalism will go in order to feed itself. Can Christians be upset at this infringement of their religion by capitalism when capitalism seems to be welcomed by Christians when people purchase their books, buy their sermons, attend their conferences, and watch their movies? There have been times in the history of Christianity where it has co-oped something pagan and made it Christian (Christmas and Halloween are two examples of such actions). Since Christianity has shown a willingness to lift from that which is pagan, sanitize it, and make it their own, how much of a problem should Christians have when the reverse happens?

My boy is planting a church in the A-T-L

Motivation for not settling for the 9-to-5

I am graduating this spring and I don't necessarily want to go back to the 9 to 5 grind. Of course I'm conflicted given my familial/financial obligations, but I think I'm headed toward one of those crossroad moments where if I decided to get a conventional job, then I don't know when I'll have another opportunity to get outside of the box. This guy provides me with some affirmation that I can go the unconventional route, but still be okay.

Thoughts on the 2008 NBA Slam Dunk Competition

Here are a few thoughts I had as I reflect on one of the greatest dunk competitions EVER!!!!

• Only somebody over 6-9 with long arms and at least a 35 inch vertical could even attempt Dwight Howard's behind the backboard dunk. Nate Robinson (5'8") could elevate high enough, but his arms would be too short to reach around the backboard to do so. Nate maybe could do it if he was dunking on a goal that had only a small section of the backboard hanging below the rim.
  
• Gerald Green is a victim of the Steve Francis/Tracy McGrady syndrome (having a great, normally contest winning dunking performance, but being unfortunately in a contest with a pantheon dunk competition performance a la Vince Carter).
  
• Gerald Green blowing out the candle has to be in the top 10 of dunk competition of dunks. Not only did he demonstrate creativity, but also the skill to jump high enough (its difficult to blow out a candle that is higher than your head), AND the ability in mid air to change his brain from focusing on catching the ball off the bounce while jumping, to blowing out the candle, to dunking a basketball with TWO hands - ALL without knocking the candle down or hitting is head/mouth on the rim. Impressive.
  
• TNT had bad live camera angles on both the Green candle dunk and the Howard tip-it-off-the-glass-off-the-bounce-with-one-hand-and-dunk-it-with-the-other-hand dunk. I could here Green expel air from the rim being miked, but it was only when I heard Kenny Smith's jumping around about how he blew out the candle, did I get the full effect of what happened. Also, on the Howard dunk, on the live feed I was not quite sure why Kenny Smith was talking about his leaving the building and all because of what he had just seen. It wasn't until after I saw the reply that I began flopping on my bed like a fish because I couldn't believe Howard did that dunk. I think the judges should have the benefit of replay before they give their scores because the difficulty and unrealness (yes, I'm making up a word) of some dunks can't really be appreciated until they are seen in slow motion or from different angles. For example, a guy jumping from the free throw line looks impressive initially until you get an idea of where he took off from. If he took off from in front of the free throw line, it should not be considered as high of a score as if he took off from behind the free throw line. Or take Vince Carter's arm in the rim dunk -immediately after he did the dunk the crowd was quiet, but they showed the replay and the place went nuts.
  
• Why is Dikembe Mutombo always somebody the camera focuses on for post-dunk reaction shots? Here he is in 2000 (see 3:01), 2001 (see 1:06), 2002 (see 0:13), 2003 (briefly see 1:04), 2008 before the Superman dunk (see 0:02) and after (see 1:13).

Over analysis of the Shaq trade

It's only been 3 games into the Shaq experiment with the Suns and I have found the over analysis of the trade up to this point whimsical . After the first game against the Lakers, a Suns loss, there were favorable reviews. After the second game, a win against the Celtics, Shaq's 14 rebounds was lauded as the reason why he was brought to the Suns. After the third game, a blowout loss to my beloved Pistons, I heard a TV talking head say Shaq has turned the Suns into the Heat. Here are the facts - the Suns have played 3 of the best teams in the NBA and with or without that trade, they quite possibly would have had a 1-2 record in this stretch. Shaq just played in his 3rd game since Jan 21, he is in a completely different offensive system, and he wasn't brought in to help the Suns win regular season games where they consistently ran at a high tempo. The Suns traded for him in order to give themselves a fighting chance against other Western Conference foes with strong inside presences (Lakers, Spurs, Jazz, Houston) in the playoffs, when the game tends to be played more in the half court. To me, analysis this early is pointless because of a) lack of data and b) the period to analyze this trade is the playoffs, not the regular season.

The Oscars

Not a big fan of the show, but it was what the wife had the TV on, so I endured some of it. The part that I saw included the montage of the people who died since the previous show. As I watched not only actors and directors, but sound guys and executives included in the montage, it made me wonder how one gets included in the In Memoriam piece. Did they have to participate in x number of movies? Did they have to have been in a Oscar nominated movie? I'm sure several sound guys died over the course of the year, so how did Peter T. Handford make it into the montage? Here's the answer...