The Flukeless Relentless Run of the 2015 Warriors

Before you start reading, start playing the song “Seek and Destroy” by Metallica.



Now you are ready.





The Golden State Warriors of 2015-2016 just might ultimately become the greatest basketball team since the 95-96 Bulls---a team that notoriously bulldozed the nasty Eastern Conference on their way to an easy Finals win (along the way eliminating the greatest Magic and Sonics teams ever assembled) . Using a crazy concoction of ridiculous shooting, small size, jaded speed, annoying defense, and a relentless approach to shove down as many points down your throat as possible, the Warriors of today are playing lights-out basketball (winning by an AVERAGE of double-digits a game) and it has become a beauty to see. Also adding to the mix is the new-age NBA which allows for a team like the Warriors to actually survive.

Let’s start with what the Warriors are doing. Steph Curry took the words of “they got lucky” to the chest and has unleashed a start that easily makes him the best player in the NBA, running the best team in the planet. MVP numbers, MVP leadership (do remember that they don’t even have their coach yet), and dazzling plays have ignited the Bay Area and the rising bandwagon fanbase that enjoys watching this team play and run circles around everyone. Iguodala would be a starter on half the lineups in the NBA, yet plays off the bench—which shows the depth of their offense. Four players have a PER of at least 18—and Klay Thompson is just starting to get better. They are on top in every offensive category—and then achieve being in the top 10 in rebounds, steals, blocks, and forced turnovers. Even crazier is that the team is built to last, as their leads get so massive and there are so many players with the potential to take over, their best player can sit out the 4th quarter and not miss a single beat.

Their defense is their only slight flaw (is it even a flaw if they haven’t won?), as they are 11th in the league in points allowed. But scoring 115 points per game is ridiculous, and will cover any holes you might find in their lineup. Their formula has no weakness, even if they sacrifice defense. Playing a small lineup allows them to run the ball, and dictate the pace. Using big men lineups is the only way to even have a chance, but they better have some speed in their system otherwise the Warriors will just wear you out---which is how the Grizzlies and Cavaliers managed to lose so many in a row back in the 2015 Playoffs when it looked like they had control.

That being said, this new-age NBA allows for teams like this to explode out the game and thrive. Back in the 90s, if you didn’t have a successful and powerful big man you were in trouble—unless you had a Michael Jordan to cover for that loss. Back then, it was physical, tough, aggressive, nasty, and cutthroat from the first minute to the last. This type of rough basketball created the popular rivalries of peak-NBA: Knicks/Bulls, Knicks/Heat, Knicks/Pacers (notice a trend?), Celtics/Lakers, Pistons/Bulls, and the notable rivalry period would end with the Lakers/Kings and Pistons/Pacers.

Nowadays we pretend like there are rivalries, but the results are too one-sided to earn the word (LeBron/Bulls, Clippers/Warriors, Warriors/Grizzlies). The point is, the competition was fierce because the talent pool was deep and better distributed, and also because hand checks and hard fouls were allowed without an eyebrow being raised. 2014-2016 Warriors would die in the 90s; that is guaranteed. So they have a slight stroke of fortune there.

No more takeaways however, as this year currently belongs to the Warriors and this might carry on all the way through June unless other teams start stepping up. The Spurs will do their yearly coasting, without attempting to win every game. The Cavs will remain a threat, although LeBron James this season shocked me by benching himself in the middle of the game---which is inexcusable lack of leadership. The Cavaliers look like they are laboring through the season, while the Warriors just look like playground boys having tons of fun. Does anyone else in the NBA even look like they have a shot? The two major similarities between this Golden State squad and the eternal 96 Bulls is that each team had the best player in the world, and that they want to win every single game regardless of standings, importance of game, and who they are playing.

Golden State has the drive and talent to break the winning streak record, and potentially even the regular season wins record. Whether or not they plan on easing the pedals after the (expected) clinching of a playoff spot will be revealed with time, but for now I can only see the Spurs and maybe the Thunder (if they can get past the free agency drama among other things) standing in the way of their second straight title. This much is certain: the Warriors are mad, very mad; they have proven that they aren’t a fluke, and are edging closer towards a few records while solidifying itself as the team that is leagues ahead of everyone else.




No luck here. Beware the Warriors. Seriously.

Why ISIS is Winning (and How to Defeat Them)

It is sickening what is happening. And no, I am not discussing the massacre at Paris, despite how awful that truly was. 

(And before I drift too far, I bought items to donate to the memorial happening on the French Pavilion at Epcot the other day. If you live close by I recommend you do the same. Also dedicated a music playlist to France during a shift at work. No city deserves what Paris has gone through in 2015)



I’m discussing the aftermath.



The bigotry, stupidity, racism, and Islamophobia that has regurgitated after the awful attack is why ISIS is currently winning. That’s right, we are losing the war against them because of our actions. I honestly mean that. If we get more attacks, it will be partially because we have not done the right things to combat the terrorism. Not yet. Guess what, peace and care will destroy this organization far faster than just throwing more bombs towards their area (fighting violence with more violence just doesn't work) and ultimately also taking out innocent lives in the process. If we are more open and accepting of other cultures, then we wouldn’t have hordes of people suffering so much that they feel the only solution is to retreat to an obviously evil organization and participate in spreading its violence.

If just 1% of the 1.5 billion Muslims were radicals and terrorists, then we’d all be dead. We need to stop pretending like ISIS has any connection towards the religion; it’s so far from the truth I am upset at even acknowledging the rumor. I am upset that we still don’t understand the concept of terrorism not knowing any religion—it’s just a ploy to make us scared and guess what, it’s working.

Whenever you spread vile hatred towards Muslims, you are participating with ISIS. Whenever you start treating Muslims different or start viewing them different, you are part of ISIS. When you are denying Muslims access to your land just because of the awfully silly fear of them turning on you, you are helping ISIS. Whenever you attach the religion to the terrorist attacks that have occurred over the years, you are helping ISIS. When you participate and accept the refusal of people in need of help, you are helping ISIS. When you are claiming that bringing in refugees, even little children, from Syria because it’s close to the combat zone, you are still helping ISIS.

That picture from the beginning of this article, is that of a woman in Syria, probably pondering why despite over 160,000 being killed and thousands of buildings being rocked to the ground, we are still debating as to whether or not we should help.

ISIS is formed and maintained because of the deep pockets of racism and phobias that unfortunately still exist. Since 9/11, the American outlook of Muslims has been overall horrendous. People have been killed because they associate with the Muslim religion. Mosques have been burned to the ground because of merely existing. As I am typing this, a woman in Toronto was attacked because she was wearing a hijab. All she was doing was waiting for her kids to get off of school. And guess what, hundreds more will die in the Middle East and Africa as ISIS continues pounding cities full of innocent people---while crappy states like Alabama will continue their attempts to block any semblance of help. 




If these so-called radicals are anti-Christian, then why attack totally random groups of people? Wouldn’t it make more sense for people starting a religious war to target certain people specifically? I can assure you many Muslims were killed and affected in the Paris attack. And just like what happened back in January, Muslims also helped save lives in the midst of all the violence. Do some reading, the stories are indeed there. Billions of Muslims exist all over the Earth, and for the most part, the 99.9% of them are wonderful people that is part of the population in the Middle East that needs our help.

There’s no way I see terror in the eyes of my current neighbors, which is a very kind Muslim family with beautiful children that has delivered nothing but smiles whenever we greet each other. And the other reason why the Muslim/ISIS connection has been so strong, it’s because unfortunately the group has been quite successful and organized in recent times. While the Westboro Church, KKK, Neo-Nazis and even Al-Qaeda has fallen in respect despite being similar in religious hatred tone, ISIS has risen the global fear charts with its demonic and particular way of spreading the horror.

The United States was founded by people escaping the nonsense brewing in England back in the 1600s, back when kings and churches were wildly out of control in power. And for centuries we have had different waves of people from all over the world escape their origins and their cultures to enter here and establish a new life of their own. I am a descendant of an escape from my beautiful country when it was going through a very nasty point that is rarely discussed outside the island. Back in the mid-20th century the Dominican Republic engaged in a civil war that followed decades of dictatorship that reached such an alarming level the United States got involved. Almost every person you see in the United States has a family history that involves escaping or leaving a rough situation and winding up in North American soil.

The United States was founded on refugees. So why are we denying this opportunity to others just because of where they are from, how they look, and what supposed violence they might bring? Not doing the right thing because of a specky smidge of a chance of a backlash is cowardly.

Would you stop sending your kid to school because of the chance of a school shooting? Will you stop purchasing food because of the chance that you won’t like it? Will you stop going to baseball games because of the chance that you will get hit by a fly ball? The pre-emptive action of not helping because of what might happen is punishing millions of people, making them guilty only by association. You’d think a nation that believes in innocent until proven guilty would know better, right?



I have been arguing about this for the past several days, and it’s honestly made me sick to my stomach how cold people can be. You are shutting the gates to people escaping the bulls of oppression, poverty, grimness, violence, and death. The United States should be open to receiving anyone that is willing to start all over, start a new life, and contribute to the American society. There are thousands of great people just looking for a chance, just looking for that light to the end of the tunnel. Are we really going to deny them that opportunity just because of a few bad seeds that have decided to end their lives on a cowardly and murderous note?

When you coward and hide, ISIS wins. When you discriminate, ISIS wins. When you ban people from entering your land because of whatever reason, ISIS wins. We can’t let this keep happening. We can’t let any type of minority feel oppressed just because of the color of their skin, and the name of their God. Ice Cube is Muslim, so is Shaq and Dave Chappelle. Do you see terrorists in them? No, because you know them, you’ve seen them, you’ve spent time with them indirectly through music, sports, and television. Perhaps if we spent more time knowing the people trying to run to us, perhaps if we spend time acknowledging and trying to actually learn more about the second-largest and fastest-growing religion in the entire planet, then we would be more open-minded about the concept and about the people that follow the teachings of Allah. But we have to be willing to make that step, make that effort, make the commitment to treat everyone equally, to accept everyone equally, and realize that no one religion causes the terrorism, but instead it’s the lowest of the low that decide to take lives for no logical reason. I don’t associate the folks behind 9/11, the Paris shooting, and the Madrid bombing with anything except evil.

If you want to continue claiming that the United States is first and foremost a Christian nation (or a free nation in general), then start behaving like one. And it’s not just the Muslims escaping the war zone, it’s not just people from Syria---which by the way has 2.5 million Christians also in need of escaping. I’m also talking about people from Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Mexico, Russia, Kenya, Rwanda and any other place experiencing some harsh times. I'm not saying that I've personally have done everything I can to help, but I do donate weekly to charity, and with me writing this I can hopefully change your mind on the subject. I want you to reconsider. I definitely don't have all the answers on how to help and how to successfully perform the action of the transferring of refugees, but I am making that faithful first step by stepping up and exclaiming that we must do something. This is not a burden or potential for danger---opening our borders to help is simply the right thing to do. Remember that dictator on the Dominican Republic? Even he knew the importance of cultural diversity, acceptance, and reaching out to help others in need when he opened up his island to people escaping World War II and other wars. In modern day Dominican Republic, there's actually a Chinatown in the capital city. The anti-Haitianness of Trujillo's rule will be a discussion for another day...

We need to help each other. We need to stop being selfish. We need to worry about others just as much as we worry ourselves. The United States despite what people might tell you, is doing quite well financially and as a global power. Not saying the country is perfect (The pockets of racism that popped up all over the United States under the Obama years is alarming), but it is far stronger a nation than most. Other nations are less fortunate. Instead of handing out bombs, we should reach out our hands, and help our neighbors. We need to work together, face the fear, face the terrorism, and keep our heads up and rise against the oppression, and rise against ISIS. But as long as we remain toxic on the mere concept of just helping people outside our borders, we will continue allowing ISIS to rule and reign on our consciousness. 


Be better. Seriously. All of you, be better.

The Peanuts Movie: 9/10

The Peanuts Movie is just like a puppy: adorable, irresistible, charming, and absolutely worthy despite any flaws it may or may not present. This extremely well-made movie does exactly what adaptations should do: be very faithful regardless of current audience, keep it very close to the source, don’t try to spice it up with unnecessary additions, and do plenty of callbacks to the original work. Blue Sky does an absolutely phenomenal job transforming the world of Schultz into the computer-animated-obsessed cinematic world we see today. This is the best Blue Sky has released since the also-faithful Horton Hears a Who and one of the best films of the entire year. Seriously.

Peanuts has been so embedded in American society that we forget how groundbreaking and how seriously funny the original comic strip was. What Winnie the Pooh is to Disney, Peanuts was to the newspaper---a reliable source of entertainment and harmless beauty. Side-Note: Disney’s 2011 Winnie the Pooh revival was criminally underrated. Transforming Peanuts successfully requires tons of research and special care since Schultz and most of the magical staff behind the specials and movies are no longer with us unfortunately.

The details is what makes The Peanuts Movie phenomenal. The more you loved the comic strips, the more you’ll appreciate the effort. From the art style to the running jokes (Curse you Red Baron!!!) to the fact that the Red-Haired Girl never reveals her name so we can all relate to our childhood crushes, to even the fact that they recycled the sound clips of Snoopy, Steve Martino (delicately directing this with lots of care) and company continue carrying the torch behind one of the most beloved groups of children in the history of cartoons. Peanuts Movie also doesn’t even try to sneak in any adult humor: it sticks to the kids and the kids-at-heart, as well as those that grew up watching the delightful specials. The art style alone throws you right back to the first time you saw A Charlie Brown Christmas. 

Charlie Brown is still a wonderful relatable boy, despite his social insecurities and bad luck. Snoopy is still that trustworthy best friend despite his eccentricity. Linus, Sally, Schroeder, Peppermint Patty, Woodstock, and the rest of the gang all don’t skip a beat despite it being nearly four decades since the last movie, and years since the last special. The plot never thickens or gets deep, it never outstays its welcome, and never loses the tight focus on Charlie Brown/Snoopy while simultaneously giving the other kids their moments to shine. It’s a miracle that they found a cast that matched the voices of the predecessors so well. The fact that there is not a single adult seen (or coherently heard) is a perfectly executed idea that adds to the childhood innocence tone of the film.

You can nitpick and (try to) find some flaws, but I was far too busy smiling at the perfect art style and the light humor that decorated the carefree 88 minutes. I was far too busy rooting for Charlie Brown to finally have his moment. And lastly, I was far too busy enjoying the wild imagination of Snoopy and Woodstock as they take on their version of World War I. Fast, yet harmless and irresistible, The Peanuts Movie will appeal, delight, entertain, and cheer up anybody that decides to give it a chance.

Charles M. Schultz would be extremely proud.

Spectre: 5/10

James Bond suffers from the Simpsons Syndrome: its biggest enemy is its collectively stellar past, and its refusal to attempt to shake things up often (ironically, the beginning of the end of the Simpsons was a poorly-done shakeup involving the death of Maude Flanders). Bond has been exploring beautiful places and wooing beautiful women for decades, so when the formula gets stale it really meanders deep into the production. However when the franchise flips the switch and alters things while still sticking to the roots, we get cinematic gold. Goldeneye, Casino Royale, and Skyfall are the best of Bond within the past 25 years, and it’s for those reasons. Spectre unfortunately fails to attempt anything groundbreaking.

Daniel Craig is still fantastic. The cinematography is still top-notch. The directing (when the budget and script allows) is quite good. Waltz and Bautista were great adversaries (but with very little material). But underneath that, we have a Bond movie that struggles to live up to recent adventures. We have a Bond villain that doesn’t quite match up to sinister folks of the past. We have a series of locales that had been explored before. And lastly, the producers should have known better then to not bring back Adele after her Skyfall song became the best Bond theme since the 70s. Sam Smith had no chance.

What hurts even more is that the beginning was phenomenal, from the opening shot to the opening action sequence that follows. And just like Skyfall, it was so good that the rest of the movie struggled to truly catch up. What instead follows is a more realistic and grounded approach to the expected and familiar Bond formula; and to be honest it used to be effective but the competition of your exotic action movies in European territory has increased significantly---Jason Bourne, Mission: Impossible, and even the revived Fast and the Furious series. Making the movie a rough 150 minutes doesn’t help at all either; it even felt like the budget ran out towards the end.

The grounded formula was a shake-up to the Bond clichés, but by the end of all this you’ll be clamoring to bring these clichés back. You want the entourage of gorgeous vehicles back (as opposed to several helicopter scenes), you want the outlandish villain back (Give me more 1960s Spectre please), and you want the clever gadgets back. As a matter of fact, I want the cool and calm spy back. In Spectre, they cringingly kept referring to him as an assassin—never a spy. It’s a slight dialogue mishap but it speaks layers as to what we are currently seeing from MGM’s final moneymaker. Remove Bond from the equation and you have a decent summer assassin flick. But as a Bond movie that has seen so many precious films and delightful moments---the past harms the quality.

This is the weakest Bond since Die Another Day, another Bond movie that was ruined because it became too formulaic and frayed far from what we saw in the first act. The movie isn’t a dismal failure, nor is it a total sequel disaster to the likes of Amazing Spider-Man 2 (Yep, went there). The Bond recipe is all here, but it’s been diluted by too much filler and not enough flavor. Trying to connect the recent Bond movies together also didn’t help its chances---James Bond wasn’t meant for continuity because they can never add up no matter how hard you try. Spectre went through four writers, and the result was still messy.

Don’t expect peak Connery/Craig Bond, expect more along the lines of late 70s Roger Moore Bond---when it was obvious that change was needed. Perhaps they’ve run out of ideas with Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes. Perhaps more time is needed between Bond movies (the three great Bond flicks I mentioned had many years between installments). It might be time for that shake-up again. I wonder if Tarantino is still interested…