Philly doesn't win titles, in part, because we are a small-minded sports town who overrate our own

The city of Philadelphia has two major sports championships in the last 35+ years. I, as many Philly sports fans have probably often wondered why that is. It's a good question, and has no neat or specific answer. I think there are a variety of factors. Today, I'll be focusing on one, and it has to do with our mentality as a sports town. And when I say "our" I don't just mean the fans, but the teams as well.

Philadelphia has a major inferiority complex. We are a top 5 market, but don't have nearly the amount of titles in recent years as many other sports towns. We are New York's little brother. The little brother always wants to prove to the world that he can compete with and outdo the older brother.

Philadelphians romanticize over our own far too much. So often, our fans and teams hold a candle to mediocre players, coaches, and executives, because they do niche things that resonate with the blue collar nature of the city, we like a pet nickname they've adopted, or because they ingratiate themselves to the city with an excess of compliments about the fan base. We idolize coaches like Buddy Ryan and Brett Brown. We glorify players like Robert Covington and Dario Saric. We dismiss blame for executives like Howie Roseman. We overrate our own constantly, and care more about winning championships with "Philly guys" rather than just winning.

I'm sure every city suffers through this to some degree. Fans and organizations fall in love with sports figures, and have trouble parting with them. However, we seem to do it to a much greater extent in Philly. Name me one other city who would turn down a chance to land LeBron James merely because "He'd be a mercenary and I don't want to win with a mercenary, I want to win organically." Name me one other fan base who would scoff at the idea of adding James Harden, a top 5 NBA player, and one of the greatest scorers to ever lace them up, by trading away a top 25 player in Ben Simmons. Name me another town who groans when discussing Andy Reid, who is one of the NFL's all-time winning coaches, but light's up like a Christmas tree when discussing Buddy Ryan who's never won a playoff game. Only in Philadelphia will you find this bunker mentality. Born from years of inferiority, and a growing obsession with proving to the world that we can do it "our way" rather than just getting it done.

This isn't exclusive with the fans, we see it with our teams as well. The Eagles continuing to bring back Alshon Jeffery and Jason Peters, who are on a severe decline in production, merely because they were part of a Super Bowl team 3 years ago. Jeffrey Lurie continually staying loyal to Howie Roseman even though he's put together two of the worst offseasons back-to-back any general manager in this city has ever had. The Phillies under Ruben Amaro Jr. refused to trade away the declining Howard, Utley, Rollins, and Victorino core until their trade value declined considerably, hurting the franchise for years; some of which is still being felt to this day. The Flyers for decades, until recently, wouldn't sign or add any player who was small or fast, because they didn't fall under the physical profile they identify as "Flyers."

Fans in this city still pine for Robert Covington, a quality role player who's never won anything, but were happy to see Jimmy Butler leave town because he wasn't "cut out for Philly" and it wasn't until he dominated the Bubble Basketball Playoffs to where fan lamenting finally entered the picture.

Look across the four major sports. Look at the teams that either consistently win titles or consistently find themselves in the final four almost every single year, or at the very least always find their way back to the top of the mountain and win a title once every decade. Teams like the Lakers, Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Heat, Warriors. These organizations couldn't give a shit less about their beloved "fan favorites." They go out and acquire stars. The Lakers gutted their roster for LeBron and Anthony Davis. The Dodgers traded away prospects for Mookie Betts. The Yankees trade away home grown players for stars almost every year. The Warriors let go of Harrison Barnes and Andrew Bogut, two role players, who I'm sure were very popular within their organizations, because it gave them a chance to land Kevin Durant. These organization's don't give a shit about romanticizing mediocrity. They want to win.

Justin Turner is both a fan and organizational favorite with the Dodgers. Think if the Dodgers had a chance to land Nolan Arenado, they'd even think twice about trading him to Colorado? Not for a second. He'd be on the next flight. "Nice knowing ya, thanks for the memories, but we're bringing in someone better than you." Meanwhile, in Philly we're procrastinating about giving up on a player who maybe, possibly, some day might be three-quarters as good as James Harden, because he's a "Process Guy" and one of Sam Hinkie's final gifts to the city. We hesitate to want to part ways with Doug Pederson, who has been average at best for 3 seasons, because of a lightning in a bottle season back in 2017.

We, as fans, and organizations, need to ditch this small-minded mentality. Give me all the mercenaries you've got, if it gets us parades here in Philly.You win titles by pursuing greatness on all levels. Greatness in the front office, greatness in your coaching staff, and greatness on the playing field. Teams who win championships are heartbreakers. They will "jump into bed" with a new star player every week if it leads to winning, they don't give two shits about ending relationships. Once we abandon the inferiority complex and focus on just winning, maybe we'll become a city of champions ourselves one day.

Americans spoke loud and clear about what they value sociopolitically and in a presidential candidate on election day

America spoke loud and clear the last 48 hours. The only winners were Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Donald Trump lost first and foremost, it looks like his presidency is all but over. The Democratic Party lost, considering a "blue wave" was expected to surge across the nation and that did not happen. This election was expected by analysts, pundits, and polls to be a runaway for Joe Biden, but it was anything but that. Joe Biden, a milquetoast centrist Democratic candidate who people like to mock, but no one actually hates, couldn't soundly defeat a candidate in Donald Trump who everyone absolutely loathes except his die-hard fans. If you're scoffing at this as a coincidence, a one-off, or purely circumstantial, then you haven't been paying attention. And if you're a Republican or Democrat, then you better hope your party of choice learns from their mistakes made during this election process, because there were many. The last year couldn't have been handled more poorly by both sides of the aisle. I'm going to break down what I think happened to each party, starting with the Democrats.

Roughly 70 million people voted for Donald Trump. He gained in every single demographic except for white males. He gained among minorities. He gained among the LGBTQ community. Donald Trump, a man considered by many to be a vile racist and bigot had the highest non-white GOP share since 1960. That is absolutely fascinating on so many levels. I saw a lot of people stating "This sadly tells us so much about the voters and how racist they are." No. If anything, this tells you much more about what the voters think of your candidate than what it tells you about the voters themselves. This tells you right off the bat that any narrative that all 70 million of his votes were obviously not from only his right wing conservative base. A lot of people voted for Donald Trump. I heard countless social commentators of all backgrounds say they are voting Republican for the first time in their lives. How could that be? Trump is the most hated president of my lifetime. There isn't a ton to hate about Biden, so shouldn't this vote have been a runaway for Biden?

The way things have played out tell me that the non die-hard conservative vote for Trump this year wasn't a vote for Trump but a vote against the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is scaring the hell out of many centrists(dead center, center-left, center-right), who always represent the majority of any electorate. There should be alarms going off in the head of every Democratic politician across the country right now about the message the American people are sending to you.

Americans are extremely pro-cop

 Credit to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, they did not promote much, if any, anti-cop rhetoric during their campaign. Joe Biden has a strong history of being tough on crime(maybe too tough) and the same applies to Harris. Joe Biden even said he wanted to increase funding for the police during one of his debates. However, they still belong to a party that are notoriously soft on crime. And right or wrong, Americans factor in not only the candidate when casting their vote, the party that candidate belongs to is also a significant factor. We saw rioters and looters destroy cities with impunity throughout 2020. We saw insurgents commandeer a section of a city in Seattle, dub it an "Autonomous Zone" and have the mayor joke about it like it was a fun little block party. Business owners were shaken down for money, drug use was rampant, people were assaulted, borders were installed to block out anybody they didn't want to enter freely in their own city, and most importantly people were murdered in its confines. Some of them teenagers.

In Portland, there has been rioting virtually every single night since May. Rioters smash businesses, set fires, beat up people who look at them wrong, and don't allow members of the press to record it so they can continue to commit these acts without repercussion. The District Attorney never presses charges and throws anyone arrested right back out on the street.

Those are just two cities. NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, LA have all experienced this to some varying levels throughout 2020. It has not stopped and has showed no signs of stopping any time soon. Their local leaders are not allowing law enforcement to use the type of force and tactics necessary to put an end to this. Citizens are scared. Business owners are distraught. People want law and order and are seeing Democratic cities overrun by social unrest and have grown tired of it. I can assure you many votes for Donald Trump were a big "F U" to the Democratic Party for allowing their cities to devolve the way they have. Not to mention pushing "defund the police" rhetoric by many Democrats that the far far FAR majority of Americans don't support. You only hear "defund the police" from the left side of the aisle, you never ever hear that from Republicans. In a country that loves law enforcement, including minorities who virtually all support cops(polls and surveys show), if you or your party promote any anti-cop agenda, you're going to lose votes. Period.

Americans do not like identity politics, extreme progressive ideologies, or "wokeness"

The Democratic Party has always been considered the "Progressive Party" and while I think many Americans support some progressive values, the extreme ones turn people off completely. 

• Americans don't want to be told that there are no differences between men and women. 
• Americans don't want to be told that men can get pregnant and get periods. 
• Americans don't want the above two things taught to their children at school.
  
• Americans don't want to be fired for doing an "okay sign" at their job.
• Americans don't want to be told that they're racist if they vote for a certain candidate.
• Americans don't want to be separated at work for training sessions based off skin color.
• Americans don't want to be sent to indoctrination sessions for their job to be told to disavow their ethnic identity and to atone for their skin color and write apology letters to people based on their identity.
• Americans don't want to be told if they question the teachings of certain religions or ideologies it makes them bad people.
• Americans don't want to be told that if they're straight and won't have sex with a trans person they're hateful.
• Americans don't want to have to state their name and say they're racist before entering university zoom sessions during a pandemic.
• Americans don't want to be called a traitor to their party or race if they listen to controversial figures on podcasts.
• Americans don't want to be told they aren't allowed to have opinions others find offensive.
• Americans don't want to be told they're evil for reading JK Rowling's books.
• Americans don't want to be told they're a bigot because they don't want trans men beating the pulp out of biological women in sporting events.
• Americans don't want to be told if they hold on for a second too long on a hug, they sexually harassed that person.
• Americans don't want statues of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln torn down or defaced.
  
• And Americans don't like being talked down to or preached to.

I'm an independent. I've voted Democrat more in my life than I've voted Republican, but I'm sorry, this nonsense only comes from the left these days. I don't like Donald Trump, but I gotta give him credit for one thing. He sniffed out this trend and went hardcore in on it during this election period. He wanted to become the "anti-woke" candidate, and it worked. Without that as part of his campaign, he likely would've have been routed. The Democrats have to understand that by promoting these extreme ideologies, they aren't pandering to their voters, they're pandering to a small slither of crazies on social media. Twitter and Facebook are NOT the majority. 96% of tweets come from 12% of Twitter's user base, and of that user base, that is only a tiny percentage of the American population. In future, Dems, distance yourself from wokeness and identity politics; and don't make half the country feel like they're evil "white supremacist Nazis" for believing certain things and voting certain ways, or I promise you it will cost you the election.

Don't nominate candidates older than 75 years old

Americans are foaming at the mouth for someone young and vibrant to take the presidential mantle. They don't want to have to worry about health issues, cognitive decline, archaic thinking on policy, and maybe most importantly that candidate not making it a full term and the VP becoming POTUS at some point. The Democrats have some young talent among their ranks like Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang. Get behind them, and let them carry you to victory.

Now, on to the Republicans. Just like the Democrats, you have no one to blame but yourselves for coming up short for the presidency. No, Trump isn't going to lose because the Democrats "stole the election" or anything like that. Are there some ballots here or there that got through as fraudulent? Probably. But time to look in the mirror. You lost because your president couldn't shut his goddamn mouth. He told lie after lie and Americans just grew tired of it. Just like this election could've been a blowout for Biden if the Democrats played their cards right, the came could be said for your side. Joe Biden excited no one. The voters who voted for Biden I guarantee you were turned off by the lawlessness and rioting and identity politics, but they just hated your candidate so much that they still couldn't vote for him. That's saying something.

• Diatribes on Twitter at at 1 am.
• Talking about how COVID is almost over, when it wasn't, and talking about how a vaccine is right around the corner when everyone knew it wasn't.
• Threatening to fire Dr. Fauci.
• Joking about being president for life. Even if that's a joke, you don't even unintentionally threaten the American system.
• Making every issue about him rather than about the people.
• Constantly playing victim. That likely cost him some conservative votes even, conservatives don't like victimhood at any level.
• And his general lack of professionalism on so many issues, like waging war with media people.

All Trump had to do was contain himself for a year and he'd likely have been re-elected because more people than you'd think support his policies. His anti Critical Race Theory policy was very popular, the economy was doing well before COVID, and crime across the country had been down. He brought peace agreements in the Middle East, which may or may not mean much years from now, but it looks good on a resume. Yet, he couldn't do it. Even with COVID and if he handled it better, he might have still won if he just shut his mouth. He could have focused on the fact that Biden and Harris detailed no elaborate plan to contain the virus other than "mask mandates" which is a general term, but he couldn't do it, and now he's going to blame it on a big conspiracy and throw a tantrum over it.

In the end, both parties should have learned a lot from this election process. Democrats need to understand that the American people want crackdowns on crime. Americans don't just want you to say looting is bad, they want you to stop it and stop it immediately. They don't want Critical Theory, wokeness, or identity politics in their institutions or in day to day life. They don't like being talked down to and told they are racists or bigots for believing certain things or thinking a certain way. For their sake, I hope they realize this for the next election or they will lose, because they won't have Donald Trump to pick apart next go around.

And Republicans: you're lucky that the whirlwind of the last several years under Trump will be behind you. Dust yourselves off, don't fuck up healthcare or Roe vs Wade, and you will have a better shot next time too.

As an independent, I hope both parties do the right corrections and nominate the best candidates next time, so we actually have two promising people to choose as our Commander in Chief. Look at yourselves in the mirror instead of blaming the people for why you didn't reach your goals. Dems, don't blame the lack of votes on "ToO mAnY rAcIsTs!!11!" and GOP, don't blame it on "ElEcTiOn FrAuD!11!" Choose better candidates, promote better ideals, and you'll gain the favor of the people. In the areas you fell short, you have no one to blame but yourselves.

Legal analysis on the death of Breonna Taylor. Did the grand jury get it wrong?

 The grand jury's decision today on the Breonna Taylor case has left a lot of people saddened, outraged, and disappointed. Did the grand jury make the right decision here? Is this a case of injustice? Before I get into all of that, a recap of the events that unfolded on March 13, 2020.

On the night of March 13, 2020, multiple officers showed up to the apartment of Breonna Taylor and Kenneth Walker with a search warrant(issued by a judge). I've seen as many reported as 6 officers on the scene, but the officers in question here who engaged in gunfire are Detective Brett Hankison, officer Jonathan Mattingly, and officer Myles Cosgrove. Essentially, it was believed to be a "drug house" by law enforcement. The individuals law enforcement were looking for are reported to be Jamarcus Glover and Adrian Walker, both of whom were not present in Taylor's apartment.

It was first reported that this was a "no-knock" warrant executed by law enforcement, which essentially means officers can just bust into your home at the drop of a hat without announcing themselves to conduct their search and/or make an arrest. The officers have since claimed that they did not execute a no-knock warrant and knocked and announced themselves before entering the premises. At least one witness corroborated this claim, though other neighbors claimed they did not hear this. Upon breaching the apartment, Mattingly, according to Attorney General Daniel Camerson, is the only one who actually entered the apartment. Kenneth Walker fired at him, likely thinking it was a home invasion, hitting him in the thigh. This was confirmed to be from Walker's firearm, as he had 9mm and the 3 officers all had .40 caliber handguns. All 3 officers then returned fire. Officers Cosgrove and Mattingly from the doorway, and detective Hankison from the patio and through the window. Breonna Taylor was killed in the gunfire. There were over 30 shots in total fired from the officers. Attorney General Cameron said Hankison fired 10 shots, Mattingly fired 6, and Cosgrove fired 16 shots. AG Cameron stated their investigation(likely a combination of ballistics and eye witness accounts) found  it was a shot from officer Cosgrove's gun that was the shot that killed Breonna Taylor.

Today the grand jury indicted Hankison on 3 counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree. Officer Mattingly and Cosgrove were not charged. Detective Hankison has long since been let go before being charged.

Okay, so this is a lot to unpack here. I'll start with this. There are questions that are most important in determining should more charges or more serious charges been handed down.

1. Did the officers commit any wrongdoing or commit a criminal act? If so, which?

2. Which officer or officers are responsible for Taylor's death?

3. Can it be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt to convince a jury?

As I've touched on before in several blog posts, this is criminal law we are talking about here. Not morality policing. As shitty of a situation as one is, the letter of the law must be upheld. One can't be arrested or charged based on what one thinks "should" happen morally. Criminality needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. So I'll start by addressing the first question. Did the officers commit wrongdoing or a criminal act?

The officers were there with a search warrant, which means they had legal right to enter the property even if the residents were opposed to it. A warrant is only issued by a judge when law enforcement establishes enough probable cause. Evidently, they did in this case to the judge's discretion. Once they entered the home and were fired upon, the officers legally have the right to return fire. As stated in many blog posts of mine, law enforcement can respond with lethal force if they have strong reason to believe their lives or the lives of civilians are in immediate danger. Being shot at(and struck) certainly qualifies. The question here is, were the responding shots too extreme and reckless?

Officer Mattingly and Cosgrove were in the doorway. Detective Hankison was outside near the window. Mattingly and Cosgrove reportedly return fire directly, the former firing 16 shots and the latter 6. 6-8 of those shots struck Walker and a reported 6 struck Taylor. AG Cameron stated that it was determined through their investigation that one of the bullets fired by Cosgrove was the fatal shot. I don't know the exact layout of the apartment, but being that an officer was fired on and struck, and at the time remember, the officers entering the apartment were entering it for a reason. They suspected it to be a drug house, potentially with drug dealers inside, I do not consider the amount of shots fired by Mattingly or Cosgrove excessive force. Their lives are in danger, one officer had already been struck. Their goal is to neutralize the target. Unfortunately and tragically, Taylor, an innocent bystander was killed by one of these rounds.

I do not believe Mattingly or Cosgrove committed any crimes here, and the grand jury made the right call not to indict. They had legal right to return fire. This was a horribly sad and tragic accident. There are no indications whatsoever they intended to kill Breonna Taylor or cause her any harm. Intent is everything when trying to prove murder.

Before I get to Hankison, I just want to do a rundown of Kentucky's murder laws. Kentucky has murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and reckless homicide.

To charge Mattingly or Cosgrove with any of these crimes they would either have to prove direct intent to kill Taylor and/or premeditation(Murder); an intent to kill without premeditation, in the heat of the moment(Voluntary Manslaughter); unintentionally killed Taylor while committing a criminal act(Involuntary Manslaughter); knew their acts were reckless and dangerous and didn't intend to kill, but the victim died anyway(Reckless Homicide).

The only one of these Mattingly and Cosgrove's actions would remotely fall under is reckless homicide, but being that an officer was struck and acting in self defense, they had right and precedent to respond with lethal force. They did not commit a criminal act, so involuntary manslaughter would not apply here. The other two, forget it. Remember, when charged, you have to convince a jury that these officers are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and any of these crimes committed here would be virtually impossible.

Now, to detective Hankison, the one who was actually charged with a crime here. Why was he charged and not the others? From listening to AG Cameron today and looking through the details of the case, they determined the extreme nature in which he fired into the apartment based on the position he was in(not in the doorway like the other two officers) was unjustified and reckless. Being that the investigation determined it was not one of his shots that killed Taylor, he was not charged with any murder offenses. He was determined to be guilty in acting recklessly and endangering the lives of others, and showed severe indifference to the well-being of others. Neighbors in nearby apartments were nearly shot by his actions, nearly killing them. Hankison was not in the doorway and he didn't have a clear view of the apartment. He fired recklessly through windows, not having a clear view of any potential targets. That is reckless policing and reckless use of potentially lethal force. The circumstance and positions the officers were in while firing shots into the apartment determine whether the use of force was justified. Being that Mattingly and Cosgrove were in the doorway and Mattingly had already been hit, I'm sure that was a major determining factor in the grand jury finding their actions were justified in comparison to Hankison. Also, Hankison's shots appeared more erratic in nature, and was essentially firing almost blindly into the apartment.

I know what question you're asking. "So, is that it? No one is held responsible for her death?" That's not entirely true, it depends on what you mean by "held responsible." Breonna Taylor's family was awarded a $12 million settlement with the city of Louisville. That settlement shows culpability in what happened to Breonna, as is shown in the settlement which was the largest ever handed out on behalf of the Louisville police. As for criminal charges? Unfortunately, this is probably going to be the end of it. Remember, a crime has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. I just don't see enough here based off the facts and circumstances to prove murder. The prosecution would have to prove that Hankison's gun is the one that killed Taylor, going against an investigation that already took place. Or if they want charges for Mattingly or Cosgrove they'd have to prove the offenses I outlined above. As it currently stands, I don't see any of the more severe charges having any chance of sticking. Trials are expensive and a DA would never sign off on it.

 This was a grand jury decision. A grand jury is presented with mounds of evidence and detail to take into consideration before making its decision. Typically, much more information than the public is privy to. The fact that a grand jury made this decision and not "the establishment" makes me feel even better about it, as tragic as the whole incident was. The fact that people are blaming a "corrupt system" on this decision, shows that people have already made up their minds on this issue long ago, think their feelings supersede that of a grand jury(who had all the evidence and facts at their disposal) or don't understand how the process works. It's an extreme shallow take on an issue that requires a lot of nuance and understanding. Grand juries are there to prevent corruption and tunnel vision, not to reinforce it.

Ultimately, I think this horribly sad story is not one of police brutality. It was a botched police raid that ended tragically. An innocent life was taken that did not have to be, but I do not believe that life was taken at the hands of a criminal act, by definition of the law. I think all that can be done is to push for quality reform(which I touch on in other blog posts) and Senator Rand Paul has already started that by introducing the 'Justice for Breonna Taylor' Act, which would ban no-knock warrants, which turns out according to AG Cameron didn't actually end up occurring in this case, but is a good start to prevent unnecessary death in future law enforcement raids, nonetheless.

My condolences go out to Breonna Taylor and her family. There are no winners here and it is a heartbreaking situation all around.

The top 20 most overrated players in pro sports

This list is entirely objective and accurate. If you disagree with it, you're wrong. On to it...

1. Ozzie Albies - a pencil bat that lacks home run power, a somewhat speedy base runner who doesn't drive in a lot of runs is considered by many for some insane reason as a "very good" 2nd baseman. He's average at best, he's purely a singles hitter, and when you want at a minimum extra base power out of that position, he doesn't bring a lot to the table. Only 8 total minor league home runs.

2. Mookie Betts - once compared to Ben Revere as a prospect, a short, but speedy outfielder who also lacks power, has been a product of the juiced baseballs(like many who will make this list). Under normal circumstances he's a .265/12/70 guy who just became one of the richest players in baseball. For what? Utter insanity.

3. Cody Bellinger - a guy no one had ever heard of before coming into the big leagues, was at no point a top 50 prospect. He posted very pedestrian minor league numbers, and has overachieved in the bigs due to the juiced baseballs. A guy without a position, as a poor defensive outfielder with a weak arm. Might be a future first baseman.

4. Jacob DeGrom - tabbed as a pitcher with a fastball that tops out at 92 as a prospect and a meticulous pitcher as a prospect, he suspiciously had a "velocity increase" in the major leagues. Sources have told me in the past, the Mets juice the radar gun during home games to inflate his velocity. He's good, but he's not great or dominant.

5. Jayson Tatum - a Bonzi Wells clone, he's a solid NBA player who has a ceiling of "good" who some pundits have absurdly put into the NBA's top 10 already. Shows you how much they know about basketball.

6. Trea Turner - Pronounced Trey-uh(Tre is spelled with no 'a') a defensive-centric shortshop, who comes from a long line of Nationals prospect busts, which finally had a broken trend with the impressive Soto. In fact, I was tempted to put the Nationals' farm system as a whole. Turner, Robles, Taylor... none of them can play.

7. Pete Alonso - a singles hitter in the minor leagues, has been another player aided by juiced baseball and potentially PEDs. He doesn't hit for average and relies on cheap home runs. Interesting stat: he has not hit a home run more than 400 feet in his young career to date.

8. Raine Prescott - a highly inaccurate passer, lacks a strong arm, has been unproductive without an elite offensive line and great receiving weapons.

9.Giannis Antetokounmpo - a career 24% field goal shooter outside of 8 feet, a player who is obviously very good, but proclaimed as "the best in his sport" cannot receive such accolades without winning at the highest level and diversifying his game.

10. Anthony Davis - a very skilled offensive player, who still can't shoot consistently from downtown, Davis' overratedness comes from the defensive side of the ball. A good weak side shotblocker, he doesn't have the body strength to hold up anyone with size or strength out of the paint and in the low post. Arguably the softest big man in the history of the NBA.

11. Michael Conforto - I honestly don't even think highly enough of him to put him on this list, but some people actually think he can play a little, and he's a utility outfielder, Aaron Altherr clone. He does not belong starting on any major league team.

12. Mike Soroka - he's not too overrated yet, because he only has one reason under his belt, but he's a low velocity pitcher who relies on contact to get outs and doesn't have strikeout stuff. Those pitchers are always inconsistent in the major leagues.

13. Rudy Gobert - a nothing offensively who is showing signs of wearing down defensively, he is a guy who will find himself out of the league within 4 years.

14. Stephen Strasburg - a pitcher who was heralded as the "second coming" has never been any more than a #3 starter at any point in his career. A mental midget who doesn't have the mental makeup to handle a big city, he seems right at home with a fan base that doesn't care or can even sell out playoff games.

15. Nikola Jokic - an oafy lumbering center who has offensive skills, but wears down late in games and can't play a lick of defense.

16. Max Muncy - a dude who was waived from the Oakland A's, he's been a product of juiced baseballs and PEDs. Not a single person on the planet knew who this guy was 3 years ago. No one.

17. Draymond Green - I hesitated putting him on this list, because I think people are starting to come to terms with just what this guy is, but he isn't an elite player, he never was. He's a jack of all trades type, who is a liability offensively and some think is a max level player.

18. Mike Stanton - a home run or bust player with no defensive skills whatsoever and a knack for being a horrible playoff and big moment choker, he is vastly overpaid and overrated.

19. Michael Thomas - a very good WR who is more of a product of his system than dominant. Would be productive everywhere, but he is not on the level of Julio Jones, DeAndre Hopkins, and other elite WRs in the NFL/

20. Marcus Peters - a horrible coverage guy who has already been traded twice. He inflates INT because he gambles and gets thrown at a lot because QBs don't respect him.

Legal analysis of the Kenosha shooting incidents

People always ask me whether I’m a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, and whenever I reply with “neither” they say “then what are you?” And I respond the same way: “A seeker of truths.”

When I see incidents like the shooting incidents in Kenosha, I only care about one thing: finding out what happened, who is responsible, and what the appropriate punishment should be. I don’t view these incidents or similar ones with any type of a tribal slant. So in this post I’m going to examine what we know so far, what can be discerned, and who is responsible, and what punishments should be handed out, analyzed from a legal perspective.

Jacob Blake:

According to the latest reports, the police were called to aid a woman who had reported a confrontation with an ex-boyfriend.  That man was Jacob Blake. This man reportedly had previously sexually assaulted her, she claims several times per reports, and he had a history of violent crime and a warrant out for his arrest. Latest reports state she told the officers how much she feared the man due to their history. The police arrived to intervene and place Blake under arrest. A scuffle broke out between Blake and the officers at some point, a failed attempt to taser him was made, and eventually he proceeded to retreat back to his car as officers pursued with guns drawn pointed directly at him. When Blake reached his car, he opened the door, an officer attempts to pull him back from entering the vehicle, and Blake begins climbing or into the driver’s side, an officer yells something at him, reaches around to the opening, and then fire a reported 7 shots into his back.

Officers are legally allowed to use lethal force if they feel their lives or the lives of civilians are in immediate danger. That doesn’t necessarily have to include a direct attempt of lethal force at the officer. That can include potential outcomes should lethal force by the officer not be used. For example, a civilian being asked to comply, refusing, and reaching into his pocket for an object. The reason for this is, if the officer does not act, the individual could pull out a firearm and kill or wound the officer, and hurt any nearby civilians. The officer’s job is to assess the situation and make the best call that protects his life, the life of any accompanying officers, and nearby civilians. This can, at times, lead to subjectivity, as the assessment on what constitutes a potential life and death situation is one’s own judgement. Generally, officers are trained to de-escalate, and attempt to subdue an individual in a non-violent way before resorting to lethal force.

In the case of Jacob Blake, more information needs to come out to make an official determination. Did he threaten the officers? If he said something like “I’m going to my car to get a gun” or he threatened to injure or kill the officers before opening his car door, then by the letter of the law, they could make a good case their lives or civilians were in danger and lethal force was justifiable. No one knows what Blake said, if anything as of yet.

If the situation played out as currently presented, with nothing said, and described above? That is a tougher call to make from a legal analysis perspective. Blake had a warrant out for his arrest. He has a record of violent acts. That factors in when officers asses the threat of danger in a situation. The question here is could the officers have subdued him in a non-violent way and place him under arrest? A case can be made both ways. They tried to subdue him on the ground previously, and tried to taser him, both which failed. There is an argument to be made that he should’ve been detained on the ground long before reaching his car, however that had already been attempted multiple times. Once, on the physical scuffle on the ground, a second with at least one shot from a taser, and a third trying to grab him and pull him back and preventing him from entering his vehicle. Perhaps another attempt would have been necessary. I personally think their multiple attempts would satisfy any investigating body as they adequately followed procedure before resorting to lethal force. One has to also wonder if the death of George Floyd being pinned on the ground had any impact on these officers’ willingness to subdue the subject on the ground.

Regardless, 7 shots feels like excessive force on the surface. Blake’s back was turned to them, and even if they believed he was reaching for a weapon, or had a chance to be(a knife was recovered) 7 shots may seem extreme to many. However, if they reached the point to where they determined lethal force is justified, they are to do whatever is necessary to neutralize the individual and prevent him from harming them or others. Whether that is one shot or 7 shots. For example, to many, one shot would not be considered "excessive" but one shot to the head can easily be more lethal than 7 shots to the torso. In a matter of a few seconds, the officers have to assess the threat level, if they allow him to get into that car, what is the risk someone else, or them could wind or dead or severely harmed. What if he had a gun in the car? If he is allowed to retrieve a firearm, the lives of the officers and anyone nearby would be extreme danger. Given that he already has a warrant out for his arrest, the more trouble he gets himself into, the less he has to lose, given that jail time is already likely a given.  Given his history of violent crime, the fact that they were in a blind spot and couldn't see into the car, the fact that there were several innocent bystanders in the immediate area, and the fact that there were children in the car; having gone over this incident for several days now, I lean toward them making the right call here in the brief number of seconds they have once he opens that car door and tries to enter.

It is a lean for me right now, it is not a slam dunk. This isn't an armed man with an assault rifle coming out from a bank shooting everything in sight and officers needing to take him down without a second thought. Keep in mind that since he had a warrant for his arrest and they were there to arrest him, had they let him get into the car, the situation would have turned into a vehicle pursuit and potential high speed chase to arrest this man... with children in the car. The biggest question overall to me is not were 7 shots excessive, it's could they have peacefully and restrained him prior to reaching his car without using lethal force?

Legally, this is a somewhat difficult call. This will be a tough one to charge the officers with, and in a court of law would be tough to convict. I think the prosecution and defense could both make strong arguments. The defense could argue that there is a man who has a warrant out for his arrest, already resisted arrest, subduing him had failed, he had a history of violent acts, and tried to enter a vehicle creating a blind spot for the officers. The prosecution could argue that they had him outnumbered, could have found a way to subdue him in a non violent manner, and used lethal force irresponsibly.

Regardless, I think anyone who thinks this is a clear cut case one way or another is not viewing this in an objective way. I don’t believe there is enough information to determine either way as we currently stand, and even as currently presented, there are arguments to be made both in support or against the officers from a legal perspective. The question here is legality, not morality. They stand independent in a court of law, and any charge and prosecution has to prove they broke the letter of the law. Unfortunately, there is no body cam footage, which would’ve provided more evidence, and they definitely should have been on. It would have helped clarify some unknowns one way or the other in this case. I will continue to update as more information becomes available. But as of now, again, I do lean that this was a justifiable use of lethal force. Of course he survived, so this is technically attempted lethal force I guess, though the intent when firing that many shots is certainly to shoot to kill.

Lastly, in case you were wondering, yes, with the warrant out for his arrest, the officers there are obligated to place him under arrest. If not, anyone who could potentially be harmed that day by him would be the responsibility of the police department for not doing their job, and the families of anyone he potentially would’ve hurt could sue the department for untold millions in damages.

Kyle Rittenhouse:

Early information indicates that Kyle Rittenhouse traveled from Illinois to Wisconsin with an AR-15 with the intention of protecting public property that was being vandalized and looted. At some point a confrontation with protestors and/or rioters broke out, an individual chased and threw something at Rittenhouse, he turned around and fired on the individual, hitting him in the head and killing him. After this, nearby people gave chase to Rittenhouse as he fled the area, he was eventually struck with a skateboard, fell to the ground and shot two more individuals, killing one and wounding the other. He was ultimately charged with first degree murder.

First of all, a 17 year old kid is not of legal age to open carry a gun in the states of Illinois and Wisconsin, so that is breaking the law right there, and traveling across state lines with a firearm to defend property that isn’t yours is a no-no, and likely was going to lead to something bad. Do I know what his true intent was? No. No one does. Anyone who suggests they do has an agenda. Maybe he was an immature ramped up teenage kid who wanted to see some action. Maybe he truly just did want to do good. I saw a video of him requesting to offer medical aid on someone who was injured, before the shootings took place. Who knows if that was anecdotal or not. Vigilante justice is not ok. He was not a sworn officer or owner of said property, he doesn’t have the legal authority to protect another's property with deadly force, nor is he of legal age to openly carry a firearm to do it even if it were. He does however have the right to act in self defense if his life was in danger. Was his life in danger? Just like the Jacob Blake case, there is a lot we still don’t know. What happened outside of the recorded footage?  Was he threatened to be killed? Was a gun pointed at him during any of the shootings? All 3 individuals shot had criminal records. Two of them some forms of violent crime and another was a registered sex offender. Yes, this matters, in a different way than the Jacob Blake case. It shows a predisposition to criminality. This was of no significance to Rittenhouse, as he didn’t know these individuals, but it could be used in a court of law to argue that these men could’ve very well had nefarious intent to harm this man, given that they had a criminal background, even if he didn’t know their history.

The biggest question here is, did he act in self defense or did he perpetuate the violence? No one can adequately answer that at the moment until more evidence is gathered. The first shooting is far more important than the other two, as that is the one that sparked the sequence of events, and is more questionable with the currently presented evidence as to whether or not it qualifies as self defense. Remove the first shooting, and being chased by a mob of people and subsequently attacked would qualify for self defense in most situations. As it currently stands, it’s very tricky, just like with the Jacob Blake case. Does chasing someone and throwing a flaming object at them give cause to feeling one’s life is in danger? The jury would have to make that call. The defense could argue that people have been shot and killed in other riots and protests across the country, so an individual being chased with an object has cause to fear for his life. The prosecution could argue that throwing an object that didn’t hit him does not qualify as grounds to defend yourself in a lethal manner, and if he could’ve kept running, he would’ve likely been free of any immediate extreme danger.

The first degree murder charge is going to be a tough one to sell in court. They have to prove intent to kill or premeditation. One could argue traveling across state lines with a gun to join a protest/riot is premeditation. Others could argue that he didn’t shoot anyone until chased, attack, or provoked, thus there is no clear sign of any premeditation or direct intent to kill. I personally think any good defense team would be able to convince a jury this was not first degree murder with the current evidence provided. If anything, second degree would have a much stronger case, and even then with an argument of self defense, it would not be a slam dunk.

Personal thoughts:

At a time like the present, sowing division and discord through propaganda is the last thing this country needs. To see journalists and news outlets cast Rittenhouse as a “white supremacist” when there has been no evidence of such and even the Anti Defamation League says through examining his social media they’fe found no evidence of radicalization is both irresponsible and divisive. It’s pushing an agenda to create a narrative that doesn’t exist.

The people most responsible for these events and ongoing madness in other cities are at the top. Our nation’s governors and mayors are not doing enough to quell violence and destruction and keep their citizens safe. They’re mandating law enforcement hold back and creating a culture of lawlessness. The only thing proven to ever come from lawlessness since the beginning of time is death, destruction, and chaos. And that’s exactly what you’re seeing in these cities. Several people were killed in the confines of Chaz earlier this year, and already at least 2 people have been killed in Kenosha. Dozens have been injured in Seattle and Portland. This is futile leadership. And we need strength at a time like this. We need crackdowns and we need them yesterday, or more innocent lives are going to be lost.

Did either of these people deserve to die or be severely wounded? No. Few people deserve to die. The question here is were the actions legally justified or not. As it currently stands, I believe there are strong cases for either side of these incidents, and that isn’t always the case. Until more information comes out, and don’t know the full story, it’s impossible to speak in absolutes. Unfortunately, many people have already made up their mind about these cases. Emotionally driven by social media video, which neither provides context or a full story. Through emotion, logic is lost, and we need thinking right now more than ever.

In the fight for justice, Americans must be careful not to destroy progress

As a society, in the realm of crime, we strive for progress, because we understand perfection can never be achieved. Murder, rape, robberies, child abuse, etc... we do our best to ensure crimes like these never take place, but accept that unless you can cure evil, you can never cure violent crime.

Just like violent crime can never be cured, neither can police brutality. As long as evil exists in this world and people openly carry weapons of death, there will be lives lost that didn't need to be. It's impossible to completely eradicate just like any other act of violence. The goal is progress. Continued progress. Charging bad officers when they commit wrongdoing and hoping that the prosecution and juries do their job in the court of law to hold them accountable. Training officers better so poor decision-making is less frequent, and giving greater punishments out so there is a far greater deterrence on any officer acting inappropriately. Advancing toward a place in society our citizens can be proud of. If you read social media and listen to news reports across the country you'd believe progress hasn't been made at all. You'd think that both police brutality and violent crime are worse now than ever before. Many people do believe this.

In a recent poll, 56% of Americans surveyed said gun crimes in the United States are the highest they've ever been. Being inundated with videos on social media and network news pumping it into your pores, it makes sense many would feel that way. However, perception is not reality. The reality is, that couldn't be further from the truth. Gun crimes in the United States peaked way back in 1993. Crime in America has been on a steady decline since the mid 90's. In fact, the 2010 decade(2010-2019) is the best decade in recorded American history(dating back to 1960) in terms of homicide rate per capita. Yes, believe it or not, there were less homicides per 100,000 people between 2010-2019 than there were between 1960-1969. For total crimes per capita it was the 2nd best decade since 1960.

Visual news is more impactful than reading text. When people are hit with a constant barrage of the worst our country has to offer, their perceptions are distorted. People are always going to be more passionate about news video than they are reading a story or hearing it on the radio. So when every few weeks a new video of police brutality hits social media, it's only natural for people to believe that it has gotten out of control and is worse than it has ever been. When in reality, just like people believing recent gun crime is the worst it has ever been, the perception on police brutality couldn't be farther from the truth.

2019 marked the best year in 3 decades for unarmed African American citizens being killed by police officers. About half of them were deemed justifiable, as in an officer's life or the lives of civilians were in immediate danger. Regardless of those determinations or the subjectivity, and whether those were right or wrong, even factoring in the whole number(15) that is a 61% decrease from 2015(38). That is 15 in millions of police interactions with civilians that year. Decreasing any plague on society by 61% is, in my opinion, significant progress. Imagine if in 5 years we cut the number of rapes in America by 61%. Or cut the number of child abuse cases by 61%. This would be celebrated news and politicians and lawmakers everywhere would be praised for the progress they've made. Any innocent life lost is unacceptable, but we have to start somewhere. 2019 felt like a great starting point for tangible and noticeable change.

How come the recognition of improvement doesn't happen for police brutality? For one, as long as when the acts do occur and they're caught on video, emotions will always be rawer and realer. It's hard just to forget something and rationalize it with objectivity when you've seen something so traumatizing and horrific. People are in pain, and during times of strife, the last thing people want to do is think statistically or through data. It's understandable. If someone murdered a loved one of mine, I'd want to kill that person, despite the reasonable thing to do being waiting for law enforcement and the courts to handle it. The other part of this are the news media. They're a business, and just like any other business it's their job to drive ratings and create buzz. Outrage has been proven to generate more views and clicks, and nothing right now is a more hot button issue in society than police brutality. They are sowing division and discord in the name of their bottom line. Don't expect objectivity and nuance from any news network, regardless of your political leanings. Whiteblowers have confirmed that agencies will push whatever the agendas of the higher-ups are of those networks, and those reporting have no choice but to comply or be fired from their jobs. I've learned that years ago, it's why I stopped watching news altogether, and do my own research. It's more time-consuming, but at least I know I'm getting correct information.

This emotion and outrage has manifested into a call to defund police departments across the country. These calls range anywhere from just taking some money away and pumping it back into the communities, to "total abolishing" of both law enforcement and prisons. Regardless of your preferred approach, and how you phrase it, one truth remains a constant: if your goal is progress, and you want actual tangible and noticeable change both in crime in America and in police brutality, there is only one approach that has consistently worked consistently in America--increased funding for police departments.

In the 1990's, when violent crime in America reached its peak, there was a nationwide effort to get crime under control. In the mid 90's sparked a major funding campaign to provide more for police departments around the country, and hire an influx of officers. The result? The first decline in crime in 35 years. Crime started to rise in the United States in the 60's and didn't start to hit steady decline until 1995. Crackdowns, increased funding, more officers, better technology, new specialized units all contributed to this. That is progress.

In the 2010's after some high profile police violence cases sparked national and global outrage, police reform started. Body cams became more commonplace, departments started to increase community relations training, and hold more officers accountable for wrongdoing. The result lead to the previously-mentioned 3 decade low in unarmed black citizens being killed by cops and not just black citizens either. Police brutality across the board was making significant strides. More bad officers were prosecuted than ever before. Significant progress was finally being made, through proper funding and reform. Ideally, we'd all like these problems to go away overnight, but finally there were signs of meaningful progress. Imagine where we could be in a handful of years if we had stayed on that course. Maybe we could have gotten the numbers into single digits. One can dream, can't I?

Just like anything else in this world, to build it better, money needs to be put into it. To improve your home, business, car, school, it needs funding. Defunding police departments is a punishment, not a solution. It's akin to banning your child from eating junk food for a week after you caught him stealing chocolates from the cupboard after dinner. Except, in the case of defunding the police, it's much closer to banning your child from eating entirely. That isn't going to get your child to stop stealing junk food. It'll just make them hungry and more desperate to do it more. You'd be making it more difficult for over 800,000 officers to do their jobs to the utmost effectiveness for the crimes of less than 1% of them.

It comes down to one simple question: what is your goal? Do you want to lower crime? Do you want to decrease the amount of bad cops in our nation's departments? Do you want to lower police brutality? Then you need a practical and rational solution, not an emotional one. Funding is the one stream that allows departments to improve to achieve these goals. Things like better training, better technology, better pay for officers to attract more people to the job, higher morale, specialty units that can divvy up responsibility, and mental health care for our officers, and effective reform. All of these things require money, and if you want things to improve, these areas need advancements. We've all seen the steep rise in crime in cities that have removed specialty units and decreased funding. We've seen businesses start to relocate from some of these cities. All of this has the potential to lead to long-term damage to these cities. Not just in the form of crime, but poverty, and as desperation increases, typically does drug use and gang activity to capitalize on the drug demand.

Taking away some funds to put back into the community sounds thoughtful and logical, but it has never been proven to work effectively in terms of crime. Our nation's major cities have had millions of dollars pumped into them many times over the decades. Those dollars are typically wasted, as it's attempting to treat the outcome, not the source. The end result is the same cities today are impoverished that were decades ago. Parts of Philly, Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, LA, NYC have been riddled with impoverished neighborhoods for as long as I've been alive and many of those cities had money invested in them. It's not until crime is lowered that neighborhoods can reach sustainable improvement long-term. There is no cure-all for these major cities, but they can be improved. Completely wiping out crime and poverty in these cities is about as realistic as wiping out viruses and bacteria. There's too much of it and too many causes to totally eradicate it. It can, however, be lessened. The only solution proven to consistently work long-term in this regard is increased funding of the police departments. Increased funding leads to more officers on the streets, which leads to less crime, which leads to more businesses moving into these neighborhoods, which leads to property value and revenue streams increasing.

We've seen the improvements to parts of Camden, which started with a rebuilding of its police department by the county sheriff's office taking over, providing better funding, more officers, and better training. The result was decrease in crime, safer neighborhoods, and the construction of the Camden Waterfront, which even has the Philadelphia 76ers taking their practice facility to its confines. Just here in Philly, we've seen parts of the city like Fishtown improve greatly over the last decade as crime has decreased. You would be hard-pressed to find any major city that thrived long-term with decreases in police funding. It doesn't happen. You may be able to get away with it in some small South Dakota town that has about 120 people, gets one homicide every 5 years, and officers spend their days escorting the elderly across major intersections. Good luck getting away with it in major cities. We're seeing the results this year with defunding as crime rises. We saw the results in the other direction in the mid 90's when crime finally lowered after 30 years with better funding.

We know what works. History and data show will always be there to show us this. We need to be vigilant and logical, not emotional in our decision-making... as difficult as that is during these times. I, like everyone else, just want violence decrease as much as possible. Whether it be from civilian or police officer. We were well on the way to making significant long-term progress in 2019, and I fear all of that has been thrown off the rails. Cities are burning, departments are being defunded, cops are resigning, crime is rising, and civil division grows ever wider. We must fight for justice without destroying progress. We must not punish hundreds of thousands of officers for the actions of the few, or the end result will be the suffering of more civilians. It's a lose-lose. Those in charge of spreading and reporting news need to be more responsible in the messages they deliver and the data they withhold. If not, we could find ourselves down a slope, which could take us right back to the way things were in the 90's. Rampant crime, bitter and jaded cops with no morale, police brutality on the rise, and neighborhoods unsafe for our families in children. That's not the country want to live in and I don't think it's one you want to live in either.

I hate the Philadelphia 76ers

I hate the Philadelphia 76ers. Not the brand or the logo, that I'll always love. I hate this iteration of the franchise. The 76ers led by Joshua Harris, David Blitzer, Scott O'Neil, Brett Brown, Elton Brand, and Bryan Colangelo's staffers who are somehow still hanging around.

I hate that Joshua Harris allowed Adam Silver to make him force out Sam Hinkie when the Sixers broke no rules and did nothing wrong.

I hate how Harris allowed Jerry Colangelo to hire his incompetent son as GM.

I hate how Bryan Colangelo said he would bring credibility and connections to the front office and they couldn't lure any big name players to the organization.

I hate how they rushed their rebuild because they got tired of sticking with a plan they chose to enact in the first place.

I hate how they sell 2nd round picks every year.

I hate how they traded up for Markelle Fultz.

I hate how they forced Hinkie into drafting Jahlil Okafor.

I hate how every single year they always botch an injury situation with one of their key players.

I hate how they allowed Joel Embiid to play a game with a bone bruise and meniscus tear because it was on national TV.

I hate how they got a once in a lifetime mulligan from the sports gods in BurnerGate, and instead of using that gift to right a wrong, they waited 2 months to hire a GM, went into the draft and free agency without a GM, and then hired a dude from the Delaware Blue Coats with zero NBA GM experience... when they had the most coveted GM job in sports.

I hate how they took Zhaire Smith(or Bridges) over Michael Porter Jr. and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander.

I hate how they arrogantly allowed themselves to wait for LeBron James in free agency 2018 when the basketball world knew he was going to sign with the Lakers.

I hate how they overpaid in trade compensation for Tobias Harris, to give them the rights to have to overpay him monetarily in the summer of 2019.

I hate how they gave a declining big man who is a backup center a mega contract.

I hate how they traded for Jimmy Butler, who was their best scorer and shot creator from the guard/wing position since Allen Iverson, only to not want to bring him back after coming one bucket away from beating the NBA champion Toronto Raptors.

I hate how they decided to build a 90's era roster with no shooting or shot creation in the summer of 2019.

I hate how they always get duped by Danny Ainge in trades no matter who is GM.

I hate how they always manage to find a way to alienate their best player.

I hate how Joshua Harris also owns the New Jersey Devils.

I hate how Joshua Harris talks.

I hate the way Joshua Harris looks.

I hate Scott O'Neil's stupid overly gelled hair style.

I hate how they always made Brett Brown answer for the injury situations instead of sending front office people out there to do it.

I hate how they got rid of the red Sixers jerseys alternates they introduced a handful of years ago.

I hate how they blew confetti prematurely like a bunch of amateurs against the Celtics.

But here's what I hate most of all. When most parents raise their children, they teach us to hate the usual stuff. Rapists, murderers, child abusers, etc. One thing parents never think to teach their children is that the people in our lives who we are likely going to hate most of all are the ones who break our heart. The ones who hurt us. We can talk about how much we hate people we don't know, but true genuine hatred is spawned from emotion only a personal connection can generate.

Most of all I hate that the Sixers betrayed me. Not me, the person, me the fan. The Sixers were my first love. I wanted to see an NBA championship for most of my life even more than an Eagles Super Bowl. There wasn't a single time in my entire life where I ever felt the Sixers were going to win a championship. Even in 2001, I think most fans knew they weren't going to beat the Lakers. Sure, we had our moment in game 1, but that didn't last long. 2019 was the closest the Sixers ever got. I truly believe if they had beaten the Raptors, they'd have gone to the Finals and possibly won. All they had to do was run it back and they'd have had a great chance to do it again in 2020. Instead, they decided to go in another direction. The wrong direction. And they completely boxed themselves into a corner that's almost impossible to get out of.

The Sixers have no cap room, they have no assets, they have no elite young talent they can flip in a package for a superstar. They have no draft picks. Most importantly though, they have neither the owner nor the GM to acquire those things and figure it out. What the Sixers did was rob me, and every other fan of a chance at a championship. A feat fans have waited close to 40 years for, and through several years of tanking and horrible basketball only to squander in a couple years everything they built. They stole my love from the game from me, and they stole any desire I had to watch something I love. They broke my heart and ruined my first sporting love. Yeah, I hate the Celtics, and the Lakers. I hate the Cowboys and the Giants. But none of those teams ever broke my heart. They have annoyed the shit out of me and nagged me, but never hurt me. The Sixers hurt me. They ripped my heart out. And I'll never forgive them. At least not under this ownership, and I absolutely hate them for it.

I don't think aliens ever came to earth and why I doubt they ever will

Following the Pentagon's declassification of videos revealing unknown flying objects, speculation has run rampant on whether or not alien life is indeed out there, and if aliens have ever came to planet earth. Following that up with intel which suggests future reveals may show materials found that are "not of this planet" and the madness has caused everyone's collective minds to run wild.

I will never dismiss the idea that aliens have been on planet earth or that UFOs were truly alien spacecrafts. However, I think it's unlikely, and I'll detail why I don't think it's likely aliens have ever been to planet earth and why I feel it's also likely they never will(if they are out there in the cosmos).

First off, scientists estimate that 95% of the observable universe is unreachable from planet earth and vice versa. The reason for this is because the universe is expanding. The farther space is from a given point, the faster it expands from that point. Get far enough from that point in space and it expands faster than the speed of light. As we currently stand, no form of matter can travel faster than the speed of light. However, space is not matter. Space does not follow the rules of matter. Space can expand as fast as it chooses to. So, based off this knowledge, scientists have estimated that 95% of the universe is unreachable from earth even if you could somehow impossibly reach the speed of light in space travel. It would be like driving a race car at 100 mph while the finish line is moving away from you at 150 mph. You will never be able to reach that finish line, and it will just increase its distance from you.

Factoring this in, I'm going to immediately remove 95% of the observable universe out of the equation. That leaves only 5% of that universe left with the potential for alien life that could find earth, lowering the likelihood right off the top. Now, let's try and get into the minds of an alien race. For starters, I think it's reasonable to assume that any alien species with the capability to reach distant planets possesses much greater technology than we humans have. With that assumption, if you are an alien race advanced enough to travel to distant planets and galaxies, hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of light years away, wouldn't it make more logical sense to travel to a planet that could help advance you as a species than one which is behind you technologically?

Some may argue that humans are interesting creatures and we would be interesting to observe and study as a species to aliens. Let's explore that logic. As a comparison, if humans could travel to distant planets right now, would you want to travel to a planet that may have the key to extending human life, curing cancer, teaching us teleportation... or would you want to travel to a planet with dinosaur-like creatures to merely observe and then trek all the way across endless space back to your home planet? An advances species will almost assuredly prioritize logic and efficiency in anything they do, and any plan of travel through the universe is a safe bet to have something of significance gained for that species.

Others have speculated about sliens coming here and targeting our natural resources. Yes, planet earth is rich in resources. We have planet full of water and minerals. So does basically everywhere else in the universe, and hell, even our very own solar system. If aliens wanted to scour the universe for natural resources, they need only go to Jupiter's moon Europa which is believed to be rich in water, an infinite number of comets floating aimlessly out there, which also contain water. If it's minerals the aliens might want, the Kuiper Belt is full of asteroids far more rich in minerals than our planet. Oh, and they can do it without having to exterminate billions of living beings and engaging in planetary warfare with earth to boot.

So, we've eliminated the likelihood of specifically targeting earth for resources and for observation or advancement. What about accidentally stumbling upon earth during their travels? This I find the most unlikely of all. The possibility that a spacecraft would be traveling through a virtually infinite space and accidentally just finding earth is less likely than you finding one specific grain of sand in the entire Sahara Desert.

In general, I don't think our species or planet would have very much to offer an alien species that other planets and potentially living species can't. And it's an incredibly long way to travel for organisms that would likely want to be as efficient as possible. In fact, because of this, I think the most likely scenario if aliens do ever reach earth is doing so in the form of an advanced machine and artificial intelligence. Think about it. If you have the technology to travel insane distances and to other galaxies, you almost definitely have the technology to build advanced machines who can think, deduce, operate spacecrafts, interpret language, and communicate for them. Hell, we are well on our way of doing that and we haven't even landed humans on Mars yet. If you're going to be wasting ridiculously long periods of time in space travel, have machines, which can theoretically live forever, do it for you, while the living organisms can spend their time doing far more important things.

If one day we do, finally, do get a confirmed indisputable UFO landing on earth's soil for all to see, expect that what steps out of the cockpit isn't a big-headed, big-eyed looking freak; or massive creatures with long faces, sharp teeth, long spear-like tails that bleed acid. Expect advanced machines to step out, and probably greet us kindly, as any advanced species would know that no reasonable communication is made through hostility. Hell, they may even look like us, at least on the outside, to make us less fearful of them.

The situation in Portland: what to do and are the Feds the right answer?

Politics aren't my field. I spend my time studying true crime, crime data, law and order procedures and tactics, and everything under the crime "umbrella." So, I'm going to be analyzing this situation from a law and order perspective, not a political one. Some people think deploying federal agents to Portland(and other major cities) is a political tactic. I don't know if it is or isn't. To me, that question is irrelevant. The question is: is this the right move from a law and order standpoint, and if not, what is?

Rioting has been going on in Portland just shy of 60 straight days, every single day. I've seen the videos and I've seen the footage. These are things publications can't cover up. I've seen the fires, I've seen the use of explosives, I've seen the destruction, and the violence, and the vandalism. I don't think any sane person would disagree that this cannot continue. It does no one of any race, religion, gender any good.

Every night, a mob of people storm the Portland courthouse and attempt to loot it and burn it down. Police haven't been allowed to intervene to any meaningful capacity. We've seen in other cities over the last couple months that if allowed, buildings will burn, will be looted, and will be destroyed. All buildings should be protected, especially our federal institutions. This is a courthouse. A society without law and order cannot and will not function. The courthouse is an important building and it must be protected.

If using federal authority to help quell these acts isn't the right answer, then what is? Local law enforcement in Portland either is unwilling or incapable of doing so. If they were able, this would not still be going on almost 60 days strong. People were against the use of the national guard and military during the other riots of the last several weeks, so apparently people won't be on board with that either. SWAT is a special unit which uses military-level equipment, which is similar with the national guard, so they certainly would voice the same complaints they would with SWAT. So, what other options are there to do right now, this moment in time, in the immediacy, to stop the destruction and violence? I don't see any other answers. The federal courthouse in Portland is federal property, and federal agents have the right to defend it. Have they been perfect in conducting their authority? No, but in such a crazy time right now, very few solutions will go smoothly. Allowing this madness is in no way acceptable, for any reason.

There are a lot of falsities being put out there by the media and on social media. Complaints about the agents using tear gas, using unmarked vehicles, and not reading people their Miranda rights when they are detained. None of these tactics are technically unlawful given the circumstances, assuming the people detained have committed acts of violence and/or vandalism. Now, while detaining someone committing these acts may have bad optics, if reports are true that they are using these methods because A) Agents were being doxxed through their identification and their home addresses were being posted online putting their families' lives in danger and B) Anyone detained is being either transported safely to a calmer location or being lawfully put in a jail, I have no problems with it. Again, if those reports are indeed true. Miranda rights are not legally required to place someone under arrest, despite some suggesting the contrary.

Regardless, I don't see a better alternative than federal agents right this moment. Ideally, local law enforcement would deal with it themselves, but since that isn't happening, this is the next best thing. I believe those who want to sow division and discord in our society right now are pushing this agenda that this is a "totalitarian movement" for a reason. The more anger they can generate in the public, the more support they get. The more support they get, the better chances they can use sheer will to enforce their agenda. I believe that the peaceful protestors just want equality and social justice. Those people are not the individuals trying to burn down federal buildings. The people causing destruction are a different beast. They are self-proclaimed Marxists who want to start a revolution in America. Why they want to do this? I have my theories, which I'll save for another time, but it's pretty apparent to me at least through their actions, voices, messages, and posts that this is the goal. To destroy capitalism, our entire law and order system, and rebuild it with values they(and they alone) value.

The majority of America(and citizens of Portland) hate what is going on in their city. Unfortunately, it's not going to stop until law and order starts cracking down and cracking down hard. The longer our leaders pander to a vocal and extreme minority, the worse it is going to get. These Portland riots going on close to 60 days are proof of this. As was Chaz, in Seattle. It started off like a "block party" until things got out of control and innocent people were murdered within its confines. Not until mayor Jenny Durkan's personal property was threatened, was law enforcement finally allowed to crack down. When that happened, local law enforcement moved in, and retook the area rather peacefully within a day. Mayor Ted Wheeler is just as cowardly. He marched with rioters the other night, and stood there while his own citizens threw explosives, projectiles, and set fire to a federal courthouse. Attempted arson in his presence, a very serious crime, went on totally unfettered. Almost as some pathetic attempt to get people who despise him and always will despise him(because he's not one of them) to like him. This stunt was rewarded with bottles and trash thrown at him as people chanted "Fuck Ted Wheeler" while he was whisked away by security into the night.

It appears, much like Jenny Durkan, he isn't going to step up and do what's necessary until bodies start dropping. By then, it's too little too late. The families of these loved ones will never get them back. Until then, analyzing all options, I believe federal agents being brought in is the best option. And if that makes me "wrong" in the eyes of people because it happens to be in the same line of thinking as the president, then so be it. I will always call it how I see it. Whether or not it aligns with Trump's agenda means nothing to me. I want what's best for the city of Portland, and the majority of the people in the city who are not taking part in this madness who are afraid to go outside and want their city to stop burning and get back to normal. Ironically, the solution to all of this is the simplest solution of all. Stop rioting. Stop burning things, stop attacking federal buildings, stop throwing projectiles at cops, stop destroying property. Either go home, or protest peacefully. Then, everyone will be happy and will be able to exist peacefully together. In the real world, where law and order is paramount, action is met with action. The sad lesson learned here is if you let a problem fester, it will only grow greater. If local law enforcement was allowed to put this to bed weeks ago, it would never have come to this. Hopefully this is a lesson learned for all, but in the world of political agendas, I doubt such is the case.

The targeting of the McCloskey's in St. Louis is a political stunt and awful miscarriage of justice

There is a news story that has really been bothering me this week, because frankly, it is just an awful miscarriage of justice inspired by a political agenda. If you've been following the news, you probably saw the story about a couple in St. Louis named Mark and Patricia McCloskey who brandished firearms at rioters who broke onto the property of their home and allegedly threatened them with violence and arson. No shots were fired and no one was killed.

It was announced yesterday that the couple would be charged with "unlawful use of a weapon." Anyone in this world who stands for the proper use of our criminal justice system should be outraged by this. When the story first broke weeks ago, the optics of the initial leaking of information looked bad. Two white people brandishing guns against "peaceful protestors" (as the media would characterize the individuals who showed up at their property) during a time of rallies for racial equality across the country. However, as more information started to come out, it was found that an angry mob broke through the front gate to their home, marched up to the front of their house, and were yelling, and allegedly making violent threats including executing the couple, burning down their home, and killing their dog. In today's climate where violence and destruction has erupted across the nation, these were obviously not threats to brush off. Any sane person at the very least would feel scared and even more reasonably feel their life was in some measure of danger.

So the couple did what any person who owned a firearm would do; retrieve them and defend their private property and potentially their lives. The end result was at least some modicum of a success. No one was hurt, no one was killed. The McCloskey's didn't go Bonnie and Clyde and start shooting recklessly into the crowd trying to kill people. Yet, for some reason, the District Attorney Kimberly Gardner seems to have a stick up her ass against this couple. The obvious question is why? Missouri is a castle doctrine state. Meaning, you have the legal right to defend your private property with force if intruders unlawfully enter, especially if you have a right to fear for your safety. The McCloskey's didn't even use force. They used firearms as a deterrent to prevent any violence upon them or destruction of their property. No matter which way you slice it, no crime was committed here. Absolutely none. The charges were "unlawful use of a weapon" but Missouri state law clearly defines their use of firearms as perfectly lawful.

So again, why the charges? The only answer I can fathom at this point is it is a political stunt. Over the past couple months we've seen politicians across the country pander to an angry vocal mob to further their own political careers. They, for some reason, either through ignorance, idiocy, or just lack of reading the temperature of their own constituents don't grasp that these mobs are a vocal minority. However, they don't care about enforcing the law justly as they were elected to do. They are afraid that the same angry mob will come for them at some point, knowing that nerfed police departments across the country(through these politicians' own direction) will be unable to stop them. So, instead of standing their ground and doing what is righteous, lawful, and brave, they cowardly choose the act of pandering even if it means neglecting their own duties. District Attorney Kimberly Gardner has chosen her own well-being, and political career over two individuals she was sworn to protect through the letter of the law. A disgusting, shameful, and disgraceful miscarriage of justice.

It doesn't help that certain reporters with agendas are purposely hiding or neglecting certain facts of this story in their articles, painting the McCloskey's out to be raging lunatics just carelessly flaunting the might of an arsenal, while also describing a group of people who tore down their front gate and stormed their home as "peaceful protestors." These reporters want nothing other than to sow discord and division in this country by prioritizing agenda over facts and truth. Depending on who reads these stories, people will have the facts of the case wrong, and possibly become one of the angry public voices themselves, putting even more pressure on the city's officials to bring justice when there was none deserved here.

This story should scare every single American, regardless of who you are and where you lean politically. As someone who follows true crime and reads stories daily about true bad guys and true evil being brought to justice, this story hasn't sat well with me at all since I first discovered it. This tells you that public pressure supersedes the letter of the law for at least one District Attorney. This tells you that it's only worthy to protect these laws when it is convenient for those in charge. This opens the door for anyone to be charged with anything if an angry mob demands it. That isn't the type of world I ever want to live in. Where the lines between good and bad are blurred by arbitrary logic, and people who likely don't even understand the law get to force those who do, to enforce it through their will. Thankfully, both the governor and AG have publicly stated that they will pardon the couple if it came to it, and with these charges it looks like it is going to happen. We need someone to step up and enforce the law properly at a time where our leaders are cowering in fear of a small vocal group of angry extremists.

This country is in no way perfect. But if you want justice, if you want equality, and you want a better life for yourselves and your families, then the law must be upheld... equally, for everyone. The moment that breaks down, our society soon after breaks down. We elect our leaders to enforce these laws and justice because we don't have the power(or smarts) to do it ourselves. Once we lose that, we lose everything and chaos ensues.

Dan Snyder is a piece of shit, but should not be forced to sell his team

In my life, I have always tried to pride myself on being a man of strong convictions and principles. I believe your principles should be applied ubiquitously in life. Meaning, if a time comes when someone you are not a fan of is wronged, then you should stand up and support that person even if you don't like them. I believe that if you compromise your principles when it is convenient, then you are a person without any principles at all.

I am no fan of Dan Snyder. Granted, I don't know a ton about him, but everything I've heard about him in bits and pieces has not been positive. So my opinion on him has always been "cautiously negative." I don't loathe the guy, but I tend to believe one has a poor reputation for a reason. Dan Snyder has given the public a plethora of reasons to doubt his character as a human being. His insistence on keeping a racially insensitive team name, when many people openly supported changing the name, including in his own fan base. Failing to stand by his own player, Trent Williams, who was diagnosed with cancer, allowing a rift between one of the team's best players and the organization. Allowing discord to grow behind closed doors among executives and staffers that created for a toxic working environment. Not to mention many other rumored issues. And now, the latest information comes via The Washington Post, where as many as 15 women have come forward alleging sexual harassment and improprieties in the Redskins organization. The indictments on Snyder just keep piling.

Dan Snyder himself was not accused in this report. He is guilty of allowing toxic behavior to run roughshod in his organization, and for him that is a terrible look that just adds to his ever-growing negative reputation. However, in my opinion, these should not be grounds to have a sports franchise that he legally purchased and owns taken away from him. I will never support morality policing. Ever. Under any circumstance. Dan Snyder's culpability in the wrongdoing of his staffers is both subjective and arbitrary. I think almost everyone will agree that is makes him look incompetent at best, and a slimeball at worst, and that the owner of a team is responsible for those who work under them. But, that's from a moral perspective, not a legal one. And being incompetent and a slimeball is not a crime. Nowhere is it said that to own a sports team, you have to be a great and respected human being. If Snyder himself committed sexual improprieties or was proven to have actively encouraged others to engage in harassment or inappropriate behavior, then that would be a different story, and I would be first in line to support his ouster, but as of now he was not alleged to have done so. As this story continues to unfold, he, as of now, is basically accused of gross incompetence and/or negligence. Which in my opinion doesn't meet the NFL bylaws for owner removal of directly engaging in detrimental conduct themselves.

In this country, we always have separated morality from legality. It's a necessity. For Dan Snyder to have his team stripped away from him because he did something morally wrong, is morality policing to a T. It sets a terribly dangerous precedent that I want absolutely no part of in society and in the sports world. Where every time a sports owner does or says something people deem immoral, they can just have their sports teams they legally purchased taken away from them. Especially when morality is an ever-sliding scale that seems to shift based on whatever the vocal outrage mob decides to take up arms against on any given day. We simply cannot allow a reality to exist where the general public, and a small portion of it at that, gets to decide matters of legal precedent based on moral standards. Ever. Especially when in today's absurd social climate, things deemed morally inappropriate by some in the vocal minority include: using the term "master bedroom," saying men can't get pregnant, and starting a restaurant that cooks food not typically associated with the owner's personal ethnicity.

Think that's hyperbolic and it would never get to that point? Maybe. But then again, I never thought I'd see the day where someone lost their job for cracking their knuckles out their car window, a soccer player be released for something their wife posted on social media, or major media publications would call for the banning of the Star Spangled Banner and celebration of the 4th of July. Once you open the door to where morality and subjectivity rule the day, in the age of social media, it's now those with the loudest voices, and not the soundest, who will decide what is right and wrong based on their personal ethics. Forgive me for not even wanting the remote possibility of living in an age where some crazy scenario like the public pressure of an angry mob scaring a league and its owners into forcing the sale of a team for an owner's wife being photographed in public wearing the jersey of a player who said something bad on social media 10 years prior, is something that is no longer considered crazy.

Two things can be true: Dan Snyder is likely a piece of shit who doesn't deserve the privilege of owning an NFL team, but there is no precedent here to allow morality to dictate legality. And until he or any other owner commits a crime or violates a legal statute agreed upon in NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL's bylaws, then I will support that person's rights to continue owning their respected teams, while condemning their actions on a moral level. Most of all, I feel fucking gross even remotely having to "defend" Dan Snyder in any way.

The Last of Us Part II: A gorgeous well-made game that ruined the franchise for me ***SPOILERS***

THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR THE LAST OF US PART I AND PART II 



The Last of Us is one of my favorite games of the previous generation. And that's coming from someone who doesn't adore most third person action style games. I would much rather play an RPG, a metroidvania, or a platformer. Staying in the action genre, I typically prefer games with RPG elements or exploration like God of War or Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order. What made The Last of Us stand out to me above other games in its genre were its deep character development, its amazing storytelling, superb voice acting and a brilliant musical score, which brought it all home. The Last of Us, to me, was never great because of its gameplay. The gun play, upgrade elements, and traversing the environments were all done much better in other games. However, the story of Joel and Ellie's journey was so beautifully written and crafted, that it truly touched the soul.

I'm a sucker for father-daughter stories. In this case, you can put daughter in quotes, because Ellie is obviously not Joel's biological daughter, but essentially filled in those shoes once his real daughter was killed in the opening moments of the game. Joel and Ellie's bond was one of my favorites in video game history. Their fight for survival being the bond that tied them together, they each grew to love one another platonically, learning about one another in their true and rawest forms. Joel looked at Ellie as someone to look after and care for, filling in that void missing after his daughter's death; perhaps viewing his relationship with her as a mulligan, and a way to make up for his daughter dying under his watch, by saving Ellie and giving her as good a life as one possibly can during post-apocalyptic times. Ellie looked at Joel as the father figure she didn't have, but not in the traditional sense. Ellie always oozed independence and was strong-willed, so while she didn't seek structure from Joel, he gave her that comfort any young girl craves. While she'd never admit it, she looked up to Joel. Seeing their relationship continue to blossom throughout the game, culminating in Joel sacrificing everything, even the future of the human race to save Ellie, when he couldn't save his own daughter, is the kind of stuff that gives you goosebumps and packs an emotional punch few video games can.

Their relationship was something that stayed with me long after I completed the game and why I so heavily anticipated the sequel. There were so many directions they could have taken with the sequel's story. With their development talent, it was hard to screw up. As long as they kept the same general formula, the story was going to be enjoyable. There were so many angles they could have taken. Ellie finding out about Joel sacrificing the Fireflies to save her, her turning on him, and them having to repair their relationship while they traverse they apocalyptic United States in search for another group who is working on a cure. They could've implemented more immune characters out there in the wild they searched to unite with. They could have explored other means to make a cure, and it would be up to Ellie and Joel to find it since they were responsible for other cure not being development. Anything, but the story path they chose. The route they decided to go in The Last of Us Part II was insulting, arrogant, and took one great big dump on two of the greatest video game characters in recent memory.

By killing off Joel in the first hour of the game, it reeked of trying to do something bold just for the hell of it, adding shock value to the game when it didn't need it. They tried desperately to subvert expectations after putting out trailers and promotional photos with Joel in the game, implying he was a central character to the plot once again. But most importantly, they ruined Joel and Ellie's characters in order to promote a dull, boring, uninteresting new character in Abby, who is essentially an lesser clone of Ellie on steroids. Much like Game of Thrones season 8, Naughty Dog's writers(I'm not going to put this entirely on Neil Druckmann) took amazing characters and ruined all the character development they built up.

They turned Joel into sacrificial lamb fodder to give Ellie a cliched revenge plot, and stain Abby's character so they could spend half the adventure trying to wash it out and convince the player to artificially grow to love her. And oh, boy did they try and make you love her. Every scene possible they shoved it right in your face with how caring and awesome she is, they gave her character all the best guns and upgrades, and built her like a tank so you could feel like a badass walking around and punching the fuck out of anything in your path. They turned Ellie into a dark, revenge-obsessed, emotionless killing machine totally devoid of all the character and charm she had in the first installment.

All of these changes, and for what? To preach to the audience that revenge is always bad? First of all, that's debatable, but secondly, that message has been done to death in video games, movies, and television. This was nothing new, and the way they approached it wasn't fresh either. To make things even more insulting, they force awkward gameplay segments onto the player, like having you literally tasked to pummel Ellie into oblivion with their new "golden child" Abby, once again pissing on series' best character's legacy, and being forced to brutally kill dogs with Ellie while "Lovable Abby" pets and plays catch with dogs during every moment of downtime.

The story concludes with Ellie having the perfect ideal life in a post-apocalyptic world. She has a nice house in a beautiful meadow with her newfound love and a child. What more could you ask for? Except, because for absolutely no reason at all, she goes all Daenerys Targaryen and decides to seek out revenge one final time "because flashbacks" and decides to travel down the entire west coast to seek out one girl, a needle in a haystack, just to kill someone she could have already killed. And after fighting through mobs of combatants and taking wooden shrapnel to the abdomen, and track her down barely alive, she decides to let her live at the last second before she can kill Abby and fulfill her promise to Joel's brother Tommy. It was contrived, it was lazy, and if you'd have asked me I'd have told you that David Benioff and D.B. Weiss were brought on as writers for the game. The Last of Us Part II absolutely RUINED the series for me in every way. If there is another entry, I will not be purchasing it.

That's not to say the game doesn't have its strengths. The Ellie and Joel flashback segments were my favorites in the game(go figure). They captured some of the charm and emotion of Part I, and did more to build up story than the present moments. The graphics were amazing, arguably the best I've ever seen. How detailed the environments were, it seemed every blade of grass had its own physics, how the player interacted with ambiance was better and more realistic than anything I've ever played, and the character models were awesome.

Unfortunately, the action elements of the game weren't all that improved from Part I, the upgrade systems were largely unchanged, the puzzle segments were extremely vanilla, and even Gustavo Santaolalla's work wasn't nearly as noticeable or memorable as it was in the first. What a letdown.

The Last of Us Part II is one of the most disappointing games I have ever played. It not only didn't live up to the greatness of the original, but urinated all over its legacy, which is a real shame. I loved the characters, loved the story, and I was hoping this would be Naughty Dog's new focal series to carry gamers through the next generation at the very least. Instead, I got a game that ruined the series for me beyond repair and has me trying to forget it even existed so I can hold on to the memories of the first game.