Why I Cheer for the Boston Red Sox

I spent 23 of my life in Minnesota. During that time, the Twins won two world series in 1987 and 1991. I enjoyed it. But I only went to a few games at the Metrodome. I just never got into baseball the way I did football and basketball in Minnesota.

Fast forward to 2001 and in my first month living here in the Bay Area, we went to a San Francisco Giants game at Pac Bell park. You see, Pac Bell Park is right on the water and is a true, outdoor dedicated baseball stadium. It's just beautiful. You get a feeling not unlike when you were a kid and you sat on the Bleachers right next to the chain link fence at the local park - watching your friends play or waiting to get a pickup game of Home Run Derby. Something very calming and perfect about watching Baseball that way - outdoors with the sun on your back.

The metrodome was a whole nother world entirely. I felt like somebody opened up the Basement of the junior high and decided to put 60,000 seats in and play baseball there and glorified green carpet with piles of sand they called dirt. Nothing very interesting watchinb baseball that way.

I guess that's partly why I root for the Giants now. I love them. I love Barry Bonds. I can't wait to go see more games at Pac Bell park. They've become my number one team I root for, followed by the Red Sox, followed by the Twins.

But why in the world do I care so much about the Red Sox?

I mean, I can't really pledge any sort of allegiance to them. I really only "lived" there for one month in Brookline when I did a rotation out at Beth Israel.

Well, it would be easy for me to say that the Red Sox represent the underdog, but its more than that. I think the fact that they haven't won a World Series since 1918 makes them an underdog, but if it was just being an underdog, I should root for all the other teams too, right?

I myself have been trying to figure out why I'm so drawn to the Red Sox nation. But I couldn't put my finger on it, until today.

I came across this posting on the Sons of Sam Horn forum. In it, the first poster tells the Boston Red Sox to "win it for...." He then lists various people and reasons for whom and for what the Red Sox should win the World Series for.

His last person/reason was the most touching -

"Most of all, win it for James Lawrence Kelly, 1913-1986. This one's for you, Daddy. You always told me that loyalty and perseverance go hand in hand. Thanks for sharing the best part of you with me."

This is it. This is why I root for the Red Sox so much. Its that I not only cheer for the team, but I cheer for the collective fan base that is the Red Sox Nation. Its not only that they have such a passion for a team that has continually had bad luck on their side, but its that they perservere in their passion about a team. Its that as a city, they rally around a team and are not afraid to allow the Red Sox to become a part of Boston's identity and, more importantly, their psyche. While some may find it shallow, superficial, whatever... these fans measure a part of their life with the Red Sox - not coffee spoons. The memorable Red Sox moments identify not only an historic sports event, but also a brief moment in which a friend, a family member, or even a stranger can relate. It takes cheering to a whole new level, and there is nothing superficial about it at all.

Sports has a way of doing this - uniting people to root for a group of individuals who achieve great things in the face of difficult competition and sometimes unwavering setbacks. Boston fans, it seems, exemplify the way every city should root for their home team.

I'm just incredibly happy for them right now, and happy for the team itself. No offense to the fans of other teams, but the Red Sox fans are truly some of the best in the world.

When the King of Jordan Speaks Better ENGRISH than Dubya

My funkdafied labmate and fellow responsible Democrat JFunk forwarded me this article the other day.


"Vote for a Man, Not a Puppet"


It's written by Charley Reese, a conservative who voted for Bush in the previous election, but now plans to vote for Kerry. Why? His argument, generally speaking, is that Bush is really a puppet. In any other country, a person like Bush could never make it to such an important leadership position. He lacks intelligence, he lacks a command of the english language, and he reduces the world into a 7-year-old's black and white vision of some nationalistic fairy tale.

First of all, our president cannot think clearly. If you saw his debates, you'd know what I'm talking about. When he gets into trouble, he parlays everything into his war on terror. "Mr. President, there are kids who are getting shot down by AK47's in the neglected areas of the inner city. How does your domestic policy address this?" "Well, as everyone knows... the internets harbor this same type of evil. The same type of evil that demands that we take a stand on terror!" While that didn't really happen, I wouldn't be suprised if it did. His other technique is to all of a sudden become chummy with the american people. "Well, Jenny... you look like a hard workin' mother. And I bet, if you had an extra few hundreds of dollars in your pocket, you could do more with that money." Great, but how does that answer the question specifically? On the other hand, intellectuals actually provide facts that they have a visegrip like command of. They don't need to squirm out of arguments or look flabbergasted or seem incredulous to the whole situation, because they are comfortable with their knowledge of who they are and what they know. Bush is just a dumbass, sorry to say.

Second, homeboy lacks command of the english language. What is it with Republicans? They can't seem to spell or talk. From Dan Quayle to George Bush, we have all of the rejects from Spelling Bee tournaments and grammar school. I didn't know there was more than one internet Mr. President! In press conferences with foreign leaders, he seems to be the one who needed some ESL classes. Its just downright embarrasing, and disrespectful of those who have come from other countries and have learned English better than he has. And don't even get me started on how he had to move his hands in unison with his words when he was repeating the oath at his inauguration. Who does that? He went to Yale?

Finally, Dubya simplifies the world in a dangerously comical way. He really thinks that the USA versus Iraq is on the level of GI Joe vs Cobra, Autobots vs Deceptocons, Jedis vs the Empire, and on and on and on. I sometimes wonder if he has play figures of Saddam and the OBL (Osama Bin Laden) at home. I'm sure he has a 1/18 scale mockup of a WWE wrestling ring and he's wearing some sort of red white and blue tights and flying off the top rope to give the elbow to those crazy evildoers! Then again, I liked Jesse Ventura - and they did sell action figures of Jesse "The Thinker" Ventura.

I don't know, I just hope that Kerry wins. For once, I'd like to proudly say that the person that can annihilate the world with a push of a button is smarter than my 6 year old nephew. It's a fairly simple request, no?

I don't care who you vote for, just vote and get involved.

"One of the penalties for refusing to
participate in politics is that you
end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

WARNING: LONG BLOG ON POLITICS

I remember reading an article in the Atlantic Monthly a few years ago. It laid out the various types of government that might replace Democracy, assuming that Democracy cannot last forever. It proposed 4 or so (I honestly can't remember the details) different forms of government:

Government One - Run by Intellectuals
Government Two - Run by Artists
Government Three - Run by Successful Businesspeople
Others - I can't remember (blame it on my Early Alzheimer's)

It basically said that democracy will fail due to apathy. In its replacement, government would be run by people appointed based on their status or standing in a single area of the human community. They proposed the strengths and weaknesses of each and how it would affect a country such as the USA. For example, they felt that a government run by Businesspeople would make decisions based on placing monetary value on each issue/policy/etc. In doing so, decisions would be rendered more efficient and more easily understood by the general populace that deal with money on a daily basis. However, the glaring weakness would lie in assigning monetary value to things that cannot be priced. For instance, the value of any form of art cannot be tied down to any monetary relationship. Doing so would inevitably give such things a value that is lower than what its true importance states. Having such a government would lead to removal of such things (although it is starting to happen now) and replacing it with pragmatic symbols of the human journey - a backwards step in civilization.

While an interesting read, I found the primary assumption that forms the basis of this article the most curious. Why assume that Democracy will fail?

While they didn't outline their reasoning for such an assumption, I'll try to do it here... albeit in a very non-analytical, overtly simplified, and poorly supported blog. And at the same time, I'll mention how I think democracy can and will overcome each reason for the its demise.

Voter Apathy
Democracy thrives on participation by those that are subject to it. The goal of democracy was to take power out of the hands of a few people and place it into the hands of those who are most affected by it - citizens under a democracy. Representatives, judges, and executives are appointed based on each individual citizen's voice to make decisions and oversee other representatives, judges, and executives in a manner abiding to the spirit of their constituents' wishes. Ideally, when all members participate in such government, decisions will be made to the benefit of the majority of citizens.

The problem arises when not all eligible voters vote. When the eligible voter fails to exercise his/her right to vote, government becomes decided not on the true feelings of the populace, but rather the agendas pursued by the most vociferous of citizens. In effect, it places power back into the hands of those few who wish to exercise it. While not as outwardly and obviously dangerous as having all the power in the hands of a King, it is insidiously hazardous nonetheless. It signifies the declining political morale of a society and, at the same time, it pushes forth an agenda that may seem to be representative of the general public, but over years shifts the policy and behavior of a nation into a dangerous quagmire. While we may not view President Bush's decision to wait for UN Inspectors as a huge mistake in the short term, in the longer term, we may see that the world has now viewed us a a paranoid, isolationist country ready to strike out at other countries based on imagined fears. Again, while a large percentage of the eligible voters may not see the big deal of his actions, their lack of voting would clearly indicate their ignorance of the importance of such an event and their constitutionally protected right to vote on such issues.

Voter apathy is the most dangerous weapon against democracy.

Despite the declining voter participation in recent elections, there are signs that change, it is a coming. It seems that more and more famous actors, athletes, musicians, etc are highlighting the issue of voter apathy. In particular, they are focusing on the self-disenfrachised youth. Those who feel anger towards the establishment, but yet have not realized that voting is the best way to change the establishment.

In hearing the concerns of the apathetic voter, the most common statement has been, "Well, with all the votes out there, mine hardly even matters." This couldn't be further than the truth. Few elections are won with greater than 10% of the general vote. For example, in one election, Candidate A got 48% of the popular vote. Candidate B got 47% of the popular vote. Who were they? Candidate A was Al Gore. Candidate B was George W Bush. Furthermore, the electoral vote aims to place more importance in the election. The reason that George W Bush won was Florida. In that state, he won with a vote count of 2,912,790 to 2,912,253. That is a difference of 537 votes. 537. Think about it. One section of a the Orange Bowl Stadium changed the course and direction of the United States for four years. If only 0.003% of Florida's nonvoting eligble voter population voted for Gore, we may not have been in debt, we may have not had soldiers dying daily, and we may not have alienated ourselves the international community. Think that individual votes don't count still?

The Majority is Not Always Right
There is an argument that the general population may not know what's best for itself. Ask any lemming, and you know what I mean. As much as we are loathe to admit it, the average American's understanding of the voluminous and complex issues of foreign and domestic policy is simplified and limited. The majority may think the same, but this is not necessarily the right course. To a certain extent, allowing one vote per citizen limits the intellectual's voice in a democracy. Those who placidly understand and care for the well-being of a nation can easily be drowned out by rudimentary acceptance of campaign slogans and spin doctors. Being a nation founded upon individualistic rights and concerns, the United States is a generally selfish nation. Attention is paid to that which brings the most benefit to the indvidual, not necessarily the state, nation, or world. The consequence of this being that people vote for what they can gain from the effort they put forth into voting. Whether it be selfish propagation of their agendas (often cloaked in the guise of the greater good of society) or selfish propagation of their own financial rewards, voting is very much an expression of want and not need on an individual basis.

If unchecked, the selfish nature of the voting citizenry can lead to the downfall of a nation. Society thrives upon policies, laws, or expressions that do not benefit the majority on an individual basis necessarily. Museums, monuments, national defense, mental health hospitals, childrens hospitals, all are not clearly a benefit to the selfish individual, but a benefit to the society as a whole. While these are more obvious examples, its the not-so-obvious examples of policies, laws, expressions that may not benefit the majority of the ppulation explicitly, but benefits them by bettering society. To put it more bluntly, the white guy in the rich suburb may not give a shit about the gang violence in the ghetto as it normally doesn't touch his life, but he will if he was ever a victim of it. Funding and supplying programs, policies, or laws that reduce gang warfare may hurt him in the short run, but will be of benefit in the long term by making society as a whole safer and more productive.

Does this necessarily translate into a failure of democracy because the majority makes bad decisions? I don't think so. I think that the majority has not made bad decisions in the past and present. Those who are better capable of understanding the intricacies and fundamentals of governing have been effective in vocalizing and publicizing their thoughts on these matters - and thus, helping the majority to decide what may be best for the society. The success of intellectuals in a democracy is strongly based in the intellectual's ability to convince the majority. If this is lost, then the majority takes on a selfish voting role.

The problem I have is that I feel that it is being lost. In the past, the media has played the role of a more accessible libarary - giving us factual information and intelligent analysis of government issues which allows the majority to make informed, capable decisions. Now, the media has taken on a more dangerously aggressive role. Instead of providing information, they now subject us with their unfounded and biased opinons on the matter - often in a strikingly naive way. Instead of giving us actual past voting history of the candidates, they shove advertisements and spin doctors through our second and eighth cranial nerves in all manners possible.

Instead of providing us with unbiased information and analysis, we get political gossip. If we are to remain democratic, we must not vote on gossip.

Voting for Similarity versus Superiority
The last and final (I know... long blog), point that may lead to the downfall of democracy lies in the inability of a democratically governed society to appoint a leader that is superior to all others in dealing with the complexities and intricacies of governing a large population of people.

Recently, the trend has been for candidates to pose themselves as the common person. A person just like you and me that happened to, lo and behold, become one of the most powerful people on the planet. Why would they do such a thing? It seems that the majority of the population has trended towards voting for candidates who seem similar to them. "Well if DUBYA could become President, I sure as hell can too! I'll vote for him for sure!" I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have a smarter, more able person protecting my country than me. Sure, I'd probably do a good job, but if there's somebody better - let them do it. However, in a country in which intellectuals, philosophers, scientists, and artists are placed on the outskirts of society, the majority deem such members too "snobby" to possibly be a good president. In essence, a vote for the more simliar candidate is an act of envy and jealously, rather than an act of true patriotism.

Will things change? I have no doubt that they will. In good times, people look to be social and find people of like minds to associate with. In bad times, they look for a strong leader who they can trust to excel when they cannot. This is why, in my opinon, George Bush won in 2000. The economy had been doing well, things were looking good. Why not put in somebody like you and me? Clearly in 1992, when things were going poorly for the nation, we voted for the intellectually superior Clinton. What happens in 2004? I wish I could tell you, but I can tell you that we will see a superioir leader again, owing to the fact that we will see hard times as a nation again.

Phew, that was ridiculously long
Sorry about that. I am and have been on a political fix. I think people take freedom for granted. My parents escaped communism to give me the ability to vote and voice my opinion on how this nation can be run. For them, freedom was as tangible as the smiles on their faces. They smiled freely in the USA. Before, smiles were far too few and far too forced. I'm not about to denigrate their sacrificies. I do hope that everyone I know who can, will vote. If not, I'll have to let them know about it and I will hold it against them.

Introducing Mango Thunder

Before I get into how I got that nickname, I have to apologize for the long blogs. I apologize because I know its hard to read a long one. The internet sides with the instant gratification needy being inside of us. We can get mulimedia when we want it and how we want it. Problem is, we only want it for a few mintues at a time, highly concentrated and concise. My blogs just don't cater to that. I'm long-winded at times, but I guess that's to make up for the fact that my whole family thought I was mute until the age of 5 when I started talking out of fear - I told the needle-wielding nurse, "You can't do that to little kids!"

Anyways, taking a break from working on my Lab Meeting Presentation, I thought about how I came to be Mango Thunder. Really its a basketball nickname from days of old - a subtly ethnocentric reinterpretation of Darryl Dawkin's (former NBA plalyer known for his rim-rattling, name defying, high-flying dunks) nickname of Chocolate Thunder. I've always been wary of that nickname, as it almost comes across as a little racist - but then again, I'm not that PC. Being that I am of Southeast Asian descent, a became known as Mango Thunder. Mind you, I don't defy gravity. I'm not sure where the Thunder came from. Unless you call the bricks I put up against the rim "thunder."

That name, like Mount St. Helens, has laid dormant for the past few years, until it has been resurrected. Fairly quickly, my first name progressed from being "Richard" to "Mango." And just like the Spice Girls, there is many moods to Mango: Whitecoat Mango, Sporty Mango, Working Mango, Hungry Mango, Racing Mango, etc. The moods are limitless, an expression of the rich, yet curiosly unsettling, diversity of my psyche.

Oh yeah, and you don't want to cross my path when I'm overripe. That's just asking for trouble.

Finding Inner Peace with the Money Ball

I suppose that I can blog about things on request. It shouldn't be that difficult, as I figure that I write about anything anyways. Nothing of real importance, but semi-interesting nonetheless. Besides, if I can't discuss every and all issues that surround me, what kind of sorry, fraudulent blogger would I be?

Alas, a topic has been requested. It involves an office sport. What is an office sport? Well, its anything that allows the office participants the opportunity to compete against each other for some sad glory. Anything can be made into an office sport. Have a hanger and some paper? Time to fabricate a bat and play some office baseball. Have a wastebasket and some fruitcake? Its time to partake in a clean version of cowchip tossing. Finally, got a slippery rock and a broom? Hallway curling is your game. Of course, whatever the office sport may be, it needs to be easily concealable - points will be deducted for a sudden appearance of the boss in the middle of the competition.

An important note: the word "office" does not necessarily limit office sports to a true office. Rather it is a general category of sports that can be invented, recreated, or just plain hammered out in any workplace.

At our laboratory, we have developed a variety of office sports. One has risen above the rest as the preferred mode of friendly (and sometimes physically dangerous) competition. The Money Ball. What is the Money Ball? Its best described as a Snowmanian interpretation of the famous 3 point shootout held during the NBA's all star weekend. The purpose? To score as many points within a given time period purely... uh make that.. mainly on shooting skill alone. The equipment? A nerf hoop and 2 balls (one Nerf the other Huffy - both of different size and weight). The original game involved making as many shots in 1 minute from approximately 15 feet away - each basket counting as one point. Since then, there have been variations, as I will document below.

Variation One: The Money Ball is introduced. In response to lagging audience interest and shooter participation, the concept of the Money Ball was initiated into play. The money ball is simply the last shot of the 1 minute period to leave the shooters hand. If this particular shot is good, the point value is 4 instead of 1. As you can see, this made competition harder for the, Mr. Snowman, favorite initially. Mr. Snowman has since mastered the Money Ball.

Variation Two: The Money Ball Vaudeville is introduced. While the Money Ball still holds its own in entertainment value, it was thought that adding a creative element to the Money Ball shot would spur artistic and audience fulfillment. It has indeed. Prior to shooting the moneyball, the shooter may choose to perform or mimic any type of public display of artistry within their abilities. If the artistry is of high merit, the shooter may earn 5 points on the money ball versus 4. There has not yet been a five point money ball shot made, however attempts have come close. Of the lab participants, Mr. JFunk has had the most creative and outrageously inventive performances ever witnessed.

Variation Three: The Snowman Handicap. In the interests of good competition, the Snowman Handicap was introduced. Borne out of the visible displays of frustration (throwing balls at the rebounder in disgust, kicking lab equipment, shoving audience members) by the other two most frequent participants (Mr. JFunk and Mr. Mango Thunder), the Handicap was an idea by Ms. Hsieh to level the playing field. What handicaps are allowed? Anything that increases the chances of Mr. Snowman failing. So far, Mr. Snowman has shot with heavy gloves, a one eyed patch, weights taped to his shooting arm, after being bled, and on one leg. No handicap is yet known to be a consistently successful one with statistical signficance. Currently, other handicap ideas are being devised.


Variation Four: The Medley. In combination with the Money Ball, this variation is the most enjoyed by the participants. Conceived by the participants to introduce a certain level of running ability (rebounding, running from station to station, and retreiving poorly thrown rebounds) the Medley has quickly led to many a classic game. Basically, 30 seconds are allotted to the shooter to make as many shots at each station. There are 3 stations, at 7 feet, 15 feet, and 20 feet. A total of one minute and thirty seconds are allotted for the completion of the whole round. The Money Ball is the last shot from 20 feet. Initially, Mr. Snowman's dominance was challenged by the others in the new format. Sadly, amazingly, incredibly, (call it what you will) but not unexpectedly, he has regained his former dominance - so much so, that his current interest is not in beating Mr. JFunk and Mr. Mango Thunder, but in setting a new all time record or simply beating the others' combined score.


So why play the Money Ball? As the title states, there is a sense of inner peace that can be found playing the money ball. While it is easy to see how it can be beneficial to Mr. Snowman, it still is of great benefit for the souls of Mr. JFunk and Mr. Mango Thunder. While they consistently lose and express frustration, they realize that the Money Ball affords them a slight moment of peace during the hectic and stressful lab work. Gels running long, cells getting contaminated with Fungi, experiments resulting in data opposite from expected, and overall laboratory doldrums can be made light in the face of a spirited game of Money Ball.

I implore all of the readers to learn and participate in the Money Ball game. While it cannot erase your careless mistakes, society's assholes, or rainy days, it will allow you some peace during these increasingly hectic times. Every ounce of happiness counts and let the Money Ball be that extra ounce that pushes you into euphoria.

A little explanation is in order (for the new readers)...

I figured that it may be a little shocking, controversial, or just plain dumb at first to the reader that first comes across our (my wife and I) blogs. It's okay. It really is. I think that my wife and I have very controversial thoughts. Normally, we hold back, but for those of you who are reading the blog, you know us (well at least one of us) well enough to know that most of this is in jest. Well okay. Maybe just a little bit.

It may sound like all we do is rant and bitch and talk about wierd sexual things - but hey, who doesn't do that? Most people just find it (and thankfully so) appropriate to withhold it from their normal water cooler or tissue culture room talk. That's what blogs are for - to express some opinions that may normally be suppressed by fear of excessive societal ridicule. Well actually, I'm just trying not to be rude talking about these things in public. I get ridiculed all the time anyways for even my normal talk!

So for the new readers and old, please understand that I may be fairly intense in my opinions, but that doesn't mean I'm don't like you! Well, I can't guarantee that... JUST KIDDING.

Why do people think I care?

So, my wife asked me the other day if I care what other people think about me. Or for that matter, if I worry about how I'm viewed in relation to other people.

My answer was yes and no. In a way, I don't really care what people think of me. I've made it this far by being who I am. I try not to constrain myself to the way I think other people should view me. I know the person I am, I know the things I like, and I know the type of people I would prefer to befriend. If you don't have a history with me, whether or not you hate me or like me, I don't put to much stock in that. I've been through all kinds of stress (multiple gunshot victims, motor vehicle accidents, familial strife, etc) and belive me, people's opinion of me doesn't stress me out too much anymore.

But in the other sense, I do care what other people think of me. I do not want to hurt other people's feelings if they haven't done anything to deserve it. I do not want to be cheap and selfish especially when other people have been generous to me. I give most everyone the benefit of the doubt on the first go round. I do need my friends and loved ones to let me know when I step out of line or when I became impolite, rude, or downright mean to undeserving people.

In the end, I don't feel accountable to anyone except my wife, my close friends, and my family. Beyond that, nobody has to like me.

There goes my political ambitions.