Kobe Bryant

            The NBA season just started and there has been a lot of conflict surrounding Kobe Bryant. Kobe Bryant (36) stands to make $23,500,000 dollars this year, making him the highest paid player in the league this year. By comparison Lebron James (29) will make $20,644.000 and Dirk Nowitzki (36) will make $7,974,482.

            Beyond the salary numbers I was interested in comparing Kobe's numbers versus Jordan and Lebron (chart below). Kobe has played for 19 years versus 15 for Jordan and 11 so far for Lebron. Based on totals the categories Kobe Bryant leads in are Assists and Turnovers. In 15 years MJ scored more total points than Kobe in 19, had more rebounds, almost 700 more steals, and 250 more blocks. Based on his current averages if Lebron were to play 15 years not 19, he would have 8,299 rebounds, 7,895 assists, 1,969 steals, 920 blocks, and 3,811 turnovers. That means at the 15 year mark Lebron will have approximately 1800 more rebounds, 2800 more assists, 150 more steals, 300 more blocks, and 60 more turnovers. 

             Kobe Bryant is a phenomenal basketball player but at least statistically not MJ or Lebron, which begs the question if at age 36 the Lakers were wise to make him the highest paid player in the league. I am all for being loyal to your players, but shouldn’t they be loyal to their team. For example, Dirk is the fourth highest paid player on the Mavericks this year. He is obviously not a Kobe Bryant, but still. I included his career stats below for kicks. 

            Here is another interesting thing to note Career FGA: Kobe Bryant 24391; Michael Jordan 24537; Lebron James 16764; Dirk Nowitzki 19759. Kobe scores 1.30 pts per attempt, by comparison Jordan’s pts per attempt were 1.31, Lebron’s pts per attempt are 1.38 and Dirk’s pts per attempt are 1.35. Anyone have any thoughts. 

Name                 Yrs   FG%  3p%    2p%    Ft%    RB      Ast      Stl        Blk      TO      Ttl Pts

Kobe Bryant      19     0.453   0.335   0.483   0.838   6604    5927    1836    620      3754    31719

Michael Jordan  15      0.497   0.327   0.51     0.835   6672    5633    2514    893      2924    32292

Lebron James     11     0.497   0.341   0.535   0.747   6086    5790    1444    675      2795    23170

Dirk Nowitzki    16     0.476   0.383   0.499   0.879   9600    3141    1038    1095    2209    26804

$359,000 for the lawyer, $1000 for the claimant

Yes you read the headline correctly, the lawyers got $359,000 and the victim got $1000. Here is an article about the case. I know none of the underlying facts of the case beyond what is in the article, so I won't go into why the claimant got only a $1000. But, based on the article I picked up two things that may be of some import here about the legal fees in the case.

1. $100,000 of it was expenses, which have to be outlined and justified to the Court. This is money the lawyers paid over the course of the trial out of their pocket (including court filing fee, costs for depositions, discovery costs, etc...), and if they had lost would likely not recover.

2. The case took six years. The attorneys worked for six years again knowing that if they did not win or reach a settlement they might not get paid for their time.

I am curious how many accountants, consultants, doctors, etc... would spend $100,000 of their own money on someone else' behalf in the hopes of getting reimbursed. Further how many of these same professionals would work and wait for six years to actually get paid.

Also, just as a note the lawyers got paid $259,000 in fees over a six year span. It would not be surprising for them to have spent a 1000 hours over that span, less than 200 hours a year on the case. Based on the 1000 hour scenario they charged $259/hr. That is what they charged an hour not what they took home by any means. What do accountants, consultants, doctors, etc... charge per hour?

It is insane that the victim got only a $1000, and the lawyers got $359,000. That does not point to the character of the attorneys but is certainly a problem with the legal system. A system that is not designed by lawyers but by legislatures, that the public voted for. The lawyers simply got paid for the work they did.

$234,000,000,000

Jews were persecuted, needed a homeland and protection. As a result the US taxpayers have given approximately $234,000,000,000 to Israel since 1954. The current US Deficit is $18,000,000,000,000, aid to Israel over the years would be 1% of that number.

Look at it another way. According to the 2012 US Census there were 44,456,009 African American in the US, some of whom are descendants of slaves. Jim Crow laws were in effect in the US well into the 1960's, perhaps reparations could be paid to African Americans for the ills they have endured. Based on the current population and the amount of money we gave to Israel, a similar gesture would result in $5263.64 for each African American counted in the census.

One population was persecuted by Europeans and others, the other enslaved by Americans for a few centuries. Just food for thought...

As Promised (A Brief Perspective of the Middle Eastern Conflict)

*** These are just my views based on my own reading and research and may not be complete***

Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, I think that the first point is to recognize that the word I used was perspective of the conflict not the history of it. I did this on purpose because a term like "history" implies some sort of factual accuracy and I think with a situation as complicated as the one in the Middle East it is more accurate to call it what it is, my perspective.

So, a long long time ago the area that is Israel/Palestine was a Jewish Kingdom. Then over the course of a thousand years the land changed hands, belonging to different kingdoms and empires. Skip forward a few hundred years and you arrive in the 20th century. The area now recognized as Israel was under a British Mandate. Some of you have heard the argument that Israel has always been Jewish land, well here is where it gets interesting. By most accounts the population in the Israel/Palestine region at beginning of the 20th century was overwhelmingly non Jewish. Jews made up less than 5% of the population at that time, the total population of Jews in the region at the time was south of a 100,000 people. By comparison there were over 6 million Jews in Europe. Many of these Jews because of the situation in Europe (Nazi Germany, etc...) migrated to the region. What was once a majority Non-Jewish population started to change with the influx of Jewish migrants who largely migrated illegally. Take a second and let that sink in.

By most accounts the region was mostly non-Jewish as late as 1945. In 1948 upon the departure of the British, the Israeli Declaration of Independence was read, declaring the formation of a Jewish State. The US and Soviet Republic immediately recognized Israel as a state. Many Arab states did not. War ensued with certain surrounding Arab nations and Israel ultimately came out the victor. Boundary disputes continued over the next few years and are still continuing today. Gaza and the West Bank were territories that remained under Israeli control, but treated as Palestinian territories. In the coming decades Jewish settlers began to settle into these territories as well and under the protection of Israeli military expanded their control over certain areas.

I could continue elaborating, but even though it is a very truncated, abridged perspective. I think it gives a slightly more complete picture than things I have read. Now for the true "perspective" part.

Think of it from the Arab and Palestinian perspective for a second. Jews were driven out of Europe in droves, those Jews settled in a land that had a large Palestinian population, and upon the Jewish declaration of independence European counties and the US recognized Israel as a country. Over the next few decades the United States provided the state of Israel over a $100 Billion in aid, Israel expanded its claims by setting up settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, Israel was allowed to get nuclear weapons (they have over 80 warheads by most estimates... oh and Iraq has none), etc... Meanwhile the Palestinians weren't compensated for their loss, or at a minimum given their own right of self-determination. Instead they live in largely occupied territories with no control over their naval access, or their airspace. They can't freely move in out of Gaza or the West Bank. What do you expect them to do? 

Now to Hamas, I have heard a lot about on television from Israeli commentators that if Hamas had the ability to, they would wipe out Israel. First, I am not sure if that is actually the case, but think about it for a second. Hamas is a military/political organization that has never recognized Israel as a sovereign nation. What should their message to their people be? Sorry your land was taken but it is now owned by someone else. Hamas is a terrorist organization and the way they conduct themselves is atrocious. But if you come into someone’s home, take it by force, move them to the outhouse, and then lay claims to parts of the outhouse as well, the people you forced out might react a little angrily.

The Jews deserve a homeland, they deserve to feel safe, to not feel persecuted and attacked. Having said that Jews were not persecuted by Palestinians, they were persecuted by Nazi Germany, and other fascist nations, including some Arab ones (Iraq), so why do the Palestinians have to pay the price for the sins of others. What was their crime? The argument today is that Hamas (which by the way is not synonymous with Palestinian) does not want Israel to exist and that is the crime for which Palestinian's are being attacked. Jews kicked Palestinians out of their homes and land and their crime is that a terrorist organization is fighting to get their homes and land back?

I understand that the viewpoints above are my own perspective of what has happened and many people may disagree with my observations. I also am aware that some of the views may seem offensive to some people. It is not my intent to offend anyone, just simply to provide my own view. I invite anyone whether you agree or disagree to post comments of your views below. Only thing I ask is that you attempt to keep the comments constructive. I understand that some of my view may themselves not pass muster as constructive, but I tried...

"Outsiders"

What is going on in Gaza today is frightening, horrifying and truly sad. Over the last few days and weeks if any of you have a Facebook (FB) page you have seen posts like this, or perhaps this, or maybe even this, or a myriad of other posts. The saddest part about all of this is the five camps of people that I see forming as a result of the recent increase in hostilities: (1) The Pro Israel camp; (2) the Pro Palestine camp (3) people who are too afraid to say anything; (4) people who think they don't know enough; and  (5) people who just don't care.

Group 5 will always be a part of the world we live in. There will always be people who just don't care, who cannot be bothered to worry about the plight of others in certain situations. It is easy to find the lack of compassion to be disheartening, but one hard look in the mirror and we may all find ourselves a little troubled by our own lack of "compassion." How else does it make sense that we live in wonderful homes, wear great clothing, eat great food, while millions in the world don't even have clean water... For my part, I think we are all drawn to issues for different reasons, and some people are drawn to more issues than others. I myself, am guilty of ignoring many issues, so I accept Group 5 as a reality of the world we live in and understand that I too am a part of that group.

I often feel like a member of Group 4. There is so much to know and in my opinion not a whole lot of resources. I just note, that in a conflict so complicated very few people "know enough."

I sympathize with  Group 3. I have been wanting to write something like this for days, but haven't because I was afraid to appear insensitive or to offend people, or to make people think differently of me. I found myself wondering, how any perceived Pro Israeli comments would be taken by my friends? how Pro Palestinian comments would be taken by other friends? Is it okay to not pick a side? Is is okay to pick a side? I am not sure I have the answers to those questions, but after yet another myriad of posts on FB this morning, I decided to write this anyways.

Now for Groups 1 and 2. I understand that for some people there are personal reasons for being a part of one camp or the other. Some have seen personal family in the conflict and others have very committed ties to the underlying politics of the situation, people I think of as insiders. For those that are close to the conflict it seems fair to assume that their biases are real and that their opinions however subjective are justified.

However, I don't think that being of the Muslim faith or of the Jewish faith makes you an insider. To the doctoral resident in the US, or the investment banker who have a new found interest in posting videos like the ones mentioned above, I simply would like to request that you be judicious in what you post.We all know that civilians are dying, but posting gruesome images of that does not add anything positive to the discussion. Neither does posting the founding decree of Hamas.

In my opinion, to find an ultimate resolution to this conflict will continue to be difficult. The relentless screaming and blaming from "outsiders" is certainly not going to help the insiders reach a resolution. I am not an expert on the issue, but I hope to follow this post with a follow up on my own history of the conflict as I understand it. Hopefully from a more level perspective. If any people have specific questions or thoughts that they think I should address or explore, please let me know. Thank you for reading.

Hobby Lobby (Why the decision bothers me)

I own a corporation and don't want to be forced to provide contraceptives through a health insurance program because abortion is against my religion.

I own a corporation and don't want to be forced to fund wars through my taxes because killing is against my religion.

The government mandates providing health insurance and paying taxes. If corporations can use religion to restrict what health insurance programs can include, I  struggle to see why they can't use the same argument to restrict what programs taxes can pay for.

"Why I’ll Never Apologize for my White Male Privilege"

A friend mentioned an article in Times that was published recently. She was quick to point out that I would likely be riled up by it (she was right). The original article was published in the Princeton Tory, described on the website as a journal of conservative and moderate thought.

Let me start first with some general observations, this article was written by a white 18/19 year old freshman at an elite Ivy League institution who has worked really hard to get there. The previous sentence in a race blind world should read something like "this article seems to have been written by a 18/19 year old..." you get the point. This kid, most kids that get into Ivy League schools work hard to get where they are. In his case he is constantly told that somehow his path was easier, "check your privilege." However implicitly true that may be, he doesn't feel like he had it easy, he gave up nights out, studied hard, did all the right things to get to where he is, not to mention he doesn't feel like he comes from "privilege". It wasn't handed to him by any means. So he wrote an article which was titled "Checking My Privilege: Character as the Basis of Privilege", the title was later changed by Time Magazine unbeknownst to Tal Fortang.

It is easy to bash the article written by Tal, but we may want to take a second and remind ourselves that this is an article written by a 18/19 year old college freshman. I am a South Asian American and I remember being a freshman at UCLA and wanting to tell the world that I was different. Although, I didn't feel the need to "check my privilege," I did feel the desire to point out that I wasn't privileged. Unlike a lot of my South Asian counterparts, my parents didn't run successful businesses, weren't doctors, engineers, simply put we weren't wealthy. I took massive loans to pay for school, and I worked full time almost through my entire undergraduate degree to be able to afford things. So when I was bundled in those statistics about being the "super minority" etc... I always cringed. My family moved to the US when I was 12 we adjusted, got lucky, I luckily made the right friends, and yes... "I worked hard" to get in to a good college. It wasn't handed to me.

The difference between Tal and I is that I cringed but that is as far as it went. I understood, that in general the statistics were true, that South Asians were "privileged," that we were the super minority. I also understood that although my journey may have seemed tougher to me than some of my other South Asian counterparts, it could not be compared to the journey of other minorities. Maybe I understand that now as a 35 year old and didn't then. Maybe I just got lucky because I didn't sit down then to write an article about my story. The fact is I didn't and Tal did. It is not about Tal being "privileged," it is about something bigger than him. As someone on a post to his article stated, Tal be happy you won the "genetic lottery," you were born white. I am not sure Tal should spend a lifetime apologizing for having won that lottery, but writing about it in the manner that he did seems a lot like the 1% complaining about feeling persecuted by the media.

Tal... like it or not, a girl walking in a dark alley is likely to feel more afraid if a black Princeton freshman of your size and built is walking towards her then you. Until that changes, you will have to at least recognize that a difference exists, that you won the "genetic lottery," and at the least not gloat...

You get the picture...

Meet Joe, he wants to lower taxes, increase defense spending, cut entitlements, starve the government in a bath tub (Grover Norquist), protect your ability to own a semi automatic rifle, treat corporations as people, doesn't think elections can be corrupted by money, does not believe in climate change, thinks banks are over regulated, wants to repeal Obamacare, does not want to extend unemployment insurance, ... you get the picture.

Meet Mark, he thinks taxes should be fair, that our defense system should be strong, and that our entitlements should not burden future generations He believes that our government is way too big (largest employer in the country), believes in our Constitution and will help uphold it even if he may disagree with portions of it at times. He thinks that courts should not get to pick and choose when corporations are treated as people, and agrees that elections can be corrupted by money but not $5200 at a time. He thinks climate is changing and it always has, but is just not convinced the proposed methods for effecting change will work (97% of scientists, do not agree on how to solve the problem). He thinks our current system of regulation is ludicrous. Dodd-Frank has resulted in over 14000 pages of regulations and all that seems to have changed is that there will be a greater need for lawyers and accountants for years to come. He wants a system of health care that works and thinks there isn't proof that Obamacare does, he is worried before long Obamacare will become like every other entitlement program that we can never change. He is all for extending unemployment insurance but wants the extension to be meaningful and actually work, more importantly he thinks we need to fix unemployment not unemployment insurance, ... you get the picture.

It is easy to hate Joe and even outright ignore him. I may disagree with the Mark, but can certainly have a real conversation with him. All too often our politics have become a team sport (as I have mentioned before) and we don't have intelligent conversations. Instead, we reduce the thoughts of an intelligent person we disagree with, to punchlines. To make progress we need to treat each other with respect and have discussions about: what does fair mean in terms of taxes, how strong is strong enough, how do we balance future versus present needs, how the government can be more efficient... you get the picture.

We should be worried

This post may strike some as alarmist and it is not my intent to make things seem bad. They really aren't that bad, but I do think we should be worried. Here are just a couple of reasons why.

1. Inept Leadership
2. Income Inequality 

Inept Leadership 

The leadership of this country seems inept. This is not a knock on our President or on Congress for that matter. I voted for President Obama and am generally not a fan of Congress. The real issue for me, is not about the people but about the structure. What do I mean? Well lets take this example. You really want a job. You network and do all the right things and a year later land the job. It was a long road but you are finally here and ecstatic about it. Are you not going to do everything in your power to hold on to the job? 

Oh you are, well isn't that what Congress is doing. They fight to get elected and are doing their best to keep their job. There in lies the issue I think, keeping your job has nothing to do with being a "good" Congress person. And what is good anyways. If you are elected from a really liberal district or a really conservative one, isn't voting to reflect the interests of you constituents make you a "good" Congress person. With districts being drawn to make them all primarily Democrat or Republican, we have made it structurally impossible for compromise to occur. You don't believe me, what logic is there to the 40th California Congressional district being drawn this way. That is just one example there are many more. The second issue structurally is the Citizens United Case and campaign finance issues. The influence of money is politics is apparent, the ruling just seems to have made it worse... I am barely versed on the topic but it does cause me pause. 

Income Inequality 

Income Inequality is something we should all think about. I have had this conversation with people on a few occasions and it has rarely been an articulate one. Somebody points out the rich are getting richer and the poor are worse off. Another person points out that the rich play plenty in taxes and 50% of Americans receive some form of government aid. Empirically I agree that there is validity to both claims. The richest 1% of Americans by some accounts own 40% of the country's wealth, and with the myriad of government programs out there it doesn't seem surprising that half of America gets aid in some way or form from the government. 

What worries me is that we don't ask ourselves often enough why income equality matters. Yes we want everyone to have stuff, and be want to be good people etc... But really, why as a society outside of altruism should we care about income equality. Society should care because it allows the rich to stay rich. If the masses are happy then they aren't so concerned about the uber rich. If they aren't, the story can change. I am not suggesting that we are anywhere near a revolution or anything remotely close to that. But if we continue on the same track we have been on, it could certainly be problematic. 

I could go on about either or both of these issues, but really just wanted to quickly touch on some things that I feel often escape our radars. At least in the manner presented here. Thanks for reading. 

Who to ask, What to say...

To each his own.
We all bitch and moan...
Life stands by for no one
threads of life slowly undone
unwound, lost looking for the right way
who to ask, what to say...
The answers lie in the inquiry
don't sit around and let life be.
Take it by the horn and steer it in the direction
that you wish to achieve when you look at your reflection...