GOAT - Greatest of all time.

With the NBA Finals on tv this week a lot of discussions have taken place between a number of my guy friends about Jordan, Kobe, Lebron ... you get the point. One of these guys said it just seems unfair to compare players from different eras. His point was that we all do make these comparison but the game changes, rules change, etc... Which makes it hard to compare one era to the next. To a large degree I agree so I thought why not compare  the players to their own era to see where they stand. I figured a simple analysis of one factor although flawed in its own rights might shed some light on the discussion. What the team's performance was the year after the star player left, or how much did a team's performance improve once the player joined. I figure recapping the world champions starting from the 90's would be a good idea to refresh our memories.

1991 - Chicago Bulls
1992 - Chicago Bulls
1993 - Chicago Bulls
1994 - Houston Rockets
1995 - Houston Rockets
1996 - Chicago Bulls
1997 - Chicago Bulls
1998 - Chicago Bulls
1999 - San Antonio Spurs
2000 - Los Angeles Lakers
2001 - Los Angeles Lakers
2002 - Los Angeles Lakers
2003 - San Antonio Spurs
2004 - Detroit Pistons
2005 - San Antonio Spurs
2006 - Miami Heat
2007 - San Antonio Spurs
2008 - Boston Celtics
2009 - Los Angeles Lakers
2010 - Los Angeles Lakers
2011 - Dallas Mavericks
2012 - Miami Heat

Based on the list I think a few players should be looked at, of course Jordan, and Lebron. Beyond that Shaq is a player that is easy to analyze. Kobe is hard to analyze based on the provided parameters, since he has been on the same team the whole time. Shaq is one way to look at the impact of Kobe since he left the Lakers while Kobe was still there.

Jordan 
Jordan left the Chicago Bulls twice first in 1993 and then again in 1998. The 1993 squad had a record of 55-27. In 1994 the record was 47-35 and in 1995 it was 47-35. In 1994 and 1995 the Bulls made the second round of the playoffs. In contrast, in 1996 when Jordan came back their record was 72-10.  In 1998 the record was 62-20, in 1999 ... it was 13-37.(It was a shortened season) Coach Phil Jackson, Jordan, Pippen, Dennis Rodman and Steve Kerr all left the team in 1999.

Lebron
Lebron won with Miami but obviously took his talents there after jumping ship from Cleveland. Cleveland's record in 2010 was 61-21. Without Lebron the record the next year was 19-63. Miami's record 2010 was 47-35 and with the addition of both Lebron and Bosh the record the next year was 58-24

Shaq
Shaq played for the Magic, the Lakers and the Heat during his career. In 1996 the Magic had a record of 60-22 and the next year after Shaq's departure the record was 45-37. The Lakers record in 1996 was 53-29 and the next year it was 56-26. The 2004 Lakers had a record of 56-26, the next year the record was 34-48. In 2004 the Miami Heat had a record of 42-40 and the next year the record was 59-23.

So what does all this mean. My take away is that all these great players including Kobe won when they had great supporting casts and didn't fare so well otherwise. The Jordan less Bulls made the 2nd round of the playoffs, and his return meant championships. The Shaq less Lakers didn't make the playoffs. The Lebron less Cavaliers didn't seem like an NBA team. Shaq won titles with two different teams and was a part of three teams going to the NBA Finals. In the one year Kobe didn't have a Shaq, or a Gasol on his squad his team won 34 games and Jordan on the Wizards... well we all know that story.

At this point I want to mention two players mostly because they exemplify great play and great character.  Duncan has only played for the Spurs and through his career he has never asked for a trade, asked for more pay, argued the team doesn't have enough talent, etc... If they win the current NBA finals Duncan will have five titles in three decades. Another note, is that Duncan has made the playoffs every year he has been in the league.

The other is Olajuwon who is a favorite of mine to shed some light on his career I have included below the career stats of Shaq, Duncan and Olajuwon, just keep in mind these are career averages. The stats speak for themselves but here are a few simple thoughts. Olajuwon is ninth all time in points, twelfth all time in rebounds, first all time in blocks(he has six hundred more career blocks then number two Dikembe) and eight all time on the steal list. Like Duncan Olajuwon never asked for trades, created strife in the locker rooms... He simply just played. I hope you guys enjoyed the information. Looking forward to your comments.

The Party of Family Values...

I needed a break from finals studying so here goes. This is comic relief for me and I hope it gives at least a few of you a laugh as well.

Party of Family Values

When you think family values, how many of you think Republican? Yeah, me too. I don't think they have better family value policies but that is certainly their brand. Let's explore this a little bit.

Mitt Romney - member of a religion that promotes polygamy... hmmm
Arnold Schwarzenegger - love child...
Newt Gingrich - Two divorces, three wives... sanctity of marriage everyone...
Pete Dominici - Some of you may not have heard of him. Former Senator who led the charge against Bill Clinton oh and guess what just recently admitted that he had a love child with the daughter of another Senator.

The icing on top - Mark Sanford - Remember hiking the Appalachian Trail... well he just won the Republican primary for a South Carolina House seat.

You got to give it to them. Politicians in general on both sides provide plenty of fodder, Spitzer, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, but for a party that prides itself on "family values" it just makes you chuckle a little louder.

Back to Finals studying... but before I go just another unrelated note. The state of North Carolina is looking to pass legislation to declare a state religion. These guys love their 2nd Amendment but somehow the 1st Amendment is just lost on them...

DRONES

Alright here is a shocker for most of you I am sure. I am generally not a fan of the Republican party...there I admitted it. Having said that, I have to admit Rand Paul deserves some credit. His thirteen hour filibuster brought attention to a topic many in the media, and otherwise have pretty much ignored. First, let me address another issue quickly, the way Mr. Paul used the filibuster is admirable. In today's Congress where nothing gets done, all too often congressional loop holes are used to defer debate, and where debate seems to be generally discouraged. Mr. Paul put some skin in the game, he found that the issue was important and he remained on the Senate floor for an extended time to get his point across. He didn't use the threat of it, or try any other tricks he just did it. Phew... that is out the way.

So drones... I have some major concerns with the whole idea but the issue breaks down into two major ones for me. First, as american citizens should the recent leaked White House memo that says that drones can be used on our own soil scare us. It scares me, although I am not sure that one can argue that the use would be illegal. If the United States government deems one of us an immediate terror threat they can certainly use guns or any force they deem necessary, drones are no different I suppose. It still scares me though that a robotic device can eliminate targets here or abroad without any due process what so ever. This does not even get into the ability of drones to spy on the population, 1984 anyone? Drones probably fall outside the traditional search and seizure Jurisprudence. It's certainly something we should be aware about. And, lest anyone forgot the current White House is run by a Democrat. We should all be scared by the extra judicial nature of this whole drones scenario.

My second concern, to a large extent we are one of the only countries with drones capable of carrying out military strikes. That means this is an area of first impression and we are making the rules. We have used this power to carry out attacks abroad often without getting permission from host countries. Our government decides that someone is a threat to America and sends an unmanned aircraft violating foreign airspace and carries out an attack. I have had this argument with some people and they contend that it is the only way to capture or kill some of these terrorists. The ends justify the means in their minds and I can see a lot of appeal in that logic. But, we have to be careful. We are setting an example that other nations may soon follow.

Let me take a stab at a very disconcerting parallel. Nuclear weapons, America is the only country to have used them in an attack. Ever since, the world has been back tracking from the use of nuclear weapons. North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran all worry us because at the push of a button these weapons could cause massive damage. What if Iran had drone capability and a rogue leader in Cuba allowed the Iranians to fly drones from Cuba. The Cubans believe that their latest leader was a target of an assassination attempt by the CIA and they know who the agent is.(They are correct in that the US attempted to carry out the assassination) An American spy tried to kill their leader certainly sounds like a threat that rises to the level of national security. The next day the Cubans/Iranians carry out a drone attack on a high rise in Miami where the CIA operative was believed to be living. Sound scary... it should... we have the power, what kind of example are we setting.

BTW this is an Obama problem not a Bush problem. The rate, frequency and sheer number of drone attacks under President Obama is far higher than under President Bush. I am interested to see what comments people have about this issue.

Are Republicans Patriots?

Before I start. Let me point out that this is a rant. I did not do research about past Presidents so feel free to correct me if I am off base.

This is ridiculous. A few nights ago, the First Lady of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA not the the DEMOCRATS OF AMERICA came on the Oscars. She thanked the actors for their support of the arts, but honestly I don't care what she said. This constant criticism of anything the Obama's do is getting a little tiresome. Obama has a private golfing trip and the right wing media goes crazy. His life is tiring so the guy decided to play a private round of golf. The last guy was constantly on vacation in case you forgot. Obama's daughters were used in an ad by the NRA. SOME deference and respect would be nice. He has been called a liar at a State of the Union. Let's not forget he wasn't born here. I get challenging where he was born while he is running but once he is the President than there has to be some sort of level of respect for the office. Nothing he does is beyond reproach.

I understand that him and his family signed up for this, but civility should matter. I have differing opinions from my classmates sometimes starkly differing but I don't accuse them of anything that comes to mind. Have a principled argument and leave the other stuff alone... I am waiting... waiting for some prominent Republican to say look he is our President. But then again I am waiting for civility... have you seen our Congressional leaders (Democrats included) lately... what civility...

President Obama nominates Chuck Hagel, a REPUBLICAN, and now the Republicans don't like him. They confirmed him but not before threatening a filibuster. What kind of clout is Hagel going to have when he speaks on behalf of the nation abroad.

I understand that the Republicans and Democrats disagree on a lot of things. A healthy debate is the center of a thriving democracy. Unfortunately lately it doesn't seem like a healthy debate. There is no debate... there is no progress and I for one seriously question the loyalty of Republicans to the United States of America. I am not suggesting that Joe Smith Republican in Iowa is not a patriot. He believes in his country and elected people to represent him. Part of the responsibility of that representation is to govern. For the last four years the Republican party's mission has been to make sure Obama did not get reelected, not to govern. That seems blatantly unpatriotic. They lost the last election (by popular vote they lost the House too, gerrymandering has served the Republicans well) and there has really been no change in their position.

Which brings to another issue I have with the Republican party. Although the right to vote is not explicit in the Constitution it is certainly implied. There is a fundamental concept that people should get to vote. The Women's suffrage movement, the Civil War certainly show that. How then does the party think it patriotic to no win elections by winning the vote but by restricting those that can. Voter fraud is just not that large of an issue. You have a better chance of being hit by lightning than discovering an incident of polling place fraud.

We do however have an epidemic of a problem with voter turnout. The voter turnout in 2012 was 57.5% of all eligible voters. We need to find a way to increase the number of people that vote not decrease it.

Webster's defines a patriot as "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests." Elected Republican officials need to look at the larger picture and support the country's interests. Calling President Obama a liar, chastising the First lady for an Oscar appearance, trying to reduce the voter rolls does not support the country's interests. 

Tom's Shoes... Pig suede?

"TOMS shoes uses pig suede for the insole of their shoes. FAIL! Moslem friends, i'm sorry for being the bearer of bad news."


This was the status for one of my friends Google chat accounts. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with it but it got me thinking. Tom's uses pig suede in the insoles of their shoes, this is not a rumor it is confirmed on their website. You know what else is confirmed... for every pair of shoes you but from them they will give one pair of shoes to a poor child that is in need. The latter part sounds like a pretty Islamic idea albeit from a non-islamic company. I don't know if Muslims should or should not wear Tom's that I figure is everyone's own choice. There are some other facts that do give me pause though.

Nike was accused and has admitted to using Child Labor all over the planet. Sounds pretty unethical perhaps Muslims shouldn't wear Nike's.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1020-01.htm

Hershey has also been accused of Child Labor infractions, perhaps Muslims shouldn't eat Hershey's Chocolate. In fact most chocolate is probably the result of Child Labor.
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/11/16/hershey-child-labor-suit/
http://theithacan.org/27273

Do you like Cotton? A lot of cotton production has been implicated in Child Labor violations.How about Diamonds? How about Rubber? Apple Ipad anyone?

Child Labor is just one cause that came to mind. I am no religious scholar but the status just made me wonder. Is the Almighty worried about the fact that a company that helps the poor uses pig suede? or that the national economy of a country like ours is predicated upon exploiting children for their labor? I am not suggesting that I have an answer, questions like this always puzzle me. The status just got my juices flowing and the rant you just read followed. The post is about Islam and Muslims but I think is applicable to most religious beliefs. Hopefully some of you have comments to share. Thanks for reading.

Secession

A lot of red states seem to want to secede from the union since Obama got elected. I say I hope they all secede. Here are just some rudimentary numbers. These states that seem to have such an issue with federal spending, taxes etc... seem mighty content with federal funding. Here is what the state received in return for every dollar paid in federal taxes by its residents.

Red States -
Alabama - 2.47
Arizona - 1.45
Florida - 1.20
Georgia - 1.09
Kentucky - 1.75
Mississippi - 2.03
North Dakota - 1.45
South Carolina - 1.92
South Dakota - 1.58
West Virginia - 2.57

Blue States

California - .87
New York -  .72
New Jersey - .49
Washington - 1.04
Oregon - 1.15
Pennsylvania - 1.03
Minnesota - .47
Illinois - .71

I think the federal government should just institute a simple rule. No state can get more back from the federal taxes then what their residents put in. Would be interesting to see what these states do when they don't get money from Federal government they so adamantly hate. I know its impractical etc... Just thought I would look at it from a different perspective. (It may be advantageous for the federal budget)

Response to a post

The comment below was posted on Facebook by a classmate. I have stayed away from saying a lot about the election lately but the post quoted below made me feel the need to comment.

i think both candidates were going to be good presidents. i honestly think anyone who gets to the point of running is probably going to be ok. BUT i do hope that none of you get sick.. bc public healthcare will make you wait months for the doctor. if you get a serious illness like cancer, you may not be able to get treatment bc public insurance may not pay for it like private insurance. i hope that nobody cares about finding a job when they graduate from school with 100K of debt bc the economy is in shambles and unemployment rates are so high. i hope that if you miraculously get a job, that you don't make a lot of money bc you will get taxed and your money will go to the government who will then pay for those "less fortunate"... however many people who are "less fortunate" are lazy, uneducated people who have never worked a day in their lives and they spend their money on alcohol, drugs and superficial things.

1. "public healthcare will make you wait months for the doctor" - I haven't seen any longer lines, the plan hasn't gone into effect yet so we don't know if lines are going to be longer. Also Medicare has been in effect for decades and I am not sure that has resulted in "longer lines" for seniors. Now they can't get the same level of care perhaps as a private cash payer. Last I checked people can still pay and get whatever level of service they want.

2. "if you get a serious illness like cancer" - you are in a better position now than before the health care law. The second highest reason individuals file BK is because of healthcare costs due to a major illness. The new law does away with caps on health insurance policies. Not to mention you can actually get insurance if you have had a major illness. Prior to the bill a person could not get health insurance due to pre-existing conditions.

3. " i hope that nobody cares about finding a job when they graduate from school with 100K of debt " - If Mr. Romney had it his way we would be borrowing money from our parents etc... to go to school. For those of us (me) that don't have parents with money, the availability of lower interest rates on loans and availability of grants is how we get to school period.

4. "bc the economy is in shambles and unemployment rates are so high" - there is no denying that the unemployment rate is high. Unemployment is on a downward trend and should continue that way. No excuses here the President has failed to accelerate the rate of growth. I have my own thoughts but this is certainly a point of concern.

5. "bc you will get taxed and your money will go to the government who will then pay for those "less fortunate" - The tax issue is a huge one and hard to summarize in a line, but the money is not going to the "less fortunate." 66% of our national budget is spent on Social Security, Medicare and Defense Spending. This is not money that goes to the "less fortunate." Welfare does make up 12% of our budget but almost a third of that is for unemployment. People that aren't "lazy" but just out of work.