Three former officials at the Securities and Exchange Commission, two Democrats and one Republican, filed an amicus brief in the case Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., in what is apparently a very important case dealing with shareholder lawsuits. From what I can tell, shareholders of Charter Communications are suing Motorola and Scientific Atlanta for misleading them on how they chose satelite and cable providers. I am not smart enough nor informed enough on the subject to offer a assertive opinion on the case or the issue at hand, but the subject interests me greatly. It has been my experience that the layman fails to grasp the true essence of a market, and just sees it as a place to gamble with money. The most underappreciated aspect of financial markets is the reliance on the ability to process information quickly. "An efficient market is one where information is quickly interpreted and is evident in the asset price".
I do not profess to be an expert, but from my experience, it seems to me that a shareholder's ability to sue the majority owners and/or board of directors for withholding information is a pivotal aspect of a market. During the Clinton years, there was a much stronger push towards individual stock ownership. This likely had little to do with Clinton, and was a more a result of the advent of the internet and new waves for individuals to own stocks. That phenomenon seems to have waned (probably in large part to the recession after the tech bubble burst). It my opinion and preference that the courts' emphasize shareholder rights in lawsuits to try and maintain as fair a market as possible. Institutional investors will always exist, but individual investors may not. For their part, it is up to individual investors to gain a better understanding of the rights and duties associated with owning stock, and take a more proactive role in ownership of the company.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Why NBA GMs Should be Racist
When I own an NBA team, I will institute a policy that all drafting of white American basketball players must be done on a narrowly tailored basis to further the compelling interest of us winning games. Its no secret that the NBA and the sport of basketball is overwhelmingly dominated by black players. Yet, given how few white American players are actually in the league, it is amazing that most of them were still drafted higher than they should have been. Now, that is not to say that black players cannot be collossal flops (Stromile Swift #2 pick in 2000). Nor does it mean that a black player should always be picked ahead of a white player. However, when evaluating a player, I do believe it is necessary to take his race into account. For example, if you are evaluating talent based on strengths and weaknesses, I thnk it would have been perfectly reasonable to list "white" under Spencer Hawes' weaknesses.
To prove that white American players suck at basketball, I have gone over the past 15 NBA drafts and listed almost all white American players (I decided not to list a few losers that everyone knew would suck, like Casey Jacobsen and Bryce Drew). I then listed black players that the teams could've taken had they taken race into account. Again, I am not saying race should be the ultimate deciding factor. Hhowever, after shooting ability, passing ability, and driblling ability, I think skin color is the greatest indicator of whether someone will succeed at the next level.
1992 Draft
This was the Shaq draft. Christian Laettner was selected #3 overrall by the Minnessota Timberwolves (Kevin McHale was not the GM at the time, although it would have made a lot of sense had he been). Jim Jackson and Robert Horry were still on the board. Tom Gugliotta was selected #6 overall, with Horry still on the board. Then Adam Keefe (remember that disgustingly dirty white guy on the Jazz that Jordan embarassed numerous times?) was selected #10 overall with Horry, Doug Christie and Latrell Sprewell still on the board.
1993 Draft
Maybe the biggest bust of all time, Shawn Bradley was selected #2 overrall by the 76ers. Penny Hardaway would get picked #3 by the Magic. Seriously! How could anyone other than the KKK or Mitt Romney think that Shawn Bradley would make a good professional basketball player. Ahead of Penny Hardaway! Imagine how different the 1990's decade would have been had the 76ers taken Penny. Does Shaq leave Orlando for LA? Does Penny become a more likable Kobe Bryant? GOD, I hate freaking Shawn Bradley!. Bobby Hurley was selected #7 overrall by the Kings, ahead of Gin and Tonic (Vin Baker for you non-TSG readers) and Allan Houston.
1994 Draft
A weak year for anglo-saxons, but Eric Montross did his best to keep up the stiff legacy. He was drafted #9 with Eddie Jones and Jalen Rose still on the board.
1995 Draft
Another pick that just makes you cringe. With their inaugural selection, the Vancouver Grizzlies selected Bryant Reeves with the #6 pick. In fairness, this was a rather weak draft. However, the Raptors picked seventh, and they took Damon Stoudamire. The Raptors are still in Toronto. The Grizzlies are no longer in Vancouver. It is not a coincidence. Trust me. In addition, Cherokee Parks was selected #12 with Corliss Williamson, Theo Ratliff, Travis Best and Michael Finley still on the board. Bob Sura was chosen #17 ahead of Best and Finley.
1996 Draft
The Golden State Warriors selected Todd Fuller with the #11 overrall pick. He was picked ahead of Kobe Bryant, Jermaine O'neal and Jerome Williams. If you google Todd Fuller, this is the picture that comes up. It is absolutely pathetic.
1997 Draft
The biggest loser on the face of the planet, Keith Van Horn, was the #2 overrall pick by the New Jersey Nets. He was picked before Tim Thomas and Tracy McGrady. Seriously, why would Keith Van Horn ever fit in with John Calipari? Van Horn is the only white player Calipari has ever coached. Not a coincidence. Austin Croshere was picked #12 with Maurice Taylor and Bobby Jackson still available. One of the true finds in this draft was actually Scott Pollard at #19, although Jackson was still on the board.
1998 Draft
Another god-awful pick. Raef LaFrentz gets picked #3 by the Nuggets with Antawn Jamison, Vince Carter, Larry Hughes, Paul Pierce and Bonzi Wells still on the board. Getting picked #7 was Jason Williams. Every rule has its exception and Jason Williams is most definitely it. Larry Hughes, Paul Pierce and Bonzi Wells were still on the board, but this was definitely a good pick by the Kings. Of all the setbacks that Jason Williams had, none of them were due to his skin color. Michael Doleac (notice how many terrible Mormons get picked?) went #12 with Ricky Davis still on the board. Matt Harpring was a steal at #15, although Ricky Davis was still on the board as well.
1999 Draft
Wally Szczerbiak gets picked #6 by the Timberwolves with Richard Hamilton, Shawn Marion, Corey Maggette and Jason Terry still on the board. Szczerbiak has had a solid career, but you can't help but think that if he were black, he'd be a lot better.
2000 Draft
In arguably the worst draft class in NBA history, Mike Miller took home rookie of the year honors after getting picked #5 by the Orlando Magic. The only possible alternatives would have been Jamal Crawford and Quentin Richardson. I think most would agree that Miller was the right choice at this spot (especially considering DerMarr Johnson was selected at #6 YIKES). Chris Mihm continued the big-white-stiff legacy after getting picked #7 overrall by the Cavaliers (I actually remember watching him play in college, and Dickie V saying that he thought Mihm should be the #1 overrall pick). In addition, Joel Przybilla got picked #9 ahead of Etan Thomas, Quentin Richardson, Desmond Mason and Jammal Magloire. Again, its a weak class, but the white guys didn't help out at all.
2001 Draft
The legendary three-man combination of white stiffs with Troy Murphy, Kirk Haston and Michael Bradley going #'s 14, 16 and 17 respectively, all ahead of Zach Randolph, Gerald Wallace, Samuel Dalembert and Tony Parker. Inexcusable.
2002 Draft
Quite possibly the worst pick of the decade, the Warriors drafted Mike Dunleavy at #3 with Chris Wilcox, Nene, Amare Stoudamire and Caron Butler still available. Seriously, how could you ever think that Dunleavy would be better than Caron Butler? Later in the draft, the Utah Jazz took Curtis Borchardt at #18 ahead of Tayshaun Prince.
2003 Draft
The Clippers displayed their overt racism by taking Chris Kaman at #6 and thereby stranding Wilcox on the bench. Kaman was picked ahead of David West, Josh Howard and Leandro Barbosa. Kirk Hinrich was selected at #7. A very solid choice, although Barbosa was still on the board. Nick Collison was selected at #12 by Seattle, who also delighted their fans by taking Luke Ridnour at #14. Barbosa and Howard were both still available, but, it was all part of the plan to get Kevin Durant four years later.
2004 Draft
Rafael Araujo (another mormon) was selected #8 by the Raptors with Andre Iguodala, Al Jefferson, Josh Smith, Delonte West and Tony Allen still available. Danny Ferry thought Luke Jackson would make a great running mate to LeBron James at pick #10, even though Jefferson, Smith, West and Allen were all still available. Robert Swift was picked #12 by Seattle with all the aformentioned players still available (again, all part of the plan to get Kevin Durant). Kris Humphries was selected by the Jazz at #14 with all the aforementioned players still available. It is also interesting to note that Araujo and Humphries were traded for each other last summer, and it had absolutely no effect on anything that happened this year in the NBA.
2005 Draft
Only one white American player, and it was actually great pick. Isiah Thomas picked David Lee with the last pick of the 1st round (#30).
2006 Draft
MJ picked Adam Morrison at #3. Its too early to tell, but Brandon Roye, Tyrus Thomas and Randy Foye were all picked after him and all had superior rookie seasons. JJ Redick was picked #11. Again, too early to tell, but Thabo Sefolosha and Renaldo Balkman were still on the board and have shown more promise than Redick.
So, that is 37 white American basketball players drafted in the first round between 1992 and 2006. Of those 37 players, only Jason Williams in 1998, Mike Miller in 2000, Kirk Hinrich in 2003 and David Lee in 2005 were "good picks". A case can be made for both Keith Van Horn and Wally Szczerbiak. Van Horn actually had a few really good seasons for the Nets, but he is just such a giant loser I cannot call him a good pick. Szczerbiak was always a more appealing player than Van Horn, but given the fact that Richard Hamilton, Shawn Marion, Corey Maguette and Jason Terry were still on the board, the selection of Szczerbiak does not make the cut.
That means of 37 white American players, only five of them were the right selections. So, if you are an NBA GM, and you choose a white American player, you only have a 5/37, or 13.5% chance of being happy with your selection. This brings me back to Spencer Hawes, the #10 pick of the 2007 NBA Draft by the Sacramento Kings. Who knows? Maybe he becomes great. Maybe ten years from now the league will have as many white American players as black players. Who knows? But all I'm saying is that if you owned a team, and you cared about winning, and you believe in statistics and percentages, then you would at least take Spencer Hawes skin color into consideration prior to making the selection. I know I would.
To prove that white American players suck at basketball, I have gone over the past 15 NBA drafts and listed almost all white American players (I decided not to list a few losers that everyone knew would suck, like Casey Jacobsen and Bryce Drew). I then listed black players that the teams could've taken had they taken race into account. Again, I am not saying race should be the ultimate deciding factor. Hhowever, after shooting ability, passing ability, and driblling ability, I think skin color is the greatest indicator of whether someone will succeed at the next level.
1992 Draft
This was the Shaq draft. Christian Laettner was selected #3 overrall by the Minnessota Timberwolves (Kevin McHale was not the GM at the time, although it would have made a lot of sense had he been). Jim Jackson and Robert Horry were still on the board. Tom Gugliotta was selected #6 overall, with Horry still on the board. Then Adam Keefe (remember that disgustingly dirty white guy on the Jazz that Jordan embarassed numerous times?) was selected #10 overall with Horry, Doug Christie and Latrell Sprewell still on the board.
1993 Draft
Maybe the biggest bust of all time, Shawn Bradley was selected #2 overrall by the 76ers. Penny Hardaway would get picked #3 by the Magic. Seriously! How could anyone other than the KKK or Mitt Romney think that Shawn Bradley would make a good professional basketball player. Ahead of Penny Hardaway! Imagine how different the 1990's decade would have been had the 76ers taken Penny. Does Shaq leave Orlando for LA? Does Penny become a more likable Kobe Bryant? GOD, I hate freaking Shawn Bradley!. Bobby Hurley was selected #7 overrall by the Kings, ahead of Gin and Tonic (Vin Baker for you non-TSG readers) and Allan Houston.
1994 Draft
A weak year for anglo-saxons, but Eric Montross did his best to keep up the stiff legacy. He was drafted #9 with Eddie Jones and Jalen Rose still on the board.
1995 Draft
Another pick that just makes you cringe. With their inaugural selection, the Vancouver Grizzlies selected Bryant Reeves with the #6 pick. In fairness, this was a rather weak draft. However, the Raptors picked seventh, and they took Damon Stoudamire. The Raptors are still in Toronto. The Grizzlies are no longer in Vancouver. It is not a coincidence. Trust me. In addition, Cherokee Parks was selected #12 with Corliss Williamson, Theo Ratliff, Travis Best and Michael Finley still on the board. Bob Sura was chosen #17 ahead of Best and Finley.
1996 Draft
The Golden State Warriors selected Todd Fuller with the #11 overrall pick. He was picked ahead of Kobe Bryant, Jermaine O'neal and Jerome Williams. If you google Todd Fuller, this is the picture that comes up. It is absolutely pathetic.
1997 Draft
The biggest loser on the face of the planet, Keith Van Horn, was the #2 overrall pick by the New Jersey Nets. He was picked before Tim Thomas and Tracy McGrady. Seriously, why would Keith Van Horn ever fit in with John Calipari? Van Horn is the only white player Calipari has ever coached. Not a coincidence. Austin Croshere was picked #12 with Maurice Taylor and Bobby Jackson still available. One of the true finds in this draft was actually Scott Pollard at #19, although Jackson was still on the board.
1998 Draft
Another god-awful pick. Raef LaFrentz gets picked #3 by the Nuggets with Antawn Jamison, Vince Carter, Larry Hughes, Paul Pierce and Bonzi Wells still on the board. Getting picked #7 was Jason Williams. Every rule has its exception and Jason Williams is most definitely it. Larry Hughes, Paul Pierce and Bonzi Wells were still on the board, but this was definitely a good pick by the Kings. Of all the setbacks that Jason Williams had, none of them were due to his skin color. Michael Doleac (notice how many terrible Mormons get picked?) went #12 with Ricky Davis still on the board. Matt Harpring was a steal at #15, although Ricky Davis was still on the board as well.
1999 Draft
Wally Szczerbiak gets picked #6 by the Timberwolves with Richard Hamilton, Shawn Marion, Corey Maggette and Jason Terry still on the board. Szczerbiak has had a solid career, but you can't help but think that if he were black, he'd be a lot better.
2000 Draft
In arguably the worst draft class in NBA history, Mike Miller took home rookie of the year honors after getting picked #5 by the Orlando Magic. The only possible alternatives would have been Jamal Crawford and Quentin Richardson. I think most would agree that Miller was the right choice at this spot (especially considering DerMarr Johnson was selected at #6 YIKES). Chris Mihm continued the big-white-stiff legacy after getting picked #7 overrall by the Cavaliers (I actually remember watching him play in college, and Dickie V saying that he thought Mihm should be the #1 overrall pick). In addition, Joel Przybilla got picked #9 ahead of Etan Thomas, Quentin Richardson, Desmond Mason and Jammal Magloire. Again, its a weak class, but the white guys didn't help out at all.
2001 Draft
The legendary three-man combination of white stiffs with Troy Murphy, Kirk Haston and Michael Bradley going #'s 14, 16 and 17 respectively, all ahead of Zach Randolph, Gerald Wallace, Samuel Dalembert and Tony Parker. Inexcusable.
2002 Draft
Quite possibly the worst pick of the decade, the Warriors drafted Mike Dunleavy at #3 with Chris Wilcox, Nene, Amare Stoudamire and Caron Butler still available. Seriously, how could you ever think that Dunleavy would be better than Caron Butler? Later in the draft, the Utah Jazz took Curtis Borchardt at #18 ahead of Tayshaun Prince.
2003 Draft
The Clippers displayed their overt racism by taking Chris Kaman at #6 and thereby stranding Wilcox on the bench. Kaman was picked ahead of David West, Josh Howard and Leandro Barbosa. Kirk Hinrich was selected at #7. A very solid choice, although Barbosa was still on the board. Nick Collison was selected at #12 by Seattle, who also delighted their fans by taking Luke Ridnour at #14. Barbosa and Howard were both still available, but, it was all part of the plan to get Kevin Durant four years later.
2004 Draft
Rafael Araujo (another mormon) was selected #8 by the Raptors with Andre Iguodala, Al Jefferson, Josh Smith, Delonte West and Tony Allen still available. Danny Ferry thought Luke Jackson would make a great running mate to LeBron James at pick #10, even though Jefferson, Smith, West and Allen were all still available. Robert Swift was picked #12 by Seattle with all the aformentioned players still available (again, all part of the plan to get Kevin Durant). Kris Humphries was selected by the Jazz at #14 with all the aforementioned players still available. It is also interesting to note that Araujo and Humphries were traded for each other last summer, and it had absolutely no effect on anything that happened this year in the NBA.
2005 Draft
Only one white American player, and it was actually great pick. Isiah Thomas picked David Lee with the last pick of the 1st round (#30).
2006 Draft
MJ picked Adam Morrison at #3. Its too early to tell, but Brandon Roye, Tyrus Thomas and Randy Foye were all picked after him and all had superior rookie seasons. JJ Redick was picked #11. Again, too early to tell, but Thabo Sefolosha and Renaldo Balkman were still on the board and have shown more promise than Redick.
So, that is 37 white American basketball players drafted in the first round between 1992 and 2006. Of those 37 players, only Jason Williams in 1998, Mike Miller in 2000, Kirk Hinrich in 2003 and David Lee in 2005 were "good picks". A case can be made for both Keith Van Horn and Wally Szczerbiak. Van Horn actually had a few really good seasons for the Nets, but he is just such a giant loser I cannot call him a good pick. Szczerbiak was always a more appealing player than Van Horn, but given the fact that Richard Hamilton, Shawn Marion, Corey Maguette and Jason Terry were still on the board, the selection of Szczerbiak does not make the cut.
That means of 37 white American players, only five of them were the right selections. So, if you are an NBA GM, and you choose a white American player, you only have a 5/37, or 13.5% chance of being happy with your selection. This brings me back to Spencer Hawes, the #10 pick of the 2007 NBA Draft by the Sacramento Kings. Who knows? Maybe he becomes great. Maybe ten years from now the league will have as many white American players as black players. Who knows? But all I'm saying is that if you owned a team, and you cared about winning, and you believe in statistics and percentages, then you would at least take Spencer Hawes skin color into consideration prior to making the selection. I know I would.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Thank You Tim Donaghy
There is not much in this world I love more than The League. I like the fact that I can breathe, that I live in America, that I have an amazing dog, that whenever I walk into a room I immediately become the smartest person in that room, and I love pizza. But more than all those things, I love the NBA. My childhood consists of Michael Jordan, NBA on NBC and Ahmad Rashad. I am by no means a perfectionist nor do I consider myself a critical person, but when something that I love so dear has such egregious flaws, I can't help but feel frustrated. I do not understand the blind worship that people with access and a voice have given David Stern since MJ retired from the Bulls. The league I love so dear is still great, but the thing is, it could be so much better. When running for president in 2000, Bill Bradley had a great saying that "You need to fix the roof when it is sunny outside". David Stern could have fixed his league back during the Jordan years, or even during the Lakers' run, but he didn't. Instead, he sat idly by and watched as the Spurs and Pistons became the dominant franchises, and no one cares. Now, the League is in crises mode. And I thank Tim Donaghy because maybe, just maybe, he persuades Stern to wake up and either step down, or, recognize that the League has tremendous problems which need to be solved.
If I were advising the Commissioner, this is what I would propose:
*(Captain Obvious) improve the refereeing; contract outside help via other leagues, consultants, even fans. Stern became so obsessed with Cuban that he failed to recognize that Cuban spoke for many hardcore fans, not just in the city of Dallas. Dwyane Wade in the 2006 Finals was one of the most despicable performances in sports history. You should not/cannot be rewarded for jumping in the air, flayling your arms, and then falling down.
*fine players for flopping. People often argue for technical fouls to be called when a player flops. However, this is ridiculous, as referees have proven that they cannot distinguish between flop and legitimate contact, and therefore, the game stinks. Also, there should not be rules against flopping, as, in theory, if a player flops, and does not get bailed out, all he is doing is hurting his team by putting himself out of position. Flops are insanely easy to distinguish when viewed in slow motion. Every game, the League should review the tape, and then fine certain players for flopping. This way, the refs would not get blamed, and eventually, players would care to much about their lighter wallet to ever pull the stunt again.
If I were advising the Commissioner, this is what I would propose:
*(Captain Obvious) improve the refereeing; contract outside help via other leagues, consultants, even fans. Stern became so obsessed with Cuban that he failed to recognize that Cuban spoke for many hardcore fans, not just in the city of Dallas. Dwyane Wade in the 2006 Finals was one of the most despicable performances in sports history. You should not/cannot be rewarded for jumping in the air, flayling your arms, and then falling down.
*fine players for flopping. People often argue for technical fouls to be called when a player flops. However, this is ridiculous, as referees have proven that they cannot distinguish between flop and legitimate contact, and therefore, the game stinks. Also, there should not be rules against flopping, as, in theory, if a player flops, and does not get bailed out, all he is doing is hurting his team by putting himself out of position. Flops are insanely easy to distinguish when viewed in slow motion. Every game, the League should review the tape, and then fine certain players for flopping. This way, the refs would not get blamed, and eventually, players would care to much about their lighter wallet to ever pull the stunt again.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
The Perfect (but likely bad) NBA Team
Hassan Adams was released over the weekend by the New Jersey Nets in order to free up cap space to avoid the luxury tax (even though he was only scheduled to make a whopping $800,000 next year, where as Bernard Robinson and Antoine Wright will be making more). I have been a big fan of Hassan Adams for a long time. When he was in high school, he was extensively profiled by ESPN (along with Evan deadbeat Burns), and then went to play for Lute Olsen at Arizona. His most memorable game was in the Elite 8 against Daron Williams and Arizona in 2005. Although people mostly remember Arizona's implosion in the closing minutes, Hassan Adams almost single handily won them the game. He was then taken late in the second round by the Nets in the 2006 Draft (after graduating). Most importantly though, through extensive coverage of his life since he was 17, at absolutely no point was there any hint that Hassan Adams was anything but a happy, intelligent, good-natured human being that just loved the game of basketball.
So, he has been released by the New Jersey Nets. Now, if you were Sacramento, Indiana, Minnesota, Philadelphia, New York or Memphis, teams with over-the-hill players who are going nowhere next year and everybody knows it, is there any risk to picking up Hassan Adams? Of course not, but, unfortunately, as has been reiterated ad infinitum by Bill Simmons, NBA GM's are a bunch of morons. If I ran any one of those teams, I would blow up the team, replace them with talented but underrated young players that were good guys who worked hard, and we would be competitive every night. We would likely lose more than we won, but, we would always be fun to watch.
Take Sacramento for example. The Kings used to represent everything that was good about basketball. They have since fallen on hard times. Their roster consists of Kevin Martin (seems like a very good guy in addition to a pretty darn good team player), Mike Bibby (still has a few very good years in him, especially if his team ever made the playoffs), Ron Artest (never had anything good in him, but other GM's think he not only used to, but currently does, which is really all that matters), Brad Miller (who has nothing in him, and it seems as though everyone knows it), Kenny Thomas, the recently signed and already overpaid Mikki Moore, and, of course, the biggest natural loser not named Keith Van Horn or Drew Bledsoe, Shareef Abdur-Rahim. Now, what if tomorrow they signed Hassan Adams. Then traded Mike Bibby to Cleveland in exchange for Shannon Brown and Anderson Varejau. Then they traded Ron Artest to the Rockets in exchange for Aaron Brooks and next years first round pick. That would leave the Kings with the following rotation:
PG: Aaron Brooks
SG: Shannon Brown
SF: Kevin Martin
PF: Anderson Varejau
C: Spencer Hawes
6: Hassan Adams
This team would likely go 20-62, with zero arrests, 100% effort all the time, and would make people proud to be Sacramento Kings fans. Other than Martin, at least one other player would break out and average 20 points for them (of course, it won't be Varejau because he can't score, and it won't be Hawes because, well, hes white). They would then wind up with multiple first round picks in next years draft and be drmatically under the cap to add a player here and there.
My point is that NBA GM's need to be realistic. For example, the Indiana Pacers are never going to win a title with Jermaine O'neal. He makes too much money, holds the ball in the low post for too long, and I cannot remember him every scoring a basket in his career. If your going to lose, its always better to lose with likable, hard-working young players that make about as much as the fans sitting courtside than it is with established overpaid players who are resented by everyone when the team is losing.
So, he has been released by the New Jersey Nets. Now, if you were Sacramento, Indiana, Minnesota, Philadelphia, New York or Memphis, teams with over-the-hill players who are going nowhere next year and everybody knows it, is there any risk to picking up Hassan Adams? Of course not, but, unfortunately, as has been reiterated ad infinitum by Bill Simmons, NBA GM's are a bunch of morons. If I ran any one of those teams, I would blow up the team, replace them with talented but underrated young players that were good guys who worked hard, and we would be competitive every night. We would likely lose more than we won, but, we would always be fun to watch.
Take Sacramento for example. The Kings used to represent everything that was good about basketball. They have since fallen on hard times. Their roster consists of Kevin Martin (seems like a very good guy in addition to a pretty darn good team player), Mike Bibby (still has a few very good years in him, especially if his team ever made the playoffs), Ron Artest (never had anything good in him, but other GM's think he not only used to, but currently does, which is really all that matters), Brad Miller (who has nothing in him, and it seems as though everyone knows it), Kenny Thomas, the recently signed and already overpaid Mikki Moore, and, of course, the biggest natural loser not named Keith Van Horn or Drew Bledsoe, Shareef Abdur-Rahim. Now, what if tomorrow they signed Hassan Adams. Then traded Mike Bibby to Cleveland in exchange for Shannon Brown and Anderson Varejau. Then they traded Ron Artest to the Rockets in exchange for Aaron Brooks and next years first round pick. That would leave the Kings with the following rotation:
PG: Aaron Brooks
SG: Shannon Brown
SF: Kevin Martin
PF: Anderson Varejau
C: Spencer Hawes
6: Hassan Adams
This team would likely go 20-62, with zero arrests, 100% effort all the time, and would make people proud to be Sacramento Kings fans. Other than Martin, at least one other player would break out and average 20 points for them (of course, it won't be Varejau because he can't score, and it won't be Hawes because, well, hes white). They would then wind up with multiple first round picks in next years draft and be drmatically under the cap to add a player here and there.
My point is that NBA GM's need to be realistic. For example, the Indiana Pacers are never going to win a title with Jermaine O'neal. He makes too much money, holds the ball in the low post for too long, and I cannot remember him every scoring a basket in his career. If your going to lose, its always better to lose with likable, hard-working young players that make about as much as the fans sitting courtside than it is with established overpaid players who are resented by everyone when the team is losing.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Go Dog Go, Cat in the Hat and other Masterpieces of American Literature
I just got back from a trip to Borders book store. I purchased four books: When Genius Failed, A People's History, Tipping Point and Undercover Economist (which I had actually never heard of, but it came free as part of a Buy 2 Get 1 Free Deal). I am currently finishing up Den of Thieves, which is very good, just a little long and at times hard to follow since there are so many freaking people involved. For those of you who don't know, Den of Thieves is an account of the insider trading cases that occurred in the late 1980's. The most famous of course is Michael Milken, who amassed a fortune with his junk bond creativity (which seems perfectly legal as far as I can tell, its just extremely risky), but then used his connections to learn of impending deals, and then traded on that inside information and also sold his information to other big-name clients. Milken was sentenced to ten years in prison, but only served two. He was sentenced by Reagan appointee Judge Kimba Wood. She was later was nominated for AG by Clinton. Rupert Murdoch, one of Milken's largest clients, got wind of Wood's nomination and instructed his New York Post staff to do some dirt digging. It was discovered that Wood had previously hired illegal immigrants to work as nannies, and, even though she had filed the appropriate paperwork and not broken the law, the Post engaged in a mass character assassination against Clinton's nominee, forcing her to withdraw her nomination. So yeah, lets hope Murdoch doesn't buy the Wall Street Journal.
Rudolph Giuliani, who was then the U.S. Attorney for New York, with jurisdiction over Wall Street, is profiled extensively in the book. Apparently he was a media whore, the LaVar Arrington of politics if you will. He used the notoriety of the Milken case to gain the GOP nomination for Mayor of New York in 1989 (losing). He hung tough, and the rest is history. Interesting though, that Milken wound up serving less than two years, and was still a billionaire upon his release. So, all and all, he wound up earning $2 Billion in exchange for less than two years in prison. Not a bad deal. I wonder how much time Bodie Broadus or Omar Little would get if they walked in and stole $2 Billion from the Federal Reserve. I am guessing they would get more than two years. Just a hunch.
Anyway, as for the current books, I am really excited about When Genius Failed. I am hoping that it clears up a lot of confusion I have over hedge funds, the floating Baht and the Asian financial crisis of 1997, and the regulation of securities in general.
As for the other books, we shall see. I have a feeling I am going to really like Tipping Point, but since I've already seen the Brian Lamb interview, and read so much about the book, I will get bored fairly quickly and never finish it. Hopefully Undercover Economist is practical and reasonable, and not merely a sensationalist pessimistic critique of the dismal science that argues that every poor person will die miserable due to a rigged system.
The wild card of the bunch is a People's History by Howard Zinn. The book comes highly recommended by my friend Will Hunting, but I am a little worried that the book overemphasizes class struggle and romanticizes the victims of rich white male dominance to such a degree that it may become cliched. The problem with books like that in today's society is that anyone with any intelligence whatsoever recognizes the dark side of America's founders, and we no longer need to be convinced that racism, sexism, and flat out evil existed among America's elite. But, American history is what it is. Hopefully though, the book gives greater support to an across-the-board estate and inheritance tax, something which I strongly support. We shall see.
Please leave me some book recommendations in the comments section. Thanks.
Rudolph Giuliani, who was then the U.S. Attorney for New York, with jurisdiction over Wall Street, is profiled extensively in the book. Apparently he was a media whore, the LaVar Arrington of politics if you will. He used the notoriety of the Milken case to gain the GOP nomination for Mayor of New York in 1989 (losing). He hung tough, and the rest is history. Interesting though, that Milken wound up serving less than two years, and was still a billionaire upon his release. So, all and all, he wound up earning $2 Billion in exchange for less than two years in prison. Not a bad deal. I wonder how much time Bodie Broadus or Omar Little would get if they walked in and stole $2 Billion from the Federal Reserve. I am guessing they would get more than two years. Just a hunch.
Anyway, as for the current books, I am really excited about When Genius Failed. I am hoping that it clears up a lot of confusion I have over hedge funds, the floating Baht and the Asian financial crisis of 1997, and the regulation of securities in general.
As for the other books, we shall see. I have a feeling I am going to really like Tipping Point, but since I've already seen the Brian Lamb interview, and read so much about the book, I will get bored fairly quickly and never finish it. Hopefully Undercover Economist is practical and reasonable, and not merely a sensationalist pessimistic critique of the dismal science that argues that every poor person will die miserable due to a rigged system.
The wild card of the bunch is a People's History by Howard Zinn. The book comes highly recommended by my friend Will Hunting, but I am a little worried that the book overemphasizes class struggle and romanticizes the victims of rich white male dominance to such a degree that it may become cliched. The problem with books like that in today's society is that anyone with any intelligence whatsoever recognizes the dark side of America's founders, and we no longer need to be convinced that racism, sexism, and flat out evil existed among America's elite. But, American history is what it is. Hopefully though, the book gives greater support to an across-the-board estate and inheritance tax, something which I strongly support. We shall see.
Please leave me some book recommendations in the comments section. Thanks.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Money & Politics
In the latest issue of the New Republic, a liberal political news magazine, there is an article on the disaster that is "McCain in '08". Basically, the article explains how McCain, who was once championed as the moderate Republican who was not a tool of the religious right, has lost any and all sense of direction, and is currently polling 4th among Republicans in California (conservatives who support gay rights, are pro-Choice, don't own a gun, and believe in the crackpot liberal communist theory of Global Warming). While the article all but nails down McCain's coffin, what is really noteworthy of the article is its depiction of the almost parasitic relationship between politics and money. Politicians need money to run ads, to get votes, and annoy people, and tell lies about each other, and appeal to the lowest common denominator of American society, and win the election, and then throw a party for their contributors, where they will ask for more money so that they can run ads four years from now and tell more lies in order to throw another party. Ironically, it appears as though McCain's most noteworthy legislative accomplishment, the commendable but inadequate McCain-Feingold Bill , will be what kills his last hope for the White House.
The infamous organization Democracy Matters, along with numerous other grassroots organizations, have organized a movement for publicly financed elections. Essentially, the movement calls for a $6 a person tax every year to fund federal elections, giving members of the two major parties an equal share of the money to use for campaign expenditures. Inevitable problems lie regarding third party candidates and independents, as well as the fact that federal financing of elections does not necessarily rid of the irritations that campaigns bring. But still, money is too serious a threat to democracy to allow for the status quo to continue.
Another idea that I first read about in an article published by the TMQ (Gregg Easterbrook) of ESPN and Brookings Institute, is to dramatically increase the salaries of Congressman, say, from $165,200 (or slightly less than three times the salary of the average American worker), to about $1 Million. Then, pass radical legislation prohibiting any and all forms of contributions to Congressmen. The theory posits that this would attract more qualified people to the realm of politics (the Mark Cubans, Henry Paulsons and Michael Bloombergs of the world), who would not be tempted by the allure of money, and hopefully, we would wind up with an overall decrease in government spending, and a drastic decrease in pork barrel spending since Congressmen would no longer feel pressured to deliver desirable legislation for their campaign contributors.
Of course, all of this debate surrounding campaign finance reform is irrelevant as long as the Supreme Court continues to consider limitations on money as being unconstitutional limitations on an individuals freedom of speech (Buckley v. Valeo). People that know me well know that I am a big supporter of the Supreme Court. As in other cases, the Supreme Court's position is easy to understand. Why should citizen involvement in government be considered a bad thing? In the end, the blame lies with greedy and corrupt Congressmen. I never understood why the media vilified Jack Abramoff to such a degree, when really, all he was doing was buying a Congress that was for sale. If you know that a Congressman will pass legislation that will greatly boost your business if you give him a few thousand dollars to get him elected, would anyone else honestly say they wouldn't have acted the same way? Oh well, I guess the blame shouldn't lie with Congress, but rather with us, ridiculously stupid Americans who elect corrupt Congressman.
The infamous organization Democracy Matters, along with numerous other grassroots organizations, have organized a movement for publicly financed elections. Essentially, the movement calls for a $6 a person tax every year to fund federal elections, giving members of the two major parties an equal share of the money to use for campaign expenditures. Inevitable problems lie regarding third party candidates and independents, as well as the fact that federal financing of elections does not necessarily rid of the irritations that campaigns bring. But still, money is too serious a threat to democracy to allow for the status quo to continue.
Another idea that I first read about in an article published by the TMQ (Gregg Easterbrook) of ESPN and Brookings Institute, is to dramatically increase the salaries of Congressman, say, from $165,200 (or slightly less than three times the salary of the average American worker), to about $1 Million. Then, pass radical legislation prohibiting any and all forms of contributions to Congressmen. The theory posits that this would attract more qualified people to the realm of politics (the Mark Cubans, Henry Paulsons and Michael Bloombergs of the world), who would not be tempted by the allure of money, and hopefully, we would wind up with an overall decrease in government spending, and a drastic decrease in pork barrel spending since Congressmen would no longer feel pressured to deliver desirable legislation for their campaign contributors.
Of course, all of this debate surrounding campaign finance reform is irrelevant as long as the Supreme Court continues to consider limitations on money as being unconstitutional limitations on an individuals freedom of speech (Buckley v. Valeo). People that know me well know that I am a big supporter of the Supreme Court. As in other cases, the Supreme Court's position is easy to understand. Why should citizen involvement in government be considered a bad thing? In the end, the blame lies with greedy and corrupt Congressmen. I never understood why the media vilified Jack Abramoff to such a degree, when really, all he was doing was buying a Congress that was for sale. If you know that a Congressman will pass legislation that will greatly boost your business if you give him a few thousand dollars to get him elected, would anyone else honestly say they wouldn't have acted the same way? Oh well, I guess the blame shouldn't lie with Congress, but rather with us, ridiculously stupid Americans who elect corrupt Congressman.
Venus Williams
Older sister Venus won her fourth Wimbledon title on Saturday, easily defeating [Insert random European name here]. I am always partial to athletes who challenge the establishment and take alternative paths to greatness. I don't know anything about women's tennis, but I have heard that players fizz out a young age, so we need to be cherish every glorious moment my older sisters have over the coming years, for you never know when childbirth may strike.
People are constantly labeling Venus and Serena as drama queens, which they probably are. However, if they really were the prima donnas that everyone says they are, don't you think there would occasionally be family conflict which the media would turn into the Shaq/Kobe, TO/McNabb circus? I do not believe I have ever heard of any dispute between the two. Credit has to go to Venus. She is the older sister, and entered the mainstream sports world with considerable hype in the in late 1990's. But when her younger sister dominated the sport at the start of the decade, not once was their any hint of jeolousy or resentment from Venus. She could have easily become the Billy Ripken to Serena's Cal. She didnt. In all honesty, Venus and Serena seem to be less dramatic than most women I have met. So maybe its not that they are drama queens, but rather, that the other women on the tennis tour are actually men. GO VENUS!
This is an op-ed in the London Times written by the Champion herself. She demonstrates how equal pay can be achieved without the involvement of government. Although this is an unusual case, I truly believe that eventually all discrimination in pay will be resolved in a similar fashion. Instead of having the government come in and mandate it (which creates resentment, backlash and unintended consequences that ultimately hurt the benefiting party), discrepencies in pay will be resolved simply by the MAN handing out the paycheck realizing that it is in HIS best interest to reward his employees equally.
Here is also an interesting article written by Jemele Hill. It is about Althea Gibson, the first black woman to win Wimbledon. Hill has been on the ESPN Page 2 staff for about six months now. I have probably read half of her columns. She is not bad. I find her a lot more interesting than Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post (who in addition to being ridiculously boring is insanely stupid). It seems as though Hill and LZ Granderson have morphed into a better version of Jason Whitlock, in order to balance the crazy rhetoric of the god-awful Scoop Jackson.
People are constantly labeling Venus and Serena as drama queens, which they probably are. However, if they really were the prima donnas that everyone says they are, don't you think there would occasionally be family conflict which the media would turn into the Shaq/Kobe, TO/McNabb circus? I do not believe I have ever heard of any dispute between the two. Credit has to go to Venus. She is the older sister, and entered the mainstream sports world with considerable hype in the in late 1990's. But when her younger sister dominated the sport at the start of the decade, not once was their any hint of jeolousy or resentment from Venus. She could have easily become the Billy Ripken to Serena's Cal. She didnt. In all honesty, Venus and Serena seem to be less dramatic than most women I have met. So maybe its not that they are drama queens, but rather, that the other women on the tennis tour are actually men. GO VENUS!
This is an op-ed in the London Times written by the Champion herself. She demonstrates how equal pay can be achieved without the involvement of government. Although this is an unusual case, I truly believe that eventually all discrimination in pay will be resolved in a similar fashion. Instead of having the government come in and mandate it (which creates resentment, backlash and unintended consequences that ultimately hurt the benefiting party), discrepencies in pay will be resolved simply by the MAN handing out the paycheck realizing that it is in HIS best interest to reward his employees equally.
Here is also an interesting article written by Jemele Hill. It is about Althea Gibson, the first black woman to win Wimbledon. Hill has been on the ESPN Page 2 staff for about six months now. I have probably read half of her columns. She is not bad. I find her a lot more interesting than Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post (who in addition to being ridiculously boring is insanely stupid). It seems as though Hill and LZ Granderson have morphed into a better version of Jason Whitlock, in order to balance the crazy rhetoric of the god-awful Scoop Jackson.
Friday, July 6, 2007
KKR and Russia's New Wealth
I recently read the book "Barbarians at the Gate", which I think is the best book I have ever read. It is the true story of the merger of RJ Reynolds Tobacco and Nabisco Foods, and how the public company was then taken private by the firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. What I think the book does a fabulous job of doing is showing how most people in the financial and corporate world have emotions and understand the consequences of their actions, and are not merely faceless businessmen. The book does a good job of showing how there are no "bad guys", no Monty Burns', but rather, just smart people trying to outsmart one another. Anyway, here is an interesting article on Henry Kravis the self-made billionaire who founded KKR back in the 70's (you have to have a washingtonpost.com or slate.com account to read the link; they are both free, and I highly recommend getting them). If the book is a good representation, I have to say he seems like a really good guy.
Here is also an interesting article from Washington Post on the new wealth in Russia. One of my favorite stories is the one of Ronald Reagan showing Boris Yeltsin (then Mayor of Moscow I believe)around Washington DC in the late 1980's. Reagan commented to his staff that maybe Yeltsin, who was a reformer in the Soviet Union pushing for liberalization of the economy and advocate of glasnost, may not have been the American ally the conservative administration was hoping for, as he seemed indifferent to the National Monument and the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials. Then, on their way back to the White House, they passed a local grocery store and Yeltsin walked in and started to cry. He was astonished at how easy it was for Americans to get food. Anyway, I am no fan of communism. But this article reminds me of something Milton Friedman said recently. I am paraphrasing and babbling, but basically he said something like "For decades I advocated and advised developing nations to liberalize, liberalize, liberalize, and when your done liberalizing, then you can liberalize some more. Looking back, we should have established the rule of law first, then liberalize". Corruption is really the killer, which is why the commuted sentence of Scooter Libby, the Justice Department debacle, and the joke that is/was Tom DeLay and ARMPAC bothers me so much. (FYI, and I am shocked that this was not reported on more, but David Iglesias, the US Attorney for New Mexico who was fired by the Justice Department to make way for more lawyers from Regent University, one of the worst law schools in the country, is actually the lawyer in the GITMO case which was the inspiration for Aaron Sorkin's play and then the movie A Few Good Men).
Here is also an interesting article from Washington Post on the new wealth in Russia. One of my favorite stories is the one of Ronald Reagan showing Boris Yeltsin (then Mayor of Moscow I believe)around Washington DC in the late 1980's. Reagan commented to his staff that maybe Yeltsin, who was a reformer in the Soviet Union pushing for liberalization of the economy and advocate of glasnost, may not have been the American ally the conservative administration was hoping for, as he seemed indifferent to the National Monument and the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials. Then, on their way back to the White House, they passed a local grocery store and Yeltsin walked in and started to cry. He was astonished at how easy it was for Americans to get food. Anyway, I am no fan of communism. But this article reminds me of something Milton Friedman said recently. I am paraphrasing and babbling, but basically he said something like "For decades I advocated and advised developing nations to liberalize, liberalize, liberalize, and when your done liberalizing, then you can liberalize some more. Looking back, we should have established the rule of law first, then liberalize". Corruption is really the killer, which is why the commuted sentence of Scooter Libby, the Justice Department debacle, and the joke that is/was Tom DeLay and ARMPAC bothers me so much. (FYI, and I am shocked that this was not reported on more, but David Iglesias, the US Attorney for New Mexico who was fired by the Justice Department to make way for more lawyers from Regent University, one of the worst law schools in the country, is actually the lawyer in the GITMO case which was the inspiration for Aaron Sorkin's play and then the movie A Few Good Men).
Charlotte Bobcats
It is unfortunate that the Bobcats did not extend Gerald Wallace's contract before the season, because now if they want to keep him, they will have to massively overpay. If Rashard Lewis gets 75$-85$ million, then I imagine Wallace's agent will be asking at least 50$ million, and someone will no doubt pay it. I actually really really like Gerald Wallace. Even as a rookie on the Kings I remember him always playing hard and making things happen. Look at his numbers this season; 18 pts, 7 reb, and 2 steals. Most impressive though is his FG%, which is over 50%. When you are the leading scorer on a very bad team, you tend to shoot in the low 40's. But Wallace, who really has no outside game, shot 50% (Contrast that to Josh Smith's 44%). That means he recognizes his limitations and understands his game, and could get at least 15 a game for any team in the league. However, that is not worth killing your salary cap for a second tier player. I think the Magic would have been much better off with G Wallace than Rashard Lewis, but what do I know, I'm only an expert at everything.
If the Bobcats do end up keeping Gerald Wallace, I believe they can be very, very solid next season. As much as I criticized Raymond Felton in college, it was never that I thought he was awful, but rather, I didn't think he was as amazing as everyone said he was (and I proved to be right), However, hes still fast, unselfish, and most importantly, a very good guy. Their new coach is Sam Vincent (WHO? He is as "Ann as the nose on plains face" to me), but my guess is that he will try to be Suns-esque. Look at this lineup, your telling me they can't win some games:
PG: Felton
SG: J Richardson
SF: Adam Morrison
PF: Gerald Wallace
C: Emeka Okafor
6th: Matt Carroll (who they just resigned at a bargain of 3.5$ million a year, for a guy who I guarantee averages double figures next season)
7th: Walter Herrmann
8th: Sean May
If the Bobcats do end up keeping Gerald Wallace, I believe they can be very, very solid next season. As much as I criticized Raymond Felton in college, it was never that I thought he was awful, but rather, I didn't think he was as amazing as everyone said he was (and I proved to be right), However, hes still fast, unselfish, and most importantly, a very good guy. Their new coach is Sam Vincent (WHO? He is as "Ann as the nose on plains face" to me), but my guess is that he will try to be Suns-esque. Look at this lineup, your telling me they can't win some games:
PG: Felton
SG: J Richardson
SF: Adam Morrison
PF: Gerald Wallace
C: Emeka Okafor
6th: Matt Carroll (who they just resigned at a bargain of 3.5$ million a year, for a guy who I guarantee averages double figures next season)
7th: Walter Herrmann
8th: Sean May
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Miami Part 2
While in Miami we attended a Marlins-Braves game. I wore my Miguel Cabrera shirt and we sat behind home plate in the surprisingly gorgeous Dolphins Stadium. At a typical Nats-Braves games at RFK, I would say that 20% of the crowd are Braves fans. In Miami, it was even more dramatic, with at least 30% of the crowd being Atlanta fans. It is hard to believe, seeing as how whenever you turn to TBS in the summer, Turner Field appears to be 80% empty. I'd day that only the Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs travel better than the Braves. In all fairness though, it is understandable how the Braves travel so well, given that 80% of the population of Atlanta lives in mobile homes.
Anyway, I actually witnessed a great game. Pitching for the Marlins was Byung-Hyun Kim (Yes, the Ex-Closer for the Diamondbacks), and for the Braves was Tim Hudson. Kim pitched a solid 6 innings, and left the game with a 2-1 lead. After a myriad of no name relievers, Armando Benitez came into pitch for the Marlins and I knew we were doomed. I barely follow baseball, but I remember the 95-98 Orioles very well, as they were the first team I followed. And Benitez represents everything I hate about baseball. There is no reason, NONE, for him to be in the Major Leagues. He managed to blow 13 save opportunities in a single 5 game ALCS against the Yankees in 96, and then broke his own record by blowing 145 save opportunities in the the 6 game 97 ALCS against the Indians. He has never done anything good. Yet here we are, ten years later, and he is still pitching, making millions of dollars a year, living in a giant mansion with great cars and a beautiful wife, and blowing save opportunities. Needles to say, he gave up 5 runs (thereabout, I stopped keeping count), and the Marlins lost 6-5.
The problem with baseball is that there are too many bad players. Too many teams=too many bad players. Not that basketball is free from this problem, but basketball you only play 5 players, so no one can really see how bad Shavlik Randolph, Shelden Williams and JJ Reddick really are.
Anyway, I actually witnessed a great game. Pitching for the Marlins was Byung-Hyun Kim (Yes, the Ex-Closer for the Diamondbacks), and for the Braves was Tim Hudson. Kim pitched a solid 6 innings, and left the game with a 2-1 lead. After a myriad of no name relievers, Armando Benitez came into pitch for the Marlins and I knew we were doomed. I barely follow baseball, but I remember the 95-98 Orioles very well, as they were the first team I followed. And Benitez represents everything I hate about baseball. There is no reason, NONE, for him to be in the Major Leagues. He managed to blow 13 save opportunities in a single 5 game ALCS against the Yankees in 96, and then broke his own record by blowing 145 save opportunities in the the 6 game 97 ALCS against the Indians. He has never done anything good. Yet here we are, ten years later, and he is still pitching, making millions of dollars a year, living in a giant mansion with great cars and a beautiful wife, and blowing save opportunities. Needles to say, he gave up 5 runs (thereabout, I stopped keeping count), and the Marlins lost 6-5.
The problem with baseball is that there are too many bad players. Too many teams=too many bad players. Not that basketball is free from this problem, but basketball you only play 5 players, so no one can really see how bad Shavlik Randolph, Shelden Williams and JJ Reddick really are.
MIAMI Part 1
I spent the weekend and the 4th with my family in Miami. Someone much much smarter than me needs to do a study on how the metropolitan area of Miami functions. It challenges everything I understand about capitalism. There are only 4 Fortune 500 Companies headquartered in Miami , which places it just ahead of Buffalo and after Omaha. Yet, the city is only outdone by New York and Chicago with regards to condo sales, and in one stroll down Collins Avenue in South Beach you are likely to see more Ferraris, Bentleys, and Aston Martins than you would see in all of Fairfax County. Basically, you have this gorgeous city with the nicest beaches in North America, some of the most luxurious homes and cars on the planet, but no one works. People either go to the beach everyday, or sit inside in the air conditioning. It is baffling. The easy answer is that the homes and cars belong to rappers and athletes, and the condos belong to old people that fly south for the winter from New York (ala the Constanzas and Seinfelds). Although highly unlikely to play such a dramatic role, even if it were the case, then what do the Cubans and Haitians do?
Speaking of Cubans, I am always fascinated when I talk to people who were directly affected by Communsim. Most Americans were indirectly affected by Communism through the ridiculous Red Scare, the legendary Cuban Missile Crisis and of course the horrific Vietnam War. However, few Americans were directly threatened by Communist ideology, rather, merely, it was American insecurity towards its existence. I bring this up because in the new Michael Moore film Sicko , he heads to Cuba to portray the greatness that is the Cuban Health Care System. Unfortunately for Mr. Moore and others who enjoy being contrarians so much that they endorse the likes of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, the city of Miami is full of people who understand the true realities of communist regimes. And no, Cuba is not the medical utopia he portrays it to be. Even the liberal New Yorker Magazine is highly critical of the film and Moores romantic portrayal of the dictators benevolence. I am by no means endorsing our current health care system which has failed miserably (40+ Million Americans uninsured is absolutely ridiculous), however, there are better ways to approach the subject than to sail to Cuba.
It is discomforting to know that many liberals still see Communism and Castro as a preferable alternative to the Bush administration. While that is a topic for another day, it is worth noting that in the past 2 months I have spoked to a Cuban, a Nicaraguan, a Czech and a Romanian, all of whom were born at the time their country was under Communist rule. Not only did all four of their families have to risk their lives to emigrate, but all of them spoke of Communism with such disdain that I immediately felt bashful for bringing it up.
Speaking of Cubans, I am always fascinated when I talk to people who were directly affected by Communsim. Most Americans were indirectly affected by Communism through the ridiculous Red Scare, the legendary Cuban Missile Crisis and of course the horrific Vietnam War. However, few Americans were directly threatened by Communist ideology, rather, merely, it was American insecurity towards its existence. I bring this up because in the new Michael Moore film Sicko , he heads to Cuba to portray the greatness that is the Cuban Health Care System. Unfortunately for Mr. Moore and others who enjoy being contrarians so much that they endorse the likes of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, the city of Miami is full of people who understand the true realities of communist regimes. And no, Cuba is not the medical utopia he portrays it to be. Even the liberal New Yorker Magazine is highly critical of the film and Moores romantic portrayal of the dictators benevolence. I am by no means endorsing our current health care system which has failed miserably (40+ Million Americans uninsured is absolutely ridiculous), however, there are better ways to approach the subject than to sail to Cuba.
It is discomforting to know that many liberals still see Communism and Castro as a preferable alternative to the Bush administration. While that is a topic for another day, it is worth noting that in the past 2 months I have spoked to a Cuban, a Nicaraguan, a Czech and a Romanian, all of whom were born at the time their country was under Communist rule. Not only did all four of their families have to risk their lives to emigrate, but all of them spoke of Communism with such disdain that I immediately felt bashful for bringing it up.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
First Post
On a facebook profile I recently read a quote that I thoroughly enjoyed: “There are certain people in life that we successful people refer to as losers, cross them out of your life.” I have noticed that these "losers" have a tendency to not be "bloggers". Although it is hard to specify exactly what constitutes a "loser", it is generally understood that losers fail to think for themselves. However, thinking for yourself out of a desire to think for yourself in order to not be a loser is the easiest route to loserdom. Succesful people think for themselves not for the sake of being different, but rather, due to a degenerative medical condition in the genes known as "coolness extremus", which then satisfies the condition which remedies the "loser" trait in all of us (and yes, i recognize the obviously inconsistent dichotomy in using the generally understood interpretation of loser and advocating its remedy, individual thought). Anyway, the point of all these big words is that I have recently come to the realization that people who take the time to write blogs are usually not dumb, and, using the incomprehensible definition above, are definitely not losers. Since I usually have about 2 hours of work to do each day, and spent another 7 staring at a computer screen, I figured I'd give this blogging thing a chance. Some of you may remember my failed blogging attempt a couple summers ago. I have learned from my mistakes (namely, creating a conglomerate that designs cars, engineers buildings, competes with ESPN for sports news supremacy, and dabbles in million dollar South American real estate ventures is not a good business model, nor was it a substitute for a 19 year old being unemployed during a summer). Anyhow, I hope to write stuff as often as possible. If anyone reads it, Fabulous. If no one so much as comes across this page, I'm still Fabulous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)