Saturday, March 26, 2016

Trump is a Trump Supporter

Can you imagine what George W. Bush must be thinking as he clears away brush on his non-working farm?  Had he not listened to the experts, the politicians, family members, friends, consultants, business folk and everyone else, about the need to have to actually know shit when running for President he could have cleared so much more brush!

Assuming he even follows elections, or spends time listening to Trump speak, he must be shaking his head in disgust.  All that time spent learning things, and to what end?  Trump proves you don't have to know anything, literally.  Not a thing about what the country is facing, or how to fix a problem.  All you need to do is ramble on incessantly about whatever topic happens to come to mind.

Oh, you haven't heard the interview with the Washington Post Editorial Board where Trump says absolutely nothing of substance, nor answers a single question specifically for over an hour?

You're probably thinking it's a waste of time, but believe me, it's not.  At some point your mind just starts wondering off, but then it gets ripped back and you say out loud, "WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE?  IS THIS REALLY HAPPENING?"

Yes, it's really happening.  I can't imagine what was going through the minds of the people conducting the interview.  I wish I could see their faces.

So before you go listening to it let me just explain one simple thing:

There are many ignorant and stupid Trump supporters.  If they ever heard this interview they would come away thinking, "Trump is right!"  They will think, "The media doesn't treat him fairly...he is a great builder!"

Because these people are so stupid and/or willfully ignorant they don't even consider the questions being asked.  To them it doesn't matter that he can't answer a question because they can't either, and he represents them.  They won't realize the questions being asked are paramount to understanding whether this man has the intelligence or capability to lead because they don't understand the necessity for those things.  They just see a man being treated unfairly, even though he's not.

Many Trump supporters are just not smart enough to recognize a news organization is supposed to ask serious questions, and that they should expect serious answers.

And frankly, I don't think Trump realizes it either.  We give him way too much credit.  The general belief is because he has succeeded at making buildings and has a lot of money that he's therefore intellectual, or smart; that he's "playing" the crowd.

It's a fallacy.  The guy is Al Czervik.

And that's what is missing from the national dialogue. Trump speaks on the level of his voters because behind the money and opportunity given to him, he is that voter.  He doesn't answer difficult questions because like them, he can't answer difficult questions.  He is petty and redundant, but so are they.

Trump isn't using his voters.  It's not an act.


Thursday, March 24, 2016

The Sanders/Clinton Difference

I want to preface this again by saying I've not listened to a word either of these two people have said for the last few months.  And I also don't plan to.

What I have read the last few days is there are "voting irregularities in Arizona" and "Sanders is actually beating Clinton but the media won't tell you!"  Strange how I read that in the media.

This will be quick.

The Clinton campaign is not involved in voting irregularities in a Republican controlled state like Arizona.  The fact that polling locations were not as plentiful in no way proves Sanders would have won that state - one in which he lost by nearly 20% points.  Many of those closed polling areas were in minority and urban neighborhoods, who have shown themselves to largely be Clinton voters.  Someone suggested to me on Facebook that "Sanders voters were more likely to vote at night!"

Seriously, shut the fuck up already.  Is night-voter a new demographic?  Do you hear yourself?

This is the bottom line in all of this, and the reason Clinton is going to win:

There is a system in place; it's an imperfect system, but it's one Hillary Clinton understands.  It's one controlled by elected state officials like governors and others.  Just like you saw in Florida during Gore v Bush.  The states control the elections at all levels.  Clinton is more likely to receive support from these election officials after having spent YEARS engaged with these people.  That's the system.  Politics is real.  There has been a lot of horse-trading going on well before you "felt the Bern."

It wasn't the cause of any problems in Arizona because the Republican governor is in no way helping Clinton, or anyone likely to vote for her.  But it is a hurdle someone like Sanders would need to overcome.  It's going to be no different for Trump in Republican states that don't want to see him win.
All told, Clinton spent years battling on the front lines, and in return she receives the preferential treatment of all the statewide politicians who support her.  Senator Sanders was mostly in Vermont, or speaking to a largely empty chamber in the Senate.  She was on the front lines; he was not.

That's the difference in why she'll be the candidate.

I appreciate the support for Sanders, and the excitement behind him.  It has been borne out of Gore v Bush and countless other issues.  But it doesn't upend an entire system.  That takes years of fighting; battling.  The years Hillary Clinton already put in.

When Sanders loses we'll see how many of you pack up and quit.  Say things like "the system is rigged!"

Thing is, Hillary Clinton will still be fighting when you've stopped.

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

You Should Support Hillary

I want to be clear about this: I don't watch the debates.  I don't listen to a word Hillary Clinton says.  I can't stand her voice when she shrieks.  I have not paid one bit of attention to a single policy prescription she has uttered in the last year.  There are certain things she does as a female that bother me as a male.  We're different.  We're built differently.  We've experienced different things.  We see things differently.

None of that matters to me.

I am 100% solidly committed to supporting Hillary Clinton for President.

The primary reason is simply this: she's the toughest person in America.  Period.

This woman has taken more hits than any politician in the history of our nation, and it's not even close.  Whether it was her marriage, her looks, the way she acts, things she previously said, friends, , acquaintances, policy issues, scandals, you name it, she has taken all of it.  Every last drop.  And yet...she isn't even wobbling.

There's not a single shred of evidence that all of the supposed scandals surrounding her, the perceived "lying" and the like, is anything but manufactured.  For if there was a single lie, or any evidence of fraud pertaining to her life she would be in jail.

Yep.  She would be in jail.

How do I know this?  Because there's an entire industry devoted to putting her behind bars, supported by thousands of politicians and government employees hoping to see it happen.  Millions and millions of dollars have been spent to destroy her.  Movies produced to end her career.

Still standing.

Still fighting for what she believes in.

I am 100% committed to voting for and supporting this woman for President.  A woman who has taken more shit than any man could ever stand.


Here's why I'm not supporting my dad for President. Uhhh, I mean Senator Bernie Sanders.

First, I'd like to say I think it's kind of cute that Americans are supporting a Socialist Jewish guy from Brooklyn to be the leader of the free world.  It's like if Neil Simon and Mel Brooks came together on a last comedy piece.

Lets be clear about something though.  If Sanders had all of the same qualities he does now, but was 45 years old and the Senator from California, a lot of his supporters would not be there.  It's a lot easier to support a Jewish Grandpa for President than it would be a highly energized "Jew."

You'd hear things brought up like, "How will the Arab world respond with a Jew for President?" and "Great, another Jew running the world?"  And many worse things.  Believe it.  But because he's like this old comfy Jewish guy it's different.  It's cute.  Plus, no one thinks he's going to win so it's not really addressed too closely.  I bet it even gives some people a feeling they're open-minded, but that's not the point...

It's worth pointing out that I largely agree with most of what Sanders has to say, maybe even more than Clinton's message, but that's not enough for me.  While Sanders was in Congress espousing ideas Prof. Bronner was so fond of repeating to me, Clinton was taking flack on the front lines.  When he was speaking his mind, his truth, his beliefs to an often empty and ignorant chamber, she was out there taking heat.  And don't get me wrong because I appreciate Sanders's ideological purity and his unwavering consistency.  It's fantastic. is also not realistic.  And that's the key point to everything.

There's a place for Senator Sanders.  He should have a voice.  That place is not the Oval Office.


Realism is the key difference between Sanders and Clinton.  If I lived in a world where we could start from scratch; enact an entire society tomorrow, I would vote for Bernie without hesitation.  And so would Hillary!  He speaks to her as well, as they are cut from the same cloth.  Sure, she has been jaded by everything she has had to deal with, and sure she has had to make deals with people she hates, but again - that's the real world.

When you spend a lifetime in both the public eye and public office you're going to have to make decisions, and those become part of your record.  They don't necessarily define who you are though.  In fact, you compromise so you can live to fight another day.  And no one has been fighting longer.
Bernie is preaching an idealism.

Hillary is preaching a realism.

I appreciate both, but I have to go with the person who I not only know will do right by all Americans, but who will not stop fighting until there's not a single breath left in her body.

At the end of the day, I know deep down inside that when she finally has her way; when no one else is telling her what to do, how and when, she's going to be the most forceful and most effective Democrat we have ever seen in our lives.

I don't need to watch the debates, hear her discuss policies, or relive the past to know this.

I see her standing tall.

That's enough for me.


Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Radio Blogger Rich Lieberman: Scumbag Misogynist Calls Out Others

I think a lot of credit should be given Rich Lieberman, the Bay Area media blogger.  I say this because it's pretty uncanny that a man could have such a loyal following while being so consistently wrong about everything.  And, AND...when he's not wrong he's usually just ironic.

Like he was today, when discussing "misogyny" as it relates to a certain sports radio host.

Rich isn't a fan of posting negative responses on his site, so I figured I'd just write it out here.

In his latest tirade he goes off on Kate Scott, a Bay Area sports media personality, who not only knows sports, but is also a good person.  I've had a number of conversations with Kate (none recently), and every time we spoke I came away a bit better for it.  She's great.

Believe me when I tell you, Scott knows her sports.  And since I know my sports more than most, I feel qualified to say that.  But lets be realistic here and recognize that "knowing sports" isn't a hard thing to do.  You watch, you read, you talk to people.  Poof!  You know sports.

What is hard to do is to entertain people within the realm, which she does quite well, on multiple platforms.

Speaking of entertaining within sports, the next person Lieberman attempted to smear was John Lund.

There are few people in Bay Area radio I can actually listen to for more than 15 minutes, and Lund is certainly one of them.  In fact, I have ONE TIME in my life written a radio host to tell them I like what they do.  Lund was that individual.

Apparently Lieberman takes issue with Lund's supposed "misogyny" and "juvenile" behavior.  Are you kidding me?  Have you seen your own website?  I mean, I've spoken with Lieberman directly, and the things he has uttered to me personally about females is nothing short of deplorable.  I remember one instance having to do with Robin Winston in particular.  Lets just say on more than one occasion he mentioned "what I'd do to her."  Just embarrassing and disgusting.

Let me tell you what she'd do to you: create space through running.

This guy can't go 6 weeks without posting photos of all the women he finds attractive in Bay Area news rooms, and when he's not doing that he's busy taking pot-shots at those he finds unattractive.  Furthermore, he allows comments to be posted about women which are both anonymous and flat out disgusting.  Considering the comments are moderated by himself, he's the one allowing for these things to see the light of day.  Plus, we don't even know if he is the one making the comments.  All told, anything written anonymously on your own site, that is misogynistic, racist, ageist, or any other "ist" you want to add on ultimately falls at the feet of the person publishing those comments.

And believe me, he's also posting the anonymous ones as well.

This is the guy taking shots at others?  Please, asshole, give it a rest.

As for Lund (and Papa), sure their show is littered with dick jokes and the like, but so what?  It's humorous.  Not all the time.  I'll agree they maybe do it a bit too much for my liking, but it's entertainment.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.   They usually get out of the cycle just when I've had too much. As for Lund specifically, he is actually quite self-deprecating on such a natural level that he in no way comes off as a misogynist.

I also find it interesting that Lieberman's blog consistently takes shots at Lund, but not Greg Papa.  Of course Rich would never criticize someone he may actually know, or in some way fears.  But if you listen to the show of which Lund is co-host, Papa is at the VERY LEAST 50% responsible for any perceived lewd comments about women.  This man usually triples down on a joke!

I personally have no issue with it at all.  I do have issue with a gutless, jealous, "media blogger" attempting to slander and smear people every chance he gets.

But just you wait, folks.  Because my wonderful knowledge of Rich Lieberman and bread butterer Michael Savage will be coming to you oh-so-soon.  Just you wait...

"It's a doozy!"

Sixers One Way, Warriors the Other, and the End the NBA?

Philadelphia's Two NBA Teams

There is something so unbelievably strange to me about the two franchises the Golden State Warriors and Philadelphia 76ers that forces me to write this.

As some of you know I've been doing some occasional on-air radio work for SportsRadio 94 WIP in Philly, and for the last however-many-months have been waist deep in east coast sports.  Yet at the same time I live here in the Bay Area, engulfed in the "we kinda care" mentality that exists among fans here.  

Truth be told, they're better for it, but in no way do they live and die the way the rest of the country does.  Why?  Well, because everything here is kind of awesome.  

I digress...

If you happen to be one of those hardcore fans that missed the game last night, you might overhear someone at Philz Coffee say, "Can't believe the Warriors lost last night."  

Someone else will immediately chime in with, "Really?  How many is that?"  

The only thing similar to the surprise of the Warriors (53-5) losing is the 76ers (8-51) actually winning,

Except that conversation is more like, "Can't believe the Sixers won last night."

"Shut the fuck up.  Who'd they beat?!?!"  

I'm probably one of the only people paying seriously close attention to both these franchises, and I have to tell you both are at times equally hard to watch.  You'd think watching the Warriors (a team I do root for) would be easy since winning is fun, and I'm sure for the lifers it hasn't been a struggle.  But from my perspective the Warriors point out just how bad so many other NBA teams are that it at times becomes painful to watch them put on these clinics.  Usually by the 2nd Quarter I'm ready to shut it down.  

The best games of recent note have been Saturday's Oklahoma City game (albeit overrated because of the poor jobs the refs did - despite Curry's heroics), the Atlanta Hawks game of last week, and oddly, the 76ers game where the Warriors almost loss.  I mean, what person wasn't hoping the 6ers won that game?  Of course, the Warriors were hardly trying...

When it comes to the 76ers all I can say is I'd rather watch a train crash than one pass safely by.  Not sure if that always holds for sports, but in this scenario it sometimes does.

For all intents and purposes, the 76ers are a borderline D-League team.  It's that bad.  For those not in the know, the running joke in Philly circulates around the phrase "The Process", or more accurately, "trust the process."  

This is centered around General Manager Sam Hinkie's concept to continually play poorly, acquire as many high draft picks as possible (and low ones), draft players with upside, and then have all of these things fall neatly into place eventually resulting in the 76ers becoming a great team.

Except it's not working.  At all.  And it's why I'm writing this.

After thinking about how annoying so many newly transplanted Warriors fans are in their recently discovered adulation for the sport of basketball (they do this with all sports here), it occurred to me that the 76ers "process" is so fundamentally flawed that even if they had Steph Curry and Klay Thompson on their roster they wouldn't be winning any titles.  That's the absurd reality about how far away the 76ers are from winning.  

Yep.  I believe this.  The 76ers recent draft picks of Nerlens Noel, Joel Embiid and Jahlil Okafor are getting them nowhere near a championship, even with Curry and Thompson.  Throw Draymond Green into the mix and you might definitely have something, truthfully those 3 can make any team a winner.  Granted, with Curry and Thompson on the team they would select other players, but this is just to point out how poor the picks are in the overall scheme of things.

The reason I believe this is because the players Hinkie has selected are so lacking in basic game fundamentals, which runs counter to every single player on the Warriors roster, and the overall design of the team.  There is a hardly a player on Golden State who does not completely understand what it means to move without the ball to free up a teammate.  They do this almost innately.  It's a major part of the reason why Curry has become so successful.  

The 76ers?  Outside of maybe Nick Stauskas, who is seemingly getting worse by the week, I'm not sure they have a player who understands the essence of team basketball.  We'll discuss this more shortly, but lets just chalk it up to this franchise is still a number of players away from being good, and that's after 3 consecutive picks in the Top 6 of the NBA draft.

I hear a number of callers into sports radio stations, and even hosts themselves, say things like, "The rest of the league needs to take notice of what the Warriors are doing."  Doesn't matter.  It won't be replicated.  But even short of replicating it, the 76ers are seemingly not even learning a thing from the road map itself.  They've acquired 3 bigs who have a combined 2.5 years of college basketball under their collective belt.  The first barely has any offensive skill, the second is an injury waiting to happen with about 5 years of competitive basketball experience, and the third is basically a throwback to an era that has seemingly passed him by.  As for their guards, prepare to see most of them playing for the Delaware 87ers.   

Eventually the 76ers will win.  They have to.  And someone might say, "Look, the process worked!"  Well, I can assure you that nothing they've done regarding the last 3 draft picks is getting the team closer to being a viable franchise, let alone a contender.  

If the 76ers management understood the direction of the league they could have made 3 very different selections: CJ McCollum, Aaron Gordon and Kristaps Porzingis.  These 3 could have been the start of a championship team (I'm sure there are other combos).  A lights-out two-way guard who spent 4 years in college, an intelligent and outstanding defender in Gordon, and Porzingis, a player who may very well completely change the game.

McCollum is excelling in Portland, Gordon is being compared to Draymond Green, and Porzingis, a player many believe has transcendent qualities, who wouldn't even meet with the 76ers pre-draft.

The Sixers likely are left with depreciating assets, two out of the 3 just recently reaching the legal drinking age.

Of course, the one who shouldn't be drinking at all has made all the headlines...

It's fair to point out that taking Noel, in a year that was so incredibly weak, may have been the right pick.  You could argue he was worth the "upside" when the "process" was beginning.  Except the follow-up picks have been so lacking it's hard to credit management otherwise.

The reality is the team has no vision.  If you believed in this supposed "process" you select Porzingis.  It was clear immediately he had the most upside of any player.  He was available to you.  Not selecting him leads me to believe they've stopped believing their own bullshit.

You can see my take on Porzingis just from having seen him for 5 minutes in Summer League.


Oh, fundamentals.  

They're hard to describe and explain when discussing the modern game, but let me just say this: There are two teams in the NBA whose franchises are mostly made up of players who spent at least 2 years starting in college (closer to 3-4), or have a number of players from overseas, where "team basketball" is more heavily stressed.  They are the Warriors and the San Antonio Spurs.  

Recently, the Miami Heat won 2 titles with some extremely talented players, but keep in mind the team was littered with intellectual ballers like Ray Allen, Shane Battier, to some extent Mike Miller, Udonis Haslem and others.  Even still, they barely escaped the aging Spurs in 2013.  

The bottom line is the best teams in the NBA understand how to play the game on a higher level than what most "one and done" filled teams are capable of achieving.  Yes, there will be outliers, but they border on being unicorns.  

That's why it's so shocking to me when I hear former superstars like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Oscar Robertson and Charles Barkley trying to cut down the Warriors style of play.  Guys like Curry, Thomson and others are dominating because they're playing the same type of basketball which these greats played: fundamentally sound.  Same goes for the Spurs.  

I mean, are these former players actually watching the games?  Yes, the 3-point shot has completely altered the game, but the reality is it's ONE player who's actually doing it.  Without Curry on the floor, Green would not be a great shooter because he would rarely have open looks.  Thompson is a very good shooter, made even better because of Curry's presence.  When you look at the rest of the teams around the NBA who are running the awful offense of driving the lane, kick it out for 3, rotate if covered, eventual 3-point shot, yeah, it's painful.  It's worth criticizing.  

But that's not the Warriors.  

They are the anomaly in all of this.

As for the Spurs, the reason they have been so good for the last few years despite their aging roster is because their core players are intelligent basketball players.  Intelligence and skill is beating raw athletic ability.  As talented as the Clippers and OK City are, they're never going to win with those players.  I think that's obvious.  And they have guys who can jump over the backboard and shoot from 40 feet away.

During the Spurs run a couple years ago, I heard fans say things like, "This Spurs team is one of the best of all time!  They're so good without the ball!"

They were good.  They weren't that good.  It's really the opponents being that bad.  Most teams they played were so flawed and weak that the Spurs looked like the 1970 Knicks.  The Pistons, Lakers, Bulls, Celtics, Trailblazers, Rockets, probably the Suns, and other teams from the later half of the 20th Century would have beaten the aging Spurs.  


Realize this, and take note of what I'm about to say to you because it will be true: 


Remember this.

The.  Last.

You will never again see an accidental superstar like Curry who spent 4 years in college, and whose father was a very good player.  You will never get a guy like Thompson who spent 3 years in college, also with a talented father, who both understand the game and shoots this well.  And you certainly won't find many guys like Draymond Green who had 4 years under Coach Tom Izzo at Michigan St, who can play 3 positions well.  In addition the Warriors have seasoned players like Andrew Bogut, Iguodola, Harrison Barnes, Mo Speights, and others.

You'll never see this happen again because the NCAA and NBA rules do not allow for players like this to develop..

You won't find fundamentally sound basketball stars like this in the United States ever again.

So take it all in and stop bitching about it because you'll wish you were seeing it again in 5 years.


I do not think the Warriors would be a 70 win team in any other era.  I think they would have consistently won 50, maybe 60.  But what makes them so great now is something many opponents in the 70s, 80s, and 90s possessed: team basketball.  

Long story short, Green's rebounds would be cut in half in any other era.

As an example, The Cleveland Cavaliers of Mark Price, Craig Ehlo, Larry Nance, Brad Daugherty and others would beat the Cavs of today.  Forget athleticism.

Sidenote 2

There's a reason the current best college player is from Australia, and the likely best pick from last year from Latvia.  Worth noting, Karl Anthony Towns father was a coach, in case you want to toss him in there...  

I'm Glad

In 2013 the Warriors pushed the Spurs to 6 games in a series many either forgot about it, or had just expected would end as it did.  From my perspective the Warriors let it slip away.  They should have been up 2-0 ON THE ROAD.  Unfortunately for them, Boris Diaw decided to have the game of his life, sending the first one to overtime, and the Warriors to a loss.  It was a ridiculously good game.  

Heading home up 2-0 the Warriors would have had the confidence to win.  Instead, after game 3 they were down 2-1 and eventually lost.

Looking back, I'm glad this happened because that series somewhat set the stage for an eventual meeting this season.  The two teams have somewhat avoided each other since 2013, both winning titles without having to go through each other.  Because of this some tension now exists. 

Reality is the Warriors have nothing to worry about in the NBA this season.  We're really just hopeful the Spurs can give them a run.  Make it interesting!  Judging by the last game, they won't.  But we have to reach for something, right?  The Warriors are making the NBA meaningless, except, of course, if you're into "the process..."  

All told, I'm sure there's still a bad taste in Curry and Thompson's mouths from the 2013 season.  They're too competitive for there not to be.  Maybe winning a title is motivation enough, but always good to have that extra bit of sports-hate.

I'm guessing no one will challenge them.  Obviously, I'm a descendant of Nostradamus.


I mentioned the fundamentals, the 4 year players, etc. etc. throughout, and will mention it again.  AAU basketball has destroyed high school and college basketball, and by extension, the NBA is suffering.

I'm a guy who watches a shit-ton of college hoops, although recently this has been waning.  Why?  Because the product is getting worse.  It's not always bad, as there are some good years, but it's like a 2 steps back -1 forward scenario these days.  And I hate it.

I wish the NBA, or NCAA, could institute a new rules modeled on this idea:

You can go straight to the NBA from high school, but if you choose the college route you must stay for 2 years.  

This would not only help the NBA in the long run, but would undoubtedly help not only college basketball, but the players themselves.  The reasons should be obvious.

As it stands, this '1 year in college' rule is just awful.  I'm guessing it's a way to get eyes on the NCAA game just a little bit, but now both the NCAA and NBA are becoming hard to stomach.

Something has to be done.  I'm not sure what it is, but something has to be done.

Because like I wrote previously, once this Warriors team expires the NBA is going to be a big pile of crap.  But hey, if you're a Sixers fan that should give you hope.  Once the entire league sinks to a lower level they should be competitive...