There is a growing desire amongst basketball stat folks to say that Wilt wasn't really that great of a player because: 1) he played 48 minutes a game versus a normal starter's minutes of around 36; and 2) teams played at a far higher pace in the 1960s than they do today.
What these well-intentioned folks seem to miss is that people during Wilt's day were playing under the same rules and at the same pace of play he was playing at. They had the same opportunities to play all 48 minutes, if they could hack it. There was nothing peculiar about Wilt's situation that permitted him to sleep more or travel less or rest in practice more. Wilt was just able to play 48 MPG without fouling out or diminishing his skills substantially on a per-minute basis.
If the "Wilt wasn't that good" argument were correct, then we would assume that Wilt's scoring marks and rebounding marks would be roughly equivalent to others of his day or perhaps 10-15% higher than, say, the 5th place guy in the statistical categories. That just simply did not happen.
Wilt's stats were routinely 30-50% higher than the 5th place finisher. The only players who challenged Wilt for supremacy as a player were Russell and Oscar. Neither of these guys put up the rebounding AND scoring numbers that Wilt did. Russell was always fighting Wilt for the rebounding title, but Russell never scored 20 a game (those who seek to normalize Wilt's stats probably need to state how they feel about Bill Russell claiming to the #1 player of all time and scoring an adjusted, what? 10 ppg? Imagine a player in today's league claiming #1 status and performing at 2004 Ben Wallace levels).
And the final thing to consider is this -- when you are looking for outrageous statistical achievements in scoring and rebounding (and even triple doubles, where Wilt is the only guy to go 20-20-20) who do you turn to? Wilt. If Wilt really wasn't that great, then why wouldn't there be at least 20-30 Wilt-like efforts sprinkled into the mix? I saw a stat the other day that said "there have been 58 games of at least 39--29 in NBA history -- Wilt has 53." Allen Iverson played a ton of minutes. Paul Silas played LeBron one night in Minneapolis after LeBron literally lost consciousness on the sideline and had to be helped back to the locker room for an IV. There have been guys played to death by their coaches. Where are the 39-29 performances or the 20-20-20 performances? Where are the instances of guys going for 45+ for 20 consecutive games? How about 35+? Wilt averaged 50 a game. Jordan, I am pretty sure, is second at 37 a game. There was never a better player than Jordan, but he couldn't go 48 minutes a night and get 50 a night even though the pace of play in 1987 was pretty fast.
Anyway, hoping that when people run down Wilt that someone might do a Google search and find this item and re-think their assessment.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Jodi Arias -- Doesn't Deserve the Death Penalty
http://news.yahoo.com/lawyers-jodi-arias-trial-last-bids-life-death-141302508.html
It is a close call, I will concede. But this is obviously a very troubled and disturbed woman who snapped due to the mistreatment by her sort of boyfriend.
While certainly no one deserves to die, the victim here was not altogether blameless in his death. He used this girl for sex and led her along with the belief that he was somewhat serious about her. In reality, she was never a serious candidate for a serious life long relationship with the guy. She was, for lack of a better analogy, a substitute for Kleenex or a towel or an old shirt or an old sock. He used her to get off. When there is a relationship between two parties, there is almost always going to be an imbalance in power, but you probably ought not to mislead a woman with respect to your intentions when she is so crazy that she doesn't mind dressing up in little boys' underwear and having you sodomize her. I mean, geez, you have some psycho-sexual issues issues and you are taking them out on this girl....and she allows you to do so, with the false hope that by doing so she will get you to love and marry her.
Can you really be all that surprised when one day she completely loses her mind and decides you have effed with her (and effed her) long enough?
Look, I will concede that I have had a couple of unbalanced relationships in my life where I was more like the Travis Alexander side of the relationship. Both relationships were with extremely intelligent women. Extremely intelligent. One was under 20 and in need of attention, the other was borderline insane. Had the first one decided one day to wake up and kill me, I would have been disappointed, but I cannot say I wouldn't have slightly deserved it. The second one? She on several occasions told me that she would stab me, she told me her dad would have me killed, she told me that I better watch myself..... In light of the fact that I knew her imbalance and still conducted myself as I did, had she killed me, should she go to prison forever? Sure. Would my ghost wander the earth if she didn't get the death penalty? No. (That said, I will quickly note that I have seen neither person for 23+ years so any desire to kill me would NOW be completely unjustified - you have had a 23+ year cooling off period).
If I were not on the jury, I would not vote to kill Jodi Arias.
It is a close call, I will concede. But this is obviously a very troubled and disturbed woman who snapped due to the mistreatment by her sort of boyfriend.
While certainly no one deserves to die, the victim here was not altogether blameless in his death. He used this girl for sex and led her along with the belief that he was somewhat serious about her. In reality, she was never a serious candidate for a serious life long relationship with the guy. She was, for lack of a better analogy, a substitute for Kleenex or a towel or an old shirt or an old sock. He used her to get off. When there is a relationship between two parties, there is almost always going to be an imbalance in power, but you probably ought not to mislead a woman with respect to your intentions when she is so crazy that she doesn't mind dressing up in little boys' underwear and having you sodomize her. I mean, geez, you have some psycho-sexual issues issues and you are taking them out on this girl....and she allows you to do so, with the false hope that by doing so she will get you to love and marry her.
Can you really be all that surprised when one day she completely loses her mind and decides you have effed with her (and effed her) long enough?
Look, I will concede that I have had a couple of unbalanced relationships in my life where I was more like the Travis Alexander side of the relationship. Both relationships were with extremely intelligent women. Extremely intelligent. One was under 20 and in need of attention, the other was borderline insane. Had the first one decided one day to wake up and kill me, I would have been disappointed, but I cannot say I wouldn't have slightly deserved it. The second one? She on several occasions told me that she would stab me, she told me her dad would have me killed, she told me that I better watch myself..... In light of the fact that I knew her imbalance and still conducted myself as I did, had she killed me, should she go to prison forever? Sure. Would my ghost wander the earth if she didn't get the death penalty? No. (That said, I will quickly note that I have seen neither person for 23+ years so any desire to kill me would NOW be completely unjustified - you have had a 23+ year cooling off period).
If I were not on the jury, I would not vote to kill Jodi Arias.
New "Dancing With the Stars" Contestant Charlotte McKinney's Twitter Pics
https://twitter.com/Char_mck/media
Do yourself a favor -- take some time to run through the pics. Reported measurements: 32D-24-34.
Do yourself a favor -- take some time to run through the pics. Reported measurements: 32D-24-34.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Guys Who Played At a High Level for the Longest Time
With KG's return to Minneapolis set for Wednesday, let's review the list of guys who played at a 10+ Win Share level for the most seasons. KG no longer plays at that level, but he is on the list in a tie for 18th place. See below for the name, dates, and (at the end) number of seasons a guy managed to get 10+ Win Shares (led by Kareem's 16 seasons). The "one of this guys is not like the other" guy would be Reggie Miller.....certainly not a top 25 (or probably not a top 50) player, but he is tied for 7th place on this list. (For you younger folks, Bob Petit was ten times first-team All-NBA.).
| 1 | Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* | 1970 | 1986 | TOT | NBA | 16 |
| 2 | Karl Malone* | 1988 | 2003 | UTA | NBA | 14 |
| 3 | Wilt Chamberlain* | 1960 | 1973 | TOT | NBA | 13 |
| 4 | John Stockton* | 1988 | 2002 | UTA | NBA | 13 |
| 5 | Tim Duncan | 1998 | 2010 | SAS | NBA | 12 |
| 6 | Dirk Nowitzki | 2001 | 2014 | DAL | NBA | 12 |
| 7 | Kobe Bryant | 2000 | 2013 | LAL | NBA | 11 |
| 8 | Magic Johnson* | 1980 | 1991 | LAL | NBA | 11 |
| 9 | Michael Jordan* | 1985 | 1998 | CHI | NBA | 11 |
| 10 | Reggie Miller* | 1990 | 2001 | IND | NBA | 11 |
| 11 | Oscar Robertson* | 1961 | 1971 | TOT | NBA | 11 |
| 12 | David Robinson* | 1990 | 2002 | SAS | NBA | 11 |
| 13 | Bill Russell* | 1958 | 1969 | BOS | NBA | 11 |
| 14 | Charles Barkley* | 1986 | 1996 | TOT | NBA | 10 |
| 15 | LeBron James | 2005 | 2014 | TOT | NBA | 10 |
| 16 | Bob Pettit* | 1955 | 1964 | TOT | NBA | 10 |
| 17 | Jerry West* | 1962 | 1973 | LAL | NBA | 10 |
| 18 | Larry Bird* | 1980 | 1988 | BOS | NBA | 9 |
| 19 | Kevin Garnett | 2000 | 2008 | TOT | NBA | 9 |
| 20 | Shaquille O'Neal | 1993 | 2005 | TOT | NBA | 9 |
Friday, February 20, 2015
Full List of NBA Trade Deadline Deals 2015
Goran Dragic to the Miami Heat from the Denver Nuggets in a three-team deal:
- Miami gets: Goran Dragic, Zoran Dragic
- Phoenix gets: Â Danny Granger, Justin Hamilton, John Salmons, two 1st-round picks
- New Orleans gets: Norris Cole (per ESPN), Shawne Williams (per Woj)
Winner -- Miami, if it can re-sign Dragic, has gone from one of the worst PG situations in the league to top 10. I don't know how Wade will adapt to a good PG, but Miami at least didn't stand pat and just let the roster die out.
Miami B+
Phoenix -- got two #1s for a guy who wasn't going to stay, so they also did well, but their decision to sign a third PG in the off season (Isaiah Thomas, see below) caused all of this unnecessary drama in the first place -- so, B
New Orleans -- I guess they figured that since Jrue Holiday is completely unable to get healthy that they needed someone. Cole sucks -- yet another guy who rode LeBron James to an OK career before being exposed. C minus.
Enes Kanter to the Oklahoma City Thunder, Reggie Jackson to the Detroit Pistons in a three-team deal:
- Oklahoma City gets: Enes Kanter, Kyle Singler, D.J. Augustin, Steve Novak
- Utah gets: Kendrick Perkins, Grant Jerrett, protected future Oklahoma City 1st-round pick, Detroit 2nd-round pick, rights to Tibor Pleiss (per ESPN)
- Detroit gets: Reggie Jackson
Winner -- Detroit. I think Reggie Jackson can be a really good player, and they gave up bench shit that no one should ever want. Grade - B plus
OKC -- I don't see Kanter as a big upgrade from Stephen Adams. But Adams has a broken hand, so the Thunder are desperate. Adams will eventually return, but the difference between Kanter and Adams is not noticeable against better opponents. So they basically got a good 24 minute center for a terrible player (Perkins) and a guy I like (Jackson), oh, and a low #1 -- so, C minus.
Utah -- no fucking idea what they are doing here. Take a guy who plays for you and get one of the worst players in the league (Perkins), a low #1, and.......Tibor Pleiss??? Maybe Pleiss is the new Marc Gasol, but if not then the Jazz gets an F.
The Suns, Sixers, Bucks, and Celtics engage in a massive four-team trade:
- Phoenix gets: Brandon Knight, Marcus Thornton, Cleveland's 2016 1st-round pick (per Woj)
- Philadelphia gets: Los Angeles Lakers 2015 1st-round pick (top-five protected)
- Milwaukee gets: Michael Carter-Williams, Miles Plumlee, Tyler Ennis
- Boston gets: Isaiah Thomas
Winner -- Phoenix -- they get the deal's best player (Knight) and a #1 and give up a guy they should have never signed in Thomas (good player, but effed up their chemistry really badly). Grade A minus
Philly - got what could be a really high #1....or a really awful 1. Grade B
Milwaukee - Why would you get Ennis AND MCW? MCW is only effective at 35+ MPG. High usage, low percentage shooter. Plumlee was great for one year in Phoenix, then they dump him? Bucks Grade -- B minus
Boston -- Thomas is a good player. No one wants Marcus Thornton. He defines "one-dimensional". Grade C
Arron Afflalo to the Portland Trail Blazers from the Denver Nuggets:
- Portland gets: Arron Afflalo, Alonzo Gee
- Denver gets: Will Barton, Victor Claver, Thomas Robinson, lottery-protected 2016 1st-round pick
Winner -- none. Denver gets a low #1, Portland gets a couple guys who won't make them appreciably better. Both teams get a C.
- Minnesota gets: Kevin Garnett
- Brooklyn gets: Thaddeus Young
Wolves -- Odd, odd deal. A desperate effort for a veteran leader and a name to sell tickets. Management will always take the easy path, never acknowledging that the way to draw a crowd is to become a consistent winner. Grade C minus (Young is so awful defensively, he really isn't a guy you can play 24+ minutes, and he was going to leave anyway).
- Detroit gets: Tayshaun Prince
- Boston gets: Jonas Jerebko, Gigi Datome
Um, no winner here. Old washed up guy for a young never-will-be guy. Both teams get a D.
JaVale McGee to the Philadelphia 76ers from the Denver Nuggets:
- Philadelphia gets: JaVale McGee, Oklahoma City Thunder's 2015 1st-round pick (top-18 protected), Chu Chu Maduabum
- Denver gets: Cenk Akyol
Denver got itself into a Wolvesian situation where it was paying a #1 to dump a guy (ala Wes Johnson to Phoenix). How do you ever become that desperate? Cut the frigging guy (ala Josh Smith). Grade D.
- Houston gets: K.J. McDaniels
- Philadelphia gets: Isaiah Canaan, 2nd-round pick
Philly -- they put together an awful, awful team and guys like McDaniels refuse to quit and play hard enough to win way more games than I predicted (I said 6-76). The reward? Your walking papers....for nothing. If you didn't want the guy, just let him ride out the season and leave with a good feeling. Grade F
- Washington gets: Ramon Sessions
- Sacramento gets: Andre Miller
Wiz -- got Miller off their asses. Sessions sucks. Grade D. (Hoping for addition by subtraction).
Pablo Prigioni to the Houston Rockets from the New York Knicks:
- Rockets get: Pablo Prigioni
- Knicks get: Alexey Shved, two 2nd-round picks
Knicks -- Phil loves big point guards who can defend and stand around and hit an open three (Ron Harper, Brian Shaw). But acquiring Shved is like saying "I like tall divas who dress up a lot and wear a lot of makeup" and getting RuPaul. Technically meets the criteria, but......
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Your 11 Best Smaller Guys Who Almost Never Shot 3 Pointers
http://bkref.com/tiny/L34Q1 How about some Elton Brand!!!
| 1 | Adrian Dantley* | 1980 | 1987 | TOT | NBA | 6 |
| 2 | Elton Brand | 2002 | 2007 | LAC | NBA | 4 |
| 3 | Julius Erving* | 1980 | 1983 | PHI | NBA | 4 |
| 4 | Marques Johnson | 1980 | 1983 | MIL | NBA | 3 |
| 5 | Anthony Mason | 1996 | 2001 | TOT | NBA | 3 |
| 6 | Sidney Moncrief | 1982 | 1984 | MIL | NBA | 3 |
| 7 | Cedric Maxwell | 1980 | 1981 | BOS | NBA | 2 |
| 8 | Maurice Cheeks | 1986 | 1986 | PHI | NBA | 1 |
| 9 | Alex English* | 1983 | 1983 | DEN | NBA | 1 |
| 10 | Bernard King* | 1984 | 1984 | NYK | NBA | 1 |
| 11 | Calvin Natt | 1985 | 1985 | DEN | NBA | 1 |
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Dirk Passes KG For 7th On the Career Win Shares List
Barring some horrible injury to Dirk or the invention of a new steroid for KG, I think Dirk has passed him for good.
In other developments, Duncan slowly inching his way toward becoming the 6th guy with 200 career Win Shares. LeBron has passed Reggie Miller and assuming he can get 5 WS the rest of the way, he will pass Barkley and David Robinson this year and sit just outside the top 10 at age 31. Below Magic sits Paul Pierce, who seemingly will play forever. He is 8 short of Magic right now, so he will need a couple good years or three OK years to reach the top 20 (again, NBA only -- Dr. J, and Gilmore rise up the list if you include ABA WS).
Coming on hard -- Chris Paul shows no signs of slowing down and at his current pace of 15 a year he could be top 22 by 2016.. Durant is trying to shake off some early career woes and has yet to reach 100. Pau Gasol will soon pass Buck Williams for 40th place.
Your top 20 Win Shares players (NBA stats only) as of the morning of February 10, 2015:
In other developments, Duncan slowly inching his way toward becoming the 6th guy with 200 career Win Shares. LeBron has passed Reggie Miller and assuming he can get 5 WS the rest of the way, he will pass Barkley and David Robinson this year and sit just outside the top 10 at age 31. Below Magic sits Paul Pierce, who seemingly will play forever. He is 8 short of Magic right now, so he will need a couple good years or three OK years to reach the top 20 (again, NBA only -- Dr. J, and Gilmore rise up the list if you include ABA WS).
Coming on hard -- Chris Paul shows no signs of slowing down and at his current pace of 15 a year he could be top 22 by 2016.. Durant is trying to shake off some early career woes and has yet to reach 100. Pau Gasol will soon pass Buck Williams for 40th place.
Your top 20 Win Shares players (NBA stats only) as of the morning of February 10, 2015:
| 1. | Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* | 273.41 |
| 2. | Wilt Chamberlain* | 247.26 |
| 3. | Karl Malone* | 234.63 |
| 4. | Michael Jordan* | 214.02 |
| 5. | John Stockton* | 207.70 |
| 6. | Tim Duncan | 196.78 |
| 7. | Dirk Nowitzki | 190.07 |
| 8. | Kevin Garnett | 190.04 |
| 9. | Oscar Robertson* | 189.21 |
| 10. | Shaquille O'Neal | 181.71 |
| 11. | David Robinson* | 178.67 |
| 12. | Charles Barkley* | 177.21 |
| 13. | LeBron James | 174.84 |
| 14. | Reggie Miller* | 174.40 |
| 15. | Kobe Bryant | 173.14 |
| 16. | Moses Malone* | 167.07 |
| 17. | Bill Russell* | 163.51 |
| 18. | Hakeem Olajuwon* | 162.77 |
| 19. | Jerry West* | 162.58 |
| 20. | Magic Johnson* | 155.79 |
Thursday, February 05, 2015
Brian Williams of NBC News -- Liar
http://news.yahoo.com/brian-williams-iraq-war-story-twitter-remembers-135917143.html
Good lord. How do you lie about being on a chopper hit by an RPG? "I misremembered."
Example from My Past -- "You know, Sunday, I was in Phoenix and I had sex all night with Katy Perry after she got her newest tattoo."
OK, well, I did watch her on TV and thought she was hot, and I saw a picture of her new tattoo. Sorry. Misremembered.
Good lord. How do you lie about being on a chopper hit by an RPG? "I misremembered."
Example from My Past -- "You know, Sunday, I was in Phoenix and I had sex all night with Katy Perry after she got her newest tattoo."
OK, well, I did watch her on TV and thought she was hot, and I saw a picture of her new tattoo. Sorry. Misremembered.
Tuesday, February 03, 2015
Friday, January 30, 2015
Kyrie and Klay Thompson -- Great Games, But Not Even Close to the Best Games
Klay Thompson has 37 points in a quarter and puts up a "Game Score" of over 44. Kyrie goes for 55 points and puts up a Games Score of 41.8. These are the only two Game Scores in the NBA above 40 this season, so these two must be all-time great efforts, right? Wrong. In the past 30 years, Kyrie's effort ranks 85th and Klay's ranks 42nd.
Hard to imagine, right? Well, let's review the top 10 regular season efforts of the past 30 years, ranked by highest Game Score.
10th best -- Carmelo Anthony Jan. 24, 2014 v. Charlotte. 62 points, 13 rebounds, 0 assists. Game Score 50.6
9 -- Kobe March 16, 2007 v. Portland. 65-7-3 -- 50.9
8 -- Jordan November 3, 1989 v. Cleveland 54/14/6
7 (tie) -- Jordan again -- February 26, 1987 v. the Nets, 58/8/3
Both had a Game Score of 51.2
6th Place -- Nique -- versus Chicago on December 10, 1986 57/9/4 -- 51.6
#5 -- David Robinson April 24, 1994 v. Clippers, 71/14/5 (I believe there was a scoring title at stake here) -- 51.8
The Top 4
4. Jordan again -- April 3, 1988 v. Detroit, 59/4/6 (so this would have been against the Bad Boys) --
54.7
3. Karl Malone in 33 minutes against Milwaukee on January 22, 1990 had 61/18/2 -- 60.2
2. Kobe again -- January 22, 2006 v. Toronto -- 81/6/2 -- 63.5
And Your Winner --
1. Jordan again -- March 28, 1990 against Cleveland -- 69/18/6. 64.6
WORTHY OF NOTE
The 5th best game score of the past 30 years was put up by Charles Barkley in a playoff game against Golden State on May 4, 1994. He went 56/14/4. That was the game where Warriors coach Don Nelson refused to double team Charles in the post and Barkley kept scoring at will. causing him to run by the Warriors bench and scream, "When are you going to double me!?!?!" The Suns won 140-133.
Barkley has 2 of the 10 best playoff Game Scores of the past 30 years, the other being a 43 point triple double in June of 1993 against Seattle in Game 5 (which he followed with a Game 7 performance of 44/24 which resulted in the 12th best playoff Game Score of the past 30 years).
Hard to imagine, right? Well, let's review the top 10 regular season efforts of the past 30 years, ranked by highest Game Score.
10th best -- Carmelo Anthony Jan. 24, 2014 v. Charlotte. 62 points, 13 rebounds, 0 assists. Game Score 50.6
9 -- Kobe March 16, 2007 v. Portland. 65-7-3 -- 50.9
8 -- Jordan November 3, 1989 v. Cleveland 54/14/6
7 (tie) -- Jordan again -- February 26, 1987 v. the Nets, 58/8/3
Both had a Game Score of 51.2
6th Place -- Nique -- versus Chicago on December 10, 1986 57/9/4 -- 51.6
#5 -- David Robinson April 24, 1994 v. Clippers, 71/14/5 (I believe there was a scoring title at stake here) -- 51.8
The Top 4
4. Jordan again -- April 3, 1988 v. Detroit, 59/4/6 (so this would have been against the Bad Boys) --
54.7
3. Karl Malone in 33 minutes against Milwaukee on January 22, 1990 had 61/18/2 -- 60.2
2. Kobe again -- January 22, 2006 v. Toronto -- 81/6/2 -- 63.5
And Your Winner --
1. Jordan again -- March 28, 1990 against Cleveland -- 69/18/6. 64.6
WORTHY OF NOTE
The 5th best game score of the past 30 years was put up by Charles Barkley in a playoff game against Golden State on May 4, 1994. He went 56/14/4. That was the game where Warriors coach Don Nelson refused to double team Charles in the post and Barkley kept scoring at will. causing him to run by the Warriors bench and scream, "When are you going to double me!?!?!" The Suns won 140-133.
Barkley has 2 of the 10 best playoff Game Scores of the past 30 years, the other being a 43 point triple double in June of 1993 against Seattle in Game 5 (which he followed with a Game 7 performance of 44/24 which resulted in the 12th best playoff Game Score of the past 30 years).
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
As A Democrat, I Have No Problem With The Movie "American Sniper"
Unlike "Dodgeball" character White Goodman, who "read it......in a book".....I haven't read the book "American Sniper" so I express no opinion as to that book or what it says. I also express no opinion on Chris Kyle the actual person who lived and died. He is accused of being a horrible liar and of defaming Jesse Ventura (which hardly seems possible). But I have never met the guy, so I really have no basis to decide his overall qualities as a person.
I have, however, seen the movie "American Sniper." It is a good solid movie, and the last 10 minutes are extremely powerful, as is the incredible experience of walking out of an almost entirely silent theatre (my show had about 700 people attending; you could hear a pin drop).
Overall -- 8 of 10. I might have said higher, but there are some pretty garden variety military scenes and for the first 25 minutes of the movie Bradley Cooper's Texas accent is so low and mumbled that I found myself watching almost like someone watching a foreign language film - trying to understand what was going on by the context. Is this desire to copy accents really necessary? I mean, Jeff Bridges in the "True Grit" remake did the same thing. I get it, that is what the person really sounds like. So what? Could you not make some effort at making the movie version audible/recognizable?
I am a Democrat. When I was 8 years old, I had a Watergate coloring book. I used to color my book while watching what I could of Congressional hearings about the Watergate break-in and cover up. I voted for Mondale and every Democratic nominee since. But I am not a liberal Democrat. After the furor over "American Sniper" the movie, I am glad. It seems that liberal Dems despise "American Sniper" because it is a movie that states that a solider who was sent into the Iraq War is an American hero whom others adore. That is true. Watch the footage at the end of the movie -- people lined the roads for his funeral procession; the Cowboys' stadium was full of people honoring him; his fellow soldiers decorated his casket with their military pins. People loved the guy and regarded him as a legend/hero.
The knee-jerk reaction of the liberal Dems is to state that Kyle could not be a hero because he fought in George W. Bush's unjust war and killed Iraqis who should never have been in harm's way. But, again, he was a hero to many, many people. If 10 years from now a movie is made in which LeBron James is depicted as a hero during his days in Miami, will people rise up and state "He is no hero! He left Cleveland! He left Miami! He is just a basketball player - why do we worship basketball players!?!?" I am sure that they will. But that sort of position just ignores the facts - people have heroes whom they worship because the hero does do certain things or has certain character traits that they admire. YOU may not like it, but why pretend that the hero worship does not exist? Why immediately jump to the conclusion that, because you do not consider the person a hero, no one may properly consider the person a hero?
Wouldn't it be far more interesting to simply watch the film then go home and consider why it is that a segment of society considers the character depicted in the film to be a hero? What qualities is he believed to have that the people admire? Why does our society honor and/or reward those qualities or what he did with his life?
But that is a thinking person's response. It is far easier to just stand up and scream, "No! I do not accept that!" This is the Democratic equivalent to the constant abuse of Barack Obama by the Right Wing. Could Barack Hussein Obama ever do anything right or advocate for a correct position? No. Could anyone consider him a good President or a role model? NEVER!!! He is black. He is Kenyan. He is a Muslim. He wore a tan suit once, etc. The anti-"American Sniper" position is loaded with all of the same sort of talking points, "BUT, the guy was a liar. But, we shouldn't have been at war in the first place. But, how dangerous is it REALLY to be a sniper? He KILLED people!"
I understood the bad feelings about "Zero Dark Thirty," because, while it was a good movie, it was clearly depicting torture as the proper thing to do and, basically, making all of the good characters pro-torture with no qualms whatsoever about what they were doing. (All characters who suggested not torturing were depicted as the enemy who make it impossible to get crucial information to save lives). The key premise of that movie -- that torture got us key information -- is almost certainly false. I can see people objecting to the elements that suggest a top-level government propaganda piece justifying torture,
But "American Sniper" is not a government propaganda piece. We are not asked to accept that the Iraq War was justified. We see no top government officials. We only see Chris Kyle getting Seal training and sniper training and then going to Iraq. He is there. He does what he does. He has to make tough decisions that, if he is wrong, will send him to prison. While Kyle is the main character, all of the other characters that we see are not necessarily as gung ho and pro-war as Kyle. One character states that there is a lot of evil in the world and that, basically, there is enough blame to go around. He writes a letter to his mother stating that he thinks that people are overwhelmed by the glory of war. His mother gets up and reads the letter at his funeral. He is depicted very sympathetically. Kyle's own brother seems to despise the war and serving in the war, he says directly to Chris Kyle, "Fuck this place." Again, he is a "good guy" character. He is portrayed sympathetically. Kyle's own wife hates what the war is doing to Chris Kyle and constantly complains that Kyle is never involved in the family, caring only about the war. Again, she is not seens as whiny or needy. In fact, you can take from the movie that she is the voice of reason in the entire film. She just wants a normal family life. She doesn't care about the cause. She just wants her husband to return to normal.
When these people challenge Chris Kyle's view of the world, he responds in very dogmatic terms. The fellow soldier doesn't know what he is talking about. His letter home is what got him killed because he lost faith in the cause. (When Kyle says this to his wife, his wife is utterly shocked at what he is saying -- Kyle fully believes in his position that the letter home got his former friend killed, but it is a ridiculous position, and it is not portrayed as reasonable or believable). Even Kyle's own brother, when stating how much he hates Iraq, gets a reaction from Chris Kyle that shows no love, pity or empathy for his own brother, because his brother is being soft (or at least softer than Chris Kyle). Again, unlike "Zero Dark Thirty," where the stars of the movie were all seen as doing God's work, Chris Kyle is obviously a guy with a very narrow world view, and it isn't necessarily correct. He goes out and kicks ass and shoots people. He believes everything he is doing is 100% correct. He believes that the Iraqis are bad people who will be terrorizing San Diego or New York if he doesn't kill them all. But this is a guy who we really are not supposed to take as the authority on anything. Does writing a letter to your mom that is anti-war cause you to get shot and killed in an ambush? Come on. Should Kyle care about his wife and kids? Certainly, but he does not. Should Kyle care about his brother's obviously shaky mental state? Of course. But he doesn't. He may be the hero, but he is a very flawed hero.
So, while people justifiably have a problem with the Bush Administration, the movie "American Sniper" shows one guy doing his job as a soldier, holding some very definite beliefs, and basically saying "fuck you" to anyone who disagrees with those views. For that, many people, particularly in the military and in Texas, love him. Should that come as a great surprise? Are you as a movie watcher required to love him? No. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you are invited to love him or not love him (he is mean to his wife, ignores his kids, says ridiculous things, is uncaring to his brother, has what I would consider to be a God complex, and he almost tries to kill an innocent dog for God's sake). You can also take him as a complete person and (as with anyone else) accept that he has both admirable traits and very negative traits.
The fact that millions of people attend "American Sniper" and come out feeling great about the Republican Party really is not something you can fight against. Both "Born in the U.S.A." and "Pink Houses" were regarded as great Republican political patriotic anthems, and that was never the songwriters' intent. It makes no sense to fight so hard to deny people who want to love the "American Sniper" movie their right to love the movie because it makes them feel good about being a Republican. Let them love it. The whole idea that "You cannot love the movie because I do not" is, quite frankly, a position I would expect to hear on Fox News and not from people who purport to be supporters of the First Amendment, free speech, and the freedom of expression. When did we become so predictable politically that whatever YOU like the I must hate?
I have, however, seen the movie "American Sniper." It is a good solid movie, and the last 10 minutes are extremely powerful, as is the incredible experience of walking out of an almost entirely silent theatre (my show had about 700 people attending; you could hear a pin drop).
Overall -- 8 of 10. I might have said higher, but there are some pretty garden variety military scenes and for the first 25 minutes of the movie Bradley Cooper's Texas accent is so low and mumbled that I found myself watching almost like someone watching a foreign language film - trying to understand what was going on by the context. Is this desire to copy accents really necessary? I mean, Jeff Bridges in the "True Grit" remake did the same thing. I get it, that is what the person really sounds like. So what? Could you not make some effort at making the movie version audible/recognizable?
I am a Democrat. When I was 8 years old, I had a Watergate coloring book. I used to color my book while watching what I could of Congressional hearings about the Watergate break-in and cover up. I voted for Mondale and every Democratic nominee since. But I am not a liberal Democrat. After the furor over "American Sniper" the movie, I am glad. It seems that liberal Dems despise "American Sniper" because it is a movie that states that a solider who was sent into the Iraq War is an American hero whom others adore. That is true. Watch the footage at the end of the movie -- people lined the roads for his funeral procession; the Cowboys' stadium was full of people honoring him; his fellow soldiers decorated his casket with their military pins. People loved the guy and regarded him as a legend/hero.
The knee-jerk reaction of the liberal Dems is to state that Kyle could not be a hero because he fought in George W. Bush's unjust war and killed Iraqis who should never have been in harm's way. But, again, he was a hero to many, many people. If 10 years from now a movie is made in which LeBron James is depicted as a hero during his days in Miami, will people rise up and state "He is no hero! He left Cleveland! He left Miami! He is just a basketball player - why do we worship basketball players!?!?" I am sure that they will. But that sort of position just ignores the facts - people have heroes whom they worship because the hero does do certain things or has certain character traits that they admire. YOU may not like it, but why pretend that the hero worship does not exist? Why immediately jump to the conclusion that, because you do not consider the person a hero, no one may properly consider the person a hero?
Wouldn't it be far more interesting to simply watch the film then go home and consider why it is that a segment of society considers the character depicted in the film to be a hero? What qualities is he believed to have that the people admire? Why does our society honor and/or reward those qualities or what he did with his life?
But that is a thinking person's response. It is far easier to just stand up and scream, "No! I do not accept that!" This is the Democratic equivalent to the constant abuse of Barack Obama by the Right Wing. Could Barack Hussein Obama ever do anything right or advocate for a correct position? No. Could anyone consider him a good President or a role model? NEVER!!! He is black. He is Kenyan. He is a Muslim. He wore a tan suit once, etc. The anti-"American Sniper" position is loaded with all of the same sort of talking points, "BUT, the guy was a liar. But, we shouldn't have been at war in the first place. But, how dangerous is it REALLY to be a sniper? He KILLED people!"
I understood the bad feelings about "Zero Dark Thirty," because, while it was a good movie, it was clearly depicting torture as the proper thing to do and, basically, making all of the good characters pro-torture with no qualms whatsoever about what they were doing. (All characters who suggested not torturing were depicted as the enemy who make it impossible to get crucial information to save lives). The key premise of that movie -- that torture got us key information -- is almost certainly false. I can see people objecting to the elements that suggest a top-level government propaganda piece justifying torture,
But "American Sniper" is not a government propaganda piece. We are not asked to accept that the Iraq War was justified. We see no top government officials. We only see Chris Kyle getting Seal training and sniper training and then going to Iraq. He is there. He does what he does. He has to make tough decisions that, if he is wrong, will send him to prison. While Kyle is the main character, all of the other characters that we see are not necessarily as gung ho and pro-war as Kyle. One character states that there is a lot of evil in the world and that, basically, there is enough blame to go around. He writes a letter to his mother stating that he thinks that people are overwhelmed by the glory of war. His mother gets up and reads the letter at his funeral. He is depicted very sympathetically. Kyle's own brother seems to despise the war and serving in the war, he says directly to Chris Kyle, "Fuck this place." Again, he is a "good guy" character. He is portrayed sympathetically. Kyle's own wife hates what the war is doing to Chris Kyle and constantly complains that Kyle is never involved in the family, caring only about the war. Again, she is not seens as whiny or needy. In fact, you can take from the movie that she is the voice of reason in the entire film. She just wants a normal family life. She doesn't care about the cause. She just wants her husband to return to normal.
When these people challenge Chris Kyle's view of the world, he responds in very dogmatic terms. The fellow soldier doesn't know what he is talking about. His letter home is what got him killed because he lost faith in the cause. (When Kyle says this to his wife, his wife is utterly shocked at what he is saying -- Kyle fully believes in his position that the letter home got his former friend killed, but it is a ridiculous position, and it is not portrayed as reasonable or believable). Even Kyle's own brother, when stating how much he hates Iraq, gets a reaction from Chris Kyle that shows no love, pity or empathy for his own brother, because his brother is being soft (or at least softer than Chris Kyle). Again, unlike "Zero Dark Thirty," where the stars of the movie were all seen as doing God's work, Chris Kyle is obviously a guy with a very narrow world view, and it isn't necessarily correct. He goes out and kicks ass and shoots people. He believes everything he is doing is 100% correct. He believes that the Iraqis are bad people who will be terrorizing San Diego or New York if he doesn't kill them all. But this is a guy who we really are not supposed to take as the authority on anything. Does writing a letter to your mom that is anti-war cause you to get shot and killed in an ambush? Come on. Should Kyle care about his wife and kids? Certainly, but he does not. Should Kyle care about his brother's obviously shaky mental state? Of course. But he doesn't. He may be the hero, but he is a very flawed hero.
So, while people justifiably have a problem with the Bush Administration, the movie "American Sniper" shows one guy doing his job as a soldier, holding some very definite beliefs, and basically saying "fuck you" to anyone who disagrees with those views. For that, many people, particularly in the military and in Texas, love him. Should that come as a great surprise? Are you as a movie watcher required to love him? No. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you are invited to love him or not love him (he is mean to his wife, ignores his kids, says ridiculous things, is uncaring to his brother, has what I would consider to be a God complex, and he almost tries to kill an innocent dog for God's sake). You can also take him as a complete person and (as with anyone else) accept that he has both admirable traits and very negative traits.
The fact that millions of people attend "American Sniper" and come out feeling great about the Republican Party really is not something you can fight against. Both "Born in the U.S.A." and "Pink Houses" were regarded as great Republican political patriotic anthems, and that was never the songwriters' intent. It makes no sense to fight so hard to deny people who want to love the "American Sniper" movie their right to love the movie because it makes them feel good about being a Republican. Let them love it. The whole idea that "You cannot love the movie because I do not" is, quite frankly, a position I would expect to hear on Fox News and not from people who purport to be supporters of the First Amendment, free speech, and the freedom of expression. When did we become so predictable politically that whatever YOU like the I must hate?
Friday, January 23, 2015
The 17 Best NBA Players Who Were Also Terrible Defenders
http://bkref.com/tiny/9lLqP
Now, the stats are what they are, so how do we assess who were the absolutely worst 5 defenders?
Well, Dan Issel and George Gervin, if you include their ABA stats, don't even make the list. So they get a pass - terrible defenders admittedly, but were better as younger players in the ABA. That leaves 15.
Ricky Pierce and Mark Price are similarly awful, but they had fewer minutes than most and less time to rack up defensive Win Shares. 13 left.
Then I'd say if you are in the "best" 5 of any defensive category that I will give you a pass -- so Mitch Richmond, Dale Ellis and Rudy T. get out on one category and Lou Hudson, Dick Van Arsdale and Rolando Blackmon get excused for being top 5 in another. That leaves the worst 7 guys.
Worst 7 Guys:
Kiki Vandeweghe, Steve Nash, World B. Free, Stephon Marbury, Calvin Murphy, Deron Williams, Tiny Archibald.
All guys are historically horrible defensively for people who have racked up at least 50 offensive win shares. (Only 126 players in the history of the game have had 50+ OWS).
If you sort the stats, it is pretty clear that there are two categories of terrible defenders here:
Super Super Horrible --
7. Nate Archibald
6. Deron Williams
5. Calvin Murphy
The 4 Worst
4. Stephon Marbury
3. World B. Free
2. Steve Nash
1. Kiki Vandeweghe
This final group includes the 4 worst guys in both defensive categories. Vandeweghe accounted for a Defensive Win Share around every 2800 minutes of play. Marbury about every 2300 minutes, Free about every 2000 minutes. It could be argued that Nash's ability to stay on the court for almost 40,000 career minutes makes him the worst defender of all time, since he was so bad (one DWS every 2,350 minutes or so) over such an extended period of time. But Vandeweghe's ability to toil for 24,000 minutes while NOT ACCOUNTING FOR DOUBLE DIGIT DEFENSIVE WIN SHARES just stands all by itself as an achievement.
I mean, look, all of these guys are terrible defensively, but most of them are getting one DWS for every 2-5 OWS's Nash and Vandeweghe were getting SEVEN OWS by the time they got one DWS.
They stand head and shoulders above everyone as one-end offense-only players. And much as it is hard to imagine, Steve Nash was a slightly better defender than someone else.
(It should be noted that for guys with under 50 OWS, Michael Redd and Nick Van Exel are bottom of the barrel defenders).
Now, the stats are what they are, so how do we assess who were the absolutely worst 5 defenders?
Well, Dan Issel and George Gervin, if you include their ABA stats, don't even make the list. So they get a pass - terrible defenders admittedly, but were better as younger players in the ABA. That leaves 15.
Ricky Pierce and Mark Price are similarly awful, but they had fewer minutes than most and less time to rack up defensive Win Shares. 13 left.
Then I'd say if you are in the "best" 5 of any defensive category that I will give you a pass -- so Mitch Richmond, Dale Ellis and Rudy T. get out on one category and Lou Hudson, Dick Van Arsdale and Rolando Blackmon get excused for being top 5 in another. That leaves the worst 7 guys.
Worst 7 Guys:
Kiki Vandeweghe, Steve Nash, World B. Free, Stephon Marbury, Calvin Murphy, Deron Williams, Tiny Archibald.
All guys are historically horrible defensively for people who have racked up at least 50 offensive win shares. (Only 126 players in the history of the game have had 50+ OWS).
If you sort the stats, it is pretty clear that there are two categories of terrible defenders here:
Super Super Horrible --
7. Nate Archibald
6. Deron Williams
5. Calvin Murphy
The 4 Worst
4. Stephon Marbury
3. World B. Free
2. Steve Nash
1. Kiki Vandeweghe
This final group includes the 4 worst guys in both defensive categories. Vandeweghe accounted for a Defensive Win Share around every 2800 minutes of play. Marbury about every 2300 minutes, Free about every 2000 minutes. It could be argued that Nash's ability to stay on the court for almost 40,000 career minutes makes him the worst defender of all time, since he was so bad (one DWS every 2,350 minutes or so) over such an extended period of time. But Vandeweghe's ability to toil for 24,000 minutes while NOT ACCOUNTING FOR DOUBLE DIGIT DEFENSIVE WIN SHARES just stands all by itself as an achievement.
I mean, look, all of these guys are terrible defensively, but most of them are getting one DWS for every 2-5 OWS's Nash and Vandeweghe were getting SEVEN OWS by the time they got one DWS.
They stand head and shoulders above everyone as one-end offense-only players. And much as it is hard to imagine, Steve Nash was a slightly better defender than someone else.
(It should be noted that for guys with under 50 OWS, Michael Redd and Nick Van Exel are bottom of the barrel defenders).
"Ball" Boy Gets His Balls Deflated by Tennis Serve
http://deadspin.com/australian-open-ball-boy-takes-121-mph-serve-straight-t-1681106444?rev=1421941826495&utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
According to a commenter, it would be like getting hit by a baseball thrown at 46 mph. So put on a pair of loose fitting shorts and attend a Little League game and stand 20 feet from an average pitcher and take one right in the nuts. That is gonna hurt.
Next time, I think the tourney will forgive you if you move.
According to a commenter, it would be like getting hit by a baseball thrown at 46 mph. So put on a pair of loose fitting shorts and attend a Little League game and stand 20 feet from an average pitcher and take one right in the nuts. That is gonna hurt.
Next time, I think the tourney will forgive you if you move.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
The Daily Show Addresses the GOP SOTU Responses
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/zon6gw/majority-retort
Bread bags, basketball, a doctor complaining about "elites" and a guy who says "meh, let's just start again".
Bread bags, basketball, a doctor complaining about "elites" and a guy who says "meh, let's just start again".
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Shawn Marion -- Soon to be Quitter. Is He a Hall of Famer?
http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasybasketball/update/24982188/cavaliers-shawn-marion-says-he-will-retire-after-the-season
If you compare his career numbers to Scottie Pippen's, the numbers are very close across the board: http://bkref.com/tiny/y1YRr So I really do not see any way the voters keep him out of the Hall, given his generally good play over a lengthy period of time and the Pippen comparison.
But I need to be consistent, so what are my HOF criteria? 1) a top 3 starter on a championship team; 2) a couple times first-team all-NBA; 3) top 10 in MVP balloting at least 2 times; 4) possessing some otherworldly skill that deserves recognition (10 times all-defense, 3 times Defensive POY, rebounding champ 4+ times, etc.); and/or 5) top 10 all-time in one particular positive stat of note.
He does have a title with the Mavs, but he wasn't one of their best 3 guys.
He was never 1st team all-NBA.
He was top 10 in MVP balloting only once.
He was never first team all-defense and never possessed any particular skill of note.
The way Marion gets in the Hall is he shows that he was close on all of these criteria, and he has some top 30 statistical accomplishments (total defensive rebounding, total steals, both in top 30 all-time).
Sadly, though, I cannot place him in my Hall of Fame. I just have to draw the line somewhere and he falls below the line. Is it really asking too much that a guy be thought of as a top 10 player twice? I really don't think so. I mean, someone like Paul Pierce has never been first team all-NBA, but he was a top 3 guy on the Celtics AND he will finish his career in the top 8 in made free throws. Ray Allen - Celtics and #1 in three points and top 10 in FT%..
Look at a guy like Tracy McGrady - two times first team all-NBA, top 10 in MVP voting 6 times. I just think that if you have some bright line rules that you will get a Hall of Fame that actually puts in the best players. Will there be guys who get left out who were very good players? Sure (Vince Carter doesn't qualify under my criteria). But if you never were a reason a team won a title, and you weren't able to say you were clearly a top 10 player in the league 2 times in your career, do you really deserve to get in? I say no.
Shawn Marion would not get my vote.
If you compare his career numbers to Scottie Pippen's, the numbers are very close across the board: http://bkref.com/tiny/y1YRr So I really do not see any way the voters keep him out of the Hall, given his generally good play over a lengthy period of time and the Pippen comparison.
But I need to be consistent, so what are my HOF criteria? 1) a top 3 starter on a championship team; 2) a couple times first-team all-NBA; 3) top 10 in MVP balloting at least 2 times; 4) possessing some otherworldly skill that deserves recognition (10 times all-defense, 3 times Defensive POY, rebounding champ 4+ times, etc.); and/or 5) top 10 all-time in one particular positive stat of note.
He does have a title with the Mavs, but he wasn't one of their best 3 guys.
He was never 1st team all-NBA.
He was top 10 in MVP balloting only once.
He was never first team all-defense and never possessed any particular skill of note.
The way Marion gets in the Hall is he shows that he was close on all of these criteria, and he has some top 30 statistical accomplishments (total defensive rebounding, total steals, both in top 30 all-time).
Sadly, though, I cannot place him in my Hall of Fame. I just have to draw the line somewhere and he falls below the line. Is it really asking too much that a guy be thought of as a top 10 player twice? I really don't think so. I mean, someone like Paul Pierce has never been first team all-NBA, but he was a top 3 guy on the Celtics AND he will finish his career in the top 8 in made free throws. Ray Allen - Celtics and #1 in three points and top 10 in FT%..
Look at a guy like Tracy McGrady - two times first team all-NBA, top 10 in MVP voting 6 times. I just think that if you have some bright line rules that you will get a Hall of Fame that actually puts in the best players. Will there be guys who get left out who were very good players? Sure (Vince Carter doesn't qualify under my criteria). But if you never were a reason a team won a title, and you weren't able to say you were clearly a top 10 player in the league 2 times in your career, do you really deserve to get in? I say no.
Shawn Marion would not get my vote.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Halfway Through the NBA Season, Who Are the Top 12 Guys?
http://bkref.com/tiny/AlLQt
I took PER above 22, WS over 4.4 and WS/48 above .16, and that got me 12 guys.
Then I assigned one point for a 12th place finish in a category and up to 12 points for a 1st place finish.
12th Place -- Pau Gasol (4 points)
11th -- Aldridge (8)
10th - LeBron (13)
9th Marc Gasol (14)
8th -- Kyle Lowry (15)
7th and 6th (tie) -- Blake Griffin and Jeff Teague (17 points each)
5th -- Damian Lillard (18)
(Enormous Gap)
4th -- Chris Paul (27 points)
3rd -- James Harden (3rd in PER, 1st in WS, 3rd in WS/48 -- 32 points)
2nd -- Steph Curry (2nd in PER, 3rd in WS, 1st in WS/48 -- 33 points)
Best Statistical First Half -- Anthony Davis
(1st in PER, 2nd in WS, 2nd in WS/48).
In the history of the game, there have been 11 times where a guy has played over 1,200 minutes and recorded a PER of at least 31. http://bkref.com/tiny/ZYXJK 3 Wilts, 3 LeBrons and 4 Jordans......and Anthony Davis thus far.
I took PER above 22, WS over 4.4 and WS/48 above .16, and that got me 12 guys.
Then I assigned one point for a 12th place finish in a category and up to 12 points for a 1st place finish.
12th Place -- Pau Gasol (4 points)
11th -- Aldridge (8)
10th - LeBron (13)
9th Marc Gasol (14)
8th -- Kyle Lowry (15)
7th and 6th (tie) -- Blake Griffin and Jeff Teague (17 points each)
5th -- Damian Lillard (18)
(Enormous Gap)
4th -- Chris Paul (27 points)
3rd -- James Harden (3rd in PER, 1st in WS, 3rd in WS/48 -- 32 points)
2nd -- Steph Curry (2nd in PER, 3rd in WS, 1st in WS/48 -- 33 points)
Best Statistical First Half -- Anthony Davis
(1st in PER, 2nd in WS, 2nd in WS/48).
In the history of the game, there have been 11 times where a guy has played over 1,200 minutes and recorded a PER of at least 31. http://bkref.com/tiny/ZYXJK 3 Wilts, 3 LeBrons and 4 Jordans......and Anthony Davis thus far.
Monday, January 19, 2015
The Best Football is Played in --- Obama States
College football championship -- Ohio State (Obama state) defeats Oregon (Obama state) in the finals.
Professional football -- Seattle (Washington is an Obama state) vs. New England (all of New England is Obama territory).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)