I have heard NONE of the sports “gurus” mentioning the name of Lamar Odom in MVP talks for this or any other season – and it’s time this player received the accolades he deserves. It is my firm belief that Lamar Odom has been the MVP of the NBA for at least the past two years and is a lock for league MVP this year. You want proof? Keep reading.

Okay, it can definitely be argued that others in the NBA are more viable candidates for most “valuable” player. Value is quite a subjective attribute and – as they say – one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. But I speak of a much more objective measure – most “versatile” player. In that regard, Lamar Odom has no peers.

Odom – at 6’11’’, with slick ball handling skills and excellent defensive prowess – can, hands down, do more things on the basketball court than any other NBA player. Some shoot better, rebound better, defend better, etc. But no one does as many things well. And this is the kicker that I submitted to a friend months ago – a purely objective appraisal of basketball ability. Lamar Odom is the only player in the NBA that can adequately both play AND defend all five positions on the basketball court.

He can adequately play and defend the 1) point guard , 2) shooting guard, 3) small forward/swingman, 4) power forward, and 5) center positions. Lebron James is the only other player in the league that comes close – and he can neither play nor defend the center position nearly as well as Lamar Odom can.

I believe that it is time for the NBA to recognize the most versatile players in the league and award them a trophy and an MVP2 status. Lamar Odom is clearly [as Mark Jackson would say] “that man”. Which begs the question: Why is the most versatile player in the league not even mentioned in the running for sixth man of the year – much less Most Valuable Player. It is my contention that Odom’s versatility should garner him serious consideration for both. As always, I welcome comments and additions to the conversation.
[Psst. Lamar! When the press eats this up and you get more endorsements, salary and incentives; break a brother off.]

http://www.tweetadder.servant2all.com/
Many people take advantage of Twitter to increase their audience whether they are selling, broadcasting, organizing – or whatever. The problem with most programs that purport to increase your following is that they cater to marketers who try to get sales purely via volume followers – utilizing the “follow me and I will follow you” mentality. This results in a large number of people who follow you BUT DON’T READ YOUR UPDATES! A good barometer of whether or not people actually READ your tweets – and enjoy them – is how many times people RETWEET your tweets. Check out @tonyrobbins and see how often people retweet HIS tweets.

Anyway, I found out how useless my vast number of followers were when I tried to get my followers to listen to one of my internet radio shows. I tweeted and tweeted and got no one – other than loyal followers not connected to Twitter – to even listen to the show. THEY WERE OBLIVIOUS TO MY TWEETS.

So I decided to go the TARGETED route and have had much success selling the other things I market through affiliate programs – and I’ll be broadcasting again soon, so I’ll see how it affects my audience growth. I have purged a few (and lost a few) and gained people who really want to hear about what I am tweeting. I’m just short of 12,000 followers, now.

Anyway here is the link to the program – Tweet Adder: http://tweetadder.servant2all.com/ This is a program you have to pay for but there is a FREE DEMO to be downloaded and used so you can test its efficiency. ADDITIONALLY, my page offers a 20% discount coupon code PLUS BONUSES, should you decide to buy after checking out the demo.

Should media hosts allow their guests with clear political agendas to regurgitate or even introduce their obviously unproductive “talking points”? This was the question that occurred to me while the nation muddled through the recent Senator Reid debacle. While the nation huddled around this non-issue from the freshly-available novel, Game Change, by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, the REAL issues in the book received little scrutiny. Hell, even I had to weigh in with an article on the Reid issue just to set the record straight.

One of the REAL issues in the book were former President Bill Clinton’s alleged remarks to the late Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy – referring to then-Senator Barack Obama – that, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.” Another REAL issue was the allegation that the Democratic leadership RECRUITED a hesitant Barack Obama to run for President, fearing a loss by Senator Hillary Clinton in the general election.

So my question is this: Given the wasted time and effort taken on Sen. Reid’s remarks – to the extent that America is now tired of talking about the book, Game Change – should the media even allow such red-herring issues to be discussed? Should they cut off the “talking points” the way Ed Schultz of MSNBC is prone to do? Wasn’t the coverage of Reid’s comments along-side of the relatively sparse coverage of the REAL issues in the book politically orchestrated to soften the blow of the REAL issues? And didn’t the ploy succeed? Isn’t America now so tired of hearing about Game Change that the REAL issues are destined to receive little scrutiny? If more media personnel were like Ed Schultz, wouldn’t we waste less time on the trivial? And is it any wonder that Mr. Schultz has been recently courted for a political career? Since the politicians have a hard time beating him, does it surprise anyone that recruitment would be a strategy employed? What are your thoughts?

The following post is from an email sent to me by one of my closest friends. It was one of those things that you get through numerous parties such that finding out the original author is nearly impossible. Still – even without an ability to give attribution to the writer – I felt that this article might engage conversation. So, without further ado:

What My Brother-in-Law Thinks About The Threat of Socialism

People who complain about the threat of socialism remind me of the man from Virginia who went to college on the GI Bill and bought his first house with a VA loan. When a hurricane struck he got federal disaster aid. When he got sick he was treated at a veteran’s hospital. When he was laid off he received unemployment insurance and then got a SBA loan to start his own business. His bank funds were protected under federal deposit insurance laws. When he retired he went on Social Security and Medicare. The other day he got into his car, drove the federal interstate to the railroad station, parked in the public lot, took Amtrak to Washington and went to Capitol Hill to ask his congressman to get the government off his back.

What are your thoughts on this? Let’s talk.