Profound Pontifications

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.]

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 Saturday, October 24th gang rape of a 15-year-old Richmond, California girl pisses me off on so many levels. The fact that it happened at all is one. The fact that – despite 20 to 25 onlookers – no one came to her aid is another. And the fact that these witnesses jeered, cheered, and took photos with their cell phones makes my flesh crawl.

But, since my central focus on heinous activities such as this is prevention, I am ultimately more bothered by the fact that no one watching this two-and-a-half hour ordeal cared enough for the well-being of this young lady to call the police. Not coming to the aid of a victim of a mob attack can be dangerous as the brutal September 24th killing of 16-year-old Chicago honor student Derrion Albert clearly indicates. And just maybe the jeering, cheering, and photo taking can be construed as youthful posturing – a misguided attempt to give the appearance of condoning heinous activity to avoid the more dangerous notion of disapproval and, thus, subsequent reprisal.

Still, my gut tells me that unless we as a nation institute a “duty to report” mob violence in particular – with legal culpability for not doing so – the “bystander effect” will continue to flourish. I’m not referring to an instance where one or two non-participants who witness a crime would incur this “duty to report”. That could be dangerous to the witness(es). The identity of the “snitch” could then be easily deduced. But when there exists a group of witnesses, anyone could call in an anonymous tip without the culprits knowing who had done so.

Throughout history we have seen that the mob insulates criminals (i.e., lynchings) to the extent that they feel a tacit condoning of their activities. At the very least, a “duty to report” in mob situations would cause onlookers to disperse – possibly shortening the time of the attack, if not halting it altogether. According to MercuryNews.com, “No one called police until word of the ongoing rape spread to a house party in the city’s North and East neighborhood, where an appalled partygoer felt obligated to phone in the rumor”.

Finally, I am particularly troubled by Richmond Police Department’s Lt. Mark Gagan’s response to a KGO-TV (ABC-7 News, San Francisco) reporter’s question as to whether or not the witnesses faced any criminal charges. He responded that, “California law does not allow you to arrest a person for witnessing a sex crime if the victim is over the age of 14”. Why in the hell should the age of the victim in a sex crime be determinative! What are your thoughts?

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the dichotomy attenuate to the notions that: a) America should escalate her military presence in Afghanistan, but b) her inner city youth need to find nonviolent ways of addressing their differences with others? Both of these scenarios represent subsets of the larger sociological discipline of conflict resolution. And since the methodologies of dealing with the two scenarios are “mutually exclusive”, “contradictory”, and “sharply distinguished or opposed” they undoubtedly fit the definition of a dichotomy. But should they be dichotomous or should we resolve both scenarios similarly?

I believe that principles are principles. If you follow specific ideology in one circumstance, you follow it in another. What’s your take?