A ‘King’ Without A Country: The Ballad of LeBron James.

As the light of Saturday morning found its way through my window blinds and ultra-thick drapes, and intruded my bedroom, I wildly grabbed for the remote control—still half-blinded by eyes burning from a restless sleep. As I landed on ESPN, I watched the highlights of the Miami Heat’s road game versus the up-and-down Utah Jazz. The Jazz bested the Heat by one point, in what was a great game that included a spirited comeback by the Heat with LeBron James leading the way (if this sentence remotely reminds you of Akeem's tale of gripping victory in “Coming to America,” you’re not alone).

The game ended as LeBron—with the final seconds ticking down—passed the ball to a wide-open teammate, after drawing two Jazz defenders who were determined not to let him take an easy shot at the basket. It was a good pass to an open teammate capable of hitting the shot, but he missed and the Heat lost, snapping a winning streak that spanned almost three weeks. After the highlight reel, I listened to ESPN analyst Jon Barry bemoan the fact that LeBron James should not have passed the ball, as he single-handedly brought the Heat to within striking distance in the first place. Even with the double team, he should have “forced the Jazz defense to stop him,” Barry said. The overall sentiment was that, at a time when LeBron James is facing criticism for his inability to be a clutch player in big moments (including the recent All-Star Game, last year’s NBA Finals and his last two playoff appearances as a Cleveland Cavalier), he should have taken his opportunity to be the “man” by finishing the game with the ball in his hands.

Now, I’ve been critical of ‘King James’ for the past couple of years, especially since deciding to forgo coming to my beloved New York Knicks and slinking down to Miami to be willingly demoted from superhero to sidekick. However, since his move to Miami, my criticism has evolved more from a personal issue (getting Carmelo helped a lot) to a more objective perspective. And my objective perspective is this: maybe, he just does not have it in him. Or, more importantly, he just doesn’t want to be the “man.”

When you think about it, this makes a lot of sense…to me, at least. Why else would you leave a team you resurrected from the bowels of the NBA rankings and into the global spotlight to join with two other all-star players, one of which had already reached the pinnacle of professional basketball by capturing the first-ever NBA championship for the Heat? The answer is: LeBron wants to win championships, but he does not want the weight of all those dreams to rest solely on his shoulders. He likes making teammates better, and he likes winning, but the fire that burns in other greats just does not burn in him…at least, not right now. I say this looking at the other greats of the game and how they compare to LeBron. Let’s take the obvious first example of Michael Jordan, who LeBron admits he idolizes— wearing the number 23 jersey in high school and during his days as a Cleveland Cav, then opting to wear the number 6 jersey on South Beach, representing the six titles Jordan won as a member of the Bulls.

LeBron may have idolized Mike, but he did not truly learn from Mike. So far, LeBronze as made the mistake that most young NBA players make: they don’t look deep enough. Michael Jordan, as the third player taken in the 1984 NBA draft, took his talents to Madison Street and a much maligned Chicago Bulls franchise. Michael had extraordinary physical gifts that made him a challenge at both ends of the court, but his overall NBA game was far from polished. Over the next few years, while single-handedly resurrecting that franchise, he suffered as much disappointment as he did triumphs with late-game heroics. He craved for better players to surround him. But, above all else, he worked tirelessly to become the dominant force that we Knicks fans know and despise (and I say that as a compliment). 


Jordan worked on his game by expanding his range as a jump shooter, getting better at free throws and, eventually, developing a low-post game that was virtually unstoppable from the shooting guard position. The drive to be great, to be unstoppable, consumed him and pushed him. That drive made him into such a dominant and polished player that, when he had just enough talent to support him, Jordan propelled the Bulls to six championship seasons in eight years. As much as Michael may have criticized his team and franchise, either in public or in private, or exhibited some selfishness on the court, he continued to push himself to become great. He wanted to be the “man” by beating whoever held that title at the time. Many will say that Michael had Scottie Pippen. When you look at the Bulls' championship teams, however, it had two superstars and a bunch of players who were journeymen or respectable substitutions…oh, and Dennis Rodman. This recipe is not unlike many of the championship teams of the past decade or so, or the way many of the top teams in the league are constructed now. They all bought into the team concept and performed their jobs well. Michael made big shots, but also made big passes to guys who hit big shots. Jordan would have never received the criticism that LeBron did last night. This is because Michael Jordan had already embraced greatness and conquered it. So everything he did in the aftermath of him become "greatness" only contributed to his lore.

In this example, there is a fearlessness that I don’t believe is present in James. Even the greats of the game who did not win a championship competed for a decade as the leaders of their respective teams in pursuit of a “ring.” Karl Malone, Gary Payton (both signing with the Shaq-and-Kobe Lakers) and Charles Barkley (signing with the Phi Slama Jama reunion in Houston) did not trade leadership for a championship run until after they had already spent years leading their own teams into the hopelessness that was the Jordan Era. For much of their careers there was a fearlessness and a drive to be great and drive others to be great. To put it all on their shoulders, win or lose. This is a quality of greatness, and James is just a great player. There is a difference.

A more modern example of greatness vs. great would be Kobe Bryant. He too idolized Jordan. Like other great leapers coming out of high school and college, Kobe entered the NBA with some hype, the unearned swagger of Michael Jordan, and even a shaved head. Many criticized Kobe for sounding and looking like Mike, in terms of media interviews, the tongue waving and how he chewed his bubble gum. (Incidentally, I’ve come to think that tongue waving is a shared trait among "greatness." Dirk Nowitzki does it, too!) While Kobe idolized Mike to what seems to be stalker-like proportions, Kobe understood what many others—including guys who came into the NBA with nicknames like “Baby Jordan” and “The Chosen One”—did not: you have to look deeper. Kobe’s drive is what propelled him to become the “Black Mamba” we know today, after spending a season-and-a-half as a backup player and shooting air balls in playoff games. He continued to work on his game until he became virtually unstoppable. When he became Kobe, the Lakers won three straight titles. 

Say what you will about the circumstances surrounding Shaq’s departure from Los Angeles, what was clear was that Kobe had a burning desire to be great and to lead his team to more great moments. He was perhaps willing to play with Shaq, but deferring to him on a regular basis meant suppressing his own greatness. If he had, we may have not seen the greatness from Kobe that we have in the years since Shaq’s departure for South Beach. Kobe was willing to take that risk, so that he could become greater than he was, and the Lakers could be his team. Win or lose, he worked. The Lakers won two more titles with Kobe as the lead dog…and he passed Shaq on the all-time NBA scoring list in the process. It could have been a bit self-serving and short sided on Kobe’s part at the time, but he embraced the challenge, win or lose. That is greatness. That is what LeBron did not have in his previous seasons. He did not tirelessly work on his game to improve his outside shooting, improve his free throw percentage and develop a low-post offensive game. He did not work to make himself truly unstoppable. So, when it came down to NBA playoff basketball, he was stopped.

Many are praising LeBron James for his spectacular 2012 season. But, what's so ironic about this season is that it's similar to his many seasons in Cleveland, two of which earned him an MVP trophy. So, an enigma has emerged. Why move to Miami and join forces with two all-stars, only to deliver the same sort of output and expend the same sort of energy to win games? Perhaps the escape from Cleveland was fueled by something other than basketball. But, until such a reason is truly uncovered, we can only look but so deep. Perhaps he just wanted the comfort of being able to pass the 'hot potato' in big moments. But, when you're greatness, the ball is not a 'hot potato' at all. The strange thing is, after last season, LeBron seems to have gotten the message. He's attempting to play in the low-post more and has improved his shooting (although the shooting percentage is surely inflated by all of those alley-oop dunks), all while continuing the level of unselfish play that makes him great. However, the question I have is: could you not have done the same in Cleveland? Say what you will about their talent level at the time, LeBron led them to some of the best seasons in NBA history.  So, why could he not criticize his team and franchise while also working tirelessly to become more like Mike? 


To me, the answer is the fire just does not burn in him the way it burned in Kobe, Michael, Magic, Bird, Barkely, Dream, Ewing and all the rest. And the sad thing is, if he wins a championship as a member of Miami's Big Three, we may never witness the true extent of his greatness. Is it unfair to criticize him for passing last night? Yes. Is it unfair to criticize him for much of what he has done during his still young career? Perhaps...with The Decision being the true exception. But, that's what greatness is, win or lose.

…But I Still Believe.

These days, turning on the tube and following our current political climate makes me feel like I’ve become an emotional cutter.  I don’t mean to be insensitive to those who have battled or dealt with cases of cutting and/or suicide, but I just don’t know how else to describe it.

As we continue to try and climb out of the detritus left behind by the economic downturn of 2008, the one thing that I can no longer stomach is the obvious evidence of an epidemic that is emerging within our government: “politicking.” Impasse. Gridlock. Stalemate. Call me crazy, but these words seem cancerous to the very idea of democracy. If you look up a garden-variety definition of politics, it may convey something similar to “activities associated with the governance of a particular country or area.” To me, the irrefutable evidence of what we’re supposed to be—and what we’ve failed to live up to—reside in words like “activities” and “governance.” These words speak to action, or the process of reaching a resolution—regardless of how smooth or arduous the terrain. However, when we look at examples of good “politicking,” it’s funny how these examples go hand-in-hand with examples of bad governance, or ineffective politics. Politicking is the most threatening of practices in this country, and it will only serve to cripple the people to whom our politicians are responsible.

When so many American families can do nothing more than stand idly by as their futures are enveloped by a sand storm of uncertainly, those who continue to argue for less taxes on the wealthiest Americans— and against more strict oversight over the financial services industry—seem to be more concerned about political posturing than repairing the damage. It’s akin to a builder who wants to plaster the cracks in the walls and repaint, when the obvious problem is the foundation is faulty. And this just makes me angry. It’s not so much the political posturing that bothers me. It's the manner in which politicking is executed that speaks to a notion that Americans are stupid. Let’s face it, some of us can be. But most are just shadowing boxing with the endless political rhetoric until something strikes a chord. Unfortunately, that siren’s song can be dangerous because, if we are not grounded by common sense and a willingness for the “foundation” to be truly fixed, we will ultimately be guided into troubled waters and smashed against a rocks. 

Here’s what I mean...

Members of the financial services industry unleash their lobbyists and dump considerable money toward campaign contributions to thwart regulations that will mean less operational “freedom.” Deregulation has been tried—with the purpose of spurring consistency in the market and staving off or reducing periods of recession—but has failed all of us. And the reason it failed is because our government ignored the human element of it all. The human element determines if we as a country can truly place our trust and future in the hands of a few—politicians, bank CEO's, etc. The human element can be presented in the form of honesty, integrity and the desire to be the "best in the business" by doing the best for customers. At the other end of the spectrum are the human elements of greed and opportunism. Sadly, it’s this end of the spectrum that flourishes amidst deregulation (no one’s looking), bailout money and lower taxes. It’s like that kid whose mom says, “I’m giving you one cookie, but don’t eat anymore until after dinner. It will ruin your appetite,” but forgets to put the cookie back on the higher shelf. The chocolate-chip-stained kid takes another, thinking that mom will not notice. Soon, one extra cookie becomes an extra six or seven, until it’s obvious that more cookies were eaten. What can mom (government) do about this? Well, she can just remember to put the cookie on a higher shelf to start (regulations). Also,  mom can check the cookie jar from time to time (oversight). Or, mom can just wait until the kid pukes all over the green bean casserole at the dinner table (economic collapse). I don’t know about you, but I’d rather just put the cookies back on the shelf.

The problem is that we’re still not taking the measures necessary to meet the moment and win. Some call it the political process. Huh? In this case, it's nothing more than politicking. Terms such as socialism and “class warfare” are examples of politicking. Make it sound threatening, dirty, un-American to even think of such things. Here’s the thing, the proverbial wild card that is the human element are governed by regulations all the time, as civilization has learned long ago that encouraging folks to do what is just, in some cases, has to be more strictly defined and supported by the law of the land. Our First Amendment right to free speech is also counterbalanced by laws that determine penalties when a person’s practice of free speech/expression defames or injures someone else. Law, in its purest form, is not made to hinder growth—it’s there to protect it. Law is that “higher shelf.” But, when money is involved, it’s amazing what can sound dirty as opposed to simple and right.

Don't get me wrong, politics in its purest form is not a disease. It’s certainly not some sort of evil enterprise bent on crushing pockets of citizens while shielding others. But, I guess the sword itself would not as fearsome as the wielding swordsman. The only true remedy is enlightenment. Following the recent Presidential State of the Union Address, CNN political analyst David Gergen mentioned that, upon speaking with some affluent Americans, many would not be opposed to higher taxes—so long as the money is being used in the right way. Don’t we all want the same knowledge regarding our tax dollars? That’s hardly a tough request. So, if the administration is “down,” and many of the wealthy are also “down” (thank you, Warren Buffett), then where does the problem lie? In a word: politicking. Is there a disagreement on what is the "right way?" Improving a failing education system, making healthcare affordable for all and developing programs that support new a emerging industries in the U.S., and marrying those industries with an enthusiastic workforce. Sounds good to me. These are the initiatives that tax dollars should be funding. Just like better roads and bridges, we all benefit in the end. And, lest we forget, we get some of that shit back each year! Please tell me if I'm missing something.

Politicking means speaking to small business owners and middle-income families and proclaiming with teary eyes that “we’re fighting for you,” when the reality is they could give two shits. If they did, the process on The Hill would be much smoother than it is now. Having been in a position to help run small businesses, I take offense to the Alderman Davis-way in which politicking politicians say, “You’re stupid. Sit back and let us handle this for you.”

Anyone running a small business (or any business, for that matter) knows that, when tough economic times hit, you have to do two things: 1. Stop the hemorrhaging. 2. Fix the wound.

Stop the hemorrhaging: First, make decisions regarding what the company can no longer afford to do: find ways to save the company money, which are tough choices like reducing compensation and benefits, downsizing and finding cheaper ways to keep operations going.

Fix the wound: Simply, find ways to continue to make money. This may mean expanding or altering the current business model to find new avenues to increase revenue.

The reality is that you don’t have to be a small business owner/leader to connect these dots. Millions of American families are facing the same decisions every day:

Stop the hemorrhaging: First, make decisions regarding what the family can no longer afford: cut back on, or cut out “luxuries” and find ways to address needs of the family in less expensive ways.

Fix the wound: Simply, get a  job. If you are currently employed, find a new job that pays more.

Sadly, the level of stalemate that exists regarding the important issues—and their remedies— proves that politicking politicians have no true connection with the middleclass in America. If they did, they would also realize that the solution of increasing taxes on the wealthy would go a long way toward solving the problem:

Stop the hemorrhaging: First, make decisions regarding what the country can no longer afford. That may mean spending cuts, which has happened already. But it should also mean eliminating tax breaks that do not necessarily lead to stimulating our economy. Without a true programmatic approach for stimulating the economy (like tax breaks and other incentives received by companies as a result of increased investments in the U.S. that boost the economy), companies will continue to look at tax breaks as found money...and spend it that way.

Fix the wound: Simply, increased taxes means more money pumped into the economy faster than anything else can achieve right now.

If you stop the hemorrhaging without fixing the wound, death is still a possibility. Yes, on the surface, I agree that this country can no longer afford low tax rates for the wealthy. We have an unemployment rate that’s like a daily punch in the gut whenever you repeat it. We’re recovering from nearly a decade spent at war. We have an overall economy that is still struggling to rebound even after the Wall Street slap-around and rescuing the auto industry. American companies have to re-invest in America.

 Do I hate wealthy people? Hell no. I admire what they’ve accomplished—given the human elements from which they draw inspiration— and, whenever possible, take the lessons I’ve learned from them and apply it to my life. But, in laymen’s terms, shit does not add up.

Now, I get the math of it.  Fourteen percent of $30 million is a hell of a lot more than fifteen percent of  $65,000. However, when you look at the disparity, in terms of overall disposable income, it’s hard to feel too bad about raising taxes on wealthy Americans at a time when the country needs recovery dough. Even with a twenty-nine percent tax rate, a person making $1 million a year could achieve in a few years what middle-income Americans would need a working lifetime to achieve:

·      Buy a home…and pay it off

·      Buy a car, or two…and pay them off

·      Establish a good nest egg for retirement

·      Set aside money for college tuition(s) without resorting to student loans

The principle issue is that, through the use of credit, these achievements become far more costly to middle-income Americans because of mounting interest paid on loans. Add to this the challenge of addressing everyday needs such as running a home, paying for kids to go to better schools and the unforeseen, it’s a wonder middle-income Americans made it as far as they did before 2008. 

Many will argue that, without tax reform, increasing taxes on the wealthy may not mean much revenue to the government. It's a small portion of the whole, after all. I don't know about that, but struggling families and small businesses tend to live by the motto that "every little bit helps." Politicking politicians should take heed. The economic debacle was nearly two decades in the making, slowly draining dough from America. If you pump some money back in at a steady rate, real progress can be made in a quarter of the time.  I agree that the Leona Helmsley's and Wesley Snipes's of the world also need to be figuratively flogged, as well as any who are finding ways to "get by" the white beard of Uncle Sam. Again, we have to fix the wound any and every way we can. If we sit around and do nothing more, death is still a possibility.

Politicking politicians should stop talking to the rest of us like we're stupid, and show us that they're smarter than we think they are. Swap out impasse and gridlock for action and resolution—no matter how smooth or arduous the task—and help this country to avoid crashing onto the rocks. Remember, our taxes are also paying their salaries. 

Can we avoid the siren's song? Can Obama and members of Congress become our Odysseus of this economic Odyssey? God, I hope so. More than hope, I still believe that the voices of many will triumph over the songs of a few. I have to believe it because once belief is gone, the voices will become irrelevant. And death will not only be possible, it will be inevitable.