Not Obama and Not Romney

Gary Johnson for President

As many know, I am a strong Ron Paul supporter and wrote a lengthy article explaining my endorsement for campaign.

Unfortunately, his campaign did not achieve its goal to win the Republican nomination in 2012.

The Republican party chose Mitt Romney as their candidate and instead of welcoming the Ron Paul supporters into the party they fought tooth and nail to steal delegates from Paul to even keep his name from being put into nomination at the convention.  I could document some of the shenanigans that have come to life but it would take too much time.  President historian and Paul insider, Doug Wead, has documented some of it on his blog otherwise some Google searches will no doubt find much more.

So, what is my reasoning?

Con's for Obama:

• Terrible understanding of the role of government
• He is a Keynesian.  No understanding of how macro-economics (or even micro-economics) works.
• Promotes the idea of an ever expanding government
• Believes the President can attack whoever and whatever he wants without Congressional approval
• Continues the foreign policy disaster of previous administrations
• Continues Civil liberty abuses
• "Obamacare"
• Broken promises about transparency, closing Gitmo, shovel ready jobs, and many more
• No Hope and no Change
• More government lies: about Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and probably the Bin Laden raid
• Joe Biden as Vice President
• Pro-choice.  Pro-gay marriage.
• Would nominate more Justices to the Supreme Court who are clueless on how to interpret the Constitution, though might be stronger on the Civil liberty side.
• ...

My thoughts about Obama:

He seems like a nice guy with a great family.  His take on the role of government and how the economy really works is exactly backwards.  His foreign policy is also pretty much the same foreign policy as Bush, though perhaps worse.  The only saving grace for Obama is that there is a significant force within the Democratic party that is pulling him to be less hawkish on foreign policy and potentially better on civil liberties.  If he wins, we will likely see 4 more years of a split government with Obama unable to get anything done, but the Republicans will have a chance to pick a better liberty loving candidate 4 years from now.

Con's for Romney:

• Campaign and collaborating with the Republican establish to rob Ron Paul and his delegates of their place within the party and convention
• He is an establishment Republican
• He is NOT a tea party or constitutional Republican
• He is the originator of Romneycare, the blueprint for Obamacare (THE IRONY OF IT ALL!  The year Obama is vulnerable for Obamacare and who do the Republicans nominate but the guy who did it first!)
• Mister etch-a-sketch.  What does he really believe?
• He is a Keynesian.
• He was in favor of the bailouts (like TARP) and stimulus spending.
• His budget plan will continue the growth of government.
• He plans to INCREASE spending on the military when we already spend more on our military than the next 10-14 countries combined.  Who is going to invade us?  Mexico or Canada?  Who has a navy that is big enough to threaten us?  Who has a nuclear arsenal at all comparable?
• He is talking like a war hawk, saying we should get involved in Syria and threatening military action against Iran.
• He thinks Russia and China are our enemy.  Where has he been?

My thoughts on Romney:

Romney is seems like a nice guy with a great family.  He seems to understand how to run a business, but he is very foggy on the true role of government and how macro-economics works.  He seems to be a true politician.  He is financed by Goldman Sachs and the big banks.  He is an establishment, neo-con Republican.  He talks like he is Conservative with he speaks to conservatives, and like a moderate to everyone else.  He has no real plan to address our budget crisis.  He won't cut anything of significance nor greatly reduce taxes.  His chief sins are wanting to increase military spending, and increase our hawkish stance and involvement around the world which is morally wrong, dangerous, and economic suicide.  He is not a defender of civil liberties, but seems intent on growing the security state.  If he wins, he may have a Democratic Senate or probably less than a filibuster proof Senate.  We will have 4 more years like Bush, followed by him running against the sad Democratic challenger either of which will not help.

Con's for Johnson:

• Pragmatic, not a philosophical, libertarian
• Pro-choice.  Pro-gay marriage.
• Doesn't have a snowballs chance in H... of winning

My thoughts on Johnson:

Johnson is on the right side of most economic, and military issues.  He is a defender of civil liberties.  He is on the wrong side of the abortion and gay marriage issues but these are not issues the federal government needs to get involved with.  He would greatly reduce the budget and pull back the military.  He seems to have a good track record on getting his way in New Mexico (a heavily democratic state) when he was the governor there.  In all likelihood, he will not get a significant number of votes though perhaps at least 5% nationally which will be enough to make the Libertarian party a greater player 4 years from now.

So, why Gary Johnson?  

• Ron Paul is not running.  
• Mitt Romney and the Republican establishment robbed Paul and his delegates their voice at the Convention and changed a long standing party rule on getting delegates to prevent a Paul-like repeat in the future.  When they were winning the game, they still cheated and took steps to hold onto power that they were clearly losing.  This is NOT something that I can overlook.  It should not be supported.  
• Although Mitt is probably better on the economy than Obama, he is worse on foreign policy and with his hawkish rhetoric makes us and the world less safe
• A loss by the Republican party would perhaps be a wake up call to them to make room for liberty.  
• I could not in good conscience vote for Obama, but I can vote for the best of 3 candidates that could mathematically win (Gary Johnson) with the hope of also making a statement and helping the Libertarian party get the 5% mark for additional funding.

Suns Possible Trade Prophecy

I just posted my trade prophecy for the Suns ... a trade for Andre Iguodala.

With a plethora of big men and shortage of small forwards, I was curious to see if I could find a team that had an over abundance of small forwards and a need for big men.

What did I find?

The Philadelphia 76ers apparently have had rumors swirling around a possible trade of Andre Iguodala.

You mean the 76ers are looking to trade their superstar small forward, who is now hooping for Team USA, and are apparently in need of big men?

It seems like a great arrangement for both teams.

The Suns have a U of A connection with Sarver and Channing Frye, and the alma mater just 1.5 hours away.

It seems like a great move for the Suns as it would:

• Bring in a legit super star
• Fill a need at small forward
• Fill the need for someone who can score the basketball at crunch time
• Bring some excitement to the Suns fan base (at least the U of A portion ... and some of the Sun Devil fans)

The Suns would obviously have to provide some significant value in return: probably be 2-3 players and draft picks.

The big men options include: Marcin Gortat, Channing Frye, Robin Lopez, Michael Beasley, Markieff Morris, or Hakim Warrick.

Apparently they are unable to trade Luis Scola for 1 year after picking him off the amnesty waiver. So he is off the table.

It seems like the Suns may be angling for such a trade. If they are not, they should be, in my opinion.

Suns 2012 Off Season Thoughts

I just posted my thoughts on the Phoenix Suns 2012 off season situation.

My suggestion for a path forward would be:

1. Try to resign Nash. Hopefully he will agree to a reasonable contract and will either take less to attract another solid free agent or two or perhaps the Suns can front load the contract to pay him more this year and less next (and possibly the year after) when they pursue the 2013 free agents. Why? With Nash, the Suns will again compete for the playoffs, will sell more tickets, and perhaps attract at least one more solid free agent. He is also the one you would like to be mentoring your next point guard. He is the face of the Suns and should retire with us. People have been forecasting his decline since before he left Dallas. He continues to amaze. I don't doubt that he can compete at a high level for another 2-3 years. Besides if you are not going to spend the money on Nash, who are you going to spend it on?
2. Go for Goran if Nash leaves. Obviously we never should have traded Dragic. Brooks has yet to show that he is an upgrade AND we gave up a first round draft pick. Arggh! Anyway, he is a talented PG who has the potential to be something special. He is a known quantity who knows the coach and the system.
3. Bring back Hill. Hill is another solid veteran who is a great example and representative for the organization. He still can contribute and will probably be reasonable with the salary. It would be great if he retires with the Suns and stays with the organization.
4. Crawford or Allen at the 2. Crawford or Allen would be great additions. Crawford probably has longer term potential but Allen is still a star whom Suns medicine might be able to work their magic on.
5. Else Shannon Brown. The Suns could do worse than sign Shannon Brown again. With more playing time, he could continue to develop into a dynamic shooting guard.
6. Pursue Gerald Wallace. He would be a nice upgrade at a weak position for the Suns.
7. Look for short term deals thereafter. After pursuing the names above, I think they should just look to round out their roster with as solid a group of players as possible with 1 year deals like they did last season. I would consider bringing back Michael Redd again and even consider some of the big guys mentioned (and others like Lou Amundson).

Hiddenness of God

Hiddenness of God

"I've never understood how God could expect his creatures to pick the one true religion by faith -— it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe." - Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein

According to Christian theology, an invisible god created the universe and sustains and rules it today, making this god the most powerful force in the universe. But, why then is he so hidden from us? We know of many lesser invisible things, such as gravity, electrons, and magnetism, which we have discovered, measured, and described by their effects on visible things, but such evidences of a god are highly ambiguous at best.

from http://new.exchristian.net/2012/01/hiddeness-of-god.html

If God wants us to know him, and even punishes us for not knowing him, why does He hide from us?

Does God hide from us?

Yes?

1. Invisible God (1 Tim 1:17)
2. No longer walks with us like He walked with Adam in the Garden (Gen. 2-3)
3. Only reveals Himself supernaturally at rare and special moments

1. Garden
2. Cain and Abel
3. Noah
4. Abraham
5. Jacob
6. Joseph
7. Moses
8. Joshua
9. Judges
10. First 3 Kings of Israel
11. Prophets
12. Jesus
13. Apostles

4. Usually uses prophets / intermediary
5. Jesus was indirect about His deity

1. speaking in parables
2. not clearly and definitively asserting His divinity until pressed by the High Priest

6. He uses our behavior in His absence as a basis for judgement

1. Judging of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:32-46) (What they did to others they did to him)
2. Ruler that went away and sent servants to collect rent

7. Admonishes us to seek Him (implying that He is hiding in some sense) (Deut 4:29, 1 Chr 22:19, Ps 14:2, Matt 7:8).  We are also instructed that people do evil because they do not seek Him (2 Chr 12:14, Ps 10:4).
8. We walk by faith and not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7)
9. Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

No?

1. Evidence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers
2. Evident through Creation (Rom 1:20)

1. Visible and invisible worlds
2. Information
3. Laws of logic
4. Morality
5. Personality

2. He communicated to numerous people, all descended from the same parents

1. First, Adam, then Noah
2. They could be expected to pass that information on to their descendants

3. He left a record in the form of the Bible, history, and tradition (Heb 1:1)

1. We seem to know an awful lot about this “hidden” and “invisible” God
2. How?

4. Jesus was sent on a mission to “seek and save” those who are lost (Luke 19:10).

1. Jesus is THE image of the invisible God (Col 1:15)
2. Jesus said if you have seen him you have seen the Father (John 14:9)

So what is up?

It seems evident that the Biblical God intends to leave us plenty of evidence of His existence, but it is generally indirect evidence.  

He could make Himself known to every person at all times but He clearly does not intend to.  

Why doesn’t God fully reveal Himself to all people at all times?

1. He does not have to give us an answer.  

1. If people choose to disbelieve, that is up to them.  
2. He does not owe us an explanation beyond what He has given.
3. Any belief system has to account for all of the evidence.  Disbelieving in Christianity does not help you understand the world any better.  Instead it leaves gaping holes in one’s understanding of the world.

1. They are deliberately neglecting the substantial evidence of His existence and instead choosing to believe an illogical system (i.e., atheism as it can not account for the existence of the non-material logic, information, morality, etc.).
2. Christian belief system is logically consistent belief system that is the best explanation for all of life, philosophy, history, science, etc.

2. Seeing is not “believing”

4. James 2:19: You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. (see James 2:19)
5. Hebrews 11:6: And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (See Hebrews 11:6)
6. “Seeing” God does not force belief / trust / love for Him.

1. It is NOT just about believing there is a God

7. Choosing to love and glorify God is an act of the will
8. So, even if He revealed Himself we would know that He exists, but we wouldn’t necessarily like that fact.
9. “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’  “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” (Luke 16:19-31)

3. Everyone already inherently knows there is a God

1. The Bible states everyone knows there is a God, they just suppress that knowledge and deceive themselves. (Rom 1:21-23)
2. How often and instinctively do people cry out to God in a crisis?

4. It could be an act of kindness to them, as they are less culpable / guilty for rejecting the lesser light than they would be for rejecting the greater light they could be given.

1. Luke 12:47-48: 47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

5. In Romans 9, Paul begins to address God in relation to the Problem of Evil, and he gives us a “what if” that also is relevant here:

1. Romans 9:13-24: 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e] 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f] 16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (see Romans 9:13-24)
2. Paul is saying people are God’s creation to dispose of as He sees fit.  Some people are made ultimately to receive the wrath of God.  God is revealing / demonstrating something of His character through His wrath (namely, His holiness, justice, and hatred of evil).  To whom is He demonstrating this? Minimally to the objects of His Mercy.
3. Basically, we all are guilty of sin.  He is choosing to bestow mercy on some.  They are those who walk by “faith” and not by sight. They choose to seek after God to understand and know Him.  The objects of His wrath are those who reject the light that they have.

6. Author analogy:

1. God is like the author of a novel.  We are characters in His novel.  We live in the world He created.  
2. Do the characters in the novel alway know the author of the novel?  Does the author owe them something?

7. Why do people hide themselves from others?  

1. So that others don’t know they are there, so that they will see them do things they would not normally do when they are around other people (like the Parable of the Ten Minas,Matthew 25:32-46)  
2. It is a simple truth that people act differently when they think they are not being observed.
3. God knows what they will do, but it is obvious to all (including the person) when He allows them to do it.  

Conclusion

The gist of the article is that Christianity must not be true because Christians say God wants everyone to believe in Him but then doesn’t show Himself obviously to them.  An all-powerful God would be able to do what He wants so there must be no all-powerful God.

This is similar to the argument against God based on the problem of evil.  Either an all-powerful God does not exist or He is not good (i.e. good enough to prevent evil or to save everyone).

Of course, the argument is invalid because it assumes what an all-good God would do, in both cases.  Ultimately, the god that is being refuted is not the God of the Bible.

Like it or not, believer or nonbeliever, the truth is that God does hide from us.  He has left sufficient evidence pointing to His existence and explaining His plans for mankind.  His plans are NOT to save everyone.  His plans are to save those He chooses … those who seek after Him.

How is one saved?  By believing there is a God?  Even the God of the Bible?  No!  Demons know there is a God and still reject Him.  The religious leaders of Jesus’ time claimed to believe in the God of the Bible.  John 3 explains God’s plan well:

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Believing in Him does not mean simply believing that the Son exists, but rather placing your trust in Him to do what He said He would do, to have faith in the reliability, honesty, and benevolence of the Son.

The author of the article seems to be an atheist, so theoretically he believes that his atheistic worldview makes more sense than the Christian worldview he is critiquing.  However, if Christianity has a “problem” with evil, atheists have a “problem” of evil and good.  If Christianity has a problem explaining the hiddenness of God, atheists have a problem explaining the non-hiddenness of God (e.g., philosophy, Bible, information, logic).

Ron Paul for the Republican Presidential Nomination

I endorse Ron Paul for President

Ron Paul is my choice to be the Republican presidential nominee and ultimately the President of the United States.

This may not come as a surprise to many of you, but you may not be aware of my reasons.

Why Ron Paul?

• His incorruptible character
• His authenticity in speaking plainly and truthfully even when some don’t want to hear it
• His consistent philosophy of government (in the vein of Thomas Jefferson)
• His ability to teach that philosophy and create a movement
• His willingness to campaign for a cause not just a job
• His defense of life, liberty, and property
• His understanding of economic policy and how to fix it
• His perfect record in voting against the growth of government spending and raising of taxes
• His perfect record of defending the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence

But what about …

• All of his flip-flops?
• No one has accused him of that :-)
• His record of supporting the growth of government spending?
• No one has accused him of that either :-)
• The fact that the Republican establishment hates him?
• And why is that a bad thing?
• The fact that Goldman Sachs is not supporting Ron Paul like Romney?
• True. Paul has to get by on small donations because the corporate interests realize Ron Paul is not for corporate welfare
• Those nasty inflammatory newsletters?
• No one claims that he actually wrote them
• He has disavowed them but takes responsibility in being negligent in not providing more editorial oversight
• He has decades of speeches and writing that is exactly opposite of those type of remarks
• Check out this fact check on the issue.
• His foreign policy? He is weak on terrorism right? He blamed America for 911, right?
• His is the ONLY sane foreign policy.
• He believes that we should follow the golden rule in our foreign policy. Here is an incredible video explaining what that might look like.
• He believes America should declare war Constitutionally
• He believes in the Just War theory (as Christians for the last 2000 years have) not preemptive war.
• He blames American foreign policy for inciting the hostility that was the motivation for 911.
• He is aware of the history of American foreign interventionism and its consequences
• Unlike some candidates, he realizes that the history of U.S. / Iran conflict did not start with the taking of U.S. hostages in 1979, but actually goes back to the U.S. supported coup in 1953.
• He understands that it is American foreign policy that creates hostility toward us. He actually read why Al Qaeda attacked us. He read the CIA on the topic of blowback.
• He realizes that if we bankrupt our country we will not be able to defend ourselves
• He is the only one proposing that we stop paying for the defense of Germany, Japan, and South Korea (all rich countries). If we can’t stop now, then when?
• He is the only candidate who has actually served in the military.
• He received more contributions from active military than the other candidates combined.
• His desire to legalize drugs?
• It is not in the Constitution for the federal government to be involved outlawing any drugs (e.g., it required a Constitutional amendment to begin alcohol prohibition)
• He would give the issue to the States to decide
• Check out my more complete take on this.
• His weakness in defending traditional marriage?
• What weakness? He believes in traditional marriage and has been married for over 50 years.
• He supports DOMA. He also proposed the “Marriage Protection Act” and the “We the People” act which would have removed this issue and any issue regarding sexual orientation and practice from federal jurisdiction, meaning it would have remained a State matter.
• His wacky economic ideas?
• Guilty.
• He believes that a government should live within its means and only spend on Constitutionally authorized matters
• He believes that gold and silver were intended by our founders to be the currency
• Counterfeiting is wrong … even when the government does it
• He believes that the Federal Reserve should at least be audited to see how it spends 10 times what the federal government spends.
• He also doesn’t think the Fed has done a good job protecting the value of the dollar, given that it has lost 96% of its value since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913.
• He believes that spending more money is not a solution to spending too much money
• He believes that individuals not governments create wealth, and that government intervention almost always makes things worse
• He believes that our system of crony capitalism (e.g., TARP, the military industrial complex, government takeover of the auto industry and health care) needs to stop
• He is for unfettered capitalism, destroying the environment, and letting companies poison us?
• Really?
• He is for the Constitution. The federal government should be about helping commerce, not stifling it.
• He is for freedom and allowing the courts and markets to provide the best regulation
• Government regulators have failed time and again, and the cost of compliance on business is stifling.
• He is unelectable?
• That is what elections are for deciding.
• He and Romney are the only candidates that are on the ballot in all 50 States. Gingrich and Santorum are not even on the ballot in Virgina.
• Numerous polls have Paul doing as well against Obama as the other candidates.
• He has a strong organization that understands the delegate process. He will likely end up with more delegates than the popular / straw votes in Caucus states suggest. Some have estimated that he probably has the 2nd most delegates at this stage of the campaign.
• His numbers continue to grow. Once you are a Paul supporter you are not likely to flip to another candidate as the supporters of Santorum and Gingrich have.
• Who is more likely to make a significant gaffe which will cost him the race: Paul who has been saying the same thing for 30 years, or Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum who haven’t.
• Who has already made significant gaffe’s? Not Paul.
• He brings the most enthusiastic supporters to the Republican side. He wins heavily among young people and independents which helped carry Obama.
• His crazy supporters?
• Well, you got me there :-)

I realize in writing this, I could go on and on about why Ron Paul is the right man for the job.

In summary, the reason I support Ron Paul for President is not just that he is the most fiscally conservative candidate with the most amazing track record. It is not just that he is also on the right side of the major social issues. It is that he has a correct philosophy of government (grounded in the same foundation as the Declaration of Independence) and recognizes the moral issues that the other candidates do not: war, theft and the trampling of freedom.

We need to stop carelessly going to war, bombing and putting sanctions on other countries. It is morally wrong. We have blood on our hands. I am sure that God is not amused.

We need to stop using the force of government to make people do what a minority or even a slim majority thinks is right. Government should be about protecting life and liberty, and providing justice for all. You have no right to tell someone else how they need to spend their money, or live their life. God gave them that right. If you disagree, where in the Bible do you find that justification? As long as they don’t harm someone else, you have no moral authority to intervene. You may plead with them to do what is right and good, and you should.

Obviously, you can find out more about Ron Paul by searching the web. I recommend Wikipedia, Why Ron Paul, Ron Paul’s website, and Tom Woods website. You don’t have to guess at his positions. He is quite clear and consistent.

If you have additional questions or reasons why I shouldn’t support Ron Paul, I would be happy to discuss it.

Suns will stink in 2010-11 ... just like 2009-10

I finally got around to posting some more thoughts about the Suns over at the Bright Side of the Sun:

Yeah, the 2009-10 Suns sure did stink.

I hope they carry the same odor into 2010-11.

There are, of course, no guarantees.

• Yes, I think that Nash, Hill, and possibly Richardson will decline some this year.
• Yes, I think that Lopez, Dudley, Dragic, and Frye will play at least as good as last year, if not better.
• Yes, I think that between Hedo, Childress, and Warrick we will find 1 or 2 solid, dependable players who will step up.
• Yes, I think that Clark and Lawal have a chance to make an impact and get some playing time.
• Yes, I think the Suns will field another entertaining team that will have a different set of stars step up from game to game.
• Yes, I think the 2010-11 Suns will surprise a lot of people.
• Yes, I think the 2010-11 Suns will stink ... just like the 2009-10 Suns ... I hope.

My prediction was pretty accurate for 2009-10. I hope I can keep my streak alive :-)

Hoping the Suns don't go Supernova

I just posted my thoughts on the current Suns situation over at the Bright Side of the Sun:

The common thought is that the Suns window is closed. They are too old and too expensive to compete. Last season showed that they couldn't even make the playoffs as currently constituted. Dump O'Neal, dump Stoudemire, and why not dump Nash while we are at it. The sooner we can start the rebuilding the sooner we can start competing again.

My contrarian opinion is that the Suns are still a highly talented team that is only a break or two away from competing for the big prize, and nonetheless continuing a long successful stretch of fun entertaining basketball.

That said, let's see how quickly the Suns blow things up :-)

Another Suns post

Another post on the Bright Side of the Sun. This time the topic is what I think the Suns can do to salvage the rest of the season:

What can they do today to improve?

In my opinion, they need to tweak their rotations.

This will put our best foot forward in the outside chance that the Mavs or one of the other Western Conference teams do have a serious slide at the end of the season.

and

I propose the following rotation:

1st/2nd/3rd/4th Quarter

12-8 minutes left:

Nash, Richardson, Hill, Amundson*, Shaq

8-4 minutes left:

LB, Richardson, Barnes, Dudley**, Shaq

4-0 minutes left:

Nash, LB, Hill, Barnes, Swift*

An Answer for the Suns?

I posted on the Bright Side of the Sun again. This time the topic is what I think the Suns could do with the players they currently have.

In my opinion, they should set up the following rotation (or one like it):

1st/3rd Quarter:

12-8 minutes left: Nash, JRich, Hill, Stat, and Shaq (Team All-Star)

8-4 minutes left: Barbosa, JRich, Hill, Amundson, Shaq (Team Shaq)

4-0 minutes left: Nash, Barbosa, Barnes, Stat, Dudley/Lopez (Team Nash)

2nd/4th Quarter:

12-8 minutes left: Dragic/Tucker, JRich, Hill, Amundson, Shaq (Team Shaq P2)

8-4 minutes left: Nash, Barbosa, Barnes, Stat, Dudley/Lopez (Team Nash)

4-0 minutes left: Nash?, Barbosa/JRich?, Hill/Barnes?, Stat?, Amundson / Dudley / Shaq (Team ?)

Given the likelihood of a trade this post may have a very short relevant life span.

To Trade or Stand Pat?

I posted again on the Brighter Side of the Suns concerning this question.

Trade rumors abound once again for the Phoenix Suns. The latest rumors have the Suns looking to trade Amare, and possibly Shaq, even though GM Kerr has said no one is untouchable.

Does it make sense to trade or stand pat?