Mediaboss Marketing

Steph Curry might be the most prolific 3-point shooter in NBA history, but does he have a "prettier" shot than his fellow Splash Brother in Klay Thompson? Former President Barack Obama doesn't believe so, and Curry agreed as he responded to fan questions on GQ's "Actually Me" Youtube series.

"That is an actual fact he said that, and I would also argue that he's right," Curry said. "I would definitely classify Klay's jumper as prettier. There are a lot of different ways to get it done, and if you look at the greatest shooters in history, everybody shoots differently. So you have to master your own form and your own shot."

To say Curry has mastered the art of shooting from behind the 3-point line is putting it incredibly mildly. Steph is on pace to easily lead the NBA in 3-pointers made for the second consecutive year and seventh time in the past decade.

Curry's current career total of 3,018 is the NBA record, and will continue to grow as his decorated career continues.

Thompson's jumper often is described as the ideal form for shooting a 3-pointer, and Klay himself has made some NBA history of his own from behind the arc. Thompson still holds the NBA record with 14 3-pointers in a single game, and also has the best single quarter scoring performance in league history with 37 points.

Even after over two years away from the NBA, Thompson's jumper looks just as it did before his two major lower-body injuries. Klay clearly is brushing off the rust a bit through his first two games, but still has made five of his first 13 attempts from the 3-point line.

President Obama couldn't have gone wrong with either Steph or Klay's jumpers, but it is somewhat surprising to see Curry so willing to assert that his partner in crime has a "prettier" shot than he does.

Download and follow the Dubs Talk Podcast

Continue reading here:
Steph Curry, Barack Obama agree that Klay Thompson has 'prettier' shot - NBC Sports Bay Area

Over the weekend, Jason Furman, a former top economist for President Barack Obama, threw cold water on Sen. Elizabeth Warrens claim that corporate greed is driving inflation.

"Corporate greed is a bad theory of inflation," Furman bluntly told Business Insider in an article published Sunday.

Furman, currently a professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and a Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the surging inflation in the US economy has a simple explanation.

"I think almost everything other than the Federal Reserve is a sideshow when it comes to the dynamics of inflation," Furman said.

Warren, a populist progressive from Massachusetts, has hit the cable shows in recent weeks to argue that inflationwhich in December saw a year-over-year increase of 7 percent, its biggest leap clip since 1982is the fault of greedy corporations.

Prices at the pump have gone up. Why? Because giant oil companies like @Chevron and @ExxonMobil enjoy doubling their profits, Warren tweeted. This isn't about inflation. This is about price gouging for these guys & we need to call them out.

Warren has used the corporate greed talking point to argue for antitrust legislation, saying businesses like Kroger should be broken up, which would lead to lower prices.

Furman isnt the only Obama economist to point out that Warrens arguments are not grounded in sound economics.

In December, Lawrence Summers, who served as the director of Obamas National Economic Council from January 2009 until November 2010, had harsh words for those claiming antitrust legislation could be used to curb inflation.

The emerging claim that antitrust can combat inflation reflects science denial, Summers tweeted. There are many areas like transitory inflation where serious economists differ. Antitrust as an anti-inflation strategy is not one of them.

Could corporate greed really be behind inflation? Put aside for a moment the economic modeling. Theres an even more obvious reason Warrens suggestion is silly, my colleague Brad Polumbo pointed out.

Senator Warrens attempt to pin the blame for rising gas prices on corporate greed makes little sense. Are companies greedy in the sense that theyre focused on increasing profits? Yes, absolutely, he writes.

He continues:

But it does not in any way explain the current increase in gas prices that is hurting Americans. Chevron and Exxon are no more or less greedy or profit-focused than they were last year. Or the year before that. Or 20 years ago. Theres simply no reason to believe that they suddenly became extra greedy this year, or something.

The true causes of high gas prices are complicated, and ultimately, prices are set by supply and demandnot by the whims of individual companies. (Otherwise, theyd always set them as high as they could. But other suppliers and customer demand keep companies prices in check).

Okay, so if corporate greed is not driving inflation, then what is? Well, Furman is mostly correct when he said almost everything other than the Federal Reserve is a sideshow when it comes to inflation.

After all, an authority no less than Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman noted that inflation is primarily a phenomenon stemming from monetary policy.

Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output, Friedman famously noted.

The reality is, the Federal Reserve has been printing money at an alarming rate. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, by his own admission, said the central bank flooded the system with money. As a result, 35-40 percent of dollars in total circulation have been printed in the last 22 months.

Still, theres another quote often attributed to Friedman that deserves attention.

Inflation is caused by too much money chasing after too few goods, the quote goes.

Money here is part of the equation; the other part is too few goods. While monetary policy is the elephant in the room when it comes to inflation, its also true that policies that discourage or frustrate the production of new goods or the ability to get them to market can also influence prices.

So while the Feds money printer is the primary culprit, lockdownswhich disrupt supply chainsand policies that discourage workers from working (such as ultra-generous unemployment benefits) also presumably played an inflationary role, though to what degree is unclear.

Whatever the case, many Americans unfortunately are experiencing significant inflation for the first time, a phenomenon that tragically falls hardest on the poor. If inflation continues to grow worse, claims that corporate greed are causing it will undoubtedly grow louderwhich could spur calls for even more government action.

But if we want a solution that actually works, its imperative that the true culprit is identified. And in this case, the culprit is the usual one.

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say history is largely a history of inflation, the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek observed in The Denationalization of Money, and usually inflations engineered by governments for the gain of governments.

Its just as they say: the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Read more from the original source:
(Another) Top Obama Economist Offers Harsh Assessment of Elizabeth Warren's Inflation Theory | Jon Miltimore - Foundation for Economic Education

Voting rights advocates and Democratic lawmakers have been pushing to get voting rights bills passed amidst unanimous opposition from Republicans. GOP Senator Bill Cassidy was pressed on the partys opposition, citing the election victories of former President Barack Obama and vice president Kamala Harris as the reasons.

In an appearance on CNNs State of the Union over the weekend, host Jake Tapper pressed Cassidy on the voting rights bills that are set to be taken up in the evenly divided Senate. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is one of the bills that are set to be taken up at the upper chamber. The bill would restore the protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act against discriminatory election laws.

Tapper noted that at the time, the law was passed unanimously in the Senate. The CNN host then proceeded to press Cassidy why the Republicans are against restoring the protections now. Cassidy said that the environment at the time is different from the environment now.

Weve had an African-American elected president of the United States, and an African-American elected to the vice presidency and African-American elected to the Senate in South Carolina. If anyone cant see the circumstances have changed, theyre just not believing their lying eyes, said Cassidy.

The reality is that in Louisiana, we have the highest percentage of African-American officials in the nation, Cassidy continued. Weve had a white mayor of a predominantly Black city and a Black mayor of a predominantly white city. Theres been incredible progress in our country.

Cassidy, however, admitted that more work has to be done, but maintained that the times have changed since 1965.

Republicans in the Senate have blocked debate on the voting rights bills four times through the use of the filibuster. While most Democratic Senators have argued to carve out the filibuster to pass voting rights, two lawmakers from the party Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have staunchly defended keeping the senate tradition.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer revealed his last-ditch effort to force the Senate to go into a debate on voting rights, temporarily evading the filibuster. In an internal memo to congressional Democrats, Schumers plan involves making several obscure maneuvers that already started Wednesday night last week in the House. The text from an unrelated NASA bill would be replaced with the text from the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

The legislation would then be brought to the Senate as a message that allows Democrats to open a debate on the measure without the need for 60 votes.

View post:
GOP Senator says Barack Obama, Kamala Harris' election victories reason for opposition to voting rights bill - EconoTimes

Were we to make a political wish for the new year, it might be for more cooperation at the national level in moments of true crisis. Civil conversations across the political aisle are a starting point for healing a polarized society; action bipartisan action however, deserves greater attention.

The Great Recession of 2008 comes to mind as one of the more recent instances of political cooperation. George W. Bush and Barack Obama demonstrated unusual civic friendship, as Aristotle would have termed it, in responding to the crisis.

A shared concern for the welfare of the American people, as well as mutual respect between the two men, whatever their differing philosophies, made for a singular moment in American history.

While few saw the housing bubble coming before the spring of 2008, President Bush found himself in uncharted political territory as mortgage defaults shredded the financial sector in an era of easy money. It might be said that the sitting president was as politically vulnerable as many Americans were financially exposed to the financial crisis.

Americans had manifest their opposition to Bushs Iraq War at the midterm ballot boxes in 2006, leaving a Democratic majority in Congress including Illinois first term senator, Barack Obama, who had been elected only two years earlier.

In his penetrating assessment of the trans-Atlantic scope of the Great Recession, Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Shaped the World, Columbia University historian Adam Tooze singled out Bushs dependence on a majority of Democrats (before and after the 2008 election) to respond to the more controversial aspects of the free-fall: namely, the rescue of investment houses and a bailout of the automobile industry.

From a position of weakness, Bush recognized that more was at stake than simply party politics in the 2008 election; American dreams tottered in the balance.

Thus, as the campaign entered its final hours, he took the unprecedented step of informing both John McCain and Obama of the potential damage that their actions and words might have on the overall health of the reeling economy.

Suspending his campaign as the magnitude of the crisis unfolded, Sen. McCain called for a meeting with Bush, congressional leaders and Obama to assess potential solutions to the problem.

It was less what candidate Obama said than Bushs reaction to Obamas characterization of the problem that yielded the presidents admiration for the junior senator from Illinois stature as a potential leader. He had a calm demeanor, Bush wrote in his memoir, Decision Points, and spoke about the broad outlines of the package (to address the crisis). Bush went on to note that Obamas purpose was to show that he was aware, in touch, and ready to help get a bill passed.

When Obamas election became a reality, Bush continues in his memoir, he recalled saying a prayer for the incoming administration. He backed up those sentiments with action. Bush doubled down to clean up the implosion of the automobile industry with stimulus funds before handing off the baton to Obama. I wont dump this mess on him, vowed Bush.

As Obama later sized things up, President Bush would end up doing all he could to make the eleven weeks between my election and his departure go smoothly. Furthermore, according to Obamas telling of the story, published in his memoir, Promised Land, Bush delivered on the passage of a wildly unpopular stimulus bill (TARP), allowing the new president to start with a clean slate.

And while it is true that nary a Senate Republican voted for the new presidents controversial Affordable Care Act, Bush absorbed some of the public opprobrium directed toward the architects of the bailout. Thats a great deal more than any other Republican would do for the new president.

What does this story highlight? First, a modicum of civility between two men with diverging political agendas. Second, a greater concern for the public welfare over political posturing led to a better outcome for all Americans. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Bush, even while in office, allowed himself during a fraught White House meeting prior to the election to see his successor as someone aware, in touch and capable of assuming the presidential mantle.

Evan Ward is associate professor of History at Brigham Young University, where he teaches courses on world history. His views are his own.

See more here:
Bush, Obama and what Recession 2008 taught us about bipartisan problem-solving - Deseret News

Black female leaders are labeled as angry or mad for speaking their truth and raising their voices. I have felt that sting, but I regained my voice.

Tennessee Voices: A conversation with Brittany Cole

Brittany Cole, speaker, author and CEO ofCareer Thrivers, spoke with Tennessean opinion editor David Plazas.

Nashville Tennessean

Americans have often mistaken Black women's passionate attitudefor anger. Black women have experienced tone policing when at work, atcorporate gatherings andin public life.

Over last few years, society has been forced to pay attention to the systemic racism against African Americans. People of all races have marched and protested to encourage change changes that require people not only to focus on the justice system but to focus on conversations that dim the light on racial tropes.

Despite the effort for change, Black women still feel the need to alter themselves to gain acceptance.

In 2019, former First LadyMichelle Obama spoke with CBS news hostGayle King and explained during an interview how being called "angry" affected her work ethic when she served as the First Lady of the United States.

For a minute there, I was an angry Black woman who was emasculating her husband," Obama said.

"I had to prove that not only was I smart and strategic, but I had to work harder than any First Lady in history, said Obama,recallingthe label she was given by criticsfor speaking against racism and other harsh topics.

More: How Stacey Abrams can teach all citizens to be resilient leaders | Opinion

Vice President Kamala Harris and Stacey Abrams, the 2018 and 2022Georgia governor's race candidate,experienced similar name-calling when expressing themselves.

Harris, who identifies as Black and Indian American, was called a "madwoman" by former President Donald Trump after she questioned Brett Kavanaugh aboutsexual misconduct allegations during his 2018confirmation hearing.

"And now, you have a sort of a madwoman, I call her, because she was so angry and such hatred with Justice Kavanaugh. I mean, I've never seen anything like it. She was the angriest of the group and they were all angry, Trump said.

Twitter users were offended when Axios, a political news site, uploaded a photo of Abrams that users felt played into the "angry Black woman" trope.

One user said, "there are countless photos of Stacey Abrams and her glorious smile. Axios must have had to search to find an image to fit the angry Black woman trope."

The Angry Black Woman trope has been given to African American women throughout history.

Many Black women have struggled with this label in their professional and personal lives. Black women are afraid to speak in work environments to dodge being given the title angry.

More: Each time another black person is killed by police, all I can say is: 'Again?' | Opinion

As a Black woman, I have filtered my opinion during conversations with people from other races in the past. I would refuse to engage in topics my freshman year of college. I felt voiceless as I attended a predominately white institution.

I recall a time when I studied with a few girls from my dorm room and a couple of their friends. I was the only Black person in the group. We discussed various topics that day, but one particular topic I stayed quiet on.

That topic was why the African American race was proud to see a president that looked like them. Comments and questions were thrown out there.

For instance, one girl asked, "Why do Black people act so excited when a Black person does something that supposedly makes history, but when a white person does something that makes history, the same excitement isn't shown?"

At that moment, I was tight-lipped. I thought her question was insensitive.I was sitting at a table with people who did not look like me and people who openlydownplayed the achievements of Black people in my presence.

I felt she did not understand how significant a Black person elected as the president of the United States was. She appeared to either forget or ignore the unjust treatment and control the African American race endured over four centuries.

Maybe she never knew, but this is a reaction I have seen fromsome white peoplewhominimize historical achievementsfor Black people.

Believe it or not, I was not angry. I would have liked to answer her question, but I chose not to. I did not feel I was in an open-minded space to communicate. My entire study group actedoblivious towhy my racewould be proud to achievehistorical milestones. Jokes were thrown around constantly.

Her tone when she asked the question was like she was askinga rhetorical question. WhileI was able to answer her question, I wasn't willing.

At that moment, I lost my confidence and voice.

More: Tennessee black writers talk about racism, social unrest and next steps

Now, after being influenced by women who look like me,my voice has returned. My words have grown stronger. I realize thatusing my voice to discuss harsh truths in America showsI was strong enough to indulge in complex conversations.

Amongthose times I used my voice, I was not enraged, instead, I was passionate.

As I watched a 2016interview of Michelle Obama byOprah Winfrey, I was deeply moved by how the former First Lady chose to transform her pain instead of transmitting it.

She told Winfrey, "The thing that least defines us as people is the color of our skin, it's the size of our bank account. None of that matters. It's our values, it's how we live our lives. You can't tell that by someone's race, someone's religion. People have to act it out, they have to live those lives so that was the blowback, but then I thought okay, let me live my life out loud so people can then see and then judge for themselves."

Like Obama, Abrams channeled her anger into change as she recently announced she isrunning for governor again after nearly winning the 2018 election and accusing her opponent of suppressing Black votes.

Despite critics painting her asangry, she refuses to be discouraged.Both women could have spreadnegativityafter critics portrayed them as angry individuals. Both continued to bepositive and focused on what mattered the most.

Michelle Obama's words were confirmation Black women should not silence themselves. Black women did not label themselves angry.Black women have been forced to be theface of thisnegative trope for decades.

Katelynn White worked as a news internfor the USA TODAY Network Tennessee in late 2021 and graduated fromTennessee State University magna cum laude.Feel free to contact herat KWhite@nashvill.gannett.com.

Read the original:
Black women are not angry, but passionate. They have been silenced for too long. | Opinion - Tennessean