I need somebody groovy

First, some notes:

I haven't written about the debates yet because there hasn't been anything to report until now, after seeing the horrific way CNN dealt with them. To all you political pundits out there: When Chris Matthews is the best host of a debate so far, we've got some serious problems. Wolf Blitzer was horrendous, possibly the worst moderator in the history of civilized debate. Larry King and Anderson Cooper, for all their bluster about the best political team in news, both sounded like hacks. Speaking of hacks, party hacks were all CNN bothered to hire for debate analysis, and, from the way CNN presented it, only Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, John McCain, Rudolph Giuliani, or Mitt Romney will be elected president.

Boy, are they gonna be disappointed when they read this analysis.

The debates have been pretty tame, for the most part; but there has been some shuffling. We've seen Ron Paul come out to represent the best in Republicans. Mike Huckabee looks stronger every week. Barack Obama is succumbing to his flaws, while the party hacks like Tommy Thompson and Chris Dodd must be close to dropping out of the race altogether. But the CNN debates over the last few days have brought a few issues to light.

First, the national media are paying far too much attention to national polling numbers, but not enough attention to national trends. Yes, Hillary Clinton is leading Democratic polls by a significant margin. Yes, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani continue to duke it out for the top spot in the GOP. But voter dissatisfaction is higher than most pundits are willing to admit, especially in the Donkey Party. How else to explain why Bill Richardson, who's got oodles of experience but does little else than tout his resume and suffer through bad debate performances, is up to 10% in Iowa? How else to explain that, with all the already-announced candidates in the Republican Party, Fred Thompson is still getting a big push to run? How else to explain why there is a small but significant coalition of both Republicans and Democrats urging Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel to run in an independent bid?

Little about this makes any sense to those pundits; but those pundits aren't paying attention. Ron Paul is a peon, a joke; and yet he's getting massive internet support. Barack Obama is solidly the #2 Democratic candidate and, according to most polls, the only one who can beat all Republicans; but he's not looking nearly as presidential and eloquent as he did a mere two and a half ago. And don't even get me started on what seems to be a growing movement centering around the improbable Joe Biden.

With that said, here is my analysis of the two CNN debates. Keep in mind that these were easily the worst debates; yet that wading through the crap of Wolf Blitzer and his retarded cohorts actually gave us our best looks yet at many of these candidates.


EVALUATION RUBRIC

Winners/Losers
Leadership: Most presidential
Authenticity: Most genuine
Moral: Displayed greatest moral characteristics
Ethical: Displayed greatest ethical characteristics
Issues: Dealt best with the pure issues
Eloquence: Spoke most convincing
Passion: Displayed most care about the issues
Wit: Had quickest comebacks
Humor: Was funniest
Energy: Seemed most vital, alive

Connection/Alienation
Country: as head of state
Nation: as political leader
People: as leader of individuals
Morals: as leader of moralists
Seculars: as leader of secularists
Party: appeal to party
Base: appeal to ideology
Indies: appeal to independent voters
Undies: appeal to undecided voters

Second Democratic Debate

The second Democratic debate was a huge surprise. John Edwards sidestepped Barack Obama and began sniping with Hillary Clinton, as if they were the last two standing. Chris Dodd proved he’s little more than a bleeding Democrat with a capital “D” – in other words, he’s a good guy, but a party hack. Mike Gravel didn’t do anything to help his campaign, although fellow leftist Dennis Kucinich sounded, for the second straight debate, reasoned, purposeful, and honest. And Clinton and John Edwards seemed to step over everyone, beginning to run for President rather than the Democratic nomination.

The biggest surprise this debate, however, was the emergence of Joe Biden. Though he has a long history of tripping over his own mouth, Biden took the lead on many issues, especially his passionate plea on a no-fly zone around Sudan. He also benefited from the outsider status to which CNN consigned him; he seemed like a genuine Washington outsider, casting front-runners Clinton and Obama as insiders.

There were two major disappointments here. Though Obama did score points with good wit and excellent timing, he had little substantive to say, aiming at a populist Democratic message. He seems to have conceded this race to Clinton already, but John Edwards hasn’t. Edwards managed to capitalize on Obama’s about-face from well-spoken celebrity to stammering sally. The other disappointment was Bill Richardson. Already up to 10% in Iowa (he was at 1% in January), he stood to gain the most from a breakout performance. Instead, the governor resumed resume-touting, and frankly is looking far more like a Secretary of State than a president.

All that being said, Hillary Clinton showed why she’s the front-runner; she was poised, thoughtful, and intelligent. Yet she also showed her greatest weakness to be her simultaneous greatest strength: Bill. Former President Clinton is indeed a boost to most Democratic voters; however, the fact remains that he is simply less personally likeable than Elizabeth Edwards. If ever there were an election in which the candidate’s spouse could conceivably change the outcome, it’s this one.

Winner: Joe Biden
Leadership: Hillary Clinton
Authenticity: John Edwards
Moral: Dennis Kucinich
Ethical: Joe Biden
Issues: Joe Biden
Eloquence: Hillary Clinton
Passion: Joe Biden
Wit: Barack Obama
Humor: Hillary Clinton
Energy: Joe Biden

Loser: Chris Dodd
Leadership: Bill Richardson
Authenticity: Chris Dodd
Moral: Mike Gravel
Ethical: Hillary Clinton
Issues: Chris Dodd
Eloquence: Chris Dodd
Passion: Chris Dodd
Wit: Chris Dodd
Humor: Chris Dodd
Energy: Chris Dodd

Biggest Gainer: Joe Biden
Leadership: Joe Biden
Authenticity: Joe Biden
Moral: Joe Biden
Ethical: Joe Biden
Issues: Joe Biden
Eloquence: Hillary Clinton
Passion: Joe Biden
Wit: Barack Obama
Humor: Hillary Clinton
Energy: Joe Biden

Biggest Loser: Bill Richardson
Leadership: Bill Richardson
Authenticity: Bill Richardson
Moral: Chris Dodd
Ethical: Bill Richardson
Issues: Mike Gravel
Eloquence: Barack Obama
Passion: Bill Richardson
Wit: Bill Richardson
Humor: Bill Richardson
Energy: Bill Richardson

Connection: Joe Biden
Country: Barack Obama
Nation: Hillary Clinton
People: John Edwards
Morals: John Edwards
Seculars: Joe Biden
Party: Hillary Clinton
Base: Joe Biden
Indies: Joe Biden
Undies: Joe Biden

Alienation: Bill Richardson
Country: Bill Richardson
Nation: Barack Obama
People: Chris Dodd
Morals: Bill Richardson
Seculars: Mike Gravel
Party: Bill Richardson
Base: Hillary Clinton
Indies: Chris Dodd
Undies: Chris Dodd

Third Republican Debate

This debate was all about two candidates: Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Sounding positively Reaganesque, Huckabee won the crowd over with a populist message that in many ways mirrored, but drew sharp distinctions with, George W. Bush’s 2000 primary campaign. He was poised, and, excepting Ron Paul, seemed the most “Republican” of the candidates.

There is no reason why Jim Gilmore continues to run. He has no chance at the nomination, and is, quite frankly, dull. Neither should Tommy Thompson bother; he all but destroyed his chances with his malprop of the gays in the workplace question. And Sam Brownback was a major disappointment, sounding oftentimes like a conservative, 2000-model Al Gore.

The most damage, however, was done to Mitt Romney’s chances. When confronted with the question of gays openly serving in the military, he fell back, once again, on the “I changed my mind” excuse. Republicans might have been willing to go along with that on abortion, and maybe even on civil unions; but there is no way in hell that Romney has any chance after falling on that excuse a third time.

Rudy Giuliani also has some issues to work out. Unlike in the first debate, where Giuliani seemed poised and ready, he instead seemed nervous. He can’t win over the moralists or Christian conservatives in the party; yet, unlike Ron Paul, who’s been blacklisted by everyone from Sean Hannity to Michael Steele, he isn’t trying to define himself as “different.” The reason why Paul stands a better chance at nabbing the nomination than Giuliani is because he has stuck to his guns, much like Ronald Reagan did in 1979.

Finally, as far as Paul is concerned, he proved yet again why he should be the front-runner. He stands for traditional conservative values, and he managed to drum up a surprising amount of applause from the audience. As the top-tier candidates falter, and as it looks more and more like Fred Thompson is a Wes Clark, Paul and Huckabee may prove to be the two who manage to last the longest.

Winner: Ron Paul
Leadership: Ron Paul
Authenticity: John McCain
Moral: Mike Huckabee
Ethical: Ron Paul
Issues: Ron Paul
Eloquence: Mike Huckabee
Passion: John McCain
Wit: Mike Huckabee
Humor: Mike Huckabee
Energy: Ron Paul

Loser: Jim Gilmore
Leadership: Jim Gilmore
Authenticity: Tommy Thompson
Moral: Mitt Romney
Ethical: Sam Brownback
Issues: Sam Brownback
Eloquence: Jim Gilmore
Passion: Jim Gilmore
Wit: Tommy Thompson
Humor: Tommy Thompson
Energy: Jim Gilmore

Biggest Gainer: Mike Huckabee
Leadership: Mike Huckabee
Authenticity: John McCain
Moral: Mike Huckabee
Ethical: Mike Huckabee
Issues: Ron Paul
Eloquence: Mike Huckabee
Passion: John McCain
Wit: Mike Huckabee
Humor: Mike Huckabee
Energy: Mike Huckabee

Biggest Loser: Mitt Romney
Leadership: Jim Gilmore
Authenticity: Mitt Romney
Moral: Mitt Romney
Ethical: Sam Brownback
Issues: Rudy Giuliani
Eloquence: Rudy Giuliani
Passion: Sam Brownback
Wit: Tommy Thompson
Humor: Tom Tancredo
Energy: Jim Gilmore

Connection: Mike Huckabee
Country: Mike Huckabee
Nation: John McCain
People: Mike Huckabee
Morals: Mike Huckabee
Seculars: Ron Paul
Party: Ron Paul
Base: Mike Huckabee
Indies: Ron Paul
Undies: Ron Paul

Alienation: Mitt Romney
Country: Tom Tancredo
Nation: Mitt Romney
People: Mitt Romney
Morals: Rudy Giuliani
Seculars: Rudy Giuliani
Party: Mitt Romney
Base: Mitt Romney
Indies: Mitt Romney
Undies: Mitt Romney

In the midnight moonlight hour

There's been a big hullabaloo lately regarding NFL players in trouble with the law. Lots of analysts are trying to figure out the whys and wherefores about all this, but they're missing the major point, and it has to do with why I'm still pissed at Jerry Krause for trading away Elton Brand a number of years ago.

"It's a cliché, but there's nothing but trouble in the morning," Brand explained to Sports Illustrated's Jeff Benedict. "You have to know your surroundings. There are places that you know will be no problem, a nice restaurant or nice upscale lounge. There are other places that you know have a track record. You know that you don't need to go there."

You see this? This is why Brand was Krause's crowning achievement, the best draft pick he'd ever made. And this is why Krause had to resign from the Bulls and be trotted out elsewhere: he screwed it all up by trading away such a good player who also happens to be one of the smartest men in all pro sports.

But getting back to the point at hand, Brand says something really interesting above: "There are places that you know will be no problem, a nice restaurant or nice upscale lounge." Think about this hard, folks: if you were raking in several million dollars per year, wouldn't you want to spend it right? There is nothing wrong with having money; what's wrong is that these players don't seem to know how to use it.

Look, Pacman Jones, you make almost $3 million a year. That's a lot of money. That makes you rich. You are a rich man. You are in the upper crust. So why, oh why, do you insist on still acting like you're street? Dude, you have enough money to get yourself a sweet house, a nice summer condo, and a couple of your own restaurants. Why in the bloody hell would you go to dive bars, do crappy, cheap drugs, etc., etc., so on and so forth?

Professional athletes need to learn one fact about themselves: once they sign that contract with an NFL team, they elevate themselves into the stratosphere. There is no reason to act liek the poor little kid that grew up in the crappy part of town anymore. Did you dumb-asses ever see Walter Payton act like that? Earl Campbell? Anthony Muñoz? I don't THINK so. You know why? They realized they've become upper-crust fellas, and they conducted themselves accordingly.

Look, acting like you've got some money doesn't mean you have a drastic change in your demeanor. You shouldn't; you should always be yourself. But if you're telling me that hitting up a dive bar is better than getting a stiff drink in a nice joint, you're fucking crazy. If you're telling me that a glass full of watered-down Coors Light is tastier than Johnnie Walker Blue Label, you're a friggin' retard.

Act like yourselves, dudes, but act like guys that your mothers can be proud of. You've made it. Now deal with the responsibility.

And seriously, while I have no qualms about y'all smokin' dope, do you really, really need to do it whilst driving drunk and attempting to hire a prostitute?

Find the face behind the voice

Democratic Presidential Rankings

1. Sen. Barack Obama
National ranking: 1 (statistically tied w/Clinton)
Highest poll position: 1 (CA [statistically tied w/Clinton], IL, MI [statistically tied w/Clinton], TX [statistically tied w/Clinton]
Position in Iowa: 3
Position in Nevada: 2
Position in New Hampshire: 2 [statistically tied w/Edwards]
Position in South Carolina: 2

Although Sen. Clinton showed him up with the firefighters, and although the New York Senator retains a large fundraising advantage, she doesn’t have the growing sense of notoriety that Sen. Obama possesses. People aren’t just curious about him; they’re getting to the point of being obsessed with him. Everyone keeps waiting, some with bated breath, for his star to tarnish slightly, but in an incredibly Reaganesque way, nothing seems to stick to him. In addition, independents are leaning on Obama much as they did on John McCain in 2000, especially in Liberal-Independent states like California. This bodes well for his future, especially considering the strong and growing contingent within the Democratic Party that wants nothing to do with Sen. Clinton (call it the Gore Faction).

2. Sen. Hillary Clinton
National ranking: 1 (statistically tied w/Obama)
Highest poll position: 1 (AL, AZ, AR, CA [statistically tied w/Obama], CT, FL, IA [statistically tied w/Edwards], ME, MA, MI [statistically tied w/Obama], MO, NV, NH, OK, PA, RI [statistically insignificant; 42% is undecided], SC, TX [statistically tied w/Obama], UT, VT
Position in Iowa: 1
Position in Nevada: 1
Position in New Hampshire: 1
Position in South Carolina: 1

She had a very strong showing with the firefighters, as mentioned, and she’s raking in the cash quickly. However, despite her early lead, Sen. Obama has pulled in tighter and tighter since announcing in January. Sen. Clinton still owns a commanding lead of the Democratic faithful, but that support is gradually eroding. If this keeps up, she’ll soon fall behind either Gov. Richardson or Sen. Edwards (likely Richardson) as well as Obama. Oh, and don’t be fooled by Clinton’s strong polling number right now; polls are generally 2-3 months slow in showing data change.

3. Sen. John Edwards
National ranking: 3
Highest poll position: 1 (IA [statistically tied w/Clinton], NC)
Position in Iowa: 1
Position in Nevada: 3
Position in New Hampshire: 2 [statistically tied w/Obama]
Position in South Carolina: 3

It sounds like a horrible thing to say, but Sen. Edwards’ stock went up dramatically with the free press surrounding his wife’s cancer. It makes the Edwards family identifiable – human – and gives yet another personal life story to the former senator’s populist message. Edwards also is perceived as very honest, very straightforward, and very straight-talking. He may not want the vice-presidency, and he doesn’t seem poised to take it the way Gov. Richardson does. However, a ticket with his name on it seems to resonate quite well with primary voters, especially in New Hampshire, where he is third to Sens. Clinton and Obama (but trails Obama by only 3 percentage points), and Iowa, where he trails only Clinton (and by a statistically insignificant margin).

4. Gov. Bill Richardson
National ranking: 4
Highest poll position: 1 (NM)
Position in Iowa: T-6
Position in Nevada: T-5
Position in New Hampshire: T-4
Position in South Carolina: T-5

Every serious Democrat backs one of the afore-mentioned three candidates. The only thing on which the Dems seem unanimous, however, is that almost everyone has Gov. Richardson in his or her Top Three. From the supposedly ultra-left (read: ultra-delusional) Kucinophiles and starry-eyed Obama/Hope-ers to the party establishment Clintonites and Demo-Populist Edwardians, there’s no one who isn’t impressed by this guy’s resume. Here’s the kicker, though: Richardson is so liked by all sides, depending on how gruesome the mudslinging gets (not amongst the candidates but amongst their supporters – see the anti-Clinton “Big Brother” ad), Richardson may be a good compromise candidate or, if that slot goes to Sen. Edwards, a great moderate vice-presidential nominee with an almost Republican record on tax cuts, swinging the independents and fiscal conservatives to the Democratic Party. Don’t kid yourselves, though; if Richardson isn’t the nominee, he’ll take the veep slot right away.

5. Sen. Chris Dodd
National ranking: T-5
Highest poll position: 4
Position in Iowa: T-6
Position in Nevada: 4
Position in New Hampshire: T-6
Position in South Carolina: T-5

Slowly but surely, like a tortoise without a prayer, Sen. Dodd continues to trudge along, picking up a bit of support here and there every day but not doing enough to make a dent in either the rock-star tier (Obama, Clinton, Gore) or the populocentric movement (Edwards, Richardson, Clark). But the senator is convinced that he can do something in this race, which, because of his low polling numbers, makes me think he’s got something to say. Those who go to see him aren’t converted, but they are indeed convinced that this guy is one of the good Democrats. It makes me think that Dodd, far from truly running for president, might be running for Democratic leader of the Senate if and when Harry Reid (D-NV) decides to take a seat.


On the bubble: Vice-President Al Gore, Gen. Wesley Clark
Out of the loop: Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Sen. Mike Gravel

Let’s face it: Al Gore could win this in a walk if he tried – and because he despises Sen. Clinton so, if she continues to lead polls into the Autumn, he might just toss his hat in the ring, if for no other reason than to submarine the Clinton camp. Wes Clark has a great organization and could make a run, but, unlike the former Vice-President, he doesn’t have a rolodex of names on which he can rely for support (look for Clark to resurface if the Democrats take the White House in ’08 as either Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense). On the flip side, Dennis Kucinich is becoming a 21^st-Century Lyndon LaRouche, which is very sad for him; and his recent speeches, advocating grass-roots politics, haven’t helped his cause much since his Dean-like outburst at the Democratic Winter Meeting. And Mike Gravel, who never had a shot in hell, anyways, is a bigger joke than Kucinich, which is just sad.

Republican Presidential Rankings

1. Mayor Rudy Giuliani
National ranking: 1
Highest poll position: 1 (AL, CA, CT, IL, IA [statistically tied w/McCain], ME, NM, NC, OK, PA, TX
Position in Iowa: T-1
Position in Nevada: 1
Position in New Hampshire: T-2
Position in South Carolina: 2

Improbably – nay, impossibly – Rudy Giuliani is still leading the Republican nominee pack, and his lead is growing. A big reason for this is that, unlike the Democratic Party, which, though having varied views, is shaping up with three tiers of candidates from which voters can choose, the GOP itself seems in disarray. Mayor Giuliani has a history of decisions considered too radical for the hard-liners of the Republican Party; but his momentum hasn’t slowed, and his lead over Sen. McCain has only grown. And think about this: just like Obama, who was supposed to have slowed down by now, Giuliani continues to enjoy high numbers. At this rate, he will almost certainly receive at least a vice-presidential offer, though no one knows if he has any interest in waiting eight years to run for president.

2. Sen. John McCain
National ranking: 2
Highest poll position: 1 (AZ, FL, IA [statistically tied w/Giuliani], MI, MO, NV, NH, RI, SC)
Position in Iowa: T-1
Position in Nevada: T-2
Position in New Hampshire: 1
Position in South Carolina: 1

The Republican primary has long been Sen. McCain’s to lose, and he’s doing a damned good job at losing it. Like some other Republican candidates and pseudocandidates (Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich), McCain is losing numbers not because of where he’s going but because of what he’s saying. His own words from 2000 will indeed be used against him, as well they should; a number of his positions, especially on the evangelical politics of Rev. Jerry Falwell and his ilk, have literally gone around 180 degrees. McCain is still very, very popular with East-Coast Republicans, however, showing his teeth in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida. But Giuliani is gaining ground, already having wrapped up the West Coast, making inroads in the East, and somehow continuing to enjoy solid numbers in the Heartland.

3. Gov. Mike Huckabee
National ranking: T-5
Highest poll position: 1 (AR)
Position in Iowa: T-8
Position in Nevada: T-5
Position in New Hampshire: T-8
Position in South Carolina: T-5

People keep telling me that I’m crazy to have Gov. Huckabee ranked over Gov. Romney. The fact remains, however, that Huckabee is an Evangelical, which religo-conservative voters understand better than Mormonism; Southern, which feeds into the odd mentality that only Southerners resonate with Republicans; a Governor, which aids my theory of Governors over Senators in presidential campaigns; and surprisingly progressive on education. I’m not saying I’d vote for this guy; his political views are antithetical to my own. But if you’re a Republican who would like a smarter version of President Bush’s platform, Huckabee is going to emerge over the next few months as the right guy for you.

4. Gov. Mitt Romney
National ranking: 4
Highest poll position: 1 (MA, UT)
Position in Iowa: T-4
Position in Nevada: 4
Position in New Hampshire: T-2
Position in South Carolina: 4

Romney’s dropping right and left. Despite high polling numbers in predictable strongholds (Massachusetts, Utah), Romney has posted significant loses, particularly in three of the four early primary states. He’s clinging to a statistical tie with Mayor Giuliani in New Hampshire, a tie that, as voters learn more about the candidates, will hurt Romney far more than Giuliani: whereas Romney’s message is targeted at the same groups as the far more socially conservative Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback, Giuliani has amassed support from the more progressive wing of the GOP, which, believe it or not, does still exist, however in-exile. Romney’s star, so bright when the campaign kicked-off, was likely irreparably damaged by his support of abortion rights in his last run for governor; by switching his position, he lost credibility with both Evangelicals and progressives.

5. Sen. Sam Brownback
National ranking: T-5
Highest poll position: 4 (AZ, MO)
Position in Iowa: T-8
Position in Nevada: T-5
Position in New Hampshire: T-6
Position in South Carolina: T-9

This is more by default than anything else. Republicans have a lot of “draft” ideas, mostly aimed at the media’s flavors of the week (Fred Thompson is a recent addition). However, not one of these has espoused any real intent. Brownback, however, has a built-in base of Evangelicals, and the more neoconservative of those (the Falwell/Robertson collective) will choose Brownback over Huckabee. However, with the falling influence of “Nevanservatives,” watch for New Evangelicals to make gains in this area – which will benefit not Brownback but Huckabee.

On the bubble: Sen. Chuck Hagel, Gov. Jeb Bush
Out of the loop: Rep. Duncan Hunter, Rep. Newt Gingrich

Don’t expect too much from Sen. Hagel; the media is pissed as hell at his press conference, and they’re not too kind to folks who take them on a ride. Gov. Bush is exactly the kind of conservative that could appease both Evangelicals and moderate-progressives, but he likely doesn’t have any interest in running. Contrast both of these guys with Rep. Hunter and former Speaker Gingrich. Gingrich has no chance at all after admitting to his affair; I still believe he’s just trying to weasel his way into being GOP Chairman. Hunter, on the other hand, has just begun making an ass of himself at every turn, sort of like a Republican Kucinich.

When I grow up to be a man

A virtual conversation between myself and my closest friend from work, Shannon Kekhaev, regarding the ages of NBA players.

-------------------------------------------

From: Kekhaev, Shannon
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:36 AM
To: Diamond, Brendan
Subject: Dumb NCAA/NBA rules

I think stuff like this is so stupid. If you were a freshman in college, studying English and went to a poetry reading and sat next to Maya Angelou, would Maya Angelou get fined $15,000 because she said she liked your work? Give me a break!

_____________________________________________
From: Diamond, Brendan
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:45 AM
To: Kekhaev, Shannon
Subject: RE: Dumb NCAA/NBA rules

Okay, John Stossel!

Just kidding. Actually, I think it makes good business sense to not let them talk about underclassmen. I mean, think about it: if Jordan and Ainge are allowed to say, “I think the kid presents a good opportunity,” that makes the kid think, “Well damn, I’m good enough for the NBA.” Next thing, he doesn’t pan out, doesn’t turn out to be so great, and he’s out of the league in three years. Five years down the road, he’s broke, ‘cause he was a millionaire by age 19 and didn’t know how to handle it – never mind going back to school or anything.

Obviously, that doesn’t happen to everybody (look at Kevin Garnett; he came out of high school, and now he’s a multimillionaire with a college degree). But for every Garnett, there’re two or three who got bounced at an early age. And for every one of those who managed to become a success outside of the NBA, there’re two or three who failed miserably, especially because they’ve got no education. That’s bad PR for the league, which could ultimately threaten their bottom-line profits.

My best friend’s a devout fiscal conservative; thus, I’ve learned how to argue the moral high ground from a purely fiscal standpoint :-)

_____________________________________________

From: Kekhaev, Shannon
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:26 PM
To: Diamond, Brendan
Subject: Dumb NCAA/NBA rules

Yah - the NBA is threatening bottom-line profits by encouraging kids to enter the game. They haven't made any money off of Garnett, Kobe, LaBron or any other underclassmen who've entered the NBA out of college. I like my argument: it's dumb. Also, it's incredible PR for the league when high schoolers or underclassmen are phenomenal stars in the NBA, get amazing outside marketing contracts and increase overall ticket sales at games. I can't even afford tickets at the NCAA tournament or the United Center. I think both organizations are doing just fine.

I am ALL for kids going to college to get an education before entering the NBA, I just don't think the NBA should regulate or fine people for what they say about it. Nor should they be the authority on whether or not 19-year-olds are capable of handling the money they earn. Are we all of a sudden stereotyping good basketball players as poor students who can't make a living outside of the game? And even if 90% of them are C students, do you really think they're up all night studying just in case they never do well in the NBA after they graduate? I realize the league is out for themselves. I just think they're policing way too many decisions that aren't theirs to make. Ultimately, they're just taking their own people's money because they can.

_____________________________________________
From: Diamond, Brendan
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:12 PM
To: Kekhaev, Shannon
Subject: RE: Dumb NCAA/NBA rules

Fair point on profits, but keep in mind, I’m not talking about the Garnetts, Kobes, and LeBrons of the league. Some kids really are ready. Most aren’t. Know who DeShawn Stevenson is? Kedrick Brown? And Ron Artest may be a good player, but how many people want to deal with him?

As far as organization itself is concerned, sure, they're doing fine, but I just don’t think it’s a good thing for anyone that young to get that rich with that much pressure and that much hype that quickly. Think of it this way: what did you spend money on when you were 18, 19, 20? Okay, bad example. Let’s talk about what I spent my money on at that age :-) I’m just sayin’, even if a kid has the physical capacity to do well in the professional world, it’s a crapshoot as to whether or not he’s mentally ready. I mean, sure, it’s great that LeBron’s doing so well; he’s one of the best players in the league. But how is it good business to turn over your major profit sector to a 19-year-old kid?

The argument I often hear against that line of thought is that these kids are good enough to play professional ball, so why not let them bypass college altogether? ‘Cause, I mean, it’s not like everybody has to go to college. But I remember when my cousins opted not to go; instead, they went into trade school. My cousin Steve showed an aptitude for carpentry higher than just about anybody they’d ever seen, but he still had to apprentice, work his way up, etc. No master carpenter in his right mind would’ve thought for a second of giving the keys to the kingdom to a 19-year-old kid fresh out of high school. But that’s what the NBA does. To me, that seems like a bad idea. And all it’s going to take, honestly, is that first $100 million contract to a 19- or 20-year-old, guaranteed for a long period of time, and the kid has a career-ending injury in the tip-off of his first preseason game.

You ask some good questions, but I think there's one you didn't have to: "Are we all of a sudden stereotyping good basketball players as poor students who can't make a living outside of the game?" I don't know if "we" are, but am I? Yes. Hey, I’m not gonna mince words – not with you, anyways, mostly because I don’t have to. But let’s face it: most student-athletes are not the brightest Sharpies in the supply cabinet. Yes, there are some notable exceptions – Mike Singletary and Peyton Manning, to name a couple. But let’s take the example of Manning. The guy’s so smart, he stayed at Tennessee an extra year, even though he could’ve been drafted #1 in the ’97 draft, because he had another year of eligibility. But wait, there’s more: he had already finished his undergrad degree with a 3.6 GPA. He got his Master’s degree before finishing his college ball career. That’s pretty damned impressive. But let’s not pretend that every player who comes out is Peyton Manning. Most are more like Wesley Green, a guy who currently plays basketball for DePaul. Green started college with me; I had a religion class with him my sophomore year. He’s as dumb as a box of rocks and about half as pleasant.

I also don't agree that the NBA is just taking money because it can, at least, not entirely. Honestly, I’m more offended that they fined Phil Jackson for saying the refs are out to get Kobe. They probably are! Hell, if I were a ref, I would be, too. And no, I don’t think they’re up studying at night. That’s the problem. These kids, like Wes Green, think they’re special, and they’re probably not. How many of them are actually going to go on to a professional career, and how many think they are? And when guys like Jordan and Ainge say stuff like that, it gives more fodder to younger dudes thinking, “Hey, if this young guy can make it, I can, too.”

I don’t entirely disagree with your point, by the way. I just think there is a method, however flawed, to the league’s madness.

But don’t get me started on the NFL. Those guys are just butt-holes.

_____________________________________________
From: Kekhaev, Shannon
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:50 PM
To: Diamond, Brendan
Subject: RE: Dumb NCAA/NBA rules

You should ask Dakota Fanning to give all of her money back for not being mentally capable of handling it. :) And Michelle Wie.

_____________________________________________
From: Diamond, Brendan
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:08 PM
To: Kekhaev, Shannon
Subject: RE: Dumb NCAA/NBA rules

Aha! Gotcha! There’s a difference there. Dakota Fanning and Michelle Wie are still taking classes. They’re making money (albeit way, way more) as I did as a kid – working. I’m not saying kids aren’t capable of handling money; I’m saying they’re not capable of handling money when that’s all they have. There has to be something else for them, y’know? Hey, I’ve been working since I was fourteen, and only recently has my checking account grown over $2 grand.

Where do we draw the line? I’m not entirely sure I’m qualified to say, since I’m not a father. But Maculay Culkin said that being a big, rich star so young messed him up; so did Christina Ricci (and I think they might’ve dated, which is even scarier). But here’s my qualification: Success at the eschewal of education is the cornerstone of an anemic and insipid society.

_____________________________________________
From: Kekhaev, Shannon
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:26 PM
To: Diamond, Brendan
Subject: RE: Dumb NCAA/NBA rules

Of course there is more to life than money, and education helps. But even your friend who took the keys to the kingdom was just an unschooled, ordinary man, right? We're all messed up, and it's not just because of money. And it's not just because of the age at which we earn money. How is Tank Johnson doing these days? Or Wesley Snipes?

I just think asking a kid to go to college before joining the NBA is like asking an aerospace engineer to shoot a left-handed layup before he can work at NASA. They're about as unrelated and perhaps difficult. Also, and this is my absolute, final argument: if you can join the military at the age of 18, you can join the NBA!

_____________________________________________
From: Diamond, Brendan
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:29 PM
To: Kekhaev, Shannon
Subject: RE: Dumb NCAA/NBA rules

How DARE you remind me that Wesley Snipes still exists!

Okay, I’ll grant you the military thing. I’ll say this, then: the NBA Developmental League needs to actually be that, what high schoolers usually use college for, something like the minors in baseball. Incidentally, I’m not against high schoolers going directly to professional baseball; it just doesn’t make sense for almost anyone to be a huge professional athlete at age 18. Give ‘em a year or two to develop; they’ll be better for it. I cringe thinking about how much better Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry would’ve been if they had taken a couple more years to develop; at the very least, I doubt we’d be talking about them both as former Bulls right now.

I just want to be me

There are a lot of really bad things going on right now. Alberto Gonzales and his Justice Department are up shit creek (a bad thing because the DOJ is supposed to be nonpartisan). It's looking more and more each day like the Democrat-controlled Congress is going to go after Karl Rove (a bad thing because at this point, Plamegate is a non-issue, despite the fact that, at the very least, Vice-President Dick Cheney ought to be impeached over it). And yet none of these, to me, attacks our very way of life the way the statements of Gen. Peter Pace, the (worst-ever) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said to my hometown Chicago Tribune that homosexual acts are "immoral," and guess what? I don't give a damn. Gen. Pace can think whatever the hell he wants, even if it's wrong, 'cause this is a free country.

Where he threatens our way of life, however, is when he said this in 2005: "The U.S. military mission fundamentally rests on the trust, confidence and cooperation amongst its members. And the homosexual lifestyle does not comport with that kind of trust and confidence." This is not based on fact, and it is not expressing a personal opinion wholly separate from the military; this is a direct slam on any brave man or woman, for whom homosexuality is simply a part of their life (like family, the military, and hobbies), serving his or her country.

Look, I don't care about what your personal opinions on homosexuality are. You can, like me, think that gays are just as valid as straights; you can disbelieve that, too. I'm not saying that your view on it is right, if indeed you do believe gays are invalids or mentally unstable or something, but as an American citizen, you have the right to believe the moon landing never happened, that the Freemasons run the United States, and that dinosaur bones were planted in Africa by the Jews if you so desire.

Obviously, those previous three statements are ludicrous, as is the idea that homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals. But you can believe anything you want in the USA. What you cannot do, however, is tell me that someone willing to defend this country, someone who has no physical maladies of any sort, someone who love the States and Her People enough to die for them, does not deserve the chance to be himself or herself.

I respect the military. Unlike a lot of libs I know, who believe that a big military is the root of all evil in this country, I believe our military is made up mostly of good dudes and girls. I happened to meet a couple of them -- Marines, actually -- whilst waiting in line at a bar on Saturday (St. Paddy's Day). They were typical guys, nothing special about them, except for the fact that they've put their lives on the line, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, defending our way of life. One of them asked me if I was "queer." I said, "No, but so what if I was?" He said to me, "Fags just freak me out." Then he stopped, looked at me, and in a moment worthy of a four-walled contemporary sit-com, said, "'Cept if there's fuckin' bombs going off around me. Then, long as you're mowin' down motherfuckin' terrorists, I don't give a shit."