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."

Libby, I'm guilty of your crimes

So ... Scooter Libby's guilty. Wow. There's a shocker. Woo-hoo. Score one for the liberal left. We won. Hooray. Yadda, yadda, fuckin' yadda.

To all those, from former Ambassador Joseph Wilson (a man who has my deepest respect) to Keith Olbermann (a man to whom I toast every night at 11 when I watch his Countdown program on MSNBC), I ask you:

What the hell does this prove?

Anyone who thought Libby was innocent at this point is either too politically jaded to merit any serious consideration as someone with whom one could engage in political discussion, or has been with the BonoBot 9000 for the last four years curing AIDS or distributing condoms to virgin-raping HIVers in Africa or whatever the hell it is that BonoBot does anymore (I'm thoroughly convinced that whatever it is BonoBot does, it doesn't really involve U2 anymore. Well, maybe the Edge, but that's only because the BB9000 needs someone to jump-start him when the battery's running low). Anyone who thinks that Vice-President Dick Cheney didn't have his hands right up Libby's rectal cavity whilst Lewie talked to Tim Russert is dumber than a Jeff Foxworthy fan who wandered onto the NASCAR track in the '70s and got hit by Richard Petty. And anyone who thinks that, ultimately, this will make any impact whatsoever on this White House is the afore-mentioned guy's retarded stepbrother with webbed toes.

Seriously, what is this going to change? President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have proven time and time again that they have no respect for Congress, the Supreme Court, the United Nations, the American public, the world community, or even (and this is scary) previous presidents (even George Senior must be thinking now, Jesus Christ, how the shit did Barb and I pump that monkey turd out? Seriously, I must have retarded tadpoles swimmin' around down there or something...). Why would a ruling against Cheney's former COS change anything?

Honestly, there's only one good thing that can possibly come out of this: President Bush has to pardon Libby as soon as is humanly possible.

"But Brendan," I can hear all my Democratic amigos complaining with bated breath, "Libby broke the law and helped ruin a woman's career with the CIA!" To you I say, it's already done, and what's been done cannot be undone. However, if Bush is to pardon Libby at the Vice-President's request, do you really, really think the smoke-no-fire Democratic Congress is going to let that one slide? That's money in the bank that gives them every reason to open hearings on the outing, which, when it comes out that Cheney had a hand in this, brings up the question of vice-presidential impeachment.

Make no mistake about it: I think Dick Cheney is a horrible, horrible human being, and I believe he has committed treason against this great nation. I think he should be removed from power as quickly as possible. And if his boss pardoning his former Chief of Staff is the only way to get the ball rolling on that, well, quite frankly, that's okay with me. It'll prove once and for all that George W. Bush is the single most incompetent president in the history of the United States, and it will rid us of the cancer that has been plaguing and besmirching the White House since January 2001.

Go away, please go away

Memo to Lance Briggs:

Get the fuck out of my city.

According to a report in the Chicago Sun-Times, Briggs no longer wants to be a member of the Bears' organization. In fact, he claimed that the Bears had disrespected him because he was slapped with the franchise tag. So this guy'll be making over $7 million next year, nearly as much as Brian Urlacher, who, good though Briggs may be, is ten times the player Briggs could ever dream of being, and he's unhappy. Urlacher even opened up the possibility of restructuring his contract to bring Briggs back, and Briggs just wants to piss and moan about respect.

Excuse me, Mr. Briggs, but fuck you. Fuck you right in the ear.

You're telling me that the Bears disrespected you by placing the franchise tag on you? Fine! Then go to your little players' association -- you know, you retarded monkey, the union -- and bitch to them about it. They are the ones who agreed to owners' demands for some kind of security upon agreeing to free agency. If you don't like it, you tell your union rep. But the Bears were well within their rights to tag you at the end of the season. Hell, if they hadn't, I'd be calling for Jerry Angelo's head right now, and I'd be leading the Beauty & the Beast-style mob to his house singing at the top of my lungs, "Kill the Beast! Kill the Beast!"

No, y'know, so far, every move Angelo has made has benefited the organization. He made the somewhat unpopular move of firing Dick Jauron four seasons ago, leading to the hiring of Lovie Smith. He allowed Rosey Colvin to leave for the Patriots. His drafts have been almost 100% spot-on: Terrance Metcalf, Alex Brown, and Adrian Peterson (2002); Rex Grossman, Charles Tillman, Briggs, and Ian Scott (2003); Tommie Harris, Tank "Jailbird" Johnson, Bernard Berrian, Nathan Vasher, and Leon Joe (2004); Cedric Benson and Robbie Gould (2005); and Danieal Manning, Devin Hester and Mark Anderson (2006). Think about it: that's a good quarter of the team that went to this year's Super Bowl drafted since 2002! And he gutted the team of former VP of Player Personnel Mark Hatley and ex-coach Dick Jauron. Angelo, to quote George W. Bush, has done a heckuva job. So he's got my faith that he'll do what's right for the franchise.

That's why I'm not worried about losing Thomas Jones. When Cedric Benson was drafted, anyone with any football sense knew that Jones's days in Chicago were numbered. But, much like how Angelo couldn't fire Jauron upon first getting to Chicago, since Jauron had just won Coach of the Year and led the Bears to a division title, Angelo couldn't justifiably fire him -- and at that point, it would've been a bad move. Similarly, getting rid of Jones before the last two seasons would've been a really, really bad idea; Benson simply wasn't ready. Now, I think the coaches believe Benson is ready -- and so are we. Jones deserves to play somewhere where he can be the featured back -- and let's see just how good he is (I'm convinced that Thomas, good as he is, is not a "special" running back, simply a good one).

As for Lance Briggs, I don't want some motherfucker in my city who starts bitching and moaning about not getting the respect he deserves. That's Sammy Sosa. That's Cade McNown. That's Tim Thomas. That's Jeremy Roenick. Lance, do you really want to be lumped in with that crowd? 'Cause I hate every single one of those bastards, since all they did was trash the city and disrespect the fans. We're the reason you have a job, asshole!

So Lance Briggs, I am sorry to say this, since you are the second-best linebacker on the team (though the third-hardest worker; Hunter Hillenmeyer has half the talent and twice the dedication you do), but get the fuck out of Chicago. I don't want you here anymore. We don't need you anymore. And when the Bears win the Super Bowl next February while you're sitting on your couch in Arizona eating potato chips with Matt Leinart or slugging down a beer while crashing on David Carr's La-Z-Boy, remember, you were the one who scorned us, and for that, there is no forgiveness. Goodbye, douchebag.

She screams in silence

I don't usually like to quote the Fox Noise Channel (as it's been so aptly termed by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann), but they had a story on there today that I just had to go with. It seems that a Saudi teenager who was brutally gang-raped is getting justice -- Saudi style. Those Saudi bastards, the ones the President of the United States calls close allies and friends, have sentenced the woman to 90 lashes because she was alone in the presence of another man who wasn't related to her.

As Penn & Teller might say, "Bullshit!"

Try explaining to me now why exactly we're supposed to have compassion for these Muslim extremist motherfuckers who continue to treat women like they're slabs of meat. Fuck it! We shouldn't have bombed Iraq; we should've bombed Saudi Arabia! And while we're at it, let's go after Ethiopia too; after all, they try to fuck with women just the same, as evidenced by Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book.

Obviously, I'm not seriously advocating sending our troops in to fight wars that aren't ours. But all I am asking is for a little fucking transparency. We don't invade these countries because it isn't in our country's influence. Fine! But stop, for the love of Christ, STOP with the assertion that we're helping other peoples out. If we helped out even five Iraqis in this stupid and absolutely directionless war, that help was entirely incidental. And what exactly will we have helped? The Sunnis and Shi'ites in that region are already militaristic nutjobs who'd attack us first chance they get. They've written the motherfucking Koran into their constitution. On what, what, what planet in the existent or nonexistent multiverse does that engender freedom???

Imagine, if you will, faithful readers, that those men who represent the absolute worst of nutjob conservatism -- Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye, James Dobson, Roy Moore -- were the crowned princes of the United States. Imagine that they had no boundaries on what they could say and do; rather than censoring their real, in-their-hearts views on the subjugation of women, they could really let loose. Do you realize that these are the types of people who run Saudi Arabia? Do you see where I'm going with this?

The real question, I suppose, is why exactly the Saudi people (or Ethiopians, or Iranians, or whatever) don't rise up against this. Well, I believe it's because we continue to do it for them. Take Iraq. If it hadn't been for us, Iraq would've eventually gone the way of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and, ultimately, the U.S.S.R.: it would've been rendered null and void by the will of the people. That's something that even the Reagan Administration understood. But we don't. You see, you can't make things change overnight or by force from the outside; the revolution has to start within.

However, that's not to say that we can't foster it along. After World War II, we did the right thing: we had the Berlin Airlift working, Mutually Assured Destruction kept both superpowers in check, and we allowed communism, however much we despised it, to exist. Sure, we fought battles against communism elsewhere, but we basically realized that Europe was as communist as it was going to get for the time being. Eventually, through the constant progression of a capitalist republican (purposefully with a lowercase r, kiddies) style of government, people within communism started to see that their lives could be better than they were under communist rule, and they rejected communism. The argument could be made that Mikhail Gorbachev's nyet doctrine is what really spurred these rebels on, but let's face it: if it hadn't been Gorbachev, eventually, it would've been someone else, and while it could've been a bloody battle, the battle would've been waged, and won, by the people.

We're not doing now what we did back then. Rather than showing these Koran-beating bastards that our way of life is better than theirs because women are free to fuck over guys just as well as guys can fuck them over, we're beating it into them that we're superior through military might. Instead of Radio Free Europe, we have bombs. Instead of smuggling The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Annie Hall underneath the Berlin Wall, we're smuggling the bin Laden family out of the country. How is this helping?

We need to face the facts, people: we are the ones inflaming the situation. Direct military confrontation, as World War III would've proved, is a bad, bad, bad idea. But if we can get these people the information that they need -- if we can show an Ethiopian man that marrying a virgin really isn't all it's cracked up to be, 'cause let's face it, she's gonna look down at you and wonder what in the blue hell that thing hangin' down is supposed to do (and you don't even wanna know what she's gonna think the first time you pull-n-spray) --, maybe we really can win the War on Terror. Because when it comes down to it, it's really a war of ideals. And while our priorities are misplaced right now, I gotta admit, our ideals are a helluva lot better and nobler than theirs.