disgrace

TOPICS

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (503)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2103)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Tim Donaghy, the NBA ref who was driven from the game in disgrace after he was caught gambling on games, including those he officiated, has a new book out making some sensational claims about how the NBA is run. And he went on Greta Van Susteren's show on Fox last night to talk about it.

Van Susteren: You talk about discussions you had beforehand where refs would say they didn't like a particular player, didn't like a particular team, that that sort of factored into whether you thought that the ref would maybe call something or not call something.

Donaghy: Right. I think there was a situation where certain referees, in my mind -- and it obviously proved successful -- could change the point spread in an NBA game based on relationships by four or five points. And when you talk about adding four or five points onto any line that's at Vegas it's like sitting at a blackjack table and knowing that your first card is an ace when the dealer starts to deal.

Van Susteren: You know, that actually shocked me much more in your book, than your own conduct, because as a fan, or as a viewer, I thought this was all done so straight, and then I find out that the refs are also, you know, talking trash about players and about team owners -- and that that has an impact on some of the calls. It took away, sort of, the honesty in the game for me.

Donaghy: Right, and I think the, you know, NBA fans are very knowledgeable. And over the last 10 or 15 years, they know that a lot of unusual things have taken place.

Donaghy describes how officials would single out and punish players like Allen Iverson if they felt the league hadn't punished them enough for misdeeds on the floor. And sometimes they would just pick on players because they had earned the displeasure of the refs:

Donaghy: One player where referees targeted on a continuous basis was Rasheed Wallace. He was one of those guys that just constantly -- seemed to go out of his way to embarrass referees. And when you do that to the referee staff, you know, at times they would come together, and basically try to put him in his place, or try to get him in a position where, you know, he would stop doing what he was doing.

Van Susteren: So there are the NBA players who sort of get the harsher treatment, deliberately. Are there any NBA players who are particularly well liked, or favorites that get a pass? Where maybe they've fouled somebody, or did palming or traveling, and everyone said, 'Let's let him go'?

Donaghy: I mean, there are situations, and the referees are trained in the fact that, obviously, you don't want to be throwing the stars out of the game, or you don't want to be giving a star a foul that you can give to somebody else who's in that area.

Van Susteren: You mean, you'd deliberately pick who you give the foul to? I mean, if there's a collision of players, you'd pick who you'd give the foul to?

Donaghy: Sure.

Van Susteren: So that someone who might be near the limit on the fouls and who might be a star might not get it, but you'd give it to somebody else?

Donaghy: Absolutely.

Van Susteren: Deliberately?

Donaghy: Deliberately.

Van Susteren: And was that discussed beforehand and afterwards, you know, we're going to do this if the situation arises or something like it. And afterwards, good job, you did that?

Donaghy: Well, it's the way that you were trained. Obviously you don't want to give a Kobe Bryant or Shaquille O'Neal or LeBron James a foul that may be his second or third foul in the first quarter, to where he's going to have to go to the bench. I mean, it was openly discussed in meetings that, you know, people paid big dollars to see these stars on the floor. So if there's a situation where you can have two people to pick from, you're certainly not going to pick one of them, you're going to pick someone that's the sixth, seventh, or eighth man on that team.

Van Susteren: And that's expressly said, that that's what you should do.

Donaghy: Absolutely it is.

Now, there's no doubt Donaghy has plenty of motivation to slag his former league, since profits and revenge often mix together. But what Donaghy is describing actually rings true for anyone who has watched NBA games closely over the past several decades.

It has become increasingly clear over the years that NBA officials are corrupt, but not in the usual way; they call games badly at times that are convenient most of all for the NBA, when it wants certain marketable matchups in the playoffs. They are also corrupt in that they clearly make calls based on grudges they hold, and their egos have become the most dominating force on the court.

Anyone who was watching Michael Jordan's rise as the league's premier superstar knows that, in addition to prodigious talent, Jordan was also blessed with a league that stood to gain even more by elevating his stature, and thus with taking it easy on him when it came to officiating.

I was a 12-year season ticket holder to NBA games, and have watched hundreds of NBA games live over the years, and even more on TV. And the process Donaghy describes -- wherein officials decide ahead of time to ameliorate fouls against league stars whenever possible, while simultaneously targeting both players and coaches they deem to be a threat to the officiating crews' supremacy on the court -- was fairly self-evident to anyone who watched many games.

Continue reading »



Insurance_0c5a4.jpg

I had to make a less compelling but similar choice several years ago, when one of my cousins, who also had PKD, asked us all to get tested for possible transplant donation. I was out of work and uninsured, and I knew if I had any complications, I couldn't afford treatment. Even though I felt really bad about it, I didn't get tested.

Isn't it horrible that we're making moral decisions on such immoral grounds? The more I see of the disgusting horse-trading going on over the public option, the more convinced I become that a national (and probably single-payer) health care system is our only sane option.

Nick Kristof:

So what would you do if your mom or dad, or perhaps your sister or brother, needed a kidney donation and you were the one best positioned to donate?

Most of us would worry a little and then step forward. But not so fast. Because of our dysfunctional health insurance system, a disgrace that nearly half of all members of Congress seem determined to cling to, stepping up to save a loved one can ruin your own chance of ever getting health insurance.

That wrenching trade-off is another reminder of the moral bankruptcy of our existing insurance system. It’s one more reason to pass robust reform this year.

Over the last week I’ve been speaking to David Waddington, a 58-year-old wine retailer in Dallas, along with his wife and two sons. I’d love to know what the opponents of health reform think families like this should do.

Mr. Waddington has polycystic kidney disease, or PKD, a genetic disorder that leads to kidney failure. First he lost one kidney, and then the other. A year ago, he was on dialysis and desperately needed a new kidney. Doctors explained that the best match — the one least likely to be rejected — would perhaps come from Travis or Michael, his two sons, then ages 29 and 27.

Travis and Michael each had a 50 percent chance of inheriting PKD. And if pre-donation testing revealed that one of them had the disorder, that brother might never be able to get health insurance. As a result, their doctors had advised not getting tested. After all, new research suggests that lack of insurance increases a working-age person’s risk of dying in any given year by 40 percent.

“At the time David needed a transplant, the people closest to him couldn’t even offer a lifesaving donation — for insurance reasons,” said Mr. Waddington’s wife, Susan.

Travis, who is living in New York and working toward a math doctorate, is anguished at having to weigh insurance obstacles against the chance to save his dad.

“Can you put a price on your father’s life?” he asked. “My brother and I talked it over privately, and agreed that we should both go ahead and get tested anyway. It seemed like the only course of action. We presented our plan to our parents, and of course Mom immediately shot it down, with Dad firmly behind her.

“We had to respect their right to want to protect us. But it was enraging to be in that situation, and to be completely impotent to do anything to help. I told myself a number of times that we would reconsider the issue of testing if Dad’s dialysis stopped working before he got a transplant.”

Continue reading »


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1163)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2066)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Bloody Bill Kristol takes up for poor little old Joe Wilson on Fox News Sunday. Bill, the only "stunt" pulled here was by Joe Wilson.

Kristol: He is leading his party off a cliff and Speaker Pelosi is going to lead the party, her party off the cliff if they try to rebuke Joe Wilson. He has apologized. It will be a disgrace if they do some stunt in the House to try to humilitate this man who is in fact, has a reputation for bipartisanship on the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee he's on. Obama and Pelosi are leading the party off a cliff I think and I hope a lot of Democrats say slow down, let's take a look at this bill.


TOPICS

Who's Your Daddy? Corporate Senate Dems (Again) Do Banks' Bidding

Not that I had any doubts, but it's exceedingly clear that the banking industry owns Congress. The failure of the cramdown vote is nothing less than a disgrace:

The Senate on Thursday rejected an effort to stave off home foreclosures by a vote of 51 to 45. It was an overwhelming defeat, with the bill's backers falling 15 votes short -- a quarter of the Democratic caucus -- of the 60 needed to cut off debate and move to a final vote.

The death of the bankruptcy reform measure -- which would have allowed a small number of homeowners who met strict conditions to renegotiate mortgages under bankruptcy protection -- is a major tactical win for the banking industry. But allowing the foreclosure crisis to continue unabated may end up being a failed strategy for the financial sector.

It wasn't easy for Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who led the effort on behalf of homeowners, to wrangle the 45 votes.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who had been on the fence for weeks, gave Durbin his support and nudged him on the way out of the chamber, alerting him of the anti-bank position he'd just taken.

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, a conservative Democrat, also cast a courageous vote in favor of the measure. He gave Durbin a hard slap on the arm on the way out.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a strong backer of the bill, spent a good deal of time trying to persuade his colleague Jim Webb (D-Va.).

As she got close to convincing him, she called in Durbin. "Hey Durbs," she could be heard saying, "help me with Jim."

I wonder how our newest Democrat voted? Why, Sen. Specter voted nay! In other words, it's perfectly okay to help the wealthy hang onto their vacation homes, boats and cars (because they're allowed the use of the same bankruptcy procedure for which Congress just deemed You the People unworthy). Other nominal Democrats who agreed that you didn't deserve that kind of help included many of the usual suspects: Baucus, Bennet, Byrd, Carper, Dorgan, Johnson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson (NE), Pryor, and Tester.

Let's give props to Bayh and Warner, who did vote with the majority of the Dems - for a change.

Arianna Huffington is having a WTF? moment:

Continue reading »


World leaders refuse to shake Bush's hand

Not only do the world's most powerful leaders refuse to shake the POTUS' hand, they also seem to refuse to even make eye contact. Heckuva job, Bush. Heckuva job.

CNN Anchor Rick Sanchez: Bush looks like "the most unpopular kid in high school that nobody liked."

I think I speak for the entire world (well, everyone other than the 20% dead-enders) when I say January 20th can't come soon enough.