Smoking the Seeds: 2025 (Part Two)

The NCAA Men's Tournament Committee assigned some seeds this year that were wrong, inexplicable, or both. What I'd like to do in this installment is analyze three of the worst Committee designations and explain why they reek.

Louisville 

The first example of Committee misstep was the assignation of Louisville as an eight seed. While the ACC was not on a par with the SEC or Big 10, Louisville was the ACC's second-best team. They sported a gaudy 27-7 record. How did the esteemed Committee (capitalized, like Jesus) come up with an eight seed? Heading into the tournament, the venerable RPI rated Louisville as 14th in the country (a four seed), while the more currently fashionable NET had them at 24th in the country, a sixth seed. Tagging Louisville with an eight, facing a nine in the opener, made no sense. There are only two ways to arrive at that seed. 

First, you'd have to take a really hard stance on the ACC being completely lousy and overrated, which is a tough thing to do when their few inter-conference games ended months ago. Taking this position requires intellectual arrogance and a kind of certainty that has no place in reasoned debate. The second possible way of arriving at an eight seed for Louisville is that you must be (clearing my throat -- ahem, ahem) cheating.

UConn

Next up, let's discuss UConn, the two-time defending national champions, but not a member of any Big Boy football league. UConn's seeding (an eight) is less of an intellectual conundrum than Louisville's because RPI has UConn barely making the tournament, and the NET has them as an eight, exactly where they are. The problem lies in the complete ignoring of what UConn accomplished these last two years. If you think what happened last March doesn't affect what happens this March, well, I have an observation for you. But let's circle back to that in a moment. For now, let me just say that top seed Florida had to rally desperately down the stretch to beat UConn 77-75. 

Why do I have a bit of an issue with UConn as an eight? I suppose it comes down to what I perceive, again, as intellectual arrogance. You have a team, UConn, that has just won back-to-back NCAA titles. Obviously, their league isn't all peaches and cream, no matter what the metrics say this particular season. So why cut off the use of data from two previous years of both UConn and Big East play and rely solely on this season's pitifully limited interaction between Big East teams and the Big Boys? My intellectual issue with assigning UConn an eight and a Florida matchup (which I'm sure the Gators didn't love) is that it requires the following assumptions and mechanics of implementing these assumptions. Pay attention, folks, because I have a solid statistical and logical argument to make here.

What makes more sense: (1) to base an evaluation of a team on a 35-game schedule with one season and no tourney interaction with other conferences' teams or (2) to base an evaluation of a team on three years of data and three years of between-conference games and tournament games? 

Now, you may counter-argue that how can what happened one or two seasons ago have anything to do with this season's team? A fair question to which I could posit a counter-question, namely what do the outcomes of games 80 days ago have to do with the current as-of-today team? 

But hold on, I won't even bother to ask that question, although you can ponder it if you like. Instead, I'll simply skip to a devastating, if hypothetical, closing argument. What if two and three-year NET and RPI averages led to better predictability of outcomes than single-season metrics? What if multi-year stats led to better predictability of tournament outcomes?

Ahhhh, I see some readers' synapses lighting up. What would that mean, indeed? And why has nobody explored this in depth? The questions actually answer themselves. If this hypothesis were true, well, readers can work out the practical consequences. 

And that's why I included UConn in this list of very curious seedings. Because not everything in life is obvious, and sometimes seeing reality involves prioritizing longer term metrics over shorter term metrics, even when the shorter-term metrics are how things are always done.

I will leave this slightly revelatory but patently obvious topic for now and wander along to my third, "What the hell were they thinking?" seeding.

Gonzaga

How did Gonzaga, yes -- that Gonzaga, wind up as an eight seed scheduled to run into Houston in Round Two?

Obviously, the goal here was to eliminate one of these teams as early as possible. This seeding, on the face of it, makes zero sense. The old RPI had the Zags as the 20th best team (a five seed). The NET ratings, again allegedly the most relied upon these days, had Gonzaga as the eighth best team and therefore a two seed. So how did The Committee arrive at an eight seed, especially with Gonzaga looking its best as the season closed?

It's sad when The Committee decides to blatantly handicap particular programs by pitting them against each other as early as possible in a matchup that makes no sense. This wasn't about juggling of metrics, eyeball testing, common sense, or Einsteinian insight that could have landed Gonzaga as an eight seed. This was flat-out, clownish rigging. No math, no scheduling, no analyses of personnel could have landed Gonzaga at eight. 

Thankfully, I wasn't the only person to notice that Frank and Jesse had hijacked the tourney stagecoach. Ben Sherman's "NCAA Tournament Selection Committee makes huge seeding error" appeared Tuesday on msn. That, however, wasn't an error, Mr. Sherman. That was a stick-up.

Conclusion

We'll discuss disparities between spreads and seedings another day. For now, I'd like to ask, (1) "What would happen if we discovered that three-year metric averages actually yielded more accurate seedings than this-season metrics? " and (2) "Why is highway robbery allowed in setting up the world's highest profile basketball tournament?" 

More importantly, why hasn't #1 above been examined and tested (or has it?), and why aren't Gonzaga's fans/alumni suing some Committee into oblivion?

I'd like to leave this installment by emphasizing that reality is not an avatar of anyone's metrics. The metrics are the avatar, the approximation, a flawed and partial representation of reality. Metrics don't factor in what they don't know. The problem, overall, is treating metrics as some kind of reality. 

Bob Dietz

March 26, 2025 

Smoking the Seeds: 2025

During this break between the first two rounds of the NCAA men's tournament and the start of the "Sweet Sixteen," I'll attempt to ask the question, "What evidence can we find that the tournament committee has indeed smoked various substances during its conclave?"

Some of my queries are obvious and certainly not restricted to my personal aging neural pathways. For example, my anthropologist friend, Tony Cavender (author of a book that addresses some of the medicinal prompts the committee evidently favors) noted to me that the tendency to go overboard favoring a particular conference (in 2025, the SEC) has many precedents. Way back in the '80s, when Georgetown and Villanova won the title, the Big East was the beneficiary of all manner of selection/seeding shenanigans (I'm a fan of alliteration).

Next, as Professor Cavender noted, came selection love for the ACC, then the Big 10, and now it's the SEC. I don't think the process of obeisance to the highest profile conference-of-the-day is particularly mysterious. It's all about TV ratings, ass-kissing, and intellectual cheating under the banner of objective metrics. Allow me to review some of the reasons the entire seeding process is semi-ridiculous and as rigged in 2025 as it was in previous decades.

The Problem with the Apple Cart

Now understand what I'm positing here. It's not that you have occasional rotting apples in the apple cart that is the NCAA selection process. It's that the apple maggots have laid claim to the apple cart, and every nook and cranny in the cart is full of them, so that as the cart slouches towards the Final Four, it tends to rot en route. Some years the rot is evident; other seasons the holes in the logic remain relatively hidden.

Don't get me wrong regarding my 2025 perspective on this. Florida, Auburn, Tennessee, and Alabama are all fine basketball teams -- thanks to NIL and the SEC, they may be the best teams money can buy, but when you start adding Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, and Georgia to the SEC tourney collective, you've likely gone a step too far or maybe three steps too far. I give a pass to Arkansas as a fourth step because as a Calipari click-and-drag team, they figured to be NBA-style wickedly dangerous. And no, I'm not saying that because they won two tournament games. I'm saying that because I bet them at 87-1 to win their region.

The Committee would counter-argue that, mathematically, the objective numbers yield the teams they designate. This is a bit of a crock. I'll go Joe Friday here and break it down.

1) The games between conferences are fewer in number, overall games are greater in number, and the inter-conference games take place earlier in the season than ever before. Because the conferences are now enormous, the games featuring mid-major or Conference USA-type squads versus Big Boys ("Power Four") are fewer than ever before. These rare games almost always take place at the bigger school's gym early in the season. Thus, they represent a shrinking percentage of the data matrix on which ranking (and perception) should be based.

2) Because of (1) above, the percentage of the overall schedule featuring games between top mid-majors or Conference USA-type teams and the Big Boys has been reduced. In addition, instead of Big Boys scheduling top mid-majors, they schedule teams from the mid-major conferences that they know are mismatch games. This effectively drags all of the mid-major schools down in any kind of rankings. Big Boys aren't scheduling the High Points or even ETSUs of the world on a regular basis because they are doing the strategically smart thing. 

3) Almost all of the few games serving as inter-conference data examples take place early in the schedule. The Big Boys go months without interacting with the mid-majors or Conference USA-type teams. Two, sometimes three, months is a long time in a basketball season. Using two and three-month old data is an issue. It should be examined with caveats. But because there are so few examples featuring these data points, the data takes on disproportionate weight. Instead of being downgraded because it's old, sparse data always featuring Big Boys on their home floors, it becomes something to focus on that anchors the dated computer rankings because it's the only available data. It's the old story of looking under a street light for your wallet at midnight even though you may have dropped it across the street. It's the only place you can see.

The Elephant in the Room

No one really addresses what I see as the Whore of Babylon smack in the middle of this entire tapestry. And this Whore of Babylon is gesticulating wildly, but nobody acknowledges her.

1) Bigger conferences pay more money to their officials than smaller conferences, usually significantly more.

2) Officials aspire to make more money.

3) Officials therefore aspire to work more Big Boy games.

4) By sheer definition, games between Big Boy teams and non-Big Boy teams are highly unlikely to be objectively officiated. Nobody is out to screw the Big Boys.

I don't understand, given the structure and dynamic, why anyone thinks non-Big Boy schools would always get a fair shake vs. Big Boy schools. This isn't brain surgery. Officials aren't being evaluated by neutral non-human programs. They are being evaluated by people. Why in God's name would an official not lean into a Big Boy bias when officiating these have/have-not games? What, college basketball officials aren't part of our capitalistic, materialistic culture? They are sworn Knights Templar of objectivity and no self-interest?

These unarguable dynamics should be laid out in any discussion of officiating. Instead, we are supposed to assume non-self interest by officials while they work games. Great theory (I said sarcastically). This is the same tribe that, not long ago, bought first class tickets on the conferences' dimes, then traded them in for economy and pocketed the difference. I'm not knocking them; as an old "AP," I'd do the same. Just don't tell me how your tribe is above reproach.

Conclusion

Okay, we got some general 2025 comments out of the way. Tomorrow I'll broach The Committee's bizarre, insulting seedings of UConn, Gonzaga, and Louisville. I'm not sure what they were smoking, but it was good stuff.

Bob Dietz

March 25, 2025

 

 

The Lone Gunmen: Introduction

Back in 1981, I wrote an essay for The Humanist, "Scientists, Gamblers, and Magicians." I emphasized applying what I called a "Gamber's Perspective" in cases of paranormal claims. The example I gave went something like this:  If you are sitting at a poker table playing hold 'em, and your four of a kind is beaten by a straight flush, you shouldn't automatically or necessarily attribute that outcome to rigging of the deck or cheating, unless of course you see clear evidence of such. But if you continue at the table, and a half hour later the same thing happens, you should immediately get up from the table, politely say your goodbyes, and head home. It doesn't matter if you can't perceive a hint of questionable dealing or if no one at the table seems motivated to take your money. Just get up and leave. Your perceptions and your reasoning have limits, and your wallet and lifetime also have limits. It doesn't matter if you can't figure out what's happening. It doesn't matter if you have absolutely no clue. The odds against what just happened to you are impossible for all practical purposes. Just get up and leave.

I have tried to bring that same "Gambler's Perspective" to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. I don't want to be a roiling, deafening Charybdis or a convinced, calm Scylla. These are, to beat an analogy to death, deep waters. A former and likely future president of the United States was almost killed. The stakes in figuring this out are enormous, and doing so dispassionately figures to be very, very difficult.

First Instincts

In this series, I'm going to slowly walk through various perspectives and key questions. My goal, as always and with all things, is simply to ask the right questions rather than worry about finding any right answers. This entry will set the stage for slowly, methodically plodding our way through this historic moment and historic mess. We'll get to my more novel observations in future entries. For now, let's start the plodding.

Silhouette Thinking

One of the first rules of both document analysis and behavior analysis is to ask, "What is missing?" I hate to bring up an overused cliche, but nothing spells out this perspective better than the exchange in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes short story, "The Adventure of Silver Blaze." 

Inspector Gregory: "Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

Sherlock Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time"

Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

Usually, I submit, what isn't said tells you more than what is.

I watched much of former Secret Service Director Kimberley Cheatle's congressional grilling. I'd like to make a few points. 

First point. Days before, when asked why no agents were on the roof from which Crooks shot, she had responded with her line about the pitch of the roof being dangerous. It was an obviously ridiculous response, as the roof wasn't challenging at all, and the counter-snipers close to Trump were stationed on much more of a pitch. So why would the head of the Secret Service give such a response? She wasn't stammering. She had known the question was coming. She chose to give the answer she did, asinine as it was. My initial hypothesis as to why she said this is that she had no real choice. She was either (1) trying to fend off lawsuits that might find her culpable for the death and injuries or (2) she was told in no uncertain terms (and not by a lawyer) what her response would be. She was given an instruction, to quote the Don, that she couldn't refuse.

Cheatle knew her answer was ridiculous. Maybe there was some long-shot possibility that she could swear she had not seen photos of the roof, and that the angle of the roof had been misreported to her. Saying there had been a flawed roof description would have required pinpointing who reported it. A face and name would have to be attached to the misreporting. That would have extended legal culpability while not necessarily reducing Cheatle's legal exposure, so the Director avoided that response.

This was a lynchpin moment. Nobody in her right mind would voluntarily spew the line about the steepness of the roof being a danger to personnel. It was clear to me that when Cheatle made that comment, she knew she was done in her official capacity. And it was also clear to me that she was answering to people she feared more than any congressional committee.  

I don't think that she makes that particular roof pitch statement unless she's a dead man walking if she doesn't make the statement. The comment was too weird, to unattached to any reality, and it served to draw attention to her. She became an attention and responsibility magnet. Then she is subpoenaed and shows up a week later for the congressional hearing. She says that no, after a week she still doesn't have a timeline, she didn't bring pre-planning documents with her, and she refuses to answer the most basic questions, all of which she knew would be asked. She gives basic non-descript non-responses. Her manner is absolutely robotic. My take is that she's basically playing decoy, drawing public and media heat to herself. Frankly, she has the demeanor and self-presentation of someone who knows she herself is in crosshairs if she deviates from a self-immolating script.

The way she non-responded at that hearing suggested more to me than if she had been moderately forthcoming. Using a conspiracy perspective momentarily, I'd say her behavior suggested that a week after the assassination attempt, things were a mess for the folks who tried to kill Trump. They fully expected to succeed, and their clean-up efforts were going to be far more improvisational than they had anticipated. They had really screwed up, and the way forward did not have a clean flow chart.

Key Underreported Elements

1) A massive short sell of Trump's media company's stock occurred July 12, the day before the assassination attempt. I direct readers to seek out current reports covering this topic. Since I'm no stock trading expert, I won't attempt to parrot experts. I'll just say that this is a smoking Gatling gun, given the potential gains, which ran in the hundreds of millions of dollars, had Trump's stock crashed. Obviously, many people were involved in this enterprise.

2) The movement of Crooks' devices can be traced and has been outlined in various reports. One of Crooks' devices was in Washington, D.C., a block from the FBI building, on June 26. Although I am no expert on tracking devices, I carry a phone on me just a tenth of the time because I am aware of the tracking capabilities. I recommend that readers research the most current reports on the curious travels of devices that had been in Crooks' home.

3) Trump's Secret Service detail was understaffed in general for the Butler event and seriously understaffed with actual Secret Service personnel. It was not his usual detail. Jill Biden was in Pittsburgh simultaneously at an indoor function, which rostered a higher number of experienced Secret Service agents while draining from the pool available to Trump. Trump's event was outdoors with 20,000 people. Jill Biden's event was indoors with about 400. Trump had what amounted to a diluted Secret Service JV team. The timing of this personnel degradation was nothing short of miraculous. I want to save my personal observations regarding the date/location of the assassination attempt for a future entry, as I think it carries a lot of weight in terms of leaning to conspiracy or not.

Surveying Experts

I'm going to close this segment here. I have much more to report, and I do have a couple of my own observations (the gist of which I haven't read elsewhere), but we'll review them in later segments. I've tried to keep reasonably current on this story by putting in roughly 60 hours of research in the week after the shooting. What I discovered is that there is a clear correlation. The more experienced someone is vis-a-vis being a sniper, being in the CIA, or having served on serious security details, the more they lean to full-blown conspiracy. 

In other words, professional experience correlates heavily with the preliminary conclusion that this was a planned, organized assassination attempt that chose its location carefully and had a groomed patsy ready to go. Some of the most expert people refuse to go into details but just say "Something was really wrong." We'll expand on this in my next installment, and I'll recommend some experts to follow.

Bob Dietz

July 28, 2024

The (Attempted) Assassination of Donald Trump

I was six years old. I had walked to school that Friday morning in November. My first-grade classroom was two blocks from my grandparents' home, where my parents, siblings, and I all lived. At lunchtime, surprisingly, my first-grade teacher, Mrs. Jones, told us that school was finished for the day. We collected our belongings and headed home. When I reached my grandparents' house, my mother was crying. The president, she told me, had been shot.

That was 1963. Here we are, 61 years later, and an assassin attempted a similarly angled shot at Donald Trump. Another inch and the former and soon-to-be president would be dead.

Basics

I know very little about firearms and tactical shooting. My father and brothers were fine shots with rifles. A long-time boyhood friend was in charge of a prison SORT team for years. SORT teams are the prison equivalent of SWAT teams. He had sniper training and was a superb shot. 

The only factoid I'd like to impress on readers is that the weapon and distance employed by Trump's attacker made the shot more or less a lay-up. Unchallenging. A trained sniper should, at the least, put four of five rounds into a head-sized target at that 130-yard distance. Donald J. Trump is extremely lucky to be alive.

So Many Questions

I have no idea how someone toting an AR-15 could have managed that location unimpeded. As the shooting pundits all have said, the shooter had clear sightlines and a lay-up distance. Reality is messy, and slip-ups occur, but the shooter's location was prime assassin real estate. 

In terms of timing, it's the last stop before the Republican National Convention. The outdoor Butler location was the last, best opportunity to kill Trump. Hard to believe that there were obvious gaps in coverage. I have no brilliant conclusions, only speculation. When you realize that law enforcement had to account for all vulnerabilities out to a thousand yards, it makes the gaps in the hundred-yard coverage somewhat understandable. Just as egregious a mistake, but somewhat understandable.

Murky waters. It gave me X-Files chills when I was told that both parents of the shooter were licensed behavior training specialists. And the shooter, as is almost always the case, is dead.

Trump Uber Alles

Trump's real-time coping reactions were extraordinary. No moment too large. He seized the day and will be remembered by history for being in control no matter the context. 

The photos of the Secret Service agents enveloping him while he raised his fist, blood streaking down his face, American flag looming in the sky overhead, that photo will be a Pulitzer Prize winner and will be in every history book. 

I'm going to recommend a couple of articles that haven't gotten splashed on every media page. First is Tim Stanley's "Trump has become an unstoppable force" for The Telegraph. He frames these recent events in a historical context. For a factual, Joe Friday analysis of the Secret Service and counter-sniper response, check out Laura Italiano's Business Insider piece, "Ex-Secret Service agents explain why counter-sniper who saved Trump's life may have lost crucial seconds."

Takeaways

I have nothing yet. I am waiting on further information. I do not buy the shooter as "acting alone." I think that's a longshot starting point. He had no car. He had limited resources. There had been no indications that he was going to do this.

So we wait. The Republican National Convention is next week. It's going to bristle with more energy than any political convention in American history. 

Bob Dietz

July 14, 2024 

The Problem with Avatars

I'm not sure how many Americans have managed the combo parlay of not having seen director James Cameron's Titanic AND not having seen his Avatar. Very, very few Americans have evaded seeing either. I'm one of those few. I've seen Cameron's Terminator half a dozen times, so perhaps that makes up for it. Maybe, maybe not.

My point is, it's possible that NOT seeing something culturally ubiquitous is a good thing. Keeps one out of the groupthink a tad. Might even save you from a mad public dash over a cliffside.

Biden as Avatar

Whether it's a show like The View or a network like MSNBC, we Americans are being hammered with a theme. We are supposed to put aside the fact that none of us would trust a solo President Joe Biden to babysit our children or drive us around the block without our seatbelts firmly in place, and we are supposed to vote back into the office of U.S. President a man who is clearly mentally degraded. 

We are being coached to vote for, not a man and his actual abilities, but for a man as a symbol, a representative of a set of values. We are being asked to vote for Biden as an avatar. Why should American citizens do such a thing? Once we step over that line, voting for a representation instead of the human being, we have crossed into the territory of pretend leadership. We're voting for goals largely untethered to the skills of the person for whom we are voting. If we simply cast a ballot for symbols, why have primaries at all? Why have debates? Why not just stick cardboard cutouts of Trump and Biden behind lecterns for 90 minutes and see which impresses us most?

Mental Acuity

I don't much care how old a candidate is. I don't much care if he or she is ambulatory. I don't much care about incontinence. I'd have no issues with the late Stephen Hawking running for president. My mother, aunt, and uncle all spent the last decade of life at home as quadriplegics, still running their households. Physical disability is not a disqualifier for me. Mental disability, however, is. 

Mental acuity is a must. A heavy problem with Alzheimer's sundowner syndrome is a disqualifier. We cannot have a mentally debilitated version of a great politician running for office simply because at one time he was a great politician. That is madness. That's substituting a memory and hope for an actual person. Voting for a mentally unfit person is devotion to narcissism. You think you know the path forward, and the competence of who you're voting for is irrelevant.

Wimpy the Gerbil

In 1981, Penn State's Monty Python Society ran Wimpy the Gerbil for student president. Penn State's administration said Wimpy could not officially be on the ballot. Students would have to write him in. Wimpy agreed to run anyway. Wimpy made public appearances for months, at fund-raising showings of Monty Python and the Holy Grail and for student debates, each time in his bulletproof transport aquarium. Ray-Ban-wearing agents accompanied Wimpy everywhere.

When the election was held, Wimpy's write-in votes garnered 1432 of the 5802 total votes cast. He finished a strong second out of five candidates. 

My point is that Wimpy was an avatar. If you recognize this and want to vote for Biden anyway, then cast your vote accordingly. But understand the implications. Joe Biden has become not a person to you, but your personal avatar.

Bob Dietz

July 11, 2024

The Biden-Pocalypse (July 7): Trump's Responses

Donald Trump managed to bankrupt three Atlantic City casinos. Separately no less. With the odds stacked in his favor, with Atlantic City bending over backwards to finance and facilitate each casino's success, he managed to bankrupt them on three separate occasions. I'm not quite sure how he pulled that off, but hubris, an overreliance on expensive glitz, and stubbornness all undoubtedly had a role. He did, however, learn after the first bankruptcy that his personal finances shouldn't be baldly on the line with such endeavors. Other people bore the financial brunt of his second and third casino bankruptcies. The man might have failed, but he did learn.

Thirty-five years later, Trump put these lessons to good use both in last week's debate and his public follow-ups to the Biden-Pocalypse fallout. Trump's fans have touted him as "playing 3-D chess" while the opposition has been playing checkers. Perhaps that's true. Or perhaps the chair across from him at the table is more or less empty.

In the week following the Democratic Debate Debacle (henceforth known simply as the "DDD"), Trump did some things that I consider semi-brilliant. Plus he demonstrated a couple of qualities during that "debate" which surprised me. 

Debate Discipline

I have watched Trump's 2016 Republican debate debut many times. It was stunning, surprising, and yet 100% Trumpian. He was forceful, obnoxious, effective, and he won over the audience immediately. In last week's DDD, Trump was very, very different. He was, dare I say it, restrained. Disciplined, in fact. Biden struggled, and Trump (in part due to the "debate" rules in place) simply allowed it. He was almost gentle in his immediate responses to Biden's twisting in the wind. Trump could have discussed, focused on, or blathered about Biden's evident cognitive struggles. Instead, Trump more or less stepped back and allowed Biden himself to paint a picture with considerably less than the proverbial thousand mangled words. Trump's strategic reticence surprised me. It almost looked like, felt like, a kind of kid-gloves mercy. Whether it was strategy more than charity, I really don't know. But he let Biden's struggles take and hold center stage. Trump didn't distract from them by trying to frame or amplify them.

Trump took a page from narrative screenwriting. He allowed the characters' words and actions to guide the audience and define the characters. No need for much of a narrator.

Trump's Brilliance -- Three Quick Examples

(1) On July 4th, Trump publicly challenged Biden to a "no-holds-barred" debate with just the two of them on stage. In my mind, this was an absolutely brilliant idea, a strategy that basically check-mated the Biden campaign.

Trump made the offer "anytime, anywhere." The rest of Trump's speech regarding this offer is scathingly brilliant. It puts the Biden campaign in an untenable, pressurized position for the next two months, with this Trump offer/challenge an omnipresent Sword of Trumpian Damocles hanging over them every day until they meet again. It puts a constant day-to-day, hour-to-hour stress on Biden's campaign because the offer hangs there both as a reminder of the first "debate" outcome and as a looming threat for the next. Every press briefing, each Biden walk to a limo, could conceivably be met with the questions, "When will you debate Trump again? Why wait?"

Trump managed the perfect strategic response at the perfect time. It makes every campaign day that Biden doesn't accept Trump's debate invitation a serious and public problem.

(2) While Biden was huddled with family trying to sort out the "debate" debacle, Trump was golfing. A perfect public juxtaposition of health with lack of health. Whether planned or not, it was the best contrast money could buy without spending a cent. A mastery of optics that looked absolutely casual.

(3) Trump then unveiled his new nickname for Kamala Harris, ""Laughin' Kamala." He avoided my somewhat sexist preference, "Cacklin' Kamala." Trump was actually, perhaps superficially, gentle. He hit just the right Goldilocks zone with this new nickname. Not too overtly harsh, but effective. It almost forces Harris to go into a kind of hyper-masculine self-presentation in immediate public events, including any VP debate. Like a zone defense dictating which opponent shoots from where, it takes Harris out of her natural public presentation and comfort zone. She can't win. Her previous propensity to laughing is on tape dozens of times and can be pulled up anytime. If she goes all authoritative in her self-presentation, she appears to be play-acting or simply responding to her new nickname.

Summary -- It's All Trumpster

The last week has been a master class by Trump. He has spontaneously managed the Biden-Pocalypse to full personal advantage. And this is coming from me, who thinks only a moron could bankrupt three casinos. 

The other, somewhat hidden, aspect of Trump's actions this past week is that nobody (including me) believes that this has been anything but Trump thinking on his feet. Yeah, maybe some hired sages managed this all, but it seems more likely this was simply a result of Trump winging it like a blue-blood political bloodhound. He instinctively makes all the right moves. And some of those moves are now understated and at least semi-subtle.

The Biden campaign has been checkmated. And we'll never know if they were playing chess, checkers, or simply absent from their seat.

Robert Dietz

July 7, 2024

The Biden-Pocalypse: Part One (July 5)

Now that the initial Trump/Biden "debate" is a week in everyone's rear view mirror, I think I've processed most of the information, initial fallout, ongoing storylines, and institutional attempts to control narratives while said institutions assume minimal responsibility. This is Part One of what should be an entertaining and cynical exploration of the utter worthlessness and venality of American politics. Oops, did I give away the plot? My bad.

Welcome to Real-World "Weekend at Bernie's"

There's a scene early in the 1989 film Weekend at Bernie's that accurately foreshadows the 2024 Democratic Convention. Bernie is dead and our two young stalwarts are trapped in Bernie's beachfront abode as a rotating party descends on the premises, with Bernie sitting loosely and confidently on his couch as his beach home fills with a bevy of partiers who know Bernie well but fail to realize that he's dead. 

Talk about meta. Nothing echoes what the Democrats were hoping for in Chicago 2024 better than this scene. They were hoping that no one would notice that Biden has serious cognitive and behavioral shortcomings (I'm being kind with my language).

For months, we have been hammered with the repeated line that Biden is "sharp as a tack." I have no words to describe my utter disgust and disappointment with the Democratic Party. But hell, I'll give it a try.

What the Democratic Party has attempted to foist on the U.S. public is nothing short of horrible, manipulative to the nth degree, incredibly irresponsible and dangerous, and an insult to the intelligence of every American, deplorable or not. It is a goddamn travesty, and a sick, sadistic travesty at that.

Why the When of the "Debate?"

Clearly, the timing of the "debate" was an attempt to get Biden versus Trump in front of Americans at the earliest opportunity, featuring an unusually early, historically unprecedented date. The rules of the debate were as tailored to Joe Biden as they could possibly be. No audience, early microphone shut-offs, friendly questioners. I haven't seen anyone agree to such an unfavorable set of opponent-prescribed rules since Marvin Hagler agreed to fight Sugar Ray Leonard in a bigger ring for a shorter (12 versus 15 round) fight. Unlike Hagler, however, Trump had an advantage in his pocket. The "debate," out of sheer necessity, had to take place circa 10 PM Eastern time. When it comes to many people with dementia, timing is pretty much everything. Sundowner syndrome is something familiar to all of us who have dealt with friends and family suffering dementia. You're introduced to sundowner syndrome day one of dementia class.

Why was the debate scheduled for June? Well, my cynical side suspects that Biden had been wearing down for the last 18 months or so, and holding the event ASAP was an attempt to hustle before further evident decline. This was likely an attempt to get Biden under the limbo bar before he fell on his back. My suspicion is also that if the "debate" had gone well for Biden, a second one might have been canceled because, well, if these administration operatives are as bereft of integrity as I suspect, that's what they would likely attempt. But, honestly, there's no reason for me to speculate. No need for speculative moral overkill.

Headlines from Around the World

1) The Associated Press July 3rd headline, "Biden at 81: Often sharp and focused but sometimes confused and forgetful" is fascinating. Since the assumed default mode of an American president should be, one presumes, sharp and focused, why is that even mentioned in the headline? One could, if one were reporting sans spin, simply write, "Biden at 81: Sometimes confused and forgetful." But that headline wouldn't have the desired effect.

Conversely, since the thrust of the storyline regards Biden's cognitive deficiencies, why isn't the phrasing reversed, as in "Biden at 81: Sometimes confused and forgetful, but often sharp and focused?"

I have a real problem, a real burr in my saddle, with overly and obviously manipulative writing. The story is about cognitive decline, which every American sees plainly, but somehow "sharp and focused" has been presented as a kind of lead. These are flailing attempts at manipulation, as if an AI had been tasked with fixing the presentation problems by writing superglue headlines for a readership completely lacking in discrimination or the ability to smell manipulation.

2) CNN's Dr. Sonjay Gupta reported that doctors have been contacting him to request that Biden undergo cognitive testing. To Gupta's credit, he asked the pivotal question in Friday's CNN.com piece. That question is whether the debate performance was an "episode" or a "condition?" Gupta, by the way, is one of those broadcaster-scientists savvy enough to have been gung-ho for the Covid-19 mRNA shots early in the pandemic, but who have backed off into more neutral, nuanced, and largely unstated positions as concerns regarding those mRNA shots have risen.

3) New York magazine's Olivia Nuzzi finally decided to jump off the turnip truck and report on July 4th that Biden's cognitive decline has been evident for months to those close to him. After working on the story since January, Nuzzi evidently needed the cover provided by Biden's disastrous debate before feeling that she could report the truth. She would give Peter the disciple a run in a combo courage-and- integrity contest. I shouldn't pile on her too much; I'm sure her editors called the shots. She could have, however, gone public with her story at any time.

The SOP of the 2024 Democratic Party

The problem with the current incarnation of the Democratic Party is that they simply refuse to tell anything remotely resembling the truth. They evade reporting reality as long as possible. What they want are results, not a truthful process.

There was Hunter Biden's laptop. There was the entire institutional protection of Pfizer while refusing to make public key information regarding Covid-19 mRNA shots. There was Biden's obvious months-long decline. The commitment to lying is at every turn regarding crucial topics. The Dems make Donald Trump, a prevaricating bullshitter to end all bullshitters, look like the proverbial choir boy. At least we, the general public, have a damned good idea when Trump is bullshitting us. We have very little defense against a Democratic bullshit brigade flashing symbols of science on their shields when crusading for their own personal good.

Reading Recommendations and Wrap-Up

Today I'm recommending David Harsanyi's New York Post article, "Pro-Dem media's flip on Biden shows how they shamelessly make up rules as they go along." His piece summarizes most of my roiling disgust with the Democratic Party and the "mainstream media." I've tried to use the phrase "mainstream media" as little as possible over the years because it's too cheap and simple, too much a blanket cliche. But sometimes cliches are cliches because they're correct. 

The months ahead are going to be jam-packed with course reversals, switchbacks, and media manipulation. I'm going to try to report every few days on the worst of it. Unlike Russell Brand, who ends each podcast with "Stay Free," I'll substitute a different line.  

"Stay Sane." Or at least give it your best shot, because things in the US of A are going to get raggedy. I mean "more raggedy."

Bob Dietz

July 5, 2024

Remembering OJ

O.J. Simpson died yesterday. Simpson's life and times provided some interesting life markers for me, along with the occasional self-revelation. I pass along some of those memories.

Still a sophomore at Penn State, I spent Thanksgiving, 1976 at my paternal grandmother's home, as we usually did. Nana and Great Aunt Esther always served up a massive Thanksgiving spread, very much in keeping with Amish family style dinners. My grandparents weren't Amish, however; they were "Pennsylvania Dutch." Near as I could tell at the time, the difference between the two was 10 or 15 miles in southeastern Pennsylvania. 

That Thanksgiving, we watched OJ shred the Detroit Lions defense for 273 yards. Simpson managed a truly historic performance on a huge, televised holiday stage. My Delaware-resident uncle and cousins watched the game with us. No one was an OJ fan, but everyone was suitably impressed. At the time, it stood as the single-game NFL rushing record.

The Science of Murder

My late wife, a physical anthropologist and forensics specialist (a la Bones before it was cool), incorporated some famous cases into her courses. Her reading list already included the Jeffrey MacDonald Fatal Vision book by Joe McGinnis. The MacDonald case had been pre-DNA, and the competing descriptions of what happened depended on blood types and blood distribution. When Nicole Brown Simpson was killed June 12, 1994, the murders provided updated DNA analytic opportunities. My late wife used the case to highlight where science had come since the MacDonald case. Despite the DNA evidence, however, OJ's legal teams won the acquittal. 

Here's the odd, self-revelatory aspect of this case. I was driving on an interstate when the OJ verdict  was returned. I heard it on the radio and several miles later, I pulled into the next rest stop. What caught me by surprise was my emotional reaction. To that point in time, I had no discernible investment in the outcome; I just assumed OJ would be found guilty. My reaction to the "not guilty" news was a surprising sense of relief. Call it misogyny; call it sociopathy. The fact is, unbeknownst to my executive self, I had been rooting for OJ.

Very strange, but eye-opening. On some level, I evidently felt like Nicole Brown Simpson had overstepped some line regarding rubbing OJ's face in her new relationship. I had no intellectual sympathy for OJ; it was some kind of visceral sympathy. What I learned about myself wasn't pretty or politically correct. But better, I suppose, to have learned it than not.

Palace Station

About 10 years ago, I took a sociology prof friend on a tour of Las Vegas. We visited Palace Station and sought out Room 1203, where OJ attempted a strong-arm hijacking of Simpson memorabilia. The room itself was tucked into the woebegone back corridors of the original Palace Station motel-type setup. From the exterior, tracking down Room 1203 was easy enough if you knew precisely where it was. But hiking to Room 1203 from inside Palace Station itself was a study in how to negotiate a labyrinth of Escher-like switchbacks and wall signage to nowhere. I can understand perfectly how someone dealing in memorabilia of questionable provenance would choose Palace Station Room 1203. I can also understand how someone wanting to execute a strongarm robbery of said memorabilia might choose the same room. 

I had regularly stayed in those Palace Station labyrinth rooms since their construction, and decades of staying there had done nothing to improve my cognitive map of the place. One alcove featured top-notch vending, which I always appreciated since I never knew if I could find my way out. And I'm talking stone cold sober. God help anyone trying to manage those corridors after a few drinks.

In any event, OJ wound up in prison for orchestrating a robbery involving memorabilia that may or may not have been his. Yeah, American legal institutions do have their way of getting even when you've initially slipped through the cracks.

Those rooms are now gone, bulldozed to make way for newer, spiffier, more upscale accommodations. And OJ Simpson, The Juice, is also gone. Do I think he killed his wife? I have no blessed idea. What I did learn from OJ is that it's reasonable to suspect that the most gifted and famous among us may have a dark, dark side. And I learned that, whatever I consciously think, emotionally I may have a dark and undomesticated undercurrent, too. These revelations are, as Arnold Palmer famously said to OJ in a 70's Hertz commercial, "Brutal, Juice, brutal."

Amen to that.

Bob Dietz

April 11.2024

Smoking Seeds: 2024 Summary

As Purdue squares off versus UConn tonight in a battle of #1 seeds, it's time to review some of the lessons learned from smoking seeds this year.

First of all, in games involving differences of opinion between oddsmakers and the seeding committee, out of the six games with distinct disagreements, the committee got four correct and one and a half wrong. The "half wrong" refers to the play-in game with Colorado State and Virginia both considered 10's, but the oddsmakers favoring CSU by a healthy 2 1/2. This is the best the committee has done vis-a-vis oddsmakers in 20 years.

Second, it's clear that the Big East and ACC were underrepresented and under-seeded in the tournament, although the committee for some reason did make a DEI exception for Virginia that stands out like neon signage for Mabel's Whorehouse. The Big 10 and SEC likely had too many squads shoe-horned into the mix. 

Third, non-brand basketball teams were hosed. Clearly, there was no reason in the world to blackball NIT champion Indiana State except that the NCAA abhors writing checks to non-brand names. Many teams, such as Grand Canyon, Dayton, Nevada, and James Madison, got killed with their seedings. Those seedings were screwings of the most blatant variety. 

From an oddsmaking perspective, I have no real idea why, in the first round, Nevada was favored versus Dayton and TCU was favored versus Utah State. While I had severe disagreements with the committee regarding seedings, I was also baffled by some spreads. 

In bracket contests, I picked UConn to win it all, which didn't take Mensa standing. Wagering-wise, I had Kentucky at 28-1, which lasted about an hour, and Gonzaga at 50-1 for dinner money.

The rules changes and NIL context had the predicted (and desired by powers that be) effects. Bigger, deeper blue-chip teams gained advantages with tighter officiating and the three-point line at its current, further distance. The era of the Butlers and Belmonts has dissipated into the mists of history. Bigger, deeper teams have regained advantages previously lost. That doesn't figure to change in 2025.

Bob Dietz

April 8, 2024

Mainstream Covid Narratives: Bricks are Crumbling

"I don't need no arms around me,

And I don't need no drugs to calm me.

I have seen the writing on the wall.

Don't think I need anything at all.

No, don't think I'll need anything at all."

Pink Floyd, "Another Brick in the Wall."

On March 24, @SpartaJustice posted a video on Twitter debunking the "safe and effective" mainstream narrative regarding Covid-19 vaccines. Robert Malone, Twitter handle @RWMaloneMD, is featured prominently as the introductory speaker for the Global Covid Summit. If this were two years ago, a pre-Musk Twitter/X would likely have succumbed to government and "designated expert" pressure and would have taken down the video. The fact that the Global Summit claims to have 17,000 professional health science signees is difficult to ignore.

A few days prior, on March 21, YouTuber Dr. John Campbell posted a video reviewing excess deaths data in the United Kingdom. Campbell explains that the British government has, as of January, decided to no longer make the excess death statistics publicly available.

I've stayed on the sidelines for two years regarding this topic, mainly because I'm not expert in any aspect of medical treatment. I'm not even a statistician. Unfortunately, it's time to call an obvious spade a spade. I have commented in the past about a CNN Ivermectin-debunking segment that broke every rule of responsible journalism and frankly would have garnered a D at best in any college journalism class. So I have been examining mainstream Covid narratives for years. If CNN was pushing that kind of obvious manipulative nonsense to educated viewers, what other propagandistic horrors were being foisted upon us by the powers that be?

On March 24, Dr. Mobeen Syed (YouTube) reported on the FDA agreeing to remove Ivermectin/Covid posts from their site, from Facebook, X, and all relevant sites. The FDA had famously pushed an anti-Ivermectin narrative with ads saying, "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it." The FDA was found to be giving illegal medical advice.

The FDA settling so quickly and completely suggests certain things to me. It suggests that the FDA couldn't prove the case and didn't want a public trial where evidence would be argued and on display for all to see. And they could not prove Ivermectin harm of any kind if prescribed correctly. So three Texas doctors won versus the FDA and forced the FDA to drop its public anti-Ivermectin narratives. For Goliath to tap out this fast versus David does not speak well to the reputation Goliath spent years promulgating.

Regarding Covid-19, U.S. institutions have failed us repeatedly and in myriad ways. This is just the beginning, I fear, of exposes detailing the venality of these institutions.

Bob Dietz

March 28, 2024

Smoking the Seeds: 2024

It's that time of year again. Time to address the machinations of the hallowed "Tournament Selection Committee." You know, the committee that tries to pose as expert at something other than putting their heels on the neck of the purity of sport. The committee that plays toadish "sycophantic simpleton" to the whims and deep pockets of the "Brotherhood of Evil Brand Names." The committee that. . . oh, hell, I could write Magneto references all day, but to no good purpose.

My "Smoking the Seeds" series has sought, for more than a decade, to unveil the corrupt hypocrisy of the college basketball tournament committee. I feel like Shatner's Kirk telling Stewart's Picard that he's been saving the universe since Picard was in diapers. 

Fortunately, the universe has gone pretty much to hell, but now everybody knows how psychotically rapacious brand name athletic departments have become. The whispers about that very questionable priesthood have become full-blown high-def porn viewing. These screwings are blatant, hideous to watch, and usually involve some collection of former or current family members defecating on each other. But I digress. As I said, the whole sordid gestalt is now in plain view, and many authors better and more widely read than me have tackled the subject with gusto.

All these many years, I've wondered what "The Committee" has been doing behind closed doors. Now everyone can see the trays left outside the boudoir, trays stacked with empty peanut butter jars, Mastercard receipts from something called "The NCAA Escort Service," and numerous befouled dollar bills. I am no longer alone, to echo Fox Mulder, and everyone now believes.

I'll skip the generalized horror I usually explicate. Instead, I'll first recommend a couple of fine summaries by other writers. Please check out Ricky O'Donnell's March 18 "March Madness men's basketball makes no sense thanks to selection committee" and Yahoo Sports' Jeff Eisenberg's March 17 "March Madness:  What the NCAA men's tournament selection committee got right and wrong."

Specific Screw-Jobs

Well, whatever the committee was smoking, it had its usual predictable and year-to-year consistent effects. The Big 10 is over-represented and over-seeded. The Mountain West is under-seeded across the board. The Big East probably got hosed, which is what happens when you have all those non-football schools. Every non-brand-name conference got screwed either via teams left out or seedings.

All of this is par for the annual course.

No Indiana State, no Richmond, no Sam Houston State, all of which fits the annual hosing pattern. No Oklahoma, which frankly does not.

The committee shoe-horned Virginia into the field, even though no computer rating had the Cavaliers rated as worthy. Virginia, flying the committee's vassal-state flag, proudly played a truly terrible first half versus Colorado State last night, limping into halftime on the wrong end of 27-14. They then promptly came out and played a worse second half. Remarkable, really, that the committee could kick things off by being so wrong with their first charity entry.

The Committee Versus Las Vegas Oddsmakers

Historically, this is as consistent and one-sided as a Rocky Marciano fight. The Tournament Selection Committee is fine except that (A) the committee has no entrance exams requiring basketball team evaluation skills and (B) the main expertise of committee members is making money for athletic departments. It's pretty funny. A bunch of career academics deciding they have basketball handicapping expertise. 

This is opposed to Las Vegas oddsmakers, whose job it is, night after night and season after season, to predict which basketball teams can do what to whom, all with millions of dollars at stake. So what you have, in summary, are two-week moonlighting college administrators versus years-long, career-anchored professionals. Gee, in the long run, I wonder who grades out right more often.

In 2024, we have more disagreements between oddsmaker favorites and seeding favorites than ever, and some of the disagreements are drastic. I'll walk you through them:

1) First, Drake (#10 seed) is a -1 1/2 fave versus Washington State (#7 seed).

2) Michigan State (#9 seed) is a one-point favorite versus Mississippi State (#8).

3) New Mexico (#11 seed) is startlingly a 2 1/2 point favorite versus Clemson (a #6).

4) Nevada (#10) is a 1 1/2 favorite versus Dayton (#7)

5) TCU (#9) is a four-point favorite versus Utah State (#8)

Nevada and Dayton really got screwed, paired in an opening cage match versus each other with Arizona on deck. More on poor Dayton later. If this were 2000, their seed would be a tad bit different.

I also wanted to mention that in last night's alleged toss-up 10-seed clash, Colorado State was actually a -2 1/2 versus Virginia. That translates into Colorado State as a -145 to -150 moneyline favorite. Thus, an alleged committee toss-up actually, according to oddsmakers, featured a 3-2 favorite that won convincingly.

History and Computer Ratings

The NCAA has rotated through RPI to BPI to NET, ignoring whatever system was in place whenever required to get the proper runways for the proper teams. I'm old enough to remember when RPI was king, and Missouri State became the highest RPI team (at 30 or thereabouts) to be told to take a hike. Their brand just wasn't up to NCAA snuff.

In 2024, Virginia was jammed into the tournament despite no computer rating placing them high enough. The committee just squeezed them in for funsies.

If you're wondering what became of the RPI, well, it outlived its usefulness. I checked two sites that reported marginally different 2024 season-complete RPI results.

Drake at #5 (overall, not a #5 seed) at RealTime, and #9 overall at TeamRankings

Dayton at #7 (overall) at RealTime and #5 at TeamRankings

and San Diego State at #9 (yes, overall) at RealTime and an eye-popping #4 overall at TeamRankings.

The tournament committee, in 2024, simply cannot use a ratings system that spits out those kinds of results. 

My Contribution

It's not much of a contribution since it's obvious as hell, but I'll spell it out. All of the 2024 critiques of the committee that I have read have failed to mention the idea that the committee can play the seeding game backwards, and almost certainly does.

Clearly, all of the recent committees have had the ability to plug various teams into different seedings and run simulations. The seedings (and tournament exclusions) are then tailored to get what the brand names want. Using simulations to optimize preferred results is probably something that's been done for years. Why wouldn't it be? USA Today's been running tournament sims for years. Half a dozen writers reported their 2024 sims results today. Obviously, sims are a tool the committee can use to mold reality to something they prefer.

Conclusion

The good thing about 2024 is that the heavy-handed venality of the NCAA Tournament Committee has gone from hushed conspiracy to front-and-center obviousness. Kind of like the Covid-19 lab leak theory.

Can you imagine if the committee had been forced to stick with their initial methodology, the RPI rating system? That would certainly be worth the price of admission in 2024.

Bob Dietz

March 20, 2024 

 

Propaganda Files: Accidental Propaganda?

The question, "Is there such a thing as accidental propaganda?" In other words, if there is no intent to propagandize, is the effect of a piece of writing or film sufficient to justify calling it "propaganda?" I bring this up because the Christian Datoc Washington Examiner piece I discussed yesterday has some interesting quirks of language. These quirks may have had effects on readers that were unintended by both Datoc and The Examiner. Without mind reading skills, I have no way of knowing the intentionality. Regardless, I think these quirks of writing are worth a brief look.

I think that I'm correct in saying that The Examiner is considered conservative. Therefore one might, in today's bipolar political environment, expect Examiner pieces to possibly be Kennedy-friendly as a way to undermine President Biden. Yet some of the language choices in yesterday's Datoc piece did Kennedy no favors.

For example, Datoc uses the line, "Kennedy claimed in a recently unearthed video that COVID-19 was genetically engineered to protect Chinese and Jewish people." This is a very curious translation or interpretation of what Kennedy actually said. Kennedy did not "claim" anything. He said that some people claimed it but did not himself take any ownership of it. Then the phrase "genetically engineered" comes into play. The problem is that one could torturously interpret "genetically engineered" multiple ways. Most readers would likely read it as implying human intervention or direction. Technically, however, one could say "genetically engineered" to simply refer to the virus engineering itself via natural selection or other processes.

Another line from Datoc's piece was "During Monday's briefing, however, Jean-Pierre directly refuted Kennedy's claims." First of all, she did not. The word "refute" has meaning. "Trying to refute" is not synonymous with "refute." Second, Datoc is gauging the nature and effectiveness of Jean-Pierre's presentation for the reader by baldly claiming that Jean-Pierre "refuted" Kennedy. Datoc is offering himself in a judge role, which isn't really his job. Worse for him, he got it wrong. Jean-Pierre did not refute Kennedy.

Conclusion

I can hypothesize that Datoc misstepped journalistically because he was reporting under deadline immediately after the press conference event, and he presumed that he was conveying the gist of the story. I think that he took too much interpretative responsibility onto himself and botched the piece with a couple of bad word choices. I suspect neither he nor The Examiner are very happy about it.

Bob Dietz

July 18, 2023

Propaganda Files: Straw Men, Lying, and Implying

As reported Monday by The Washington Examiner, the White House attacked some RFK Jr. statements. Undoubtedly because they preferred to not use actual quotes of what the man said, they manipulated and paraphrased in an effort to score points among those who don't grasp the finer points of evidence-based debate or the English language. As to whether Kennedy was trying to appear anti-Jewish without actually saying anything explicitly anti-Jewish, I have no idea.

It is, however, instructive to examine exactly what was said by the White House press secretary, even though she avoided directly quoting her target. The Examiner article by Christian Datoc made some curious language choices of its own, but let's save that for another day and tackle press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre's attempt to nail Kennedy. Here's a direct quote, courtesy of Datoc:

"I think if you look at the last two, three years since 2020, since this pandemic hit, there are countless Americans, American families who are seeing an empty seat at the Thanksgiving table. So the claims made on that tape are false. It is vile, and they put our fellow Americans in danger."

I feel it necessary to point out that this is all paraphrasing and NOT stating what Kennedy actually said, and it's basically a verbal gobbledygook that has no direct application to what Kennedy stated. This mishmash debunks nothing. Here's another Jean-Pierre word salad salvo:

"If you think about the racist and antisemitic conspiracy theories that come out of saying those types of things, it's an attack on our fellow citizens, our fellow Americans, and so it is important that we speak out when we hear those claims."

Note that Jean-Pierre still doesn't quote Kennedy directly, doesn't mention the points he was making, doesn't even try to refute what he said with data or logical argument. This would be a big fat fail in any debate class or civics class or technical writing class. She continues:

"the assertion that COVID was genetically engineered to spare Jewish and Chinese people is offensive, and incredibly dangerous."

Jean-Pierre, who I'm sure is very implication-savvy, throws the word "assertion" at the audience. I think most people have a very loose idea of what "assertion" really means, so of course I looked it up.

Assertion: a confident or forceful statement of fact or belief.

Well, since Kennedy did NOT assert this, I'd have to label Jean-Pierre a pure propagandist here. Kennedy mentions that the argument has been made that COVID was designed to do this, but then immediately states that he does not know whether it was deliberately targeted or not. He uses a weasel technique, passive voice, to bring the idea to mind, but then states that he has no evidence to back up the idea. If you mention something but then undercut it a sentence later, that is NOT making "a confident or forceful statement of fact or belief." In other words, Jean-Pierre is not being truthful in her characterization of what Kennedy said.

Kennedy

Here's what Kennedy actually said:

"COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese."

Followed by:

"We don't know whether it was deliberately targeted or not, but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact."

Now Kennedy isn't blameless here. The phrase "is targeted" can be read as implying agency. But the fact is that Kennedy makes his salient point, namely that certain people are more resistant to COVID-19 than others, which (if false) is what Jean-Pierre should have made clear to the millions listening to her.

But she didn't do that. And you haven't exactly heard the topic explored on CNN or MSNBC, so guess what? I'd bet that Mr. Kennedy has these particular facts pretty much correct. Based on the White House content and style, I've gotta believe Jean-Pierre not refuting these differential COVID-19 effects means she cannot.

Back and Forth

Kennedy tweeted on Saturday that he "never, ever said that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews." He then stated that the US and other countries were indeed developing ethnically targeted bioweapons. Outside of recent James Bond movies, I know nothing about this, but perhaps he does. 

Meanwhile, the White House press secretary wrapped up her propaganda spree with:

"Every aspect of these comments reflect some of the most abhorrent antisemitic conspiracy theories throughout history and contributes to today's dangerous rise of antisemitism, and so this is something that, you know, this president and this whole administration is going to stand against."

At no point does she try to refute Kennedy's core argument, namely that some people are provably more immune to COVID-19 than others. Instead we get some flag waving and rhetoric that has not much to do with Kennedy's comments.

Going Forward

I never thought anything could be worse than President Trump's press secretaries. But here we are. Jean-Pierre doesn't even bother to address, argue, or refute the core statements being made by Kennedy. Instead she's off on some oblique God Save the Queen (or maybe the Jews) attack rant. The days of someone saying something factual, and then being refuted, appear to be finished. The factual-ness of what's being said gets drowned out by verbal camouflage and appeals to wokeness. 

If the White House designs and promotes this kind of trash propaganda against political rivals, where do we go from here? This kind of thing, I think, is actually worse than hearing blustery "Low Energy Jeb" and "Pocahontas" when Trump was holding forth. At least he helmed his own hatchet speeches.

Bob Dietz

July 17, 2023

Cocaine, Kardashians, and Alien Abductions

I suppose some of you are wondering about the title. Well, I am going to do something rare, namely plug an offshore sports book. BetOnline.ag had odds on everything in the title. I love it. The props were listed under "Entertainment" futures. 

Until a few days ago, BetOnline had odds for, "Who is the owner of the White House cocaine?" The first number I had seen from them was Hunter Biden as the favorite at +170. People must know something about Travis Kelce, the KC tight end, because he was originally listed as the fourth choice at a miserly +800. In an odds move reminiscent of Score's Lock of the Year, Hunter Biden took all kinds of money quickly. His odds blew up to -500. Kelce tumbled into Snoop Dogg territory (+1200). Of course, now that the Secret Service has put a lid on the cocaine investigation (they "don't know and have no suspects" -- LOL), BetOnline pulled the cocaine odds. Damned shame.

Meanwhile, "Kim Kardashian's Next Lover" has also been yanked as a prop. If anyone is wondering about an ethnicity angle, Tom Brady was the first white dude listed, a fifth choice at +800. I suppose that suggests that Brady is a real man about town, which has been rumored for some time.

Fortunately, we can all still bet on aliens. We can wager on their skin color, where they will first land (Russia and the U.S. co-faves at +1200), and who will be abducted first. Trump is the fave at +2000.

I realize that people will bemoan no longer being able to bet on cocaine and Kim K's next lover, but BetOnline offers plenty of alternative action. Kevin Spacey's next lover, for example. Plus an entire array of props regarding the Zuckerberg/Musk cage fight. Most of the latter involve penis length, but action is action.

Are These Real Bets?

Evidently they are. I just tried to put a few bucks on Musk's penis length being longer than Zuckerberg's. Musk is -200. The wager panels worked. I did not confirm my bet, but everything seems to be live and working. 

While it is indeed sad that I failed to have the courage of my Musk convictions, at some point I will hit the confirm button. What am I waiting for? Well, I'm notoriously tight, like Musk, and the size of the wager must be rigorously debated.

Bob Dietz

July 16, 2023

Cubs' Relief Pitching: A Rant

Well, I'm no baseball expert, but somebody please fire the Cubs' manager, David Ross. I have no understanding of how managing hires are made, but I can't find any reason for this guy to be heading one of the classic, historic, iconic MLB squads. His pitcher choices have become almost legendary -- akin to Seinfeld's George Costanza before he realized that he should just do the opposite of whatever he was planning to do. Ross has become a reverse manager -- someone who somehow has a gift for losing games. Last week, Cubs' management made the comment that the Cubs have a real knack for losing games that aren't pretty. The handwriting appears to be on the wall, so somebody please underline it in Day-Glo chalk and read it aloud.

Whereas the Reds blindly stagger through all manner of emotionally draining, extra-inning twister games and manage to win, the Cubs flail like windmills with broken arms.

I tried to come up with an appropriate analogy for Cubs' middle relief. Please pick one of the following:

(1) The Cubs' middle relief is like a pinata. It gets hit until the fans' guts fall out.

(2) The Cubs' middle relief is like watching Joe Frazier versus George Foreman. You close your eyes until someone tells you it's over. And you never really need to ask what happened.

(3) Cubs' middle relief is like tattoos on Tub Girl. They're a minor respite and distraction until, inevitably, you throw up.

Please choose (1), (2) or (3) and email your preference to IntegritySports@aol.com.

Thanks.

Bob Dietz

July 6, 2023

Affirmative Action Ruling

Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down the judgement that affirmative action should not be a guiding principle in college admissions. MSNBC immediately did a harbinger-of-doom piece suggesting that the world will now go to hell in a handbasket. Me? I'm ambivalent, but I have my own recommended solution.

My Background

I'm white, German/Polish, male, and from a small town and a relatively poor school district. By "relatively poor," I mean that when I was 15, some 23 schools in Pennsylvania were labeled as unsuitable and unsafe. Seven of those schools were in the collection of small mining towns comprising my school district. By "unsafe," I don't mean that people were selling drugs (much) or taking guns to school. It meant that the schools themselves were dilapidated and falling down around students' ears. 

I spent the first 10 years of my life in half a double my father was able to rent for $50 a month from the elderly women next door because my grandfather, the milkman, was considered an honorable and respectable man. My father did various chores for the two women to augment the $50 rent payment. Winter nights were somewhat cold in the Dietz household at that time. Heat was at a premium even though my grandfather also wildcatted coal at night from mines all over the county.

Being white, German, and male did not aid me in my attempts to go to college. What paid the bill was a National Merit Scholarship because I managed 1450 on the SAT and graduated first in my high school class. At Penn State, I still had "Popcorn Tuesdays" where all I ate was popcorn because my scholarship sort of covered my expenses, but not by much. And yes, I had a roommate in my studio apartment. And yes, my friend on the track team sneaked me into the athletic cafeteria for an occasional free meal. 

This is no "Coal Miner Elegy" riff. It was all banal stuff to be overcome. 

Ambiguity as a Plus

I have a friend who is half Caucasian and half Japanese. When applying for college and grad school, this prospective student had the option of labeling as White or Asian and opted for White because whites are held to a lower standard. I saluted the strategic thinking.

On Thursday, CNN's Abby Phillip interviewed Kenny Xu, one of the members of the organization that won the affirmative action case. When Xu rightly pointed out that admittance standards are lowered for Black students, Phillip (who is Black) abruptly ended the interview. Xu had stated that an Asian student must score 270 points higher to be on an equal admittance footing with a Black student. Evidently, one cannot have that on CNN. Would it have killed Phillip to end the interview with "Thanks for the facts," as opposed to "Thank you for your perspective." Recently, CNN seems to have a tough time understanding that "facts" and "perspective" are not synonyms.

I'm not going to weep because race has been downgraded as a college admittance factor. Of course, as  populations, Black and Hispanic students are at a disadvantage educationally in the United States. That isn't the fault of the current crop of White students and certainly not the fault of the current crop of Asian students. 

My Solution

I haven't mentioned recently that I'm left of Marx when it comes to most mega-societal issues like education, health care, and support of unions. I say that if people want en masse affirmative action, scale college admissions to socioeconomic status. My perspective is radical. Scale admissions to the proportion of candidates in distinct economic categories. Are you the child of a one-percenter? One percent of college admissions are reserved for you. And so on down to poverty levels. That would be interesting.

Okay, so nobody is going to buy that. To those of us who are left of Marx, it's still better than admitting on a curve based on race.

Bob Dietz

June 30, 2023

Submersibles, Race Cars, and a P-40: Halo Effects

Skydiving was never on my bucket list. In fact, I've never been a big fan of high-risk physical endeavors. As someone who's a consultant to high stakes sports gamblers, one might think I wouldn't be risk averse. But I am. Basically, my job for 45 years has been to cull 99.9% of all gambling opportunities and continually tell people, "No, that's a bad idea."

I never, as I said, had any interest in skydiving. As a student at Penn State's Pattee Library, I'd read quite a few skydiving magazines. The back pages were filled with listings of accidents, almost all of which had the tagline, "Death by impact."

My youngest brother drove an explosives truck for years, then helped manage a warehouse filled with blasting supplies. I never wanted either job. 

Halo Effects

One thing about gambling is that if you're wearing a halo because you did something great, it can quickly become an albatross, and eventually a noose, if you're not committed to an unrelenting process of self-evaluation. This brings us to the heavy burden of being a billionaire or thereabouts. And I'm not kidding. It cannot be an easy thing to be a billionaire or flagship business commander and to grasp, as Harry Callahan famously says at the conclusion of Magnum Force, that "A man's got to know his limitations."

In one week, a collection of older gentlemen all died doing things I cannot understand. The Titan submersible implodes 12,000 feet down, filled with a crew of fearless, intelligent men who really should have known better. Meanwhile, billionaire James Crown, 70, died at a Woody Creek racetrack near Aspen, Colorado on Sunday, June 25. Driving solo, he crashed into an impact barrier. Yesterday, Paul Ehlen, founder of Precision Lens back in the '90s, died shortly after takeoff while solo piloting a vintage P-40E.

Why did these accomplished men make such high-risk behavioral decisions? As athletes and human beings, they are well past their physical and reaction-time primes. Why put at risk your responsibilities to the vast resources you've accrued? So you could play John Wayne?

Maybe nobody told them that these were really stupid, irresponsible things to do. Maybe that's the burden of being uber successful and in charge. People around you tend to not proclaim when you're doing dumb things.

Halo effects perceived by others have those dangers. The real and ultimate issue, however, may be when supermen fail to understand that being superhuman in the past or being superhuman at one task doesn't carry over into new decades or different endeavors. We degrade. And being great at one thing is no guarantee of being competent at something else. The uber accomplished often shoulder the additional problem of being insulated from frank criticism or call-outs. In a way, their accomplishments have earned them added danger.

In the world of gambling, halo effects have done the best of the best no favors. For Stu Ungar, poker savant, it was sports betting. For T.J. Cloutier, another great poker player, he liked the dice. For some famous successful sports handicappers like Tony Salinas and Mike Lee, the ponies kept calling. Why does everyone want to conquer the world?

What kind of a culture drives the best and brightest to try to exceed their limitations? Why is sound judgement not as valued as swashbuckling? The irony of the Titan, of course, is that the arrogant use of non-standard design, materials, and protocols was used to seek out the Titanic, itself a metaphor for technological arrogance. The irony of it all should have served as a blazing red alert.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, all of the accomplishments of these men likely carried the seeds of their own destruction.

Bob Dietz

June 28, 2023

More Thoughts on the LIV/PGA Merger

I suppose my cynical outlook contributed to my getting so many aspects of LIV versus PGA correct. As I noted in my May 23 (2023) "LIV and Super Bowl III," Koepka stood in for Joe Namath, and the 2023 PGA Championship stood in admirably for Super Bowl III. Of course, just as with the NFL/AFL scenario in 1969, negotiations were clearly long in progress before the events' results sanctified the negotiations.

What right did anyone have to question, based on alleged competition level, Joe Namath's 400K bonus for signing with the AFL Jets? What right did anyone have to denigrate DeChambeau or Koepka or Dustin Johnson or Mickelson, based on competition level, for signing with LIV? 

On June 5, the day BEFORE the LIV/PGA merger was made public, I wrote "LIV vs. PGA: More Eamon Lynch." The closing paragraph implied that the LIV and PGA goals and priorities were virtually synonymous. The primary difference was simply the acronym used.

Did PGA Golfers Really Not See the Handwriting on the Wall?

I guess I'm surprised that many of the PGA golfers said that they were surprised by the merger announcement. Or perhaps most of it was feigned surprise. Surely, the PGA golfers had to have some sense of the scale involved. Back on July 5 (2022) in my "The Saudi Golf Tour (Part Two)," I wrote:

"Watching an attempted monopoly (the PGA) twist in the wind because it lacks the funding to compete on equal terms with what amounts to a proprietorship is...quite funny. All that American wealth overmatched by non-American wealth. It doesn't happen that often. We should appreciate the show."

Is the show now finished with the merger announcement? Well, not quite. American political factions will try to pick up some morality points by challenging the merger. Not as entertaining as watching the Saudi sharks gobble up the PGA guppies (to employ one of Eamon Lynch's metaphors), but hand-wringing and loud speeches on "sportswashing" will, at some point, make their way onto CNN. 

Until then, let's just enjoy the golf. The merger, in my mind, seemed likely from the beginning of all this. The PGA players' financial managers must have spelled it out for them. And yet none of the PGA stalwarts, buttressed by their unflinching morality, publicly anticipated the merger and jumped ship for the Japanese Tour. 

To quote the great philosopher, Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"

Bob Dietz

June 16, 2023

Heat/Nuggets Postscript

Article Recommendation

Before delving into my personal take on Game Five and the NBA playoffs in general, I want to recommend DJ Dunson's "Nikola Jokic made a monkey of Heat culture" published June 13 by Deadspin. It's an entertaining piece that begins by comparing Jokic to Babe Ruth and rolls on with half a dozen great riffs and observations. I don't exactly agree with everything Dunson writes, but I love the way he wrote it. Really entertaining.

Game Five

Well, I talked up the Heat and Nuggets prior to Game Five, so of course they went out and got all raggedy. A lot of turnovers, including some dumb ones, and questionable shot selection/distribution from both teams, but the intensity was there from start to finish. 

Butler shrugged off a rough opening three quarters to give Miami a chance down the stretch. Denver, meanwhile, managed its way through myriad early foul trouble that created uncomfortable and rare court combinations during the first half. Christian Braun trying to guard Lowry was horrific, but somehow Denver arrived at halftime with a chance.

Officiating

Ten years from now, when AI is doing three-dimensional evaluation of what should or should not be called, we'll all know badly teams got the worst of it in these games. For the series, all I'll say is that the officiating did not favor Denver. In Game Three, when Miami halved an insurmountable deficit in the final five minutes, the Heat were beneficiaries of four to five calls/non-calls which were egregious. In this Game Five, again down the stretch, the Heat benefited from roughly a three call/non-call advantage. Butler drawing three foul shots, and the call not being overturned, was ridiculous. I'm sure the NBA would have preferred a Game Six and Game Seven, but a little massaging didn't get them there. The foul situation during the first half was bad enough as it compromised Denver's rotation, but the Nuggets managed their way through it, although not in a pretty fashion.

Kudos to Both Teams

Miami played a lot more zone Game Five, and it worked well. The zone principles suckered Denver into launching a lot of threes at the wrong times. They were reasonably good open threes, but not optimal shot distribution. How Braun wound up trying to guard Lowry a bunch of first half possessions is between God, the Nuggets coaching staff, and whatever they were smoking in that rarified atmosphere.

Congrats to the Nuggets, a middling regular-season defensive squad, for turning up the defensive intensity during the playoffs. Braun/Lowry aside, they had very few stretches of questionable or sloppy defense. Their length across the board played a role. Many of the tweener shots favored by Butler were more difficult because size was everywhere. 

It was a really good series.

Bob Dietz

June 13, 2023

NBA: A Salute to Denver and Miami

Denver is poised, with a 3-1 series lead, to wrap things up tonight versus Miami. 

My NBA interest peaked during the Bird/Magic days, with an older peak back in the time of the Laker 33-game win streak and Alcindor on the Bucks. While I have great respect and admiration for Steph Curry and the Warriors' consistent winning, I've never been in love with the modern NBA or the three-point shot, even at NBA distances, where all buckets are indeed earned and a testament to great skill.

Part of my distaste for the three stems from my first rec league game incorporating the three in the State College (PA) rec league. We had a good team, but our roster consisted of old men, two women, and one  Division 2-quality guard in his 20's. Our first game with a three-point line, we shot 21 of 40 from behind the arc. Being old men and textbook-adhering women, we were Hoosier style purists, so despite our success, we recognized how the arc could (and would) ruin the dynamics and decision-making of basketball. Our consensus after that 21 of 40 game was, "This'll ruin the game for sure, but oh well, we're old. It's not hurting us."

So it's with a sigh of appreciation that I watch Denver versus Miami, two old-school squads that shoot plenty of threes but play the game more like 1970's squads than today's Warriors. Nikola Jokic looks much like Bill Walton in 1977, when he was surgically torturing my beloved 76ers from the high post. Jimmy Butler is great; he plays like he means it. I have always been a Butler fan. There are only a handful of NBA players that I'd recommend high school players emulate, and Butler is one of them. He belongs in that collection of all-time textbook players like Ray Allen and Joe Dumars. 

Denver is the better team; Miami is overmatched. But the Heat are too solid and their decisions too savvy for them to collapse or surrender any given game. They are a classic pain-in-the-ass underdog. Denver had that brain dead five minutes in the second half of Game Two, and it cost them that game. The Heat effort is consistent and top of the line. You slip up or lie down, you go stupid for a stretch, and the Heat win. Meanwhile, Denver has been able to maintain reasonably consistent, solid defense minute to minute in an NBA where the officiating makes it almost impossible to do so. Denver's size undoubtedly helps in this regard.

I salute both squads. It's been a pleasure watching them.

Bob Dietz

June 12, 2023