KG, are you with me?

I want to devote this post to the passionate Kevin Garnett.

It's not a stretch to say that Garnett is the most complex, thoughtful individual left in the NBA. I feel that he is. For one thing, Garnett made quite a legitimate contribution to Hurricane Katrina victims: $1.2 million, a sum of money that was more than the Wolves offered Latrell to play the whole year.

For another thing, Garnett has constantly been unwilling to demand out of Minnesota, despite the fact that the Wolves really have no interest in competing. He is the face of the T-Wolves; he means more to Minnesota than any player means to his team in any NBA. (You could also make the argument that Garnett is the most important player to his team in any sport, period, but we'll save that for another day.) Without Garnett, the Wolves are no better than the Hawks, Raptors, or any other team that lacks scoring and leadership. Without KG, the Wolves don't get their games shown on TV. And obviously, without Garnett, the Wolves don't win.

And now Garnett is receiving criticism for his, well, "critiques" of GM Kevin McHale. McHale, who unceremoniously fired Flip Saunders after a rather poor meltdown last year only to take over and not really do any better himself, took it on the chin from Garnett, who claimed that McHale was unwilling to get involved with coaching; rather, that he would prefer to sit and coach behind the desk.

This is the same Kevin McHale who has done rather little to improve the Timberwolves since his stint as GM. That's right, I don't know if signing Marko Jaric and Michael Olowokandi really count as legitimate improvements to a team. I'm unconvinced that they do.

Garnett took an untalented team to the conference finals two years ago. His two running mates were the arbitrary Sam Cassell (so-named because it's completely arbitrary when he decides to show up), and the ridiculous Latrell Sprewell. Those two guys stayed in line because Garnett puts the fear of the Almighty into everyone he meets, and that was enough to take the Wolves to a pretty close proximity to the Finals.

But because Garnett didn't go to college, he has never gotten the respect for being the thoughtful, insightful individual that he is. And I hate that for him.

Now, I don't have a bond with KG. I've never met the guy, probably will never meet him, and don't have any similar characteristics with him. I went to college when I was 18; he made millions. Advantage: KG. But I nonetheless feel bad for anyone who has their arguments shot down in an unfair manner. And I think that's what's happening to Garnett.

So now Garnett, who found his passion making the Wolves better, is forced into asking out of Minnesota because staying there and taking crap from a GM who thinks signing former Clippers will make the team better is just a ridiculous thing to ask. People, by the way, are actually claiming that this is somehow a good thing, that receiving players for Garnett will make the Wolves better and help them rebuild faster.

What's more likely is that a trade of this magnitude will yield similar results to the Charles Barkley trade (Sixers to Suns). Garnett's recipient will have a clear, defined role for Garnett and will thrive. The Wolves will be stuck with no star and no inside presence, and will resume being terrible. And, like Radiohead always said, everything will be in its right place.

The bus stops here...

So this summer I went to get some tires put on in a Walmart, and I overheard a conversation which took place between two guys in the waiting room, and it went a little somethin' like this:

Guy A: That disgusts me. (pointing)
Guy B: What?
Guy A: Those flyers on the wall. They should learn to speak English.
Guy B: Oh, the rights?
Guy A: Yeah. Man, them f****ng Mexicans are always breakin' the law and ****. I tell you what, we never know who the **** is in our country.
Guy B: Man, I tell you what, those people are comin' in, stealing our jobs, and they're willing to work for anything. $5.15's like a ****ing fortune in their country.
Guy A: Yeah, and they always get away with breakin' the law.
Guy B: What do you mean?
Guy A: Man, they can hit your car, and the police can't do nothing about it, because they don't have no ID or no insurance, so the police just let them go.
Guy B: That's f***ed up.
Guy A: When I came to this country, I guarantee you I had to learn this language. If I can learn it, they can too.
Guy B: Amen.
Guy A: Yeah, and we don't keep track of 'em. I'll tell you this much: Hitler was a bad person, but he kept track of his own house...
Guy B: Yeah...

editor's note: This conversation did take place... months ago... this is the jist of it. It was actually much longer.

And I thought to myself, "that sounds like something else I know..."

One of the things I've been most pleased with since I came to Ohio State is the patent unwillingness of the graduate students here to "throw the international TA's under the bus." I'm pleased with this turn of events for two main reasons; one of which is the fact that a majority of our class is indeed international. The other reason (our own stupidity) is something I'll elaborate on.

American college students are, by and large, opinionated idiots. I say this realizing that I'm one of them; so, being one of them, I feel partially qualified to analyze their main, defining characteristic- that of unconscionable stupidity.

One of the main problems (benefits) with (of) college is that people are, by and large, allowed to find friends that share their same views. Unlike high school, where people sort of have to curtail their personal views on a subject to stay within acceptable norms, college is the apex of "free-flow of ideas." And it's great in that aspect; however, it's also horrible in that aspect. Confused? Consider this: while many people are coming up with enriching, original ways of solving problems, are overlapping their cultures by interacting with others, and are benefitting society with a unique world view, others are, well, not doing those things. Those "others" are exacerbating poorly held views, enforcing stereotypes, and generally making life unpleasant for those who are progressing in a suitable manner. Oh, and these people probably don't show up to class half the time either.

To illustrate a point: the facebook group "Those Who Believe That Professors and T.A.'s Should Be Fluent In English" has 2088 members.

I'm not saying that English proficiency isn't a priority, but I am saying that for classes that involve math (which, I feel, comprise the majority of classes that international TA's teach), English isn't the highest priority. That's right, it's math. I would feel a whole lot worse if my "Math for Economists" TA could speak fluent English, but couldn't do math then if he could do math, but not speak English. By the way, C.J.'s English: not bad! After all, anyone can write a number, and if you're in college, you should sort of be able to follow the steps.

Now, I've made fun of international teachers who couldn't speak English well; as I said before, I'm an "opinionated idiot." I'm also learning; in fact, I've learned. Competency reigns supreme.

At Louisville, I often wondered if I could do better than some of the professors for introductory principles classes. I finally came to the conclusion that I would be a suitable "one-shot fill-in," but I would be an inadequate replacement. In the same light, TA's are hardly expert teachers, as they don't often have the range of knowledge needed to arbitrarily dictate class discussion. So, I think going for the next best thing is a good idea, and this happens to be competency in the discipline. And there are fewer students who are more competent than international students.

College Football update!

I finally made it to an Ohio State football game, which is important because if I fail out, I won't get to go to any games next year. So there...

On a side note, two pretenders got exposed in a rather nasty manner. One of those teams was obvious; UCLA was on the ropes for a few games this year before finally getting blown out by Arizona, in a game that possibly revitalized that program. Seriously, if anybody remembers Tedi Bruschi and the Desert Swarm, I will be impressed. It's been a long time since the Wildcats have been formidable, and here's hoping they return to national prominence.

Another wasn't as obvious: I, like everyone else, thought that Virginia Tech was for real, and that they would be shut out by the nasty, evil BCS. Now it looks as if that won't be the case. Marcus Vick proved not to be quite as good as his brother (hey, at least Mike Vick wouldn't be shut out in a college game.) Miami proved to be good again, and now they're being thrown into the national title mess.

Does anybody think Alabama can beat LSU next week? Their offense didn't score any touchdowns against Mississippi State, which is something that Kentucky even managed to do. In fact, they didn't score any TD's against Tennessee, and they only scored one against Ole Miss. They needed Prothro, and they don't have him, and it hasn't mattered because their defense is good and they've played anemic offenses. Unfortunately, LSU is hardly anemic, and Alabama will probably lose this week.

So, that leaves us with two slots, and two unbeatens. UCLA doesn't seem to be as much of a threat to USC as they did last week (if Arizona can score 52... well, follow the logic.) Texas probably won't lose, so unless USC slips up against Cal, we'll have a decent matchup.

Hey, Louisville doesn't even have the most humiliating defeat anymore! UCLA, you're the new loser on campus.

Here are my outrageous BCS predictions:

ROSE: USC vs. Texas, in what is essentially a home game for the Trojans. A ridiculous outcome by an unfair system... national championships shouldn't be home games (i.e, the Sugar Bowl with LSU.) Vince Young, I wish you the best.
ORANGE: Miami (FL) vs. LSU, in what is essentially a home game for the Hurricanes. A ridiculous outcome... Bayou Bengals, you have my sympathies.
FIESTA: Penn State vs. Virginia Tech. I don't think Virginia Tech will lose again, and I don't think Penn State will either. So, they'll remain one-loss teams, while other teams will lose games.
SUGAR: Wherever this is, I think it will end up being Georgia vs. West Virginia. Ohio State could sneak in here, but they'll have to beat Michigan.

Georgia has to win out, obviously, but I think they might get the nod anyway if... Ohio State loses and Oregon doesn't move up enough. Notre Dame would be in here, but Ohio State beat Michigan State and Oregon would only have one loss. So if OSU wins out, Notre Dame won't be in here. If Georgia wins out, this is moot.