In a few days, millions of basketball fans around the world will tune in to the NBA Championship Finals between the San Antonio Spurs and the Cleveland Cavaliers. This will be the coming-out party for Cavaliers superstar, LeBron James. He picked his team up and carried them all the way to the championship round. No less than Michael Jordan has hailed "King James" as the next big thing in the NBA and there is a sense of the torch being passed by his Airness to "King James" as the athlete who towers over his sports.

But apparently James, who as a commercial pitchmen rivals Jordan in endorsement deals, has decided to "Be Like Mike" when it comes to displaying not a shred of a social conscience.

Ira Newble, a journeyman player who collects splinters on the bench of the Cavs, circulated a open letter criticizing the Chinese for their support of the Sudanese government carrying out the genocide in Darfur. Ten of the twelve Cavaliers players joined Newble in support and signed the letter. Only another scrub, Damon Jones and the team's best player, James, did not sign the letter.

Nobody cares about a non-entity like Jones. But when James declined to sign, that drew attention. Curiously though, a lot of the criticism has come from non-sports outlets like The Christian Science Monitor and SLATE.

Athletic. Amazing. Powerful. Phenomenal.

America's airwaves are jammed with superlatives to describe basketball star LeBron James, who began his first semifinal playoff series this week. No matter how Mr. James's Cleveland Cavaliers fare in their matchup against the Detroit Pistons, however, I've got my own description for his off-court decisions.

Cowardly.

James's teammate Ira Newble recently helped draft an open letter to the Chinese government, condemning its role in the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Everybody on the Cavaliers signed the letter except for James and Damon Jones. James said he didn't have enough information about the issue to take a stand. Mr. Jones wouldn't comment.

We can choose to take them at their word, of course – or we can follow the money. Jones has an endorsement contract with an up-and-coming Chinese shoe and apparel company. James has a $90 million deal with Nike, which has huge business interests in China. Christian Science Monitor

Charles F. Pierce in SLATE gave an explanation why James copped out.

Of course, Jordan wrote the book on how to become a wildly popular and successful athlete without demonstrating even the sliver of a public conscience. More to the point, he created a new template for risk-free stardom, whereby involvement in the unruly hurly-burly of the real world is something that a star is not expected to do. Do the public-service ads for the safe issues, but go no deeper into the forces that create those issues in the first place.

And that's the real pity. The Darfur letter was, you should pardon the expression, a slam dunk. Had James signed it, nothing would have happened to him. Were Coke and Microsoft going to cancel his contracts while he was putting up a transcendent playoff performance? Not bloody likely, and that goes double for Nike, which is as heavily invested in China as it is in James himself. The NBA wouldn't have dared say anything, not with the league slow-dancing with the Chinese government itself. And does any person with the moral compass that God gave the common gopher really care what the International Olympic Committee says about anything any more? James could have signed the letter, explained why he did it, once, and been on his way. I don't believe he declined to do so because he is uncaring, or because he is uninformed. I think he declined because he was asked to do something that athletes of his stature do not do anymore. Slate

Let's be honest. A letter from a pro basketball team isn't going to make the Chinese change their foreign policy. But the symbolism is significant. It's important to do the right thing and stand up and be counted against gross and obvious violations of human rights. On the other hand, being a savvy businessman, LeBron has 90 million reasons to keep his mouth shut. Plus, how many people in Darfur can afford to buy his $150 shoes?

But we're a long way from the days of a Muhammad Ali when a superstar athlete would put principle over profit and take a brave and possibly unpopular stand. Damn Ali if you want for refusing to fight in Vietnam, but you can't say he worried over his endorsement deals in making his decision. James is making the financially astute decision that it's better to shut up and be a well-paid corporate slave than a free man speaking out against genocide.

The funny thing is James himself told ESPN, "I'm trying to be a global icon...on the level of Muhammad Ali."

Not by punking out you won't, LeBron.

For the next few weeks, the smiling face of LeBron James will be all over the television selling Sprite and Nike. He'll make thrilling dunks, crazy crossover dribbles and no-look passes. But I'll be cheering for Ira Newble who probably will never even take off his sweatsuit. LeBron may be "The Man" but Newble is a man.

QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE:

1. Should LeBron James have signed the letter to the Chinese Government about Darfur? Why or why not?

2. In an age of dog-fights, shootings, sexual assaults, DUI's, drug busts, doping and cheating, are we naive in expecting athletes to be figures we can look up to and admire?

3. Should athletes be applauded for taking stands on non-sports issues or should they steer clear?

In as much as it is his decision to sign the letter I'd say he did the right thing for himself. Frankly I doubt Lebron James is very up on the situation in Darfur as he's likely busy with his craft and all that goes on around it. Further I couldn't possibly care less what a basketball player thinks about Darfur.
Yes.
They should shut up and play ball. However, if they choose to weigh in on a political topic they have to be willing accept criticism. In this case - this is just hay. Lebron did nothing wrong.

Not if he didn't want to, which, evidently he didn't. As BA said, I highly doubt LeBron is well versed in international affairs and specifically Darfur, nor is it his responsibility to be so versed. He's a baskeball player, a great basketball player, that's all.
To an extent. There are plenty of role-model athletes: Tiger Woods, Tim Wakefield, Trot Nixon, Curtis Martin, etc. They just don't get as much press as the guy who beast up three guys out side of a strip-joint, steals a cop car and then crashes it into a Church.
Athletes should be applauded for hitting a baseball, playing basketball well, scoring a touchdown, scoring a goal, hitting someone cleanly and/or making a clutch putt. Anything they do beyond that is whipped cream on top. We shouldn't expect athletes to be any less apathetic than the rest of our fellow countrymen.

CP

QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE:

1. Should LeBron James have signed the letter to the Chinese Government about Darfur? Why or why not?

2. In an age of dog-fights, shootings, sexual assaults, DUI's, drug busts, doping and cheating, are we naive in expecting athletes to be figures we can look up to and admire?

3. Should athletes be applauded for taking stands on non-sports issues or should they steer clear?


1) It was up to him and he made his choice; LeBron is an American and owes nothing to Darfur, one way or another. Sports stars are given way, way too much attention today.

2) I would like to look up to athletes in American sports as good examples of Americans being American, but realistically I do not expect much. There was a time when athletes went to high school and sometimes college, played the game, and had regular jobs in the offseason. In short, they were people you could identify with and likely spent lots of time learning about he world in which they live, as they were not going to retire at 32 as a multi-millionaire; today's coddled and highly paid athletes live in a world to which most people cannot relate, and in a world that has few if any of the incentives that will lead them to develop good character. If I happen to stumble across a pro athlete that isn't a jerk, I consider it a bonus. Many of the collegiate athletes I knew in school who played the big time sports were arrogant, intolerable a-holes.

The influx of non-American athletes in US leagues raises a more interesting question; I really do not want to hear someone from Germany, for example, lecturing me about anything in the US. Shut up and play.

3) Athletes should keep their mouths shut and perform, unless they are somehow otherwise qualified to address an issue, and even then, I'd prefer they keep their opinions to themselves. The ability to dunk a ball does not qualify one to comment on economics. Big time athletes, or actors, or others of their ilk, who as I said above live in an insular and rarified world, pain me when I hear them comment on any real world issues. The big sports stars, anyway, do not live in the real world, and likely have focused on little but being great athletes since they were in their early teens. How can they be qualified to comment upon this world they likely know little about? The next time some $20-million per flick actor or some $100 million dollar man, like A-Rod, many of whom likely shelter their money in Lichtenstein, tell me I should embrace paying more taxes, Ill be deeply offended.

He probably should have signed out of general principles but he is very young and the situation in Darfur is much more complicated than most of us realize. I think back to how naive I was at his age. Then too, I find it odd for Americans to condemn the Chinese for pursing a cynical relationship with the Sudan when we are responsible for close to 800,000 Iraqi deaths, 1 million Iraqi external refugees, close to that many internal ones, and who knows how many injured and malnourished! This seems even more two faced when one considers the fact that the US was much more responsible for the events that produced the humanitarian crisis in Darfur than are the Chinese. If you didn't hear it, I suggest you read this Democracy Now Interview with the Columbia University Professor, Mahmood Mamdani. The following excerpts don't capture its full impact but might peak your interest.

QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE:

1. Should LeBron James have signed the letter to the Chinese Government about Darfur? Why or why not?
Should he? As a moral obligation, yes, although the level of outrage over his decision not too is out of line. Frankly, I'd be more impressed with those who do more than simply put their names on a near meaningless letter. Since most of those criticizing James haven't done anything meaningful themselves, they don't carry much weight. I also am willing to accept the explanation he gave for not signing.

2. In an age of dog-fights, shootings, sexual assaults, DUI's, drug busts, doping and cheating, are we naive in expecting athletes to be figures we can look up to and admire?
Naive, yes. First, because the media gives us a distorted view of all types of celebrities, second because celebrity itself has a distorting effect on most people, and third, because of a generalized displacement of responsibility within our culture.

3. Should athletes be applauded for taking stands on non-sports issues or should they steer clear?
Well, if one accepts Uncle Ben's Doctrine ("with great power comes great responsibility"), then they shouldn't be applauded, as they're only doing what they should. I do believe that they should steer clear when they are uninformed, but that's a principle I advocate for everybody.

Good topic, Nighttimer.

I think James should have signed the letter and I really don't know why he didn't. If he has some sort of endorsement deal with someone that says he can't speak out on an issue as important as the human tragedy in Darfur, he's got a crappy agent negotiating his deals for him. Or, maybe he just really doesn't care. You are right, he's no Ali, nothing even close.

As far as your second and third questions are concerned, I don't think expecting professional athletes to demonstrate a little character an give something back is naive at all. As I know you know, it happens quite a lot, but we just don't hear as much about it as we do the dog-fights, shootings, DUI, etc. But, there's guys like Gilbert Arenas, Dan Marino, and the NASCAR guys
that do good things and pay it back all the time. It sure hasn't hurt any of those guys endorsement contracts. I certainly think they should be applauded for showing some human compassion and decency. One tends to root a little harder for people like that I think. I know I do.

Aquilla

Let's be honest and admit that the majority of people have no idea what's going on in Darfur, and among those who have, 50 percent got their knowledge from watching last season of "ER". Is it responsible to sign any letter to a foreign government if someone is not very familiar with the situation the letter is addressing? I think not. If LeBron James can be accused of anything, it is of his ignorance of the situation of Darfur perhaps; but, if we assume that he knows nothing about Darfur, keeping your mouth shut is perhaps the best course of action.
Let us also admit that an open letter to Chinese Government is meaningless; it's a PR move, and nothing else. I am not being cynical here, just realistic. If those athletes who signed the letter would contribute to "Doctors without Borders", the impact will be much more meaningful although, perhaps, not nearly as visible.

Ira Newble should be applauded for his efforts to bring attention to an issue about which he cares deeply.

1. Should LeBron James have signed the letter to the Chinese Government about Darfur? Why or why not?

He should have signed it if he understood it and agreed with it. It could be that he does not agree that the Chinese are culpable in this situation. I wonder why the open letter doesn't address the government in Khartoum directly?

Let's face facts, however: LeBron James is a kid. He is twenty two years old. Why should we care one way or the other what James thinks about Darfur and the Chinese involvement in it? And if we should care, should we also care what James thinks about issues that are closer to home? Should we care what his stance on unemployment in the black community is? What about underinsured children? Global warming? Dog fighting? Iraq?

2. In an age of dog-fights, shootings, sexual assaults, DUI's, drug busts, doping and cheating, are we naive in expecting athletes to be figures we can look up to and admire?

Yes, that would be naive. However, it is natural to expect something from others, especially those that we perceive as being special in some way. It would be great if celebrity-athletes would act as leaders and role models. However, these people are just people, and young people at that. We should not expect more from them than we expect from our twenty-something acquaintences.

3. Should athletes be applauded for taking stands on non-sports issues or should they steer clear?

Certainly they should be applauded (with the caveat that they take the correct^TM position on the issues). However, they cannot be expected to take a stand or to take the correct stand. To quote Charles Barkley "I am not a role model". Those that choose to be role models have used their celebrity for a bigger cause than themselves and should be commended for it.

1. Should LeBron James have signed the letter to the Chinese Government about Darfur? Why or why not?

I'll agree with Amlord on this - "He should have signed it if he understood it and agreed with it." Otherwise, no.

I'm a little skeptical of the usefulness of a "symbolic" act like signing a letter which will do no good to anyone. Letter-writing is pointless, other than to generate awareness and eventually pressure someone to do something. Unfortunately, those writing the letters would most likely not support the something that someone would do. So I'm skeptical.

It's the same sort of thing I think every time I see a "free Tibet" bumper sticker. These people are all for a free Tibet, just not for freeing Tibet. Tibet will be free when a stronger army comes and boots the Chinese out. The suffering in Darfur will end when the Sudanese government is overthrown, which also will probably involve the Chinese army too at some point. So, to the bumper-stickerists and letter-writers, are you beating the drums for war with China, or just making yourself feel better?

2. In an age of dog-fights, shootings, sexual assaults, DUI's, drug busts, doping and cheating, are we naive in expecting athletes to be figures we can look up to and admire?

I have a hunch that there were dogfights, DUIs, sexual assaults, drugs, and everything else "back in the day," and those covering sports just chose not to tell us about it. Ty Cobb would go into the stands to fight fans. Bobby Hull was a racist, anti-semite and a wife-beater. There have always been bad actors in sports, just like any other field. The only difference is that they are public figures, and that we learn more about them now due to our culture's emphasis on celebrity.

The good news is that there are some worth admiring.

3. Should athletes be applauded for taking stands on non-sports issues or should they steer clear?

I'm not interested in an athlete's stands on anything other than their sport. If they speak out, they will "be applauded" by those who agree, and not applauded by those who don't. It's a pointless exercise in celebrity vanity and idol worship either way. I don't care what Linday Lohan or Cameron Diaz think about it, either.

TedN5, to even partially blame the wholesale slaughter in Darfur on "global warming" and not the murderous tribes is quite obscene. They are dying from violence, not desertification. And both of these phenomena have happened and will happen for millenia; they are not unique to the post 1970's.

Cliche machine on. Sound and Fury signifying nothing. Tempest in a teapot. The position that a Michael Jordaon or a Lebron James is in is a very unique place. I take no offense at the position either took and you can throw Tiger Woods into the equation also. We should be informed Americans and listen to our experts about this phenomenon. Lebron James should worry about getting a sphere to pass through a rim. Why we look to our athletes to be our public spokesmen I will never know. Lebron James should definitely not sign something because we think he should.


1. Should LeBron James have signed the letter to the Chinese Government about Darfur? Why or why not?

Let's see. I have twenty years more life experience and ten years more education and I am fairly knowledgeable about American and world politics and I am not sure whether I would sign a letter to the Chinese government. And 1.2 billion people are definitely not thinking about buying products with my name on it and they aren;t thinking about buying the stuff on any other Cavalier's jersey either. If the letter was to our government I might want some pressure put on James to express himself. James should limit his public opionions to the things he feels very strongly about. He should find his voice. He is quite young and I don;t see a reason to place much pressure on him about this. Especially now in his career defining moments. Jordan-esque or Garnett-esque big difference.


2. In an age of dog-fights, shootings, sexual assaults, DUI's, drug busts, doping and cheating, are we naive in expecting athletes to be figures we can look up to and admire?

Yes. But we are also cruel in associating that behavior with not signing a letter about a complicated issue. Mad? Write George Bush not Lebron James.

3. Should athletes be applauded for taking stands on non-sports issues or should they steer clear?

Athletes should be adults and express themselves when they feel it is warranted. Star athletes have much more at stake and they have a powerr they can use. But showing up at the local children's hospital is probably more effective than writing a letter and sending it to China.

I'm kind of conflicted about this.

I totally get the argument that athletes are paid first and foremost for what they do on the court, playing field or wherever they ply their trade. I also understand that many 22-year males are more concerned about who they're going to score with after the game is over than something as abstract as mass slaughter occurring in an alien land. I concur that the opinions of celebrities and athletes on global warming, health care and politics is suspect coming from a member of the elite class. I don't care what George Clooney thinks who was behind 9/11 either.

But...

LeBron is compared to Michael Jordan, but on the court he's more like Magic Johnson or Larry Bird. He looks to set up other players. He distributes the rock. He is the unquestioned leader on the floor. He can take command, put the rest of the guys on his back and lead them to victory. He's a totally unique talent.

Among LeBron's teammates, Zydrunas Ilgauskas from the USSR, Sasha Pavlovic from Yugoslavia, and Anderson Varejao from Brazil seem to be more concerned about the fate of Africans than a obscenely wealthy African-American is. Is the "responsible" thing for LeBron to do is keep cashing his checks from Nike, slam down a Sprite and keep his mouth shut rather than risk offending his corporate sponsors? That's weak. If the suits at Nike took leave of their senses and canned LeBron for signing the letter and honking off the Chinese, it would take about 30 seconds for Reebok or Adidas to come callin'. If James is a man and not just a well-paid slave he should have enough balls to support his teammates and DO THE RIGHT THING.

The fact that LeBron only got through high school is beside the point. The fact that pro athletes can't accomplish what diplomats can't is beside the point. Ten of LeBron's teammates took a stand against murder, rape and genocide. What's so hard to "understand" about that?

In the HBO movie "Boycott" it was shown that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wasn't exactly eager to leave the safe confines of the pulpit to lead the Montgomery Bus Boycott. King was only 24 when he moved from comfort to confrontation. All 22-year-old King James had to do was be a team player and sign a freakin' LETTER! Nobody is asking him to go to China and tell them to get off their butts and pressure the Sudanese government.

From what sportswriter Dave Zirin reports Ira Newble put fact sheets and articles in the lockers of every member of the Cavaliers team. If LeBron can read Newble did all the heavy lifting in advance for him by doing the research.

James didn't have to give a donation. He didn't have to participate in any marches or risk anything except joining his teammates in opposing genocide. He decided to sit on the bench. He put the dead presidents ahead of the dead boys and raped girls of Darfur and that is an act of total moral timidity in my opinion.

Sometimes you do something not because it's going to change the world or because others haven't stepped up or even because it's going to make any difference at all. You do it because it's the right thing to do. I can't get behind this notion that all an athlete should do is entertain us, cash their checks and keep their mouths shut. Aren't we all freakin' sick and tired of the sports page looking like a crime blotter? What's wrong with sports being about building CHARACTER instead of thuggish, loutish behavior? Ira Newble gave LeBron James a chance at doing something good just for the hell of it and he kicked it away.

Addendum: Eeyore what's "cruel" about calling out a shallow young man for putting money and his corporate image over demonstrating a shred of social conscience? Whether you believe it or not, take this as The Gospel Truth: Despite what Charles Barkley and his golfing/gambling buddy Michael Jordan might have you believe athletes ARE role models. That is particularly so in the Black community where excellence in athletics is often seen as the way out from poverty, criminality and other societal ills. You can draw a straight line from the pride and inspiration Joe Louis gave to Negroes to what ballers in the NBA do for urban kids wearing their jerseys and sneakers.

I agree with you when you say, "Athletes should be adults." One of the tough things adults do is set aside their own petty self-interest to benefit other people and that includes at times complete strangers.

Or as Dr. King would have told young master James, An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.

Some things transcend the narrow parameters of sports and this is one of those things.

before I start, nighttimer, I appreciated the well thought-out post. I really do. We disagree a bit on this one, but that's how the dice roll sometimes.


What exactly are you asking him to do? Sign a letter? Big deal. If that is "doing" something, allow me to walk over and sign a letter right now. There, I'm absolved of any guilt in genocides across the planet.

In a word, weak. And frankly, your slave, Spike Lee and pelvic references are anti-intellectual, racist, stereotypical, and weak as spit.

Again, no one asked Lebron to DO anything. Just sign a useless, feel-good letter that will accomplish exactly Jack. If he is smart enough to avoid the subject, I trust he's smart enough to avoid feelgood symbolism of the worst kind.

Respectfully, you should show what actions are involved here, other than asking one of the privileged class to sign a letter affirming their membership in the 'concerned' set.

I do believe that Lebron James has a responsibility to himself and to his society that has made him a person of privilege for being able to play a sport well to give back to his community and to speak out when he feels it is warranted.

What I also expect from Mr. James is that he act to do the right thing, not because his team is doing it and he should do it to, but because he feels passionately about something and will act on it. The same drive that took his outstanding talent and though hard work and determination molded that talent into something unique in this world, should be applied to the issues that James chooses to engage. I agree with you that he should find a voice in the world. He has that responsibility. But many people try to take athletes and celebrities and get them to speak out for a cause. I would hope that Lebron James would become more Bill Walton than Jane Fonda when he does this. Following the crowd is not the thing to do. Accepting that responsibility and following his conscience is the right thing to do.

I fail to see how this letter to China has to be James' mission. I wonder why would would focus on China instead of our own lack of action. James could accomplish a lot with a tour of the Sudan. Signing a letter blaming this on China doesn't seem very efffective to me.

For now I am glad to see that James is not going the Hilton, Lohan, Spears, etc. route.

I am glad he is not among the scores of athletes that are routinely getting themselves in trouble including seemingly the whole Bengals team and our local Titan, Pacman Jones.

The NBA and many other longer participating members of the league could step up better on social issues. Or we could stop looking to athletes as our voice in society for things like this.

I don;t understand picking out Lebron James now other than the fact that this is his transcendant moment from basketball player to international uber-sport celebrity (or not). Simply put he is the flavor of the week.

We are asking him to do something that we haven't even debated on this forum. And that is what we do here. Maybe I've missed it in my limited recent behavior, but is this an issue that we have wrestled with? The Chinese complicity in the Sudanese genocide?

What's worse than "feelgood symbolism?" Try crippling pessimism for a starter, carlitoswhey. People that say "nothing can be done" are frequently annoyed by others doing it. Terrible things happen all over the world in Rwanda and Bosnia and now Darfur, not because they happen in the dark where nobody can see or hear; but because they happen in the light of day and nobody cares. If you don't care about the world, carlitoswhey, think about what's happening in your city down the street in your neighborhood. The silence of good people is complicity and tacit approval of the evil acts of bad people.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The fact is LeBron was asked to "DO" something. Stand up. Educate himself. Take off the blinders and look beyond his own opulent lifestyle of comfort, wealth and privilege. Join your teammates. Man up and represent. Sign the damn letter. It's not complicated.

Your cavalier (pun intended) dismissal of Ira Newble's letter reeks of sneering cynicism and defeatism. "Ho- hum. A bunch of jocks writing a letter about a problem that doesn't remotely concern them? Yawn. Don't they know they're wasting their time? What's on Sportscenter?"

You can sit there smug, jaded and numb to the suffering in Darfur carlitoswhey and be as annoyed and indifferent at those who are saying, "Not on our watch". It's your privilege to sit on your butt and throw spitballs at others who give a damn about something outside their own mundane world.

What Ira Newble did and others are doing to bring the world's attention to the crisis in Darfur may not be dramatic, exciting or sexy to you, but every oak starts off as an acorn. Dumping on others because what they are doing may not be immediately effective is a cheap shot. Attending to the affairs of the world is too important to be left up to the professional politicians and diplomats. Ordinary, concerned citizens who decide to be the change they want to see make the world a better place. They certainly bring more to the party than the armchair cynic who says "Nothing can be done, so why do anything? I'm not doing anything, so please stop running around and distracting me."

I don't know what makes your moral compass spin, but passive indifference to genocide is as disgusting and repulsive coming from you as it is from LeBron James.

Had the letter been addressed directly at the Sudanese government, I might agree more with nighttimer.

However, this letter is directed at the Chinese government. How is LeBron James supposed to assign blame to the Chinese government for something that is being done in Darfur? How does he know how credible Ira Newble's information is? How can he be comfortable signing a letter that assigns blame to a third party when the same letter does not assign blame to the government responsible?

If the letter said: "Let's stop the slaughter in Darfur. Signed -- LeBron James" sure this is a no brainer. That is NOT what this letter said. It is more complicated than that and we can certainly say that it is not a clean cut right-wrong answer.

Why hasn't Ira Newble circulated an open letter to the US government? Should LeBron sign that? I'm sure we are complicit or abetting in one way or another.

One more time - So, to the bumper-stickerists and letter-writers, are you beating the drums for war with China, or just making yourself feel better? Do I have to sign a letter regarding every strongly-held belief in my soul, or can my actions on a few key issues suffice?

It sounds like Ira Newble has a good heart, but I missed the part in the letter where the players said "I refuse to play in the 2008 Olympics unless you abide by the terms of UNSC Resolution 1706 and allow the protection force into Darfur." Now that, I would respect.

As Amlord notes, how is a high-school educated man who lives hoops 24/7 qualified to evaluate the political situation and make a judgement vis a vis China and Sudan and tell you and me what to think about it? Do you think that Lebron James is familiar with the text of the Resolution?


You have me confused here for a couple of reasons.

1 - If this is happening "in the light of day and no one cares," then why do jocks need to write a letter to call attention to it?

2 - What in the world makes you think that I am not personally doing anything to alleviate the suffering in Darfur?

There's nothing "clean-cut" or "right-wrong" about genocide, Amlord. Genocide is reprehensible and there is no morally ambivalent tap-dancing around it. Genocide is evil. Period. Either you stand against it or you allow it to go on.

And the reason the letter is not directly addressed to the Sudanese government is very simple. Do you want to talk to the guys in charge or the guys that make it possible for those in charge to BE in charge? Why blame the Chinese? Here's why:

The United States and its Western allies have accused the People's Republic of China, one of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, of failing to use its influence in Sudan to help end what many have called genocide.

In the past, China has blocked attempts by the Security Council to place sanctions on Khartoum and on members of Sudan's government involved in the atrocities, and has refused to speak out against the government's role in the mass killings. The Sudanese government has denied involvement in the fighting.

During a July 2004 Security Council consideration of a U.N. resolution demanding Sudan prosecute Arab militia members accused of atrocities, the Chinese ambassador worked to water down the measure, striking down a more forceful version that specifically threatened Khartoum with sanctions.

The rising Asian economic superpower has significant business interests in Sudan having invested an estimated $10 billion in Sudan since the 1960s, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. The country of 1.3 billion people also has a growing thirst for oil and Sudan provides up to 10 percent of that oil, making China Sudan's largest trade partner. And on the political front, analysts point to China's longstanding policy of refusing to meddle in the affairs of other governments for fear its own practices could be scrutinized.

"One of the problems is that the Chinese government has been subjected to similar pressure," said George Mason University professor Ming Wan, who was born in Beijing and is the author of "Human Rights in Chinese Foreign Relations: Defining and Defending National Interests." "In effect it doesn't want the U.N. to have any sanctions on countries for human rights reasons. It itself is vulnerable."

China's state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. is the largest foreign investor in Sudan's oil sector, according to Brookings Institution China Energy Fellow Erica Downs. The country's Greater Nile Petroleum Operation Co. is the largest overseas project for any Chinese firm in terms of production.

China owns oil fields in and around Darfur, buys 70 percent of Sudan's oil and allegedly has helped finance manufacturing facilities in Sudan used to build weapons, according to a 2003 Human Rights Watch report. link

That's why any campaign to stop the genocide has to start in Beijing, not Khartoum.



To the first sentence, nobody is "beating the drums for war with China" so don't imply otherwise. It's insulting. to the second question the short answer is: This isn't about you.



To the first paragraph, the reply is this isn't about winning your respect. You are not a member of the Cleveland Cavaliers and nobody's asking you to sign a open letter. Additionally, the chance that a 12th man benchwarmer like Ira Newble is going to be selected to play in the 2008 Olympics is somewhere between none and none-at-all. The only Cavalier likely to be invited is named LeBron James.

To the second paragraph, what does a high school education have to do with it? Are you saying James isn't smart enough to understand what's going on in Darfur? You have to be a Rhodes Scholar to understand the Darfur situation? How do you know James lives hoops "24/7?" Nor is anyone suggesting James should tell you or I what to think about it. I have no idea what LeBron James is and is not familiar with. What I DO know is there is no valid, logical or sensible reason you or Amlord have provided thus far to justify not signing the letter.



1. Your confusion may be in part due to your parsing of my original remarks. What I wrote was, Terrible things happen all over the world in Rwanda and Bosnia and now Darfur, not because they happen in the dark where nobody can see or hear; but because they happen in the light of day and nobody cares. The "jocks" that make up the 10 members of the Cavaliers that signed the letter apparently believe by standing up and be counted as a team their gathered voices make a louder statement than their individual ones would. Since we're discussing it here and it's been written about and discussed elsewhere, I'd say it's already accomplished something.

2. Once again, this is not about you. I never said you weren't personally doing anything to alleviate the suffering in Darfur. That's none of my business. What I did say was your passive indifference and crippling pessimism was disgusting and repulsive. That was in response to your observation that your faint praise of Newble aside, you labeled his actions as little more than a, useless, feel-good letter that will accomplish exactly Jack. That's about as accurate as your saying my references were "anti-intellectual, racist, stereotypical, and weak as spit."

This isn't about me either. It's about LeBron James. I haven't lost sight of that, carlitoswhey. What about you?

I wasn't sure what your poll questions meant so I voted "yes" in that I would have signed it so, obviously, I think everyone "should" in the sense that it's my opinion and I believe it's correct. Having said that...

1) No he shouldn't because he has the right to hold what opinions he holds, find importance where he wishes, etc. That is to say I may find Darfur important but that doesn't mean someone else must or should. If James found it important then he should have signed. If he didn't, then *shrug* each person has a right to his/her own opinions or lack thereof.

2) Expecting athletes, no. Expecting all athletes or specific athletes than yes. To be honest, it's equally naive to expect any group of folks to universally be folks to be looked up to.

3) I don't know how to answer this. We all tend to love it when folks take the stands we want them to take but are generally less enthusiastic when they take positions we don't agree with (note: I don't necessarily mean anyone specifically). To put it bluntly, if you agree with the stand, you'll applaud their courage and call him a roll model and talk about how wonderful it is when folks use their fame for a noble purpose. If you don't agree you'll likely wonder why the athlete/actor/CEO whatever doesn't stick to his/her business and not use their ability to do whatever make them think they are experts and should opine on issues of the day.

In the end, LeBron James has the same right to indifference that we all have. If we "insist" that the famous take stands, then we have no right to complain if they take stands we don't agree with. We, of course, have a right to decry their positions (or lack thereof), not buy tickets to games, jersey's etc. and encourage others to do the same.

This seems to be a complex concept. A simple man (or a simpler concept) would say that any campaign to stop the genocide in Africa would start somewhere in Africa.

Do you really think that James should be expected to understand that concept? At 22 years old, as a basketball player. I'm not saying that James does or does not understand, but should we expect him to? Would you expect Manny Ramirez to understand (let alone agree with) it? [For the record, Ramirez is older than James, an 11 time All Star, World Series MVP, makes a ton of money, is in a bigger market, and is dumber than a box of rocks.] I wonder if Manny has a position on China's involvement in Darfur?

Got it, although I'm a smug, jaded, numb armchair cynic sitting around doing nothing. My apologies.

As for the Chinese situation, despite the genocide itself being simply evil and easy to define, even you must admit that the politics are complex and likely not perfectly understood by all.

Even assuming he understands the issue completely, I still wonder why you feel that 10 Cavaliers should coerce Mr. James into signing a letter about it. If the players signed a letter for Greenpeace, would he be less of a man for not signing that? How about a letter critical of Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro? What about a letter urging the government to ban abortions? Must Mr. James always "man up" and take a stand, because his teammates choose to do so? Would he be less of a man if he refused to sign a letter on a position with which you disagree?

And if the Sudanese government refuses to allow in U.N. peacekeepers and food and medical supplies (as they have) or claim there is no genocide (as they do) and knows that as long as China can veto any resolution condemning the Sudan for engaging in genocide (as they have) what makes you think Amlord they are going to do anything but say what is occurring is nothing but a internal matter and outside of the scope of the world's concern?

Global politics can be a complex concept. But I can make it simple for you. It's mass murder, displacement and rape as a weapon of war in Darfur. And too many people are delaying and dithering saying they don't understand. When a house is on fire you extinguish the blaze first and figure out what caused it later. Doing it the other way around just allows the house to burn to a crisp.



You're NOT saying James doesn't understand (which would be implying he's not very smart), but you do seem to be saying if this is too complex for a smart guy like you to figure out it's probably too much to expect a jock like James to follow (which implies again that he's not very smart). Why don't you just say he's dumber than a box of rocks or a bag of hammers or whatever colorful metaphor you want to fall back on?

As regards Manny Ramirez--I don't know and I don't care. I don't like baseball. Got anything else?




Apology accepted. And don't be so hard on yourself.



The politics, yes. The genocide, no. There's a remedy to not understanding. Educate yourself and then move from there.



Love your hypothetical situations, don't you, carlitoswhey? But here's where I'm a bit unclear. How precisely did the ten Cavalier players "coerce" LeBron? Did they vow they wouldn't pass him the ball when he was open? Did they threaten him with a "towel party" in the showers?

I can't answer your speculative non sequiturs because once we go down that road it only takes us further away from the central point, so pardon me if I don't chose to take my own thread off-topic. I'm not the least bit interested in your "what if" scenarios about Greenpeace, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, abortion or banning crunk music.

If you have something to add to the topic at hand, I'd be glad to entertain a discussion over it. Otherwise, we can move on. Nothing here to see...

Don't make it simple for me. Explain why it should be simple for LeBron James. Explain to us why a international political neophyte should not start in Khartoum with his protest and should jump straight to Beijing.

Murder, rape, and genocide are bad. I get it. Next time I'm at the Q, I'll check if LeBron has a "Stop the Slaughter in Darfur" bumper sticker. Because that is the impact that signing this statement is likely to make.

It is you who have drawn the conclusion that James did not sign this because he is beholden to some corporate sponsor instead of the equally likely scenario that he: doesn't care, doesn't understand, is distracted by his home life (he's expected in a few days with his girlfriend) or his job (something about the "Finals"), or wants to focus on the Sudan itself rather than some country on the other side of the planet from the Sudan.

Answer the following question: A relatively uninformed but newly conscientious citizen with a concern for the slaughter in Darfur should address his outrage at:
a. Khartoum (the capital of the Sudan in which Darfur is located)
b. Washington D.C. (the capital of the citizen's own country)
c. Beijing (the capital of a country with dubious ties to the Sudan who may be selling weapons to the government there (the government denies being involved in the genocide), buys natural resources from there, and may have blocked UN action)
d. New York City (where the United Nations, which has done little concerning Darfur is located).
e. All of the above.
f. None of the above.

You've answered "c" for LeBron James. But you haven't convinced anyone that "c" is the most correct answer.



I would never have guessed that after reading your opening post and your subsequent dismissal of anyone who doesn't condemn LeBron as a self interested "slave".

Interesting topic, nighttimer.

I have to say, I would be awfully curious about what the other 10 players who signed the letter would have to say about why they did sign. Is it that they are well-versed in the politics behind the genocide in Darfur? Is it that so-and-so signed it, so he figured "why not"? Somehow I have a hard time believing that 10 of 12 Cleveland Cavaliers players are that politically savvy that they signed Ira Newble's letter because they felt so strongly about what's happening in Darfur. Perhaps Lebron James wanted to know more before he signed his name to a politics-laden letter. He seems to me to be a guy with a pretty decent head on his shoulders (given what I've seen of him off the court), so I have a feeling he probably DID put some thought into this matter. Given his elite status in the NBA, I'm quite certain that he's been told a time or two about signing things without truly understanding them!

I'd be curious to hear what LeBron has to say about his decision not to sign before rushing to judgment one way or another. Maybe the pen he planned on signing with ran out of ink Seriously, though. LeBron's lack of signing this letter, in and of itself, speaks little (to me) about his political views and/or motivations (or lack thereof). I will refrain from making my final decision on this matter until James himself makes a statement about the matter (which may or may not happen).

As far as whether or not sports figures or other "celebrities" should be applauded for taking stands on issues, I think it's one of those no-win situations for the athletes/celebrities. In my experience, most people belittle celebrities for taking a stand or speaking out on an issue as if they have no business talking about politics or other issues because it's "not their job". Personally, I don't see the harm in ANY person standing up for what he/she believes in and speaking out on issues he/she feels strongly about. Were I in a position of power myself, you'd better be sure I'd be right there doing it. That said, I would respect an outspoken celebrity more if it were clear that he/she was speaking out because it was truly something he/she believed in and not just a peer pressure thing. I don't exactly pay much attention to what celebrities are saying about politics most times unless there is some sort of monetary or "charity" type of action to go with the speech...that whole "actions speak louder than words" thing and all.

NT, I think I understand your frustration with LeBron not signing the letter. I can't say that I agree, but I'm fairly sure that I know why you've brought the issue up in the first place. Athletes (particularly those in the NBA) have gotten a bad rap over the last several years for their attitudes, lack of involvement in important issues, etc. Given the large percentage of African Americans in the NBA, many people have started referring to its players as "thugs" as a result of this bad publicity. The fact that many of these kids come straight out of high school (though that's not happening anymore thanks to that silly rule, which is another topic entirely) and that many of these kids come from humble upbringings lends to this stereotyping. There are lots of wonderful "role models" in all walks of life. I think the NBA seems to generate more than its fair share of criticism for some reason (when compared to other sports organizations in the U.S.), so I'm perhaps a little biased in favor of erring on the side of NOT judging without knowing all of the facts.

I guess it all boils down to assumptions. I am not willing to assume LeBron's intentions one way or the other in this situation without more information.

From what I’ve seen and read about LeBron, he’s a good kid with a solid head on his shoulders. In some ways you have to admire the kid, key word here KID, who doesn’t just follow the pack because everyone else is doing it. That’s typically how younger kids get in trouble: blindly following their elders to the dog fight.

Does anyone here know without question that the reason he didn’t’ sign the letter was because of his Nike endorsement deal? If not, it’s pure speculation.

Understand that LeBron came up through the AAU ranks, these kids focus on nothing but hoops, most starting AAU when they’re only 10 years old. He’s probably never had to focus on local or national issues, much less an international geo-political mess, or he simply may have no interest. And face it, right now he has bigger fish to fry in his own 22 year old world.

To condemn LeBron for his inactions is to condemn everyone who has not taken any action, whether it’s symbolic or not, for the crisis in Darfur.

Sure athletes or any celebrity may carry extra weight because they can influence others, but in reality they have no more obligation than anyone else. I personally think professional athletes should be more active in causes outside their sport.

Most professional sports have huge gaps between seasons that provide plenty of down time and of course most have plenty of money as well. They lend automatic "star power" to a cause and can easily raise awareness, but none of us are in a position to criticize LeBron unless we've been a molly coddled basketball star since the seventh grade who is still learning to become an adult.

But to put this on the importance scale: if he had signed this letter, my guess is most of us outside the Cleveland area would have never known.

1.) No. I don't see one reason why he should care about a third world toilet like Sudan. I know I could care less, and in his position that would have been my response, "I won't sign because I don't give a damn about Sudan". He is a baskeball player. His job is to play basketball. He doesn't owe anything to anyone, least of all to Sudan. He is a self made millionare. Why doesn't the outrage extend to plumbers, or doctors, or millions of other professions that have equally as little to do with politics as basketball? He is a guy that happens to be good at running, jumping, shooting, etc. The only thing he owes to anyone is that he owes it to his team to play the best game possible every day that he is on the court. THAT'S IT.

2.) What kind of empty people will embrace someone as a role model because of their athletic abilities?
Once again, athletes owe nothing to anyone. Does their contract include the obligation of leading the masses? The are where they are through their own talent and hard work. How they choose to live is their own business, their own right. If someone desides that they they want to go to prison because the entire Bengals team did, they are too stupid to live and should get out of my gene pool! "Ooh, I am going to be just like _____, except I don't know what he's like because I never met him or spoke two words with him!" Pathetic.

3.) Neither. If a person has something interesting to say, I'll listen regardless of their profession. They have a right to do what they want.

Nor would I even attempt to try and convince anyone whose mind is already made up as yours is, Amlord.

I've provided you with a link establishing that the Chinese have acted as enablers for the government of Sudan and there is no shortage of proof readily available establishing this unholy relationship. Of course, it helps if you have an open mind and are willing to consider it. All I can do is present you the facts, Amlord. I've met my burden to provide credible source information whereas all you're offering is unsupported opinion.

Trying to convince you was never a goal worth pursuing. That would be assuming you were open to being convinced.



I'd bet on "may not happen," Kmsouthern. There is very little interest from newspaper sportswriters or ESPN in pursuing this story. This is money time for both the NBA and Nike and they don't want a little thing like the mass slaughter of innocents getting in the way of all the fun. That may be why instead of Sportscenter and Sports Illustrated pursuing the story it's the Christian Science Monitor and SLATE picking up the slack.

And I really don't see why it should be so difficult to assume that 10 of the 12 Cleveland Cavaliers players would be "politically savvy" enough to understand the Darfur situation. Most of them attended major colleges including Kansas, Michigan State, Conneticut and Texas. Surely during the off-season a few of them might have had an opportunity to experience the political consciousness-raising that many young people go through in college.



I doubt you're going to get that information or know all the facts of this story from our well-trained, corporate owned media. However, this isn't the first time LeBron James has made sure he puts his shoe contract ahead of displaying a social conscience.

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader also tried to give you the chance to walk the Ali path. He sent you a public invitation to a forum about conditions in Nike factories. In the letter, Nader wrote,

"Mr. James, you are in a unique position to stand up for the people who make the products you endorse and to make the world a better place in the process. You can improve their working conditions in the contracted factories and pressure the entire sports shoe and apparel industry to change."

You replied to the press: "No, I haven't responded to it. But I think Nike's a great company and they would respond if need be."

The shoe wars continued in March in New York, when you dissed and dismissed Stephon Marbury's $14.98 sneaker line. You, whose signature Nikes go for $150, were asked whether you would ever sell a shoe that didn't cost a week's pay at McDonalds. You said, "No, I don't think so. Me being with Nike, we hold our standards high."

Marbury answered your words with the underreported smackdown of the season, saying, "I'd rather own than be owned." Damn. link

Once upon a time young Black men with strong backs (and presumed weak minds) were branded with the mark of their owners. Today we've progressed to the point where they hand you a $90 million dollar contract and brand your butt with a corporate logo.

New York Times sports columnist, William C. Rhoden wrote about this dilemma in his book, Forty Million Dollar Slaves: The Rise, Fall and Redemption of The Black Athlete. A synopsis from Amazon.com reads, Rhoden's provocative thesis is that today's black athletes are akin to pre-Civil War plantation slaves, because slavery had as much to do with power and control as it had to do with wealth. The big-money sports in America–football, baseball, basketball–are owned and controlled almost exclusively by white men, and yet each has a disproportionately large percentage of black athletes. They are well paid, but they have no direct power over the current and future direction of these sports. More than that, they lack any real control over their roles within these sports. The author supports his position with a well-researched and thoughtfully rendered survey of the history of the black athlete. From plantation-born jockeys and boxers of the early 19th century, to the NBA of Michael Jordan and Larry Johnson, Rhoden remains focused on prevailing structures of racism. He notes the accomplishments and frustrations of several well-known figures, including Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Jesse Owens, and Willie Mays, as well as others who have faded from our collective memory. In doing so, he examines the damaging effects of what he calls the conveyor belt in the contemporary sports world, where children as young as 11 and 12 are pegged as prospects and viewed as potential sources of income through middle school, high school, and college. This book will no doubt spark controversy, but will also prove to be a lasting contribution to the history of race relations in America.

It is far easier to close your eyes and say, "I don't believe it" than it is to open them and say, "I don't understand."

I think that it's important to note that this particular debate question really is just a matter of opinion.

Should he have ...
Are we naive ...
Should we expect ...

It's healthy dialogue, but let's acknowledge that in this case there aren't any facts per se to bring to the table other than those regarding the situation in Darfur. Those regarding Mr. James action or inaction, or our expectations, are merely matters of opinion. I've had my say, and don't expect everyone to agree with me either. That's obviously why nighttimer started this as a poll in the first place

1. Should LeBron James have signed the letter to the Chinese Government about Darfur? Why or why not?

Not if he didn't agree with it. I personally likely would not have signed that note. I'm curious if anyone who answered 'yes' to this poll shopped at Walmart recently? That's basically a Chinese junk store. If you shopped at Walmart, you supported the Chinese, and you likely did this to save 5 percent of the cost of your purchase (what...5 dollars?). So how can you hold it against a man with a 90 million dollar reason not to sign? Has anyone here held our government accountable for buying from China? Should we stop buying from them? If personal conviction came before dollars, we wouldn't be buying from a lot of places we do...heck, we'd boycott our allies for dealing with them indirectly (even Canada was buying Sudanese oil up until 2002). The South Koreans support the North Korean government directly....with their concentration camps and all.

Our economy would be, in a word, different, if we stopped buying from nearly every nation on the planet, but I guess it's easy to criticize when we're only potentially sacrificing one man's bank account and not our own.

2. In an age of dog-fights, shootings, sexual assaults, DUI's, drug busts, doping and cheating, are we naive in expecting athletes to be figures we can look up to and admire?

I'm much more concerned with the illegal actions than the failure to sign a letter. This is not a crime, nor is it a moral failing in the broad sceme of things, from my perspective. As an ethical violation, it ranks in scale somewhere between buying from Walmart and eating a happy meal.

I find Nighttimer's multiple direct and indirect characterizations of James as a "slave" to be utterly reprehensible, although par for the course. If a black man takes a position that is contrary to what Nighttimer feels is appropriate, out comes the Uncle Tom charges. Nonetheless, Nighttimer has also some worthwhile things to say here. He has noted that first thing to be done when confronted with a blazing fire is to put the fire out!

Sorry, but letters to the Chinese government aren't going to do squat in that regard. Neither are letters to the Sudanese government, letters to our government, or, unsurprisingly, letters to the UN. The most direct and effective way to "put out the fire" is to kill the genocidal nutjobs. There was, up until a few score years ago, a fairly common response by folks who were outraged about situations like this. They would buy a train ticket and/or book passage to the "trouble spot" in question, and take up arms in defense of the defenseless. This is something that folks from all spectrums of life and politics would do. Consider the Spanish Civil War, one of the last real example of this dynamic.

So, for those who're that fired up about Darfur, I challenge you to do what the Abraham Lincoln Brigade did, what the defenders of the Alamo did, and what people who really have cared through the ages have done, namely, do it yourself. Don't delegate. If 10,000 or 20,000 or more Americans, Europeans, Aussies, Japanese, etc, citizens go over there and begin defending the defenseless, that will do far, far more for the victims in Darfur than any letters.

Brings to mind the old story about Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody....

So what are you saying, Mrs. Pigpen? Personal convictions are secondary to worshipping at the altar of the Great God Profit? Perish the thought before we whip our that Visa card we should give any thought if we're providing support to terrorism, sweatshops, environmental destruction and ethnic cleansing. Our economy is a not a fragile piece of pottery. It could survive quite nicely if people exerercised a little morality with their support of free-market capitalism. I don't subscribe to the notion that they are principles in polar opposition.



Turning a blind eye of indifference to genocide is far worse than a "ethical violation." It is cowardly, immoral and an low act of total selfishness. That goes beyond "buying from Wal-Mart and eating a Happy Meal."



I don't recall calling LeBron James a Uncle Tom, Bikerdad. I do subscribe to the notion that if in the process of being a good corporate pitchman you abandon any sense of social responsibility and giving back to others less fortunate, you're casting your lot with the powerful, not the powerless and putting personal comfort over morality and decency. I definitely believe it's better to own than to be owned. If $90 million dollars buys your silence (even when your corporate sponsors supposedly have not told you what to say or do) then IMO whatever fearlessness you have on the basketball court seems to abandon you when you're off it.

And if you find that be to utterly reprehensible, I'm cool with that. I find the use of rape as a weapon against women and children to be utterly reprehensible too. Certainly far more than calling out a wealthy 22-year-old baller who seems to have misplaced his moral compass.



For every problem there is an answer that is simple, elegant and wrong. Here we have one provided by Bikerdad that is all of those things, but add pretty much worthless as well.

Quick fixes are not a solution to Darfur. A brigade of well-meaning mercernaries and vigilantes will accomplish absolutely nothing but escalate the violence and get a lot of innocent people killed. However, if you're looking for a macho, John Rambo adventure, I'd guess that would fill the bill. Trying to stop violence by being more violent is like trying to stop child abuse by abortion.

Don Cheadle and John Prendergast are the authors of the book, Not On Our Watch don't advocate war as the answer. They take a more measured approach that requires time, effort and dedication.

1 Raise Awareness
2 Raise Funds
3 Write a Letter
4 Call for Divestment
5 Start an Organization
6 Lobby the Government

Each of these small actions can make a huge difference to those populations targeted for displacement or extinction in Darfur, Somalia, Congo, and northern Uganda. http://www.notonourwatchbook.com/what.html

I don't see anything there about getting guns and ammo, a map of the Sudan and a plane ticket. Thanks for the suggestion though Bikerdad which is both unworkable and unrealistic and won't do "squat" to stop the killing. But then, you knew that already.

1. Should LeBron James have signed the letter to the Chinese Government about Darfur? Why or why not?

Signing this letter would be kind of meaningless in my eyes. Symbolic yes, but altogether fruitless. If he was going to get flack for not signing it, than perhaps he would have done it and nobody would have thought twice about this issue. Signing the letter to the Chinese government is a personal decision that he made for any number of reasons. Maybe he isn't knowledgeable enough to comment on the situation as a few have hypothesized. Perhaps there was a part of the letter that he thought went too far or not far enough. It could be anything. But he has chosen not to get involved and I can't fault him for that.

2. In an age of dog-fights, shootings, sexual assaults, DUI's, drug busts, doping and cheating, are we naive in expecting athletes to be figures we can look up to and admire?

We look up to athletes for their courage and actions on the field or the court, etc... Athletes have some super abilities, but are still human beings who have flaws and vices. We can admire people for their achievements such as that of Lance Armstrong winning the Tour De France 7 times, or other athletes that face adversity and overcome. But they are by no means role models to be copied. They usually live lavish lifestyles and endulge themselves on the finer things in life. This is a recipe for trouble as many have found out.

3. Should athletes be applauded for taking stands on non-sports issues or should they steer clear?

You know, everyone is all great when athletes take stands on non-sports issues that they agree with, such as ending genocide. But what happens if Lebron takes a stand contrary to what many believe? How quickly will we see a topic about how Lebron should worry about his jump shot rather than X issue?

Nope. If not signing a nastygram addressed to the Chinese government is "turning a blind eye to genocide" by that exact same rationale, buying from Walmart is enabling genocide. Which is worse, ignoring or enabling?

False choices, Mrs. Pigpen.

The issue here isn't about Wal-Mart and your insistence that it is beside the point and trivializing the central point. You, Amlord, ledervudapac and others seem to insist upon debating hypotheticals and irrelevant tangents than the matter at hand.

As difficult as it seems for those who minimize the usefulness of Ira Newble's letter (not a "nastygram) to grasp, bringing pressure upon the China government to leash their dogs in the Sudan is a strategy that can potentially force them to act.

So many of the naysayers fall back upon an argument that anything that harms the earning power of LeBron James is an inconvenience to him. What's so wrong about tightening the economic screws on the Chinese?

Well, from my perspective the "irrelevant" is this letter that has absolutely nothing to do with "tightening economic screws on the Chinese" or even exerting pressure on them. It's the opposite of your assertion. Far from an irrelevant hypothetical, it's the bottom line. When confronted with the choice between exerting economic pressure on the Chinese (which would adversely impact our lifestyle) or not, we have chosen not to do so. We have a lot of company, because the rest of the world also operates this way. I personally try not to buy from China, but I'm in the minority.

I've heard it argued by many, many forum members that sanctions are wrong. If so, the Chinese are right in this case. Not saying they are, myself....It is worth mentioning that we already sanction Sudan. How many degrees of separation from Darfur should there be? Should we boycott the countries that buy from China, too? The French are selling them weapons. Really “tighten those screws” ? Where do you draw the line and why? And when you do draw that line, would this indicate you don’t care about genocide? We should have sanctioned and rebuked Canada five years ago then, but I don’t recall the issue coming up before…

Genocide has been happening in Darfur for about 40 years. Bashir, the world's worst dictator, is actually a rather nice fellow by comparison to the former Turabi. This is the birthplace of Al Qaeda afterall. Have the ballplayers been writing letters all these years? LeBron's letter has as much to do with ameliorating any hardships in Darfur as eating my peas helped the starving people when I was little (in spite of what my mother told me). In fact, this argument is reminiscent of that one: "Eat your peas!" "I don't want to" "Well, then, you don't care about the starving people!"

Edited to add: It also reminds me of an old Chris Rock movie. "Candidate X didn't go to the anti-cancer rally. Candidate Y did attend. Obviously, candidate X is FOR CANCER!"

If characterizing a black man as a "slave" who has voluntarily sold himself into steppin' and fetchin' for The Man (er, "corporate pitchman") in order to make his lot in life easier isn't UncleTomming, then 'tis only because you still have enough of a sense of shame to refrain from using the actual term.

Then do something that will have a real affect about it, rather than useless handwringing.

I don't know whether or not James has misplaced his moral compass, but I think its pretty safe to say that he hasn't found yours. Perhaps he is a mere Uncle Tom unwilling to sacrifice his warm spot by the fire to help out his bruthahs in Africa. Perhaps he's honestly aware of his own lack of knowledge on this topic and is thus unwilling to lend his name in ignorance. Perhaps he has enough integrity to know that he's not willing to risk doing anything meaningful, so he'll refrain from empty gestures. Me, I'll just take what he's said about it himself (lack of knowledge) at face value. Anything else is mere speculation about both his motives, and his character, and as such is merely gossip.

Is this the old "violence never solves anything" saw raising its hoary head again? Sure looks like it.

Oddly enough, you, of all people here on , should be most appreciative of the fact that violence DOES solve some problems. Slavery was ended in the Western world by violence. William Wilberforce spent decades lobbying the British gov't to outlaw slavery. Yet, when he finally succeeded, it was primarily the Royal Navy that actually implemented Parliament's law, with extreme violence, not "awareness". The Holocaust was ended not by lobbying or letter writing, but by the combined power of the Allies. No genocide has ever been stopped save by violence or the perpetrators no longer being interested in pursuing it.

Lobby the government to do what? Put "pressure" on the Sudanese gov't? Already happening, they don't care because they don't believe our government will do squat! Do you honestly think that the Chinese gov't is going to do anything at all about the behavior of a semi-client state while occupying Tibet? Get real.

Btw, how many tens or hundreds of thousands of innocents will die while working through those 6 Steps? Will there be anybody left in Darfur to save by the time our feckless Congress gets around to doing anything?

Its often been said that to a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Methinks that BD's Corrolary may be useful here: To a man with a gift for gab, every problem looks like an opportunity to talk.

There is a time for talk talk, and a time for action. Why you would think that The Man is going to accomplish anything significant before its too late is beyond me. Real men don't write letters to the fire department politely asking the firefighters to please come by and rescue the people in the burning building, real men rush in and save the people. And yes, some real men are burned or die doing so...

After a positively putrid performance in a abysmally awful NBA Championship series, LeBron James will now have plenty of time to "inform" himself about the situation in Darfur. "King" James played more like "Queen" James and the Cadavaliers were totally overmatched.

As he's starting his summer vacation a bit early courtesy of being swept by the San Antonio Spurs, James might want to consider a recruiting trip to Africa. Maybe he can find a 7-footer who can box out, rebound and play some lockdown defense on guys like Tim Duncan and Tony Parker.

And if they can knock down a open jump shot so much the better.