them by saying one of the problems i had with the critique is that they failed to look at what was really going on in the market, and that applies to the study done by the columbia telecom think tank at columbia university. and what they are pointed out, and it is a big task, there will be two major investments involved in the networks over the next few years. one is to appeal seconds ago, cable company upgrades. the second is large phone companies upgrading the wireless networks to provide broad band of wireless. we know those things are going to happen. that is a profound change, probably the biggest change in

the last five years. what we do not know is, number one, how consumers respond. we pointed out in september, they are suddenly saying, hey, we released but the speed and we are going to move up to higher levels. cable is going to be a fabulous position. and then we will be the only provider of the generally expected broadbent. -- broadband. but it is just as possible that they will say we do not need higher speeds. we want mobility. so just will buy the slightly more expensive wireless level, but we are not that interested in the fix because we only need for megabits or five megabits. we do not know if that is going to happen, and it seems like a

profound thing. if you really do not know what is going to happen, the major surgery that those interest groups are proposing, which again, there is not much support for in the record and none in capitol hill, it have to wonder what looking at it as a practical matter, what the courts have done, if you have to ask if that is really on the table but the bigger thing is that it is not appropriate to be looking at those things when there is such uncertainty about the market. i think it is great that we have a market that is moving in a competitive dynamic. people are moving in different directions, and i think we have to wait and see what happens there. i do think that there are concerns about competition. i do not accept the criticism we are not doing anything about

it, and we need to let people know what kind of performance they are getting, what performance their neighbors are given. the spectrum initiative we have been working on, we do not know when wireless will be able to compete with wired. without it out there, though, the possibility of competition is none. and one thing that report did say is that no new fixed wired competitors are really on the horizon. so i think certain levels of concern are there. we are going to try and do all the things we think are positive, but while i have great respect for this to double organizations, i do not expect to accept the criticism as being useful at the time. >> our guest this week in blair

levin, the omnibus executive director who previously served as chief of staff to the sec chairman. our guest reporter is from the "wall street journal." >> one issue is because of the study, which the sec asked for. you say there is no support on the hill, but there was arguably not much support for net neutrality on some parts of the hill, either. >> it is -- >> it depends on the party. but when you talk about issues like this, it sounds like you're basically saying that from your perspective, open access is not an issue you think should be going down. >> that is not what i said. we asked for studies and gave complete and total editorial

freedom. we simply ask for input. we thought it was an important foundation for having a data- driven analytic record. they did a lot of things that are helpful to understanding what is going on, but it is fundamentally backwards looking. and we asked the columbia folks to be more forward-looking. on bundling, it covers eight wide spectrum of things. the court threw out certain kinds of things, but there are still some that are provided for in the wall. the large scale, let's come and go backwards to where we were in

2003, 2002, 2001. that is not practical, and the court decision definitely tied hands of the fcc. there's always a choice about whether you want to approach it, and we're trying to approach it in a way that is both visionary and practical. and the notion -- structure separation is where we have got to be heading.

at a lot of countries that the center covered, the telescope is really the major provider. here at the cable company and providing broadband. there are advantages and disadvantages to that. but that is where we are, and we plan on building a plant based on americans strengths and compensating for weaknesses. building where we are. >> basically is cable and phone companies moving forward, driving the next generation of broadbent, whether they may be doing to increase their speed, wherever we are going. tax credits or other things? >> i disagree with the promise,

because when you look at the broadband universe, you're just talking about networks. there is a function where there is competition. but what we see happening with the broader broadband system is a lot of innovation, job growth, application, those are being driven by other forces. probably the single biggest driver of growth is the iphone. it is bringing people to all kinds of uses. the demand is blowing up a huge lead. people are experiencing it in a completely different way than you experience. they were not really creating it

for broadband, and that is a stunning development. we are trying to make sure there is a better competitive dynamic. it is one device that has not seen the kind of innovation you have seen with computers or mobile devices. so that is one reason we are looking at that. we are saying this. we believe the record is very clear on this. in three or four years, our country will have a big problem with mobile broadband unless we act now to start making sure that there is more put into the

system. there are some broadcasters and that there is no evidence in the record, i did not know what they're looking at, but there is significant evidence that will occur. the consequences could be that the american mobile brought it experience -- broadband experience will be more expensive, and the service will be lousy year. when you consider the mobile platform is probably the most important platform for growth and job growth and investment in the next 10 years, this is a serious problem for the country. is a huge opportunity for america. we are extraordinarily good at applications. it is not an accident that apple and google and facebook are

here. this is a tremendous opportunity. but if we do not have the spectrum necessary to build that platform, all of that is going to go elsewhere and the great countries -- companies of the next decade will be somewhere else. that is the problem. so if you accept that, it seems clear, the question is, what do you do about it? you have the spectrum that is well-suited to alleviate the problem. we are not talking about taking away from broadcasters. we're talking about asking the question, can we create a mechanism so that as the importance of this becomes clear, we can have those broadcasters. they are using their spectrum

infrequently, if at all. almost 01 is using the entire 19.4 million bit of information stream. it is not happening. so it is an interesting debate. we're trying to figure out solutions. if they think it is worthwhile to keep all of theirs and are making a market-based decision, that is ok. others feel that it is not created over the air stream. 80% to 90% is being greeted by the transmission over cable and satellite. so the value is people tend to put it in a binary framework. we either have it or we are

dead, and that is not in it. businesses are always shifting the value of assets. as a country, the investment of this is possibly the most significant it makes. the value of assets that broadcasters control is an asset that belongs to people in the united states. the order of magnitude is 60 to $80 million. that investment was basically made 60 years ago at a different time. you have to ask yourself, is that the right way to be investing that asset?

the critical question is, 10 years from now do we want to be known as the television country with the best broadband country? we can be both, but if we do not get more into the system, we will not be the best mobile broadbent country, and i think that is really important for this country to aspire to. >> he seemed focused on the commercial spectrum when arguably there are some folks that are not as much either, with federal agents. why are you focusing so much on commercial with the government's right there? >> i have to disagree with the premise. it is true that the press in covering us have focused on that a lot of times, because we are

spending a lot of time working with government agencies in a much quieter way. what are market-based incentives that can help drive government officials to a more accurate assessment of spectrum? that is to say, if they are not really using it, they have to put it into some commercial plate, as well. it is just that those discussions tend to be quiet, whereas discussions with broadcasters tended to be more public. >> you probably could auction them off. . .

>> we have talked about spectrum and competition. there are a whole bunch of things we are looking at. for saving energy, had we improve adoption. we are dealing with a lot of questions. the question the specifics of how the fcc should address spectrum allocation. this is not a problem that is right in front of our face.

you have to start the process now. those questions should be addressed when you know what the market conditions are and how much spectrum your getting back. >> will we see a plan for public safety issues in spectrum? >> yes. >> when might we get more details about this plan? >> the public safety plan? >> the plan in general. >> even our critics have admitted this is the most open and transparent process the fcc has ever done. every month we have given benchmarks of where we are. it is the first-ever of stating where we are, stating what the problems are. i suspect that over the course of the month of january, people will hear a more granular version of ways for thinking

about solving the problems. that is where we have to leave it for now. i suspect in january there will be a lot of discussion about it. in february, we will release it. >> is february 17 still a firm date? >> yes. >> i hope you'll come back after february 17 and give us an update. thank you for being on "the communicators." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> next, exurbs from our documentary of the supreme court, home to america's highest court. also remarks from attorney

maureen mahoney. following that, a discussion on political trends and events that could shake 2010. also a former cia analyst on u.s. policy in afghanistan and pakistan. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," a discussion on u.s. foreign policy. after that, a look at president obama's achievements in his first year in office would stephen hess of the brookings institute. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> in the mid-

shipments as goods for family use, as a present that i thought i would send you. but if you go to the adams family correspondence, there's an illustration of one of the inventories of foods being sent over -- goods being sent over, the shipping list, and 87% by value of the goods being sent are not presents, it's bulk items that are obviously intended for resale. now, that's one of the mysteries that i have to admit i still haven't solved, why did he refer to these as for family use? was it not respectable for the wife of a diplomat to be in trade? that's possible. there were lots of women in boston who were merchants. if we get time in q&a, i'll tell you about a women's merchants coffee riot. maybe because it wasn't respectable, or maybe -- and this is the theory i went with in the book -- when a ship was captured by the enemy, it was

traditional to let the crew and the passengers keep their personal items. so maybe the reason john referred to these as for family use is maybe if they were captured, they wouldn't be seized. i'm not sure. but the reality is one of the early shipments that john sent abigail was captured, and he wrote his wife saying, burn my fingers, don't want to meddle in this anymore. but abigail wrote john back saying, look, it's true this is a dangerous business, but the very profit that makes it dangerous -- you know, this is rule britain ya. british warships pretty much controlled the atlantic, but the few ships that can run the blockade and get to boston, the people with goods on those ships can name their own price. to quote her, she said, if one in three arrives, i should be a gainer which i take as the 18th century version of you just don't get it, do you, john? [laughter]

but eventually he did get it, and he continued his shipments, and shipments had some fascinating influences on the relationship between this husband and this wife. they had been debating for some time and maybe there are couples in this room who have had this debate whether to buy a new vehicle, okay? some of you have. he wanted to wait, he was a good, frugal yankee new englander, she said it's so shabby, the old one, we've got to get a new. and the prices, of course, were up for these things even though they're made in massachusetts. don't you know there's a war on, as she was saying to her own clients and was being said to her, well, he sent her a shipment in 1780 of barcelona hander chis. they were a women's item, and they happened to the hit right in the middle of a terrible shortage of that particular item when they were at high fashion. she sold them for enough money to buy it, and what could john

say? she bought it with her own money. [laughter] in that same year, 1780, john adams had an idea. still in paris he says to abigail, maybe having had some of our shipments seized what i should do is instead of putting them in these big chests and shipping them across the atlantic, i'll dispurse them and ask everybody who goes from france to matts to take a little -- matts to take a little thing for you. that way we're spreading the risk. and he sent the first presents, he called it, with the marquee delafayette. you may know he went home every winter. the army's not fighting, no reason to stick around here. so he went home. when he came back in the spring of 1780, he brought some stuff for abigail to sell. and once again abigail wrote her husband saying, your will is law to me. if that's the way you want to do

it, that's what we'll do. but if you want to disburse your shipments like that, you're going to have to buy the items to send me retail, and you've got to buy wholesale, she said. [laughter] and she convinced him. and the remaining shipments came wholesale, and in fact pretty soon they got it rigged to where john wasn't involve inside the process at all. she wrote straight to am amsterdam and they sent the goods directly to her, and she did quite well. another source of income of hers and i hesitate to use that phrase because it was a long-term investment that didn't pay off during the war buzz vermont. was vermont. by the time the revolutionary war, the indians had been driven out of vermont, but it had not been thickly settled by europeans coming up from other colonies, so it was the wild frontier, a great place to the speculate in land because everybody knew it was eventually

going to be settled. but also a risky place to do that because, you know, new york claimed most of vermont as part of new york easter story, and new hampshire -- new york easter story and new hampshire claimed the rest. people like ethan allen at the same time they were fighting the british were also fighting new york and new hampshire to claim that land. and some of these vermont representatives came to abigail adams and said, wouldn't you like to buy, buy in early to some of this land in vermont on behalf of your husband? and she did. now, there was a limit to how many acres you could buy, but she bought one of these acres, one of these -- 530 acres, i think it was, she bought one on behalf of her husband and each of her four children. the only person on whose behalf she did not buy one of these plots was herself because she's a married woman, and married women can't control property.

but even her little daughter, let's see, how old was she? well, she was -- let's see, this is '78 so napby has not yet reached her 20th birthday. she's living at home, she got one as did her brothers. so abigail was a little worried about what john was going to think of this idea, and she wrote him saying i think you're going to think i'm vermont mad. [laughter] and he did, actually, he wrote her saying, don't meddle anymore with vermont. [laughter] and i thought initially that the story ended there, but it didn't because although she didn't buy any more tracts, she did keep pushing john to try to buy some more land in vermont. i told you that a married woman can't control property, there's one thing she can do. if she inherits land, she can prevent her husband from selling it. she has veto power on him selling her land, and abigail

had inherited a little land from her mom and said to john, i know you don't want this land, it was out in northboro, who cares about that. if you'll buy more land in vermont, i'll let you sell this land in northboro, so it's an example of her negotiating constantly with him. [laughter] not too unfamiliar to those of us who are married, but not exactly what you expect from a revolution era family. the third way that abigail made money for her husband was one that i stumbled across here while working at the massachusetts historical society reading -- i'd love to say it was in some obscure document. i was reading the adams' family correspondence that maggie hogan is the editor of, and she kept talking, abigail did, about notes. i want to buy some more notes. and i wasn't sure what she meant by notes, but it eventually became clear that what she was doing was speculating in

government securities. i think the best thing to call it would be junk bond dealer. [laughter] but let me give you a little bit of that back story. you know that nearly every war, including the two we're involved in now that our country is involved in, puts the country in debt. and that was especially true of our first four, first war. the continental army, george washington was not able to pay his men actual money. he basically paid them in promises. they got continental currency, so at the end the soldiers got something called final settlement certificates to settle up. these were often in pretty large denominations, and the soldiers got these bonds while they were still in the army camp, and they had to get home. the army in those days didn't even pay for your expenses to travel home. so some of these guys had no money, and you've got to buy food, so they would go out with these bonds to get real money

and nobody would give them face value for the bonds. in fact, they got the sometimes less than ten cents on the dollar, but i think a fair summary would be if you're selling one of these bonds to a speculator, you got 10% of its face value. there's one soldier, joseph martin, he just had to go from near west point on the hudson river home to connecticut, not a very far trip, but he says in his memoirs that he took all of the bonds that he was paid as a fighting in that revolutionary war, and he had been in the army for six years, he took all of his bonds and sold them and got not face value, he got just enough money to pay for a new suit of clothes to look something like myself when i arrived among my friends, as he put it, a new set of cliewting and his travel expenses home. that was his pay for his six years in the continental army. and then these soldiers get home and face incredibly high taxes, one of the main provokers of

shea's rebellion here in massachusetts because the state's government are levying taxes to redeem the war debt no longer in the hands of or shays and martin, but in the hands of speculators. so from a soldier's standpoint, this is a real ripoff, and that's why you get rebellions like that in most every state, most famous is the shay's rebellion here in mass. this is a very profitable investment. one of the early securities that abigail bought, she bought it at $100 bond for $25. $24. and the interest is 6% a year, but that 6% of the 100, right? she's getting $6 a year. and remember, her initial investment was $24. so put that six on top of the 24, she's making a 25% annual return on her investment.

john didn't like the idea when she first reported it to him. he didn't like speculators. they were a narrow, self-interested group who had both the means and the motivation to manipulate the government in their favor. and so he didn't, he was very cool to speculators, and he also had an alternative way to invest money, and that is land. remember, car let o'hara's father says, land, that's the only thing. he really deserves to be in that category because land, that was the only safe investment. the enemy can burn your farm, can burn the buildings on your farm, but they can't burn the land. and it's safer for the republic as well as for the person. he imagined himself as one of

these roman senators whose political independence was guaranteed by economic independence because he always had the option of returning to his land. and so that was part of his incorruptibility. abigail said that's all well and good, you make about 1% a year. if you take the rent and deduct the costs, you're making about 1% annual return on your investment with your land, and i'm making you 25%. [laughter] and eventually, he saw the wisdom of that, and he allowed her to make him even as he was denouncing bond speculation, he allowed her to make him a large-scale bond speculator. she sailed over to join john after the war in the summer of 1784, and there's a wonderful letter that he wrote in april of 1785 after abigail had joined him to his new business agent replacing abigail in massachusetts. and if you read the letter or,

he's got 200-pound sterling coming to him, and there's a farm that he really wants. and on the front of the letter he says to cotton the tufts, i want you to go ahead and buy this farm and just draw a bill of exchain on me -- exchange on me for 200 pounds sterling. that's what it says on the front. if you flip that same letter over to the back, you will see where john adams writes, eshooing what i have written to madam, she has made me sick. you will, therefore, take that 200 pounds steriling and buy me more bonds. she had convinced him in the middle of the letter, and i don't know what it was -- there's plenty of evidence that she edited her letters, and she apologized when things got out that she hadn't edited public statements and so forth. not all of his letters, but they talked about the process that he

would show his letters to her, so it's possible that that was it. although the image i want to have is that he's at his writing table, and abigail is walking by and looking over his shoulder and saying, you're not going to buy that place, are you? [laughter] in any event, she did convince him in the middle of that letter to not buy that farm but, instead, to buy more bonds. so, you see, she's doing these three things, she's in trade, she's buying vermont land, and she's speculating in depreciated government securities. and you can see my pet theory. my pet theory was as she achieved these successes, that would give her confidence. she already had a lot, but she'd have more after the war after she'd made all this money for her husband. so what i wanted to see as i looked at these two statements you have in the handout was that the 1782 letter would exude more confidence than the 1776 letter because by that time she's made a bunch of money for her

husband. and i have an exercise i like to do with my students, take two things that are superficially similar, two documents, compare them, find differences between them and explain the differences. and so i'd give this document to my students down at the university of richmond and say, can't you see how much more confident she is in the second letter? and they kind of go, no. and we had some quite wonderful debates. what do you think? has anybody got a chance to read it before we got started? which one do you think is the more confident of the two letters? you say the second one? that was my pet theory, but you can already tell that i'm going to have some issues with it. why do you say that? >> second paragraph, i'll take praise for myself, i feel it's my due. [laughter] >> yes. yeah. fair enough, fair enough. that's a reasonable conjecture.

who else, though, who thinks one or the other of these two documents shows greater confidence than the other? at some point one of my students had an idea which was imperative verbs indicate confidence, let's count 'em. and has anybody here had the time to count the imperative verbs in either of these two documents? how about the first one? how many do you get? we're going to disagree, and we won't do that all night. yes. you have four. how about next to him. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> anybody else get a count on the first one, the 1776 letter? >> seven. >> you have seven. now, there's something called the sub youngtive mandate, so you may be letting some of those get in there. i get five, you get four, we've got the range. how about in the second letter that she wrote in 1782 at the end of the revolutionary war?

how many have you got? raise your hand if you've made a count. she's not only raising her hand, she's giving us a number. can you guys see it? the number is zero. how many did you get? you got zero too. so remember my pet theory? as she had all this success she'd be more confident, and we'd see that even in her women's rights writings that she's making more bold demands, and the reality was just the opposite, that she's actually showing less confidence, at least on this issue than she had before. now, another student of mine pointed out later that there's a difference between confidence and hope, and it may be that her personal confidence is as high as it was before or even higher, but her hope is diminished. and that's why we're not seeing as many imperative verbs. and i bet you've got some theories about why her hope might have diminished between 1776 and 1782.

it's counterintuitive because that was the very period when the founding fathers wont the rev -- won the rev lure nation -- revolutionary war, right? but why would her hopefulness go down during that six-year period? raise your hand so i can count -- yes, ma'am. >> [inaudible] deprived of a voice in the legislation of why -- [inaudible] they didn't have the freedom of the men. >> right. of course, they didn't have that freedom in 1776 either, so what's changed in 1782 to make her less hopeful? yes. >> the revolution had ended and nothing hat changed. >> yeah. did everybody hear that? in march of 1776, independence is about to be declared, but it hasn't been yet. anything is possible. she wrote this, boston people will appreciate this, march 31, 1776, just a couple weeks after evacuation day, a holiday the

rest of us don't understand -- [laughter] but it is the day that the british evacuated boston. and in this same letter she talks about how the birds are chirping more sweetly than they ever had before, she's upbeat both about independence, she knows that's coming soon as you can see from her first sentence, and she knows they've just had this great victory. she's up in 1776, and i think you're right, i think she's down as the two of you said in 1782 because the founding fathers have won the revolutionary war, but the the founding mothers haven't. by this time every state, except new hampshire, had either revised or totally started anew and written a new constitution, and none of those states had given women the right to vote. except new jersey which did it by accident. because the british were overrunning new jersey in 1776, so they wrote the constitution very quick, and they forgot to leave women out. [laughter] and they fixed that when they were able to. and so the cement had hardened

by 1782, and the wall was there, and so women had been left out. so this is actually a problem for an author or because people don't want to hear sad stories. but i have, this is a sad story that she actually became less optimistic. she kept advocating women's rights, but, but i think i am persuaded that my pet theory was exactly the opposite of the truth, that she actually became less optimistic. but the story doesn't end there, and i'll ask you to flip over to the back side of that same sheet. and have a look at abigail adams' will. when i was writing this book, i came to the year 1816 which is two years before her death and ten years before her husband's death and came upon her will in the microfilm, and most of the biographers when they get to the will, okay, describe the

contents of the will and move on. and i almost moved on too. but looking at that will something troubled me, and you don't have to be able to read her handwriting which was never good and was even worse in 1816, two years before her death. you don't need to know the specifics to be able to read a word of the will, the very existence of the will, something's wrong here. and it reminded me of something that a little exchange i'd had with peter drummy who's the librarian here at the massachusetts historical society. abigail's will, her will, what's the main purpose of a will? >> [inaudible] >> to distribute property. she's distributing property in her will. what's wrong with that? >> [inaudible] >> yeah. people are saying it in different ways, so i'll summarize it, she's not supposed to have property. she's a married woman. her husband, john adams, is very

much alive and is going to outlive her dying on july 4, 1826. she, as a married woman, is supposed to own no personal property. sir, you could own -- i'm sorry, let me start with her. you could own a million dollars, madam, of property. of stock say. the second you marry this guy, you own nothing, and that million dollars is yours to dispose of as you please. so personal property as a married woman you have no right in those days to own any of. real estate i alluded to earlier, a woman could inherit real estate, but she couldn't control it, she couldn't sell it without her husband's permission, and he got all of the profit, all of the profit from it, the rent from the tenants, for instance. and so in essence she really didn't own the real estate either. married women couldn't own property. widows and single women had the same rights as men, but married women couldn't own property.

and yet here she was, she was doing it anyway. she left $5,000 worth of property, and that may not sound like a lot -- i'm a teacher, so it does sound like a lot to me. [laughter] but multiply it times 20 to get what that would have been like in 1816 dollars, roughly it's $100,000 that she was distributing of property that the law said she didn't own. and once i figured out the significance of her will, it sent me back to an exchange i'd had with peter on the last day of a trip to the mass historical society. i'd seen that there might be a receipt that john adams' business agent had signed for, accepting his federal bonds from the u.s. government because they were, eventually, redeemed at face value. so these people who bought them as low as ten cents on the dollar would pay back at, basically, a dollar on the

dollar, an enormous profit. and i knew that abigail bought a bunch of these bonds on behalf of her husband, and i wanted to see them being redeemed. so i e-mailed peter saying i think if you look at the coburn papers, you might find the documentation of john adams getting his bonds. and i got a wonderful e-mail from peter saying, i haven't found that receipt yet showing that john adams got these bonds, but i got one showing that abigail got bonds, would that interest you? [laughter] and it did. way back in 1781 she had taken some of the money that she had made for her husband in trade and some of the -- she'd already made some money there, some interest on her bond speculation on behalf of her husband -- she took some of that money, and as she put it in a letter to her husband in 1782, put it in the hands of a friend. a friend whom she conspicuously did not name, probably cotton tufts though.

and this little nut grew and grew because she was a risk taker, and she made more and more money. every time -- most of the interest that she made on her bonds she reinvested and bought more bonds with. but not all of it. and once i started to grant was raised to win at the highest level. >> what about being a professional did you teach grant? >> you don't win all the time. you get knocked down. the key is getting up. >> you may succeed, you may fail, but hopefully you did it with integrity. he is probably the most humble guy i know. >> i had to rush you to the

hospital, you get there, realized it's a staph up fix. >> fix. >> i'm grant hill. this is my life 365. >> to have the career that i had in college and to do what i was able to do, and winning championships, and, you know, honestly, no, i don't think i

of thought i would do that. i just wanted to go to college, i wanted to get a scholarship and play in the mcdonald's capital classic. that was my big goal back in 1985. you know, time, it really does fly, and, you know, slowly but surely you get older and. get the mileage on your body, and you look back, and it's just amazing to think that, you know, i came here almost 20 years ago, and wanted to be a part of something special. >> first time i saw grant, it was actually a five-star basketball camp, and watching him then at south lakes, i thought grant would be the guy that i would never have an opportunity to coach. >> growing up, i was a huge carolina fan. we figured, well, since we're in the area, we might as well go look and see duke, and

initially, one,s was underhelmed with cameron. it didn't really impress me a great deal. that was first and foremost, but i was overwhelmed with coach "k". >> brant to me was as perfect a kid and then a player and person as you could possibly get. as a superstar, i thought he would be as good as anybody who's played. >> how do you think grant grew at duke >> oh, he grew tremendously. he went into duke as a 17-year- old kid as you will, and came out with as a polished athlete that was very well prepared for the nba. >> had those four years of sort of the best years of your life, where you're sort of an adult, but you're not an adult. you don't have a lot of the responsibility from an adult, but you learn how to handle those responsibilities. >> i think now guys leave early, or guys don't even go to

school, and i had left after my junior year, i think i would have missed out on so much growth, i would have missed out on learning a great deal about coach "k" and learning about myself as well. >> i tried to take full advantage of him when i had him, because i wouldn't ever coach a guy like him again. he's really the most unique player in college that i've ever had an opportunity to coach, and he helped us win two national championships, and in his senior year, he put us on his back and got us to the national championship game, and he almost won a third national championship for us. >> that relationship really just coming together and forming a bond, and because of that, we have a strong relationship now, although different, strong. >> with the third pick in the 1994 nba draft, the detroit pistons select grant hill from

duke university. >> you get to the nba. you end up playing with jason kidd, go on a great run. they're tabbing you as the next michael jordan, and then, boom, the injuries hit. how was that whole process? >> things were -- you know, were good. a wonderful six years in detroit, you know, certainly i felt like i was improving. everything that you dreamed of as a kid, you know, sort of happened. you know, you had endorsements >> go to the hole with flail, quick and strong 37 -- with flair, quick and strong, play that d, be strong. >> you were entering those prime years, going to be your prime years, it was all coming together, and then bam, you

have an injury. >> i don't to know how he handled that as well psychologically as he did, because now you're at the cusp of greatness, sustained excellence equals greatness, you know, at that level, and now it's being taken away from you. >> it was tough. it was extremely tough, and i lost trust in my ability to stay healthy, you know, you start to question yourself, will i be able to resume my career? will i be able to withstand the rigors of an nba season, will i be able to wake up tomorrow and not be or so. these were things that weren't on my mind before, but certainly became a reality at that point. >> as a parent, you want for your kids, you want everything to be perfect. i mean, you understand that i didn't want him to hit a bad note, i wanted it to be perfect. this is a kid who had not been

injured, and then boom, and i guess he never questioned why me, when things were going well, and he never thought why me when things were going bad. i think everything was just a challenge. >> we injuries sort of take away your spirit, take away who you feel like you are, and so, you know, it's a physical process in terms of recovering, but it was more meantal and emotional, but, in saying that, you know, i had to sort of reach and dig in -- dig deep into myself and just find something there that i didn't know was there, because i had to fight. coming up on my life 365. >> so i called the doctor, and i'm, like, something is not right, he has fever, he's shaking, and he said well, shaking, and he said well, bring him to i touched the ball before it went out, coach. come on, alex, the ref did not call that!

i touched, it's their ball. don't foul them when they inbound. team! alex! good call.

i'm real proud of my way. it's amazing all that she does. whether it's with the children, or with me, with her career, you know, she's a businesswoman. i mean, she just runs the show, you know. and i don't know what i would do without her. >> he is one of, if not the -- probably the most humble guy i know. and, you know, it's incredible. it's not something that he just says. he walks the walk and talk this talk, and what you see is what you get. there isn't any smoke and mirrors. he's very even keel. >> take me back to the first time you met tamea?

>> 0, we met her at the olympics in 1996. grant was in the olympics, and she was there with him, they had been dating for a while. so we started going every night to the basketball game toes with her. >> it was great, because there were how many other thousands of people there? so actually it was fine, it was great. it wasn't like i was going to their home. think it was atlanta at the olympics, so it was the best way to -- it was easy. >> we got married in 1999, so we're 10 years being married, and, you know, part of your wedding vows are sick conditions and in health, and certainly we've tested that. >> take me through when you first gotth the call that grant was being rushed to the hospital with that staph infection. >> oh, that was horrible. my daughter-in-law called from orlando. it was about a week and a half after grant had had his fourth

surgery at duke. >> the scene itself wasn't as scary, because we didn't know what the deal was. you know, he had been taking medicine, he -- he wasn't feeling well, and the -- he had been spiking wait fever. >> he was apparently lying on the sofa in his den at home, and he went into shock. >> he was just, you know, shaking, i'm so cold, and i just thought he was -- >> being dramatic. >> yeah, just exaggerating, like are you really that cold? so i go and grab a thermometer, all digital, and i put it in his mouth, and i think it said like 103, 102, something, and i'm, like, he's, like, what did it say? same, like, i don't know, something is wrong with this one. let me go get another one. i got another one, and they keep getting higher and higher. so i called the doctor, and i'm, like, he's -- you know,

something is not right. he has fever, he's shaking. and he said, well, you know, bring him to me, bring him to the hospital. >> somehow, someway i got into the back seat of the car, and my wife was playing ambulance driver and driving me to the hospital. >> i wasn't quite sure where the hospital was. this was like a different hospital than i had the baby in, so i was, like, the hospital, okay. and so i had to ask him do you know -- where is the hospital? and and he's dehireious in the back, and i'm asking the dehireious guy for directions. >> funny store, i have my left leg on the console in between the seats, and my wife is driving, it's raining in orlando, and she's speeding, and all of a sudden she puts the breaks on. >> and his arm came around and just slappedmy across the face.

i thought i was gonna kill him. i stopped the car, and each, like, look, control yourself. you know, it stung, and how you want few fight just instantly? >> i had the presence of mind at that time to laugh at the moment. i don't think she was laughing. but we go to the hospital. we go to the wrong hospital. >> i said i'm here to see the doctor, and then realize i'm at the wrong hospital. so i put grant back in the car, and the people there are, like, ma'am, don't take him away, look at him, and i'm going they said --. >> i think what surprised us was the way they reacted when they saw us at the hospital. and i get into intensive care,

and there's 10 or 15 people in there, and they try to hold my arms down, and i felt this pressure on my chest, like somebody had hundred-pound weights on my chest, and at that point the time, that was the first time i was really scared. i thought, you know, wow, this could be it. >> i realized it was serious. you know, they started asking me had he taken anything, could he have o.d.ed, because he was havingiouses and things like that. it was honestly like when we got to the hospital, it got really bad. >> she was hysterical, so i turned to my his band and said you have to do something. grant is not going to die from playing basketball. >> i think one of the worst tragedies that a parent can experience is to bury their child or think that their child is dying. >> calvin is very good in an athletic crisis, and he stepped

up and flew down to florida. grant's doctors at duke had the doctor at the hospital there who was really just trying to keep him alive, you know, but not dealing with this open cast, if you will, on his foot, to take a picture of the insuggestion, and it looked a little black and blow. so the doctor got on the phone and said you bring him to duke university today. >> well, when i heard staph infection, at duke we have one of the best medical facilities in the world. that's an enemy that can kill you. >> we recognized what had gone on with his hardware in the wound and the wound opened. and that infection could have gotten into his bone and never been able to get rid of it, and that not only is potentially threatening at that time, but forever. >> that is probably the only time to that i lost it, if you will, because i thought that he

wasn't going to recover, and if they didn't get this surgery done and do it the way they knew they had to do it to save his life, that's what i was most interested in, notth saving his career. that was very secondary for me. >> his injury was a stress fracture of the inside part of the ankle here. now, that bone right there broke. that wasn't even described in to medical literature until 1975 as an injury. it wasn't recognized until 1988 as something that was really hard to heal. what i recognized is that the alignment of the leg is what was contributing to the fact that it wasn't healing. in other words, if you take a line and go from your hip, to knee, to ankle, it should be pretty straight, and grant's wasn't. his was way, way off, so he was seeing too much stress going up the side of his leg, and so what i proposed for him that no one else proposed if we break your leg and correct that malalignment, besidessed taking

care of the fracture, we can get this to heal, and that was the theory. >> when i came back to have the surgery, one, to come back to doctors who i knew when i was in school, and doctors who really just care about me getting healthy, they don't care about getting me back for the start of next season, or getting me back by the all-star game, all they want is to make sure that grant hill is healthy, and that's all they care about. >> coming up. >> i wasn't feeling well, was tired, very tired, and i ended up going to -- we got back, and i ended up going to the hospitititititititititititititit

i was working on going on tour, and i was working. i mean, i think everybody sort of lives in a state of being tired, so it's hard to know when you are -- or if you are tired -- more tired than the average person, you know, because everyone's tired. so, you know, i just thought i just need more rest. >> now, he's on his road to recovery, and he tells us you guys go on a vacation. >> it was actually our first time that we went on vacation in, i thinking, like three years that he wasn't on crutches. >> at some time during that vacation, you come to him. >> right, and i just wasn't feeling well, and i hadn't been feeling quite well for a while, but i wasn't, you know, feeling well. i was tired, very tired. >> as we were coming back from that vacation, we're filling out immigration forms, and my wife couldn't fill it out, because her fingers, there was

sort of a pins and needles sensation in her fingers. >> ended up going to the hospital, and i had all kinds of tests. i think i was there for like a week, and i had all kinds of tests, and they decided that, or they discovered that i had multiple sclerosis. >> it's like you're just hit with a ton of bricks. when something happens to you, as scary as the staph infection was, you can deal with it, but when it happens to a loved one, and the whole label of ms. >> from that point grant said we're getting a second opinion, and we're going to duke. so we went to duke, and where they confirmed, and so, you know, it was quite -- you know, it was crazy. it was just a crazy time. >> i mean, she was very emotional, we both were, but then, you know, i think -- i think she realized look, i want to live, you know, i want to live, and i guess initial through you want to get as much

information as you can. and what you find out is that there are a lot of people who have it. a lot of people who have ms, and a lot of people who are doing okay and are surviving, and are living active lifestyles and raising families and doing all of those types of thing. >> been very strong for him. similarly, he has for her. she has a potentially debilitating illness that she definitely has, but has itth very controlled right now, and a lot -- i think it feeds into, as i said, his diet and his taking care of himself. they both take excellent physical care of themselves, and they support each other in that. >> during those times, you need someone who is a fighter beside you, and he's that for me, for sure. and, you know, it's what marriage is, though, ups and downs, and maybe not such high highs for a lot of people in

our relationships, and maybe not such low lows, but it's like a roller coaster, you just ride it, you know. >> all that we've gone through, it's made us stronger, you know. it's made us stronger, it's made us closer. we certainly have leaned on each other. it's -- we've cried with each other, we've been honest and real, and we've sort of poured out emotions to one another, and, you know, i just -- i don't know if -- i don't know if that would happen if i hadn't gotten hurt, what she hadn't discovered or found out she had ms. if this any silver lining or blessing out of all of it is that we're a strong family, and we don't want to go through anymore, but, you know, it's life. everybody has something.

>> art is sort of a snapshot or a photograph through the eyes of the artist, and we've come a long way, we have an african- american president now. certainly we still have a long way to go.

your wife, your home, did that influence your art? >> certainly, certainly. especially with my mom. she's a very strong personality, and strong influence, my grandmothers, my dad, my mom's mother, and then of course my wife. and so i appreciate that, and i appreciate that in our race, and i appreciate, you know, the way artists have been able to, you know, portray women, and in the art that i have. >> where did his love of art come from? >> i think it came from his dad. i'm not a collector, but his dad has collected art from to

over 30 years, and calvin has an effect electric, what we calls -- eclectic collection, and grants focused on african- american artists. >> i guess his first two years he lived on campus, his third year they were allowed to live off campus. he got an apartment, and i went down to his apartment, and sure enough he was buying art. and so i realized through osmosis, or whatever, it was starting to camp on, and as it turned out, he developed a real appreciation and love for african to american artists. >> i would say art is sort of a snapshot or photograph through the eyes of the artists, and we've come a long way, we have an african-american president now. certainly we still have a long way to go. but it's a reminder to me of what we've been through.

>> giving back has been important to you, and looking at the charities and the organizations that you've been involved with giving back to, children appear to have struck a cord with you. >> right, right, definitely they have, you know. i think there's a couple of things. one, my parents. you know, and understanding that with great ability comes great responsibility, and that was something that they stressed to me. just is understanding that there are people who have paveed the way, people who have made sacrifices for me, for them as a family, and anyone in a position to go out and help others. so learning those lessons. coming here to duke, actually, of all things, and doing things here in the community, and the basketball program really stressing getting out and not just taking from the community, but giving back. >> he very willingly has support is add number of

charities. i would say especially special olympics, habitat for humanity, of course duke university where he went to school. there is something called the grant and tamea hill foundation. they put their own after-tax money into the foundation, and that's what they give away. >> if you're in a certain position where you can, you should. you can't do it for everyone, but when you can help someone, or help an organization get their name out there, or whatever it is, it's not that hard, actually, to do it, if you feel convicted to do it. >> how do you want to be remembered? >> wow. i may not have been the best, i may not have done all that you can do, you know, you may not -- you may succeed, you may fail, but hopefully you did it with integrity. you did it the right way.

i don't know where this journey goes. i'm not going to play forever, and i have a lot of interest in and things to do, and a lot of life to live, but the thing i'm proud of, and hopefully people can take away from what i've tried to do is just doing things the right way, and that, to me, is -- you know, is important, and that to me is hopefully -- hopefully people will remember that, you know, remember that more than anything, you know, besides my ears. >> he understands that it's not about him. he's a part of a society, and soar respective of what he's done, there's a responsibility to be a part of society, and not just to take, but to give. >> you know, all the championships, all of the all- star games, you know, the commercials, all of the south africa, an 8-year-old boy picked up the game of golf from his father.

by the age of 9, he was already outplaying him. the odds of this gentle lad winning the junior world golf championships at the age of 14? 1 in 16 million. the odds of that same boy then making it to the u.s. and european pro-golf tours? 1 in 7 million. the odds of the "big easy" winning the open championship once and the u.s. open championship twice? 1 in 780 million. the odds of this professional golfer having a child diagnosed with autism? 1 in 150. ernie els encourages you to learn the signs of autism at autismspeaks.org. early diagnosis can make a lifetime of difference.