a huge sigh of relief

If you haven't heard, Jill Carroll was released today. Carroll, a 28-year old freelance journalist who had been held hostage in Iraq for three months. As I've written here in the past, I actually have a distant personal connection with Carroll—she worked at the UMASS student paper with my co-worker Brett, and they knew each other pretty well.

Instead of using this as another opportunity to criticize the war or its management, because I'm in a celebratory mood I’ll take the low road and wonder: what do you say to an acquaintance who was recently released from captivity? I’d think it’s only polite to recognize this somehow, maybe by sending a card. Unfortunately, the local Hallmark store probably doesn’t have a “Released From Captivity in Iraq” section, but if they did, here’s an idea for a card:

“Knock knock!”
“Who’s there?”
“Boo.”
“Boo who?”
“Don’t cry! You were released from captivity in Iraq!”

(I guess that one would go in the “Released From Captivity in Iraq—Humor” sub-category.)

I’m also wondering what her next big family party will be like; there will almost certainly be that one distant relative who, after a few beers, will ask, “Hey, you’re still working for that paper, right? How’s that going?” She would, of course, probably do the right thing and point out that she hasn’t been at that job since she was held captive in Iraq, but if it were me, I’d nod and say, “Well, you know, could be better. Work is work.” On the upside, at least that would be a change of pace from having to have the same conversation about the experience with an acquaintance for the hundredth time, because we all know what that’s like.

quote board

LSU's Glen "Big Baby" Davis:

"Big Baby got to say something: We've still got tapeworms in our bellies. We're still hungry."

First off, I love that he speaks of himself in third person, especially when it involves the best new sports nickname in years. But is there maybe a better way to express your team's desire to do well in the Final Four than by evoking tapeworms? What's next, STD anaologies? (Perhaps: "We were so hot out there that we were pissing fire, like we had a bad case of gonhorrea.")

And here's David Lee of the Knicks, talking about his current team and the team he played for last year, the Final Four-bound University of Florida.

"We play 82 games and they played 35 or something, and they've won more games then us."

Sadly, not only is this not hyperbole, but it's not even close: the Gators have 31 wins this year, the Knicks just 20.

Stay strong, Knicks fans, there's always next year.

an early look at 2008

Anne E. Kornblut and Raymond Hernandez write in today's N.Y. Times about how Hillary Clinton is attempting to bolster her national credentials with a dominant win in the 2006 Senatorial race. Much like how Bush set up his 2000 campaign with a strong win that included solid support from Hispanics, Hillary has her sights set on gaining bragging rights by claiming a solid percentage of the state's conservative voters.

Polling data strongly suggests that Mrs. Clinton has managed to pick up what would have once seemed like unlikely support across the state, and not simply because she is running without formidable opposition... Upstate, her approval rating jumped to 56 percent from 36 percent [since 2001], while in the suburbs of New York City, it grew to 55 percent from 28 percent.

Why the jump? Here's one analyst's (upstate political hack Timothy Regan, as quoted in the Times article) surprisingly practical answer:

She had become "incredibly popular," by securing appropriations and other funding for the community and by responding to questions and complaints.

Is politics ever that simple? Maybe. Don't forget the old cliche, all politics is local politics. But how will that play out on a national level in two years? It's already—or should I say, at the moment—practically a given that Mrs. Clinton will be the Democratic nominee in '08. Republican leaders are salivating at this prospect, but what about Democrats?

In other words, can Hillary really win this thing? For a while, I was dead set against her potential nomination. We need some new blood, I thought. She's too divisive. Too many ways Republicans can smear her. Even for her supporters, she's not an overwhelming speaker or a truly exciting candidate—let's face it, she's not half as charismatic as her husband.

That said, I'm warming to the idea. One thing about Hillary: I'm confident that she's a couple of steps ahead of all of the pundits. I don't know if she'd be this eager to run if all she saw were her national disapproval numbers. True, something like 40 percent of the country still hates her. But she wasn't going to get those votes anyway. At least that many people hated Bush in 2004, and look how that worked out.

To be clear, I'm not saying this won't present a challenge, but elections are won and lost by the moderates, the undecideds. It's a given that core Democratic constituencies will support the candidate, even if she has been moving to the right. If Clinton has moved far enough to the middle to be attractive to red state soccer moms who might quietly be excited about the prospect of a woman in the Oval Office, she could have a real shot.

It's too early to say how she would stack up to potential alternative nominees. I'd take her over Kerry or Gore in a second--they can't take enough showers to wash off the stink of failure after blowing the elections in 2000 and 2004. Edwards? He was exciting for a moment, but couldn't find a second act. Dean? His moment also seems to have passed. Barack? Interesting choice, but it might be too soon. Obviously there will be other nominees, and it's very possible that Hillary's greatest challenge will come from someone like Governor Mark Warner of Virginia.

For now, though, we've got Hillary. And we'll continue to talking ourselves into believing, because that's better than the alternative.

taking a slice out of crime

Here's a story that defies any rational explanation (no, it's not another piece about Bush). A Chicago man cut off his own penis and threw it at police officers.

It seems like there should be a joke here, but I'm at a loss, this is just too weird. What do you think the look on the police officers' faces was like? Does the Police Academy train you for things like that? How do you threaten someone who's willing to cut his own penis off?!

the floodgates have opened

ESPN's Marc Stein takes his own shots at Larry Brown here. An excerpt:

Ten extra wins. That's what I thought Larry Brown's coaching would do instantly for the Knicks, no matter who his players were … Disappointing, then, doesn't even begin to describe this nightmarish Year 1 for Larry in his Dream Job. Wearing on his players with negativity, in private and via the media, is a staple of Brown's many stops, but so is immediate improvement. Nothing has happened instantly for these Knicks apart from the deterioration of Brown's relationship with Stephon Marbury -- yes, it's been even faster than expected -- and a nosedive so dramatic that they've unseated the Los Angeles Clippers as the NBA's foremost punching bag.

Stein has an interesting point about where the Knicks should go from here with the GM job, once Zeke gets the inevitable don't-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-way-out treatment.

History, remember, tells us that Larry's only lasting NBA successes came alongside a management heavyweight to A) mediate the coach's inevitable disputes with players and B) prevent the famously fickle coach from acting on his perpetual trade impulses. Donnie Walsh in Indiana. Pat Croce in Philadelphia. Joe Dumars in Detroit.

Here's a question for you: do Knicks ownership see the big-money Brown signing as a mistake? I would … I mean, "credibility" only goes so far; at some point you have to actually win a few games.

Simmons steals my material!

The ever-wise, always funny Bill Simmons of espn.com has resorted to a new low--stealing my material. (Well, okay, to be fair, he's probably never read my site, but what he wrote in his latest column does sound a little familiar.) In a run-down of the title hopes of every NBA team, Simmons wrote this about the Knicks:

You can't do a worse job coaching an NBA team than Larry Brown did with the Knicks this year. It's impossible. Condescending, inexplicable, unfriendly, haphazard, rambling, incoherent, unprepared, overcritical, self-defeating, depressing, unrealistic ... really, pick any negative word or phrase for a coach and it probably fits. This current Knicks team was poorly conceived, but it also wasn't a 20-win team. Brown botched the 2004 Olympics beyond belief, he screwed up the 2005 Pistons with all the Cleveland rumors, and he's destroyed the 2006 Knicks to the point it's turning into a "24" episode. These are the facts.

It's about time Brown takes some hits for the horrendous job he's done this season... honestly, he's lucky he has disasters like "Starbury" and Isiah around to absorb all the blame.

food for thought

Wondering why Bush has gotten so sloppy in his second term? Read this for the best take yet on why Bush may be sleep-walking through his second term: Slate's Bruce Reed blogs that Ambien is to blame.

Better lock up the hamburger buns...

a hunger for perfection

As Julie Bosman writes in the N.Y. Times:

This year Papa John's has promised that if anyone correctly predicts all 63 tournament games, the pizza company will give away one million pizzas, to be divided equally among all entrants on the Sporting News Web site. (The winner also receives a lifetime subscription to The Sporting News magazine.)

If the numbers in my post yesterday are correct, one million pizzas doesn't quite stack up, considering the odds of winning. When they're offering a billion pizzas, let me know.

As a side note, how exactly does Papa John's plan to deliver this award? Who could eat that much pizza? Is this award transferrable somehow? Can the winner donate the pies to the Red Cross for use in worldwide relief efforts?

Meanwhile, things with the Knicks have somehow managed to go even further downhill. Here's Stephon Marbury on Larry Brown:

"He's basically speaking on things that he's done. I think the people in New York want to know what he's going to do, as far as us winning. What happened in the past is in the past."

"I'm no longer going to allow him to say things about me and not say anything back. I allowed him to drag me the first three or four months in the paper. And I didn't say one word. I just sat back and just took it. But I'm not taking it no more. So if something's going to be said, I'm going to defend myself. My mother taught me that. Somebody hits, you hit them back."

Brown fired back:

"I'll take full responsibility for us winning 17 games and losing 45. You're the best guard in the league, and the team's 17-45 — yeah, it's the coach's fault."

OK, look, Marbury (or "Starbury," as he sometimes calls himself) is an idiot. Brown obviously has a track records that demands respect and credibility, and Marbury doesn't; he's been a pain in the ass everywhere he's gone. Marbury is not going to win this war in the media, and will be increasingly alienated from his few remaining fans. The Knicks should do everything they can to trade him this offseason, and I'm sure they will—though moving Stephon's $60 million contract may be about as likely as Marbury and Brown vacationing together this summer.

But as much as I blame Marbury... it bothers me that the media has essentially given Brown a free pass here. Why can't Brown take the high road and sit down with Marbury and clear the air? Yes, Marbury is a spoiled and deluded who thinks the world revolves around him, but shouldn't Brown be above that? Why is he firing back through the media, when there are quieter and more effective ways of dealing with this type of situation?

Imagine for a second that Gary Sheffield came out and criticized Joe Torre to the media after the game. Is there any chance at all that A) Torre would fire back at Sheffield to the press, and B) this wouldn't be resolved within a day or two, after a closed-door meeting between Sheffield and Torre? Neither of those things would ever happen, because Torre would always take the high road, and do everything he could to cool down the story while attempting to resolve the situation with his player.

And about that 17-45 record (now 18-45, after a win last night) Brown mentioned. Maybe it doesn't ALL fall on the coach's shoulders, but if Larry Brown was anyone else, wouldn't there be more rumblings about him losing his job by now? It's a coach's job to take what he has and shape it into a winning formula. Coaching the Knicks this season wasn't going to be easy for anyone, but honestly, it's hard to see this season as anything but a worst case scenario. Before the season, there was skepticism toward the team, but enough talent on hand that many observers thought they had a decent chance at a .500 record and a playoff berth.

Much of that somewhat sunny forecast was because Brown was here, and things were looking up. Maybe we all gave Brown too much credit.

poo-pooing your perfect bracket dreams

It's that time of year: NCAA brackets are probably going around your office as I write this, and there's a good chance you've either just finished filling one out or are working on your final draft. Before you get too excited about your chances of getting a perfect bracket, read this heartbreaker from blogger The Mighty MJD:

http://www.themightymjd.com/2005/03/final-four-is-locked-in.html

And just because I wanted to mention it somewhere... do you know what your chances were of filling out an actual perfect bracket, with every game right? According to computer programmer Brannon Shadrick, your odds are 1 in 9,223,372,036,854,775,808. That's more than 9.2 quintillion. Just as a point of reference... there aren't that many pubic hairs in the world. Not even close. Not even if you count all the ones that have been shaved. That is not a fathomable number. Your odds of filling out a perfect bracket are worse than your odds of winning the lottery, being struck by lightning, and being bitten by a shark, all in the same day.

This begs the obvious question... who counted all those pubic hairs? And how do you calculate the odds of being bitten by a shark?

For more sports-related weirdness, check this out (thanks to Armak for the link). It's a list of some of the best names in sports—though I don't see how they missed Stubby Clapp and Coco Crisp.

http://www.chortler.com/22399sports.shtml

political face painting

Yes, I'm a sports fan, but I've never been a face painter. My rooting only goes so far, and stops somewhere short of applying paint to my face and chest to match the colors of my favorite team.

This week, face painting took on a whole new meaning. At the World Baseball Classic, 10 fans at last night's Cuba-Dominican Republic game each wrote a letter on their shirt that, taken together, spelled "Down With Fidel" in Spanish. During the game, an airplane flew over the stadium carrying the same message.

Jack Curry quoted the fans in today's N.Y. Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/sports/baseball/14cuba.html):

"We feel Cuba should change," said Alfred Melero, another Cuban who lives here. "Cuba should be free. The players should have rights. They should have the right to play anywhere they want, like the Dominicans and the Venezuelans."

"We want down with Fidel," said Carlos Leal, one of the protesters. "This is a good opportunity to show the world that we want free elections in Cuba, the same thing as in the U.S."

The Cubans have always taken pride in their baseball program, doing well in international competition against amateurs from other countries. But against pro competition, Cuba has struggled on the field in the inaugural WBC, losing by combined 19-5 score to Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. For all the talk and secrecy about Cuban baseball, once it got out in the light of day, the team's flaws were exposed.

You could say the same for Castro's government. By playing in a high profile competition on an equal footing against the rest of the world, Cuba has opened itself up for this kind of criticism. Baseball has already been something of a democratizing influence in Cuba, with high profile Cuban players embarrassing Castro by jumping ship (literally) to come face greater baseball challenges and live a better life here in the states. For the Cuban people, this is a reminder that maybe the grass is greener on the other side; facing the reality of internationalization in one arena (or ballpark) may help Cubans realize that further internationalization can only be a good thing. In the WBC, a Cuban loss may be more valuable than a win, because it can show the country that it still has a long way to go.

Baseball isn't everything, but in a small way it has convinced Cuba to open its door to the world. And every time you open that door, it gets tougher to close.

where it's at

Like most New Yorkers, I've become obsessed with real estate. Where is it, how big, how much is it are more than passing questions; in a city this crowded and desirable and flat out expensive those questions are practically life or death. (Or more precisely, life or New Jersey.) Anywhere else, it would be rude to ask about rent when walking into an acquaintance's apartment. Here, "What's the rent?" is more than expected, it's practically a lapse of etiquette if you don't ask. As David Sedaris once put it, and I'm paraphrasing, "In most of the country, couples remain married for the sake of the children. In New York City, they stay together for the apartment."

Even though I'm happy in my current apartment--I celebrated my fourth anniversary here a couple of weeks ago--Just this past weekend, I considered checking out two open houses in my building, and was strangely intrigued by a report of a friend-of-a-friend who looked at a 2BR co-op in Queens (within a short commuting range) for $200,000. A two bedroom apartment in my neighborhood, or most of the rest of Manhattan, goes for about four times that price, and even though I don't need the space that badly, it's tempting to know that I could afford it if I want.

Anyway, I mention all of this by way of introduction to this fascinating article in today's N.Y. Times. It looks at why people like and feel comfortable in certain apartments, what makes a house a home, etc. Like most things psychological, a lot of it supposedly relates to childhood memories (we either want a place that reminds us or where we grew up, or a place that's completely different from that) and also to personal identity. Again, maybe it's a New York thing, but I thought this was really interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/realestate/12cov.html?pagewanted=1

Kareem in the house

This just happened, so maybe I'm more excited than I should be.

Working through lunch about an hour ago, rumors started to circulate through my office that Kareem Abdul Jabbar was in our conference room. My company is involved in sports marketing so it wasn't completely implausible, but seriously? Kareem?

Several of us debated whether it would be appropriate to ask for an autograph, if he is indeed here. We decided not to do that.

I ran down to get a sandwich and on the way back up, I'm downstairs waiting for the elevator, standing next to some other random dude. The elevator doors open and I make eye contact wiht a woman who's maybe 5-5, then notice that her head only goes halfway up the chest of the man she's standing next to. It's Kareem, of course. It's weird to see someone that tall in person, he's a giant. Even if he wasn't a celebrity, he would draw looks just because of his height. Yet somehow, the man standing next to me walked past Kareem into the elevator without batting an eye. That's life in the city.

In other news, one minor league baseball team may have just invented the perfect burger. Read about it here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2362369

pimp Jack Abramoff's ride

Jack Abramoff likes his custom cars. An article in today's N.Y. Times by Glen Justice describes Abramoff's 2002 BMW 745il with $48,000 worth of custom work—including $20,000 for a custom-built flip-down video monitor. (Doesn't sound very fiscally conservative, if you ask me.) The law-and-order Republican also paid a fortune for a state-of-the-art radar detector that was etched into the rearview mirror.

Too bad a radar detector won't be enough to protect him from his current legal hurdles.

Philip Shehon writes for today's N.Y. Times that there's new evidence that Abramoff arranged a meeting between one of his clients and the President in exchange for a $25,000 donation to a conservative lobbying group. There's even a photo of Bush greeting Abramoff's client—with Abramoff standing in the background.

It wasn't a private meeting, and Bush's people claim that there was no lobbying at the meeting (needless to say, that's a tough statement to prove). Regardless, it makes it impossible for the President to credibly say he's never met Abramoff, and more than tangentially ties Bush's good name to this scandal.

Abramoff, meanwhile, isn't exactly ducking from the spotlight. He inexplicably gave an interview to Vanity Fair in which he—somehow—tries to spin himself as a victim here.

From a Reuters article quoting upcoming Vanity Fair article:

"Any important Republican who comes out and says they didn't know me is almost certainly lying." E-mail messages and other subpoenaed records will eventually prove that he worked closely with them, he said.

The magazine features photographs of Mr. Abramoff with Representative Tom DeLay, former Representative Newt Gingrich and President Ronald Reagan.

Later in the article:

"You're really no one in this town until you haven't met me," he said.

Abramoff said he already agreed with Tom DeLay about politics, so when they would meet they'd talk about other stuff.

"We would sit and talk about the Bible," he said. "We would sit and talk about opera."

One hopes that Abramoff learned something here: you never know who your real friends are. All it takes is a little thing like a wide-ranging corruption scandal reaches the Oval Office, and suddenly no one wants to hang out and talk about the burning issues of the day—like the Bible or hot new opera records or the latest in custom car work.

giving 110 percent

Does this seem fair to you? Athletes are constantly criticized for not caring enough about what they do. Players are accused of being overpaid, of not trying, not caring. (One need look no further than this year's Knicks squad to find plenty of examples of players who fit this mold.) Fans and the press expect our star athletes to give everything they have; it's not enough for them to be good, we want them to be great. Even more, we don't want it to be easy, casual greatness. We want them to want to be great.

Barry Bonds wanted to be great as much as any athlete ever has. He was already a probable Hall of Famer in 1998 when he allegedly began taking steroids. He didn't just dip his toes in the water either--he soon became a walking pharmacy, taking up to 20 pills at a time (when he wasn't injecting himself in the ass). He took drugs that change the shape of your body, lead to violent mood swings, and cause sexual disfunction. He committed perjury and evaded the IRS. And he risked ruining his Hall of Fame credentials. All of this to give the fans a better product. Yet somehow, Bonds is criticized for this.

But seriously, folks... (I had you going for a second, didn't I?)

This is an ugly, ugly story, maybe even as ugly as Bonds's misshapen head. This may be an odd reaction for someone with a background in journalish, but I wish this story hadn't come out. Isn't it enough to know with near certainty that Bonds's record setting numbers were fueled by something stronger than Gatorade? Do we really need to know all the details?

Major League Baseball is now painted into a corner. The league can't ignore this firestorm, but what to do? In the short term, Bonds—as unpopular as he is, and he's always been unpopular—is a huge gate attraction. Without his bat in the lineup, the Giants will struggle to sell tickets at home, and on the road. With Bonds, his team is one of the top drawing teams on the road every season. Here in New York, for example, the Mets' games against the Giants are among only a handful of games deemed special enough for the team to charge a premium on tickets. Fans here pay more to see Bonds than they will to see the Phillies or Padres. Bud Selig works for the owners. Will he really have the guts to ban Bonds from the game? Will his bosses allow him to do that?

Farther down the road, Bonds could wind up banned from appearing in the Hall of Fame, and written out of the history books in one way or another. Maybe his records will get an asterisk, like Roger Maris. But if you go that route, how can you single out Bonds and ignore steroid use by Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and other players of this era? Does baseball really want to strike every player who's been associated with steroid use—including many of the most prominent players over the last 15 years—from the history of the game? Even if we dismiss Bonds, can we actually dismiss the McGwire/Sosa home run race in 1998?

On the other hand, you can't just pretend this didn't happen, right? And surely the consequences of Bonds's actions need to be severe. Suspending him for a little while and fining him won't cut it for most fans, who want blood.

While Bud Selig and company are busy trying to sort this out, he does have one reason to smile. If Bonds exemplifies everything that is wrong with the game, the World Baseball Classic—nearly written off by critics before it began as an overhyped, poorly thought out exhibition—has been a shining reminder that this game can be great. The players universally seem to be having a lot of fun, and playing with pride (yes, I say this even in light of the US team's baffling loss to Canada yesterday). Everyone involved with the Dominican Republic/Venezuela matchup a couple of days ago said it was one of the more electric games they had ever been a part of—and this was just an opening round game. Sure, there are a few teams that are just filler (Netherlands? South Africa?!) but most of the teams have legit talent, and some of the potential matchups are thrilling. Could the Dominican Republic's All-Star lineup beat the best of the Japan League? How about a US/Cuba final—am I crazy, or would that be a gigantic event? All of this during a time of year when we're used to watching our favorite players shape up by getting a couple of at-bats in meaningless split-squad games.

It's been a big week for MLB. Here's to hoping it's remembered more for the launch of the WBC than for Bonds, who will forever be remembered as a player who had everything and decided that wasn't enough.

Crash fever: catch it!

http://theenvelope.latimes.com/awards/oscars/env-turan5mar05,0,5359042.story

Kenneth Turan of the L.A. Times wrote a great column, echoing much of what I've been writing about Crash and Brokeback. Here's a few excerpts:

Sometimes you win by losing, and nothing has proved what a powerful, taboo-breaking, necessary film "Brokeback Mountain" was more than its loss Sunday night to "Crash" in the Oscar best picture category.

And later...

In the privacy of the voting booth, as many political candidates who've led in polls only to lose elections have found out, people are free to act out the unspoken fears and unconscious prejudices that they would never breathe to another soul, or, likely, acknowledge to themselves. And at least this year, that acting out doomed "Brokeback Mountain."

Turan and I also agree about Crash.

I don't care how much trouble "Crash" had getting financing or getting people on board, the reality of this film, the reason it won the best picture Oscar, is that it is, at its core, a standard Hollywood movie, as manipulative and unrealistic as the day is long. And something more.

For "Crash's" biggest asset is its ability to give people a carload of those standard Hollywood satisfactions but make them think they are seeing something groundbreaking and daring. It is, in some ways, a feel-good film about racism, a film you could see and feel like a better person, a film that could make you believe that you had done your moral duty and examined your soul when in fact you were just getting your buttons pushed and your preconceptions reconfirmed.

Also writing for the L.A. Times, James Bates takes a clear-headed look at Crash's Oscar campaign, which smartly focused on L.A. actors.

http://theenvelope.latimes.com/columnists/insider/env-screenscrash7mar07,0,5184709.column?coll=env-home-headlines

On a lighter note, Defamer.com has lots of amusing commentary (and pictures) including this:

Once Jack Nicholson cracked the Seventh Seal and read the words that ushered in Armageddon (we can’t even bring ourselves to retype them), things seemed pretty bleak. But while we merely sat and waited for the Four Horsemen of the Hacky Apocalypse to gallop through our party and slaughter us like stuck pigs while we waited in the bathroom line, others were less passive.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11686950/page/3/

More snarkiness—Dave White blogging for MSNBC (about Crash's win in the editing category):

Ziyi Zhang presents for Editing. “Crash” wins. I feel a thousand needles stabbing me in the eyes. Have I mentioned lately in this blog that I hate this stupid movie? That it's the worst of the nominated films? Did I say that yet? Is Roger Ebert reading this? I hope so. He loves “Crash”... Well guess what Rog? It's still awful and you're still wrong.

And later, here's what he had to say when Nicholson called out the Best Picture award:

I'm not shocked that “Crash” wins. Welcome to the People's Choice Awards folks! From now on only heavy-handed, didactic, lunkheaded lowest common denominator nonsense is allowed to win. The beginning of a new era!

giving a bad name to Dakotas everywhere

South Dakota passed an unconstitutional law yesterday, all-but banning abortion in the state, in an attempt to set up a Supreme Court challenge to Roe vs. Wade. Similar bills are being considered in Mississippi and Missouri.

On its face, this is potentially frightening. But in reality, this should help solidify pro-choice rights.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/national/07abortion.html

As Monica Davey writes in the N.Y. Times, even with Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court bench, there are still at least five Justices who would likely vote to affirm Roe vs. Wade. Many anti-abortion advocates believe South Dakota jumped the gun—they would have preferred that a challenge to Roe wait until Justice John Paul Stevens retires, and is potentially replaced with a conservative judge. In addition, as Davey writes:

Abortion rights advocates reported a flood of donations, volunteers and membership requests since the abortion bill began drawing national attention last month.

http://www.slate.com/id/2137530/nav/tap2/

Over on Slate.com, William Saletan points out that the South Dakota legislation has a loophole: it says that life begins at conception, yet strangely (in a separate section of the law) allows for the use of morning after pills (the logic apparently being that this is a way to allow for abortion in cases of rape). As Saletan writes:

[The law] concludes that unborn children, "from fertilization to full gestation," have an "inalienable right to life." Nobody who seriously believed these things would give you five days to kill an embryo, any more than they'd give you five days to kill a baby. The loophole discredits the law's rationale.

Let me get this straight: South Dakota just passed an unconstitutional law that will almost surely be overturned, points out a major flaw in the prevailing anti-abortion reasoning, will help pro-choice groups raise money, and may pre-empt a potentially more successful Roe challenge over the next few years.

Way to go, South Dakota! You just did more to advance the pro-choice cause than Democrats have been able to do in years.

a lash of a different kind

Are we seeing the first signs of a Crash-lash? (And have I now taken this pun past clever into annoying?) And if so, is it possible that none of the Best Picture nominees were universal enough to avoid this kind of reaction? Brokeback had so much hype that it seemed preordained, arguably fueling a pre-emptive backlash that cost it the Oscar. But now that Crash is in the spotlight, it's taking shots too.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/blog/index?name=simmons&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab4pos1

The always witty Bill Simmons of ESPN.com contributes his Oscar notes, including this gem:

Part of me still thinks Jack Nicholson saw "Brokeback Mountain" on the winner card, took a deep breath, said to himself "Screw it, I hated that movie," called an audible and said, "And the Oscar goes to ... Crash!"

http://carpetbagger.nytimes.com/

The New York Times's David Carr writes in his CarpetBagger blog that he predicted Crash would win, because all of the Academy voters he spoke to thought Brokeback would win but voted for a different film. Even so, he writes that he...

...was as stunned as anyone else. How could so many people be so wrong? And the answer is the same as always in Hollywood: Nobody knows anything, especially about the Oscars.

Read down, and you'll find lots of interesting stuff in Carr's blog, including this, a transcript of the Clooney quote I cited in my previous entry.

You know, we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while. I think it’s probably a good thing. We’re the ones who talked about AIDS when it was just being whispered, and we talked about civil rights when it wasn’t really popular. And we, you know, we bring up subjects. This Academy, this group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I’m proud to be a part of this Academy, proud to be part of this community, and proud to be out of touch.

Yet more from Carr, about what he spotted at an after party:

A maker of Serious Films From New York bemoaning the choice of “Crash”: “This is just LA’s way of reassuring itself that it’s not as shallow as it really is.”

I'd love to know who said that. Scorcese? Spike?

Meanwhile over on Slate.com, in a dialogue between film critics, Bryan Curtis uncorks this (citing another critic):

I'm going to defer to Scott Foundas, the film critic at LA Weekly, who summed up Crash in Slate last year: "Welcome to the best movie of the year for people who like to say, 'A lot of my best friends are black.' "

Yup, that about sums it up.

Brokebacklash?

Sheesh. That's the last time I go on record with predictions.

I suppose I could have done worse—I got both lead acting awards, best adapted screenplay, best director, best documentary film and some of the lesser categories. But I missed everything else, and was completely blindsided by some choices.

When they announced that Crash won best picture, I was speechless. It was beyond disappointment, I was just stunned.

In retrospect, it shouldn't have been such a shock. Apparently people who liked Crash feel very strongly about it, and Roger Ebert had been campaigning that it should be named Best Picture. In my Oscars pool, 12 of the 15 entrants had Brokeback, but the other three had Crash. I've spoken to people who like and dislike both movies, and even though I thought Brokeback was the much better film, it could be that more people simply liked Crash better, and the politics of the films weren't a factor.

Of course, it's also possible that the politics were a factor. Crash may well have gotten the nod because the gay cowboy thing still makes some people nervous. Even if the Academy members are probably an accepting and progressive group when it comes to gay rights, maybe they saw choosing Brokeback as Best Picture as too bold a statement; it's possible that they got nervous about being perceived as being too far outside of mainstream America. (George Clooney even addressed this point, in a more general way, in his acceptance speech for Best Supporting Actor.) It's true that, like Brokeback, Crash is also a socially conscious film, but being against racism is a much safer statement than endorsing gay rights.

America may still have a long way to go in solving its racial issues, but it's an issue that has been dealt with in film and other forms of pop-culture for decades. Crash would have been cutting edge—and the statement it made would have been more important and original—in the early '70s, when "All in the Family" was dealing with similar issues on tv. But that was over thirty years ago, and since then we have made a lot of progress. If nothing else, our society is in a place where it's become a cliche to say that "racism is bad." We've seen and heard so much about that issue that even racists no doubt realize that their views place them outside of the mainstream.

In terms of the acceptance of homosexuality, our society isn't nearly as advanced; we're still more-or-less at the "All in the Family" stage. Arguing that homosexuality is acceptable is somewhat controversial in a country that has states where 90 percent of voters chose to ban same-sex marriages.

Last night one of my friends argued that minorities can't hide who they are as easily as, say, a gay white man, and because of that may be more protected from racism. But look at it this way: who would get more looks walking into a restaurant: a mixed race couple holding hands, or two men holding hands?

With all the post-game spin that we're sure to hear about Oscar rewarding a film with a socially conscious message, it still seems to me that the Academy took the easy way out. They rewarded Crash, an inferior film with a tired message, rather than making a truly bold statement.

I shouldn't be surprised, but I am disappointed.

Brokeback breaks out

Finally saw the gay cowboy movie, and you know what? I really, really liked it. It's easily one of my favorite movies of the year, beautifully shot, with great acting, and an intense story that defies expectations. Every time you think you have a sense of where it's going—based on where Hollywood movies usually go—this movie takes a slightly different path, and does so in a way that's note perfect, and not merely different for the sake of being different. The story is more powerful because it's subtle. It doesn't spell everything out for the audience, or the characters. The pace is slow but intense. The emotions involved are complicated and real and not easily resolved, and there are no false resolutions.

I was afraid that this movie was overhyped because of the desire to promote a film that's a love story about gay men, but it's a genuine classic. That it's a gay relationship isn't exactly irrelevant to the story, but all of the fuss about that aspect of the film overshadows a terrific love story and extremely well-crafted film, which is a shame. Even if it wins the Oscar, Brokeback will always have an unspoken asterisk, that it won because it featured gay characters. In fact, this would have been an important film if it was a heterosexual relationship.

It's also a relief—for the first time in several years, I actually liked the Best Picture frontrunner. With Brokeback as an anchor, I give the Academy a lot of respect for making brave choices this year, while, with the exception of Crash, nominating quality films.

Now on to my Oscar picks:

Actor, Leading: Tough choice between Ledger, Phoenix and Hoffman. I haven't seen Capote yet, but he's getting most of the buzz so I'll go with that. (How's that for an expert opinion?) Capote may not win another award, and Brokeback will be recognized elsewhere.
Actor, Supporting: This is going to be the first award for Brokeback, as Gylenhaal will take it. Giamatti was excellent in Cindarella Man, and that film was largely overlooked, so that's my sleeper pick.
Actress, Leading: Many thought Reese Witherspoon carried Walk the Line, and she's my pick. Judi Dench is an Academy favorite, so she could surprise.
Actress, Supporting: Michelle Williams had a small but memorable part in Brokeback, that'll be enough to get the Oscar.
Animated Feature: Tough choice between Wallace and Gromit and Corpse Bride. My money's on Tim Burton's Corpse (that is, his movie, and his actual dead body) because he has more of a track record and the Academy likes to reward familiar names.
Art Direction: Good Night and Good Luck's period details felt exceptionally real and the setting was almost a character in the story.
Cinematography: Brokeback's the clear choice here. It's a beautifully shot film.
Costume Design: It probably should be Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but this is a chance to recognize Mrs. Henderson Presents. I'll take Charlie, but this is a tough one to predict.
Directing: It's Brokeback's year. Spielberg (for Munich) has a shot, but Ang Lee should win.
Documentary Feature: March of the Penguins.
Film Editing: I'll bite my tongue and predict a win for Crash here, because the editors juggled multiple storylines, which made it a trickier (if not better) editing job than the other nominees. I have a funny feeling Munich could win here, that's my backup pick.
Foreign Film: Paradise Now. In a political year for the Academy, this film about the Palestine/Israel conflict will take the award. It's also the most successful of the nominees (at least here in the U.S.) and that usually foreshadows a win in this category.
Makeup: Convincingly aging Heath Ledger and Jake Gylenhaal was the best makeup job of the year, but Brokeback isn't nominated. Give this one to Star Wars.
Original Score: Look for either Brokeback or Munich here. I'm going with Munich because it's by Oscar vet John Williams.
Original Song: Odd that there are only three choices--and I can't recall hearing any of the songs. I've got to go with Hustle and Flow's "It's Hard Out There For a Pimp," if only because it would be great to hear that read by the presenter. Hopefully they'll have Dame Judie Dench hand this one out.
Best Picture: Brokeback. My sleeper pick? If there's a backlash against all of this year's political (or politically correct) films, Munich will win.
Sound Editing: Give this one to King Kong.
Sound Mixing: Eh, who knows. I'll go with Walk the Line, in recognition of that film's excellent music.
Visual Effects: It's got to be King Kong. As a side note, how pissed do you think Peter Jackson was he found out his film wasn't nominated for any major categories? (Naomi Watts and Jack Black need better publicists.) He seems like the type of egomaniac who would be bothered by that type of thing. And he must also be wondering, was King Kong really worse than the Lord of the Rings movies? Kong may have been overlong, but at least it wasn't nine hours.
Screenplay, Adapted: Brokeback. It's hard to imagine what this script was like on paper, because so much of the story was unspoken. But it should win here. Munich is also a possibility.
Screenplay, Original: This is a tough category to predict, but my guess is Good Night and Good Luck, because it won't win any of the major categories. This tends to be a category that rewards movies that fly below the radar of other categories, so The Squid and the Whale is a sleeper.

By my tally, that would be six awards for the gay cowboy movie, not a bad haul. The Oscars are only a couple of days away, so all will soon be revealed.

the wit and wisdom of James Dolan

It may be unfair to bash the Knicks the morning after one of their better recent efforts—though, you know, a win would've been nice—but team chairman James Dolan's comments yesterday (as quoted by Liz Robbins of the N.Y. Times) are nothing short of incredible. It's one thing to give the team's recent struggles a positive spin, but Dolan actually seems to believe, a) that Isiah has a plan and vision, and b) the team is moving in the right direction.

I'll let Dolan speak for himself—though I bolded selected phrases for emphasis:

• "I'm not making a change. I believe in the plan, I believe in the strategy, I believe in the guys who are executing it. Maybe some people think I'm brain dead because of that and the record. But you know what? Time will tell."

• "I believe the best course for the organization right now is to stay the course, not react to the record and — to be honest — to the press and make a knee-jerk move that undermines what we've been thinking for the last year."

• "[Thomas has] come up with a plan on how to build, and he brings to the table a wonderful eye for talent. I think he's doing a fine job. To look for results right now probably isn't fair."

• "[Thomas'] ability to execute — that is what makes me keep my faith."

• "We made some trades. I think [Brown and Thomas are] getting us closer to the goal. The relationship between Isiah and Larry is brand new and now we see a pretty good relationship developing, and that's good for the New York Knicks."

• "I fully expect you all to kill me in the papers, but I'm going to stick with it. And I'm going to stick with it until we stop making progress or until we achieve our goal."

Forget Isiah for a second; I think we've found the real problem with the team. Too bad you can't fire an owner.

Dungeons & Dragons for sports geeks

I have a dirty little secret. I'm a reasonably stable, self-reliant adult, yet my guilty pleasure involves driving 200 miles each way a few times a year to sit around a table for seven hours with a group of middle-aged men I barely know. This weekend, for the first time, I will sit around a table with a new group, traveling from New York City to Boston to meet in a bar at 10 AM on Saturday--a time when I'm almost never even awake, let alone in a bar, in Boston--to spend a day doing quick percentage calculations in my head with a group of 20-somethings I've never met.

Yup, I'm a fantasy baseball junky.

I couldn't wait to be out of high school so that I'd never have to take a math class again, yet somehow, I spend much of the winter calculating the relative value of obscure players based on even more obscure statistics (VORP, anyone?). I silently—because I would never admit this to anyone but a few friends who share this madness—look forward to the late winter days when my league mates will be ready to start preparing for the upcoming season, ready to talk trades. And I treat draft days like a holy day; I'd say it's my Christmas Eve, but I'm Jewish. (And unlike Christmas Eve, I rarely eat Chinese food or go to the movies on draft day. Who has the time?)

Why do I do it? I don't know. Part of it is that it makes following baseball a lot more interesting. I've always been a baseball fan, but being in a serious fantasy league forces you to take your fandom to fifth gear. You suddenly need to know things like, say, who the backup catcher on the Padres will be this season, or who is the consensus third-best prospect in the game right now (Doug Mirabelli and Jeremy Hermida, if you're wondering). You develop a rooting interest in late-season games between crappy teams like the Royals and Orioles—because Ruben Gotay will get his five at-bats, and Chris Ray might have a save opportunity.

There's also the element of intellectual challenge. To an outsider, it might seem easy to say that everyone knows which players are best, and then luck plays a part. But one thing that's fascinating about fantasy baseball is that there's always a deeper level to analyze the game and its statistics. There are always different statistics to prioritize, different factors that may influence player performance, different league quirks to take into account.

Sure, players have breakout years and injuries that can be attributed to good or bad luck, but is it really impossible to predict the next Mark Prior injury, or that an up-and-coming player like Ryan Howard could become a big star? Luck is definitely a factor, but good players know that track records account for luck, if you look at the right information.

What does all that hard work and research get me? Ideally, it brings the perverse thrill of outsmarting a group of lawyers who have been playing this game since I was in diapers. Of course, the way my team has performed the last couple of years, I haven't felt that way very often, but I'm anticipating that it would be nice to have that happen. Just like in the Major Leagues, every spring brings hope that this will be my year.

Maybe that's a nice metaphor for the other parts of my life. But in a world that's even more complicated and unpredictable than baseball, it's nice to know that in at least one way, I always know exactly how I'm doing.