Proving that blogging has indeed become a worldwide phenomenon as an "online information bazaar", I just stumbled across the weblog of Mohammed Ali Abtahi. Mr. Abtahi is a Shiite cleric who recently served as Vice President of Iran under Khatami. Surprisingly enough, he also happens to run an independent site designed to provoke debate among his readers, which is not exactly what one would expect from a member of the Tehran theocracy.
If there are more voices like Abtahi's in Iran today, the prospects for that country's future are better than we think. In his online profile, Abtahi declares that "the only way to salve Iran would be to bring about reforms that would fully democratize the Iranian society." Make no mistake, while Abtahi is very much a part of the repressive regime that rules Iran, some of his comments are quite encouraging. In an interview with the AP after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Abtahi voiced his support for a secure and stable Iraq and that country's self-governance. A recent post of his addressed human rights concerns in Iran; Abtahi's response was that "real Islam devotees [need to do] as much as they can and try hard for the real achievement of human rights."
These are all encouraging sentiments coming from a leading political figure in a country whose leader has in recent weeks provoked condemnation and consternation in various international circles. Abtahi's voice comes as a welcome voice of moderation. "Let me be myself," he writes, "regardless to my official and government status." One hopes that this cleric-politician's demonstration of free expression will serve as an example to his countrymen and contribute to a better future for Iran, and consequently the world at large.
UPDATE 2/24 (6:19 PM): As a political and religious figure, Mr. Abtahi apparently enjoys a greater degree of freedom than than the average Iranian to express his thoughts online. The BBC has been covering a recent clampdown by Iran's government on citizen-bloggers. Just yesterday, it was announced that one blogger was sentenced to fourteen years in jail by a revolutionary court. Check out the website of the "Committee to Protect Bloggers", which is raising awareness about this case and the plight of other bloggers who run afoul of their local authorities.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Back in the USSR
"Do you believe in miracles? Yes!"
Tuesday marked the 25th anniversary of what is arguably the greatest moment in sports history. On February 22, 1980, a long-shot U.S. team of Average Joes managed the impossible and defeated the heavily favored USSR superstars in the medal round of the 1980 Winter Games. Sportscaster Al Michaels immortalized that moment with the eternally famous ad-lib you see above, and the "Miracle On Ice" instantly became a watershed event of the Cold War era.
Even those who were too young to see the original game have undoubtedly been treated to replays on ESPN Classic or seen it reenacted in the 2004 Disney movie. A few days after that inspiring victory, when the Americans captured the gold medal, Michaels joyously pronounced "This impossible dream comes true!"
Call it the affliction of an IR wonk, but this inspiring triumph came to mind during President Bush's current Europe trip. Bush's upcoming summit with Russia's Vladimir Putin is on Thursday, but already the challenge appears daunting. This meeting will have to address a number of serious questions and will definitely not be as cozy as the 2001 meeting between the two leaders, when Bush famously said of his counterpart, "I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul." At that time, a personal friendship was forged that has led Bush to time and time again publicly defend Putin from his critics.
The honeymoon has worn off by now though. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del) recently asked "When are we going to get tough with Russia?" It's been getting harder and harder for Bush to avoid confrontation on this manner in light of Russia's numerous transgressions in recent months. Whether it was Putin's consolidation of power after the Beslan school tragedy, his obvious meddling in neighboring Ukraine's elections, his continued assault on free press in the country, or the state commandeering of the Yukos oil company, Vlad's actions have become untenable with Bush's democracy crusade.
Ever careful not to offend, Bush has thus far on his trip sought to keep rhetoric polite in advance of Thursday's meeting in Bratislava. Nonetheless, the Russian has already fired a preemptory shot rife with ominous language. "Naturally," he commented this week, "basic principles and institutions of democracy must be adapted to today's realities of Russian life, to our traditions and history." An ex-KGB apparatchik nostalgic for life back in the USSR? We can only sincerely hope that is not the case, despite what the record suggests.
Thursday's outcome will be a crucial test of the cordial relations between the two leaders. But don't expect that friendship to inhibit Bush; he is well aware of what is at stake and will act accordingly. On Monday, he commented that "The United States should place democratic reform at the heart of their dialogue with Russia." He will press Putin on that matter and Russia's relationship with its neighbors. Also on the table are the critical issues of Iran and Syria; despite U.S. concerns over Iran's budding nuclear program, Russia is committed to helping Iran build nuclear power plants. And just last week, the Kremlin announced the sale of anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, a terrorist state and U.S. enemy. This cannot sit well with Bush, and he'll be sure to let his autocratic "friend" know.
All eyes will be on this enormously influential encounter in Slovakia later this week. Relations between the U.S. and Russia can be characterized as "frosty" at best. Bush can expect to be hit about the war in Iraq and Putin's whining about foreign interference in Russia's backyard, but that should not get in the way of forging a commitment to a shared vision of democracy and security. Like twenty-five years ago, the chance for a "miracle" breakthrough presents itself. This time however, if Bush is successful, both the U.S. and Russia win.
Tuesday marked the 25th anniversary of what is arguably the greatest moment in sports history. On February 22, 1980, a long-shot U.S. team of Average Joes managed the impossible and defeated the heavily favored USSR superstars in the medal round of the 1980 Winter Games. Sportscaster Al Michaels immortalized that moment with the eternally famous ad-lib you see above, and the "Miracle On Ice" instantly became a watershed event of the Cold War era.
Even those who were too young to see the original game have undoubtedly been treated to replays on ESPN Classic or seen it reenacted in the 2004 Disney movie. A few days after that inspiring victory, when the Americans captured the gold medal, Michaels joyously pronounced "This impossible dream comes true!"
Call it the affliction of an IR wonk, but this inspiring triumph came to mind during President Bush's current Europe trip. Bush's upcoming summit with Russia's Vladimir Putin is on Thursday, but already the challenge appears daunting. This meeting will have to address a number of serious questions and will definitely not be as cozy as the 2001 meeting between the two leaders, when Bush famously said of his counterpart, "I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul." At that time, a personal friendship was forged that has led Bush to time and time again publicly defend Putin from his critics.
The honeymoon has worn off by now though. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del) recently asked "When are we going to get tough with Russia?" It's been getting harder and harder for Bush to avoid confrontation on this manner in light of Russia's numerous transgressions in recent months. Whether it was Putin's consolidation of power after the Beslan school tragedy, his obvious meddling in neighboring Ukraine's elections, his continued assault on free press in the country, or the state commandeering of the Yukos oil company, Vlad's actions have become untenable with Bush's democracy crusade.
Ever careful not to offend, Bush has thus far on his trip sought to keep rhetoric polite in advance of Thursday's meeting in Bratislava. Nonetheless, the Russian has already fired a preemptory shot rife with ominous language. "Naturally," he commented this week, "basic principles and institutions of democracy must be adapted to today's realities of Russian life, to our traditions and history." An ex-KGB apparatchik nostalgic for life back in the USSR? We can only sincerely hope that is not the case, despite what the record suggests.
Thursday's outcome will be a crucial test of the cordial relations between the two leaders. But don't expect that friendship to inhibit Bush; he is well aware of what is at stake and will act accordingly. On Monday, he commented that "The United States should place democratic reform at the heart of their dialogue with Russia." He will press Putin on that matter and Russia's relationship with its neighbors. Also on the table are the critical issues of Iran and Syria; despite U.S. concerns over Iran's budding nuclear program, Russia is committed to helping Iran build nuclear power plants. And just last week, the Kremlin announced the sale of anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, a terrorist state and U.S. enemy. This cannot sit well with Bush, and he'll be sure to let his autocratic "friend" know.
All eyes will be on this enormously influential encounter in Slovakia later this week. Relations between the U.S. and Russia can be characterized as "frosty" at best. Bush can expect to be hit about the war in Iraq and Putin's whining about foreign interference in Russia's backyard, but that should not get in the way of forging a commitment to a shared vision of democracy and security. Like twenty-five years ago, the chance for a "miracle" breakthrough presents itself. This time however, if Bush is successful, both the U.S. and Russia win.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Dude, Where's My Freedom?
Politically Incorrect was an entertainment-and-politics show that ran on ABC a few years ago. Despite its popularity, it was cancelled shortly after the 9/11 attacks due to a controversial remark made on-air by the show's host, comedian Bill Maher. Maher, while condemning the horrific attacks and mourning the tragedy, drew the ire of many for disputing the popular notion that the hijackers were "cowards." As he pointed out, "Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly." The ensuing outrage got him effectively blacklisted. (For a while at least. He returned in mid-2003 on HBO with a new show, Real Time with Bill Maher. The show airs on Friday nights at 11--watch it, it's great!)
As evidenced by his LA Times op-ed from Friday, Maher is still miffed about his run-in with the thought police. The news that America's youth aren't sympathetic isn't helping his mood. (See: "First Amendment no big deal, students say"). In his column, Maher comes out swinging at the climate of fear and intolerance that has replaced openness and rational debate in America.
Maher raises an excellent point. Just think of the controversies that have been in the news of late. Harvard's Larry Summers drew an astounding amount of criticism for speculating on why women may be less successful than men in science and math. You can disagree with his reasoning and conclusions all you like, but it is unfair to do what his his critics have done and slam him as an anti-feminist bigot. A Washington Post editorial correctly postulated that any disciplinary action taken against Summers would have a "chilling effect on free inquiry".
Controversies surrounding negative reaction to comments made by Eason Jordan have lost the CNN chief his job and put Professor Ward Churchill in danger of losing his. While I disagree vehemently with the ideas expressed by both, I realize that they have the same right as I do to call it like they see it. Regarding Churchill, I find his comments loathsome, insensitive, offensive, and barbaric. But he has the right to make those statements, and have the American public completely reject his arguments. That's what the First Amendment is there for, to be used by all.
Thus it's troubling to learn that more than one in three students think First Amendment protections go "too far". This news has scared me more than Loony Kim's nukes, cell phone viruses, and Bill Cosby's double standards ever could. One half of students believe newspapers should need government approval to publish their stories. I expect those type of numbers from a poll of the Politburo, not America's Gen X!
Small wonder then that Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) has pushed for a law requiring schools to teach about the Constitution on September 17, the anniversary of the document's signing. Although I disapprove of Sen. Byrd's law because it could open the door to all kinds of federal curriculum mandates by any legislator with a pet cause, there is no question that the problem Byrd was trying to address needs to be solved. Frankly put, kids today don't know nearly enough about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. Schools need to integrate more information about civil right and liberties, personal responsibility, and good citizenship into their curriculums. Else we risk creating a generation of Americans who are severely out of touch with the nature of what our country represents.
It may come as a surprise to many grade-schoolers that freedom isn't just something we're trying to spread in the Middle East. Its roots are here at home, where it is more important than ever before that we are aware of our rights and responsibilities as citizens. A significant part of America's greatness lies in its status as a safe haven for ideas, regardless of how controversial they may be. Our freedom is dependent on our ability to be able to express ourselves without fear of recrimination. And yes, this includes the right to be "politically incorrect". We should never be afraid of free speech, because by its very essence, it can never be anti-American.
As evidenced by his LA Times op-ed from Friday, Maher is still miffed about his run-in with the thought police. The news that America's youth aren't sympathetic isn't helping his mood. (See: "First Amendment no big deal, students say"). In his column, Maher comes out swinging at the climate of fear and intolerance that has replaced openness and rational debate in America.
"We're seeing the beginnings of the first post-9/11 generation -- the kids who first became aware of the news under an "Americans need to watch what they say" administration, the kids who've been told that dissent is un-American and therefore justifiably punished by a fine, imprisonment -- or the loss of your show on ABC."
Maher raises an excellent point. Just think of the controversies that have been in the news of late. Harvard's Larry Summers drew an astounding amount of criticism for speculating on why women may be less successful than men in science and math. You can disagree with his reasoning and conclusions all you like, but it is unfair to do what his his critics have done and slam him as an anti-feminist bigot. A Washington Post editorial correctly postulated that any disciplinary action taken against Summers would have a "chilling effect on free inquiry".
Controversies surrounding negative reaction to comments made by Eason Jordan have lost the CNN chief his job and put Professor Ward Churchill in danger of losing his. While I disagree vehemently with the ideas expressed by both, I realize that they have the same right as I do to call it like they see it. Regarding Churchill, I find his comments loathsome, insensitive, offensive, and barbaric. But he has the right to make those statements, and have the American public completely reject his arguments. That's what the First Amendment is there for, to be used by all.
Thus it's troubling to learn that more than one in three students think First Amendment protections go "too far". This news has scared me more than Loony Kim's nukes, cell phone viruses, and Bill Cosby's double standards ever could. One half of students believe newspapers should need government approval to publish their stories. I expect those type of numbers from a poll of the Politburo, not America's Gen X!
Small wonder then that Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) has pushed for a law requiring schools to teach about the Constitution on September 17, the anniversary of the document's signing. Although I disapprove of Sen. Byrd's law because it could open the door to all kinds of federal curriculum mandates by any legislator with a pet cause, there is no question that the problem Byrd was trying to address needs to be solved. Frankly put, kids today don't know nearly enough about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. Schools need to integrate more information about civil right and liberties, personal responsibility, and good citizenship into their curriculums. Else we risk creating a generation of Americans who are severely out of touch with the nature of what our country represents.
It may come as a surprise to many grade-schoolers that freedom isn't just something we're trying to spread in the Middle East. Its roots are here at home, where it is more important than ever before that we are aware of our rights and responsibilities as citizens. A significant part of America's greatness lies in its status as a safe haven for ideas, regardless of how controversial they may be. Our freedom is dependent on our ability to be able to express ourselves without fear of recrimination. And yes, this includes the right to be "politically incorrect". We should never be afraid of free speech, because by its very essence, it can never be anti-American.
Monday, February 14, 2005
'Roid Rage
Jose Canseco's new book alleging rampant steroid use in Major League Baseball was the subject of Sunday's 60 Minutes feature story. Canseco, a brash, cocky, home-run hitting superstar of the 80s and early 90s was one of the most famous and infamous faces of baseball during that time. Now retired, Canseco's book Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits & How Baseball Got Big has caused a sensation with its allegations of widespread use of illegal substances among players in the league, including such big names as Mark McGwire, Jason Giambi, Ivan Rodriguez, Juan Gonzalez, and Rafael Palmeiro.
In Juiced, Canseco claims "I would never have been a Major League-caliber player without steroids." He describes himself as a human guinea pig for the effect of banned substances. This comes as no surprise to many who have long suspected, despite Canseco's repeated prior denials, that the former Rookie of the Year and American League MVP was using artificial means to sculpt his mammoth body.
What has drawn more attention now is Canseco's claims that he introduced steroids to several of his teammates over the years, most notably baseball icon Mark McGwire. Canseco describes in his book how he and McGwire discussed steroid use casually and would "shoot up" together. In his interview with Wallace, Canseco seemed to back off his assertion in his book that he "often" injected McGwire, claiming that he did so "probably twice" but that the pair also did steroids in other ways such as by taking pills.
Every one of the players named by Canseco in his book have steadfastly denied any involvement with steroids, except for the now-disgraced Jason Giambi. In 2003, Giambi testified before a grand jury investigating steroid use by athletes in connection to the BALCO case that has implicated a number of famous sports figures, including Barry Bonds and Marion Jones. Last December, the San Francisco Chronicle revealed from a leak of Giambi' s testimony that he admitted to using steroids. Still, Canseco's claims concerning other superstars are by no means proved.
A major complicating factor is Canseco's poor reputation among players and fans alike. The slugger, who has had repeated run-ins with the law in the past, is known as notoriously unreliable, desperate, and greedy. Tony LaRussa, who was the manager of the Oakland Athletics when Canseco and McGwire were teammates there, derisively dismisses Canseco's claims, saying "I don't think there's any doubt that it's a fabrication."
More of Canseco's testimony airs Wednesday night on CBS. While his credibility is deservedly circumspect, we should not be so hasty to ignore him. What he has to say may well be a reflection of the sad state of the game of baseball. Certainly the pressure is there for players to take illegal drugs, knowing that the competition they face may not be on a level playing field. The incentive to get juiced is there too, since, as that old ESPN commercial used to say, "Chicks dig the longball." Fans like to see players hit monster home runs, and players who do so get rewarded with fat contracts. In the past decade, we've seen numerous instances of skinny guys transforming themselves into hulking gargantuans of home-run hitting renown. Think Barry, think Slammin' Sammy, etc. The result of injections, or the product of good old-fashioned hard work? Who knows?
Thus, Canseco's allegations, ridiculous as they seem to many, deserve serious attention. Steroid use has no place in baseball or any professional sport, if not solely because of the health risks it poses, then on the more important principle that steroid use diminishes the value of competition by making the game about something more than pure, natural talent and dedication. Until we know for sure that the players today are "clean", it is hard to appreciate their achievements in the context of the Babe Ruths or Joe DiMaggios of the past.
In Juiced, Canseco claims "I would never have been a Major League-caliber player without steroids." He describes himself as a human guinea pig for the effect of banned substances. This comes as no surprise to many who have long suspected, despite Canseco's repeated prior denials, that the former Rookie of the Year and American League MVP was using artificial means to sculpt his mammoth body.
What has drawn more attention now is Canseco's claims that he introduced steroids to several of his teammates over the years, most notably baseball icon Mark McGwire. Canseco describes in his book how he and McGwire discussed steroid use casually and would "shoot up" together. In his interview with Wallace, Canseco seemed to back off his assertion in his book that he "often" injected McGwire, claiming that he did so "probably twice" but that the pair also did steroids in other ways such as by taking pills.
Every one of the players named by Canseco in his book have steadfastly denied any involvement with steroids, except for the now-disgraced Jason Giambi. In 2003, Giambi testified before a grand jury investigating steroid use by athletes in connection to the BALCO case that has implicated a number of famous sports figures, including Barry Bonds and Marion Jones. Last December, the San Francisco Chronicle revealed from a leak of Giambi' s testimony that he admitted to using steroids. Still, Canseco's claims concerning other superstars are by no means proved.
A major complicating factor is Canseco's poor reputation among players and fans alike. The slugger, who has had repeated run-ins with the law in the past, is known as notoriously unreliable, desperate, and greedy. Tony LaRussa, who was the manager of the Oakland Athletics when Canseco and McGwire were teammates there, derisively dismisses Canseco's claims, saying "I don't think there's any doubt that it's a fabrication."
More of Canseco's testimony airs Wednesday night on CBS. While his credibility is deservedly circumspect, we should not be so hasty to ignore him. What he has to say may well be a reflection of the sad state of the game of baseball. Certainly the pressure is there for players to take illegal drugs, knowing that the competition they face may not be on a level playing field. The incentive to get juiced is there too, since, as that old ESPN commercial used to say, "Chicks dig the longball." Fans like to see players hit monster home runs, and players who do so get rewarded with fat contracts. In the past decade, we've seen numerous instances of skinny guys transforming themselves into hulking gargantuans of home-run hitting renown. Think Barry, think Slammin' Sammy, etc. The result of injections, or the product of good old-fashioned hard work? Who knows?
Thus, Canseco's allegations, ridiculous as they seem to many, deserve serious attention. Steroid use has no place in baseball or any professional sport, if not solely because of the health risks it poses, then on the more important principle that steroid use diminishes the value of competition by making the game about something more than pure, natural talent and dedication. Until we know for sure that the players today are "clean", it is hard to appreciate their achievements in the context of the Babe Ruths or Joe DiMaggios of the past.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Yankee Doodle Dandy
Well, despite the score it wasn't exactly a sparkling contest, but the New England Patriots found themselves with a three point Super Bowl win for the third time in four years. For those of you keeping score at home, yes, that qualifies as "dynasty". Troy Aikman, one of the FOX commentators at the game, was right on when he pronounced the Pats' achievement to be even more remarkable than that of his own Cowboys who won the Super Bowl in the '92, '93, and '95 seasons. The Patriots have proven to be the masters of the free agency era, with better scouting, signing, coaching, and cap management than any other team in the league.
Tonight's game definitely had its moments. With the score tied at the end of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarters, it was almost surprising given the Patriots recent Super Bowl history that it didn't end on an Adam Vinatieri field-goal with just seconds left on the clock. Rather, it finished with Rodney Harrison intercepting Donovan McNabb for the second time, clinching the Pats' victory and effectively making sure that Eagles WR Freddie Mitchell will never trash-talk an opponents' secondary ever again.
Patriots WR Deion Branch had a terrific day, setting a Super Bowl record for catches with 11, and most definitely deserved his MVP nod. But the surprise performance of the day came from Eagles WR Terrell Owens, who put injury and controversy aside to have a great game. T.O. was playing for the first time in seven weeks and against his doctor's advice, yet still managed to rack up nine catches for 122 yards. Either the severity of his ankle was overstated, or T.O.'s rehab efforts were remarkable and make me scared to think what he could have done injury-free.
While Terrell Owens turned in an inspiring performance for Philly, the erratic play of QB Donovan McNabb cost the Eagles the game. Frequently overthrowing or underthrowing open receivers, making poor decisions in the field, and having terrible clock management is a sure-fire recipe for losing the Super Bowl. McNabb was sacked four times and, clearly rattled by the pressure, threw three costly interceptions. Despite his three TD passes, his performance in this game will be lumped in with his sub-par play in the Eagles' three consecutive NFC championship game losses prior to this year.
Meanwhile, Patriots head coach Bill Belichick can go back to being the toast of the media, eccentricities and all. Belichick, who had an awful tenure in his previous head coaching job with the Cleveland Browns in the mid-90s, now has more playoff wins than the great Vince Lombardi. As many chagrined Browns fans can tell you, Belichick will now undoubtedly go down in history as one of the greatest coaches of all time.
Aside from the gridiron action, the Super Bowl is also a time to celebrate expensive TV advertisements, and this year was no exception. Among the offerings of the companies that shelled out $2 million+ for 30 seconds of air time were a number of good commercials, not many bad ones, but really none spectacular. P. Diddy's Diet Pepsi spot was funny and clever, MC Hammer gave us a blast from the past with two self-deprecating appearances, Brad Pitt was boring in a Heineken ad, monkeys ran amok in a series of plugs for some website called CareerBuilder.com, Budweiser had its standard fare, etc. Yet there were certainly no commercials to spark a new catch phrase (remember "whasssup?"--seems like ages ago), nothing to discuss excitedly on Monday Morning at the ol' water cooler. Personally I think the best part of the advertising orgy was that, thankfully, only one E.D. ad ran. Remember folks, "erections lasting longer than four hours, though rare, require immediate medical help."
One final note, after the hullabaloo surrounding last year's halftime festivities revealed that Janet Jackson did, in fact, have a nipple, the NFL went to extra lengths to make sure there would not be another scandal this year. Hence, bring in 60-something ex-Beatle Paul McCartney for good, wholesome, family-friendly entertainment. And guess what? It worked. The fireworks-fueled "Live and Let Die" was off the hook, and this halftime show was among the best in recent years. Bravo, Sir Paul!
And now that the Super Bowl is over, one commercial reminds us that "we're all undefeated." Undoubtedly Bill Belichick has now exhausted his yearly quota for smiles, and will be back to work, grumpy as ever, by sunrise. With the Patriots' offensive coordinator Charlie Weis defecting to become the head coach at Notre Dame and defensive coordinator Romeo Crennel leaving for the Browns' vacancy, the Patriots may lose a step next year. But until anyone else proves otherwise, New England remains the cream of the crop. Happy offseason, everyone!
Tonight's game definitely had its moments. With the score tied at the end of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarters, it was almost surprising given the Patriots recent Super Bowl history that it didn't end on an Adam Vinatieri field-goal with just seconds left on the clock. Rather, it finished with Rodney Harrison intercepting Donovan McNabb for the second time, clinching the Pats' victory and effectively making sure that Eagles WR Freddie Mitchell will never trash-talk an opponents' secondary ever again.
Patriots WR Deion Branch had a terrific day, setting a Super Bowl record for catches with 11, and most definitely deserved his MVP nod. But the surprise performance of the day came from Eagles WR Terrell Owens, who put injury and controversy aside to have a great game. T.O. was playing for the first time in seven weeks and against his doctor's advice, yet still managed to rack up nine catches for 122 yards. Either the severity of his ankle was overstated, or T.O.'s rehab efforts were remarkable and make me scared to think what he could have done injury-free.
While Terrell Owens turned in an inspiring performance for Philly, the erratic play of QB Donovan McNabb cost the Eagles the game. Frequently overthrowing or underthrowing open receivers, making poor decisions in the field, and having terrible clock management is a sure-fire recipe for losing the Super Bowl. McNabb was sacked four times and, clearly rattled by the pressure, threw three costly interceptions. Despite his three TD passes, his performance in this game will be lumped in with his sub-par play in the Eagles' three consecutive NFC championship game losses prior to this year.
Meanwhile, Patriots head coach Bill Belichick can go back to being the toast of the media, eccentricities and all. Belichick, who had an awful tenure in his previous head coaching job with the Cleveland Browns in the mid-90s, now has more playoff wins than the great Vince Lombardi. As many chagrined Browns fans can tell you, Belichick will now undoubtedly go down in history as one of the greatest coaches of all time.
Aside from the gridiron action, the Super Bowl is also a time to celebrate expensive TV advertisements, and this year was no exception. Among the offerings of the companies that shelled out $2 million+ for 30 seconds of air time were a number of good commercials, not many bad ones, but really none spectacular. P. Diddy's Diet Pepsi spot was funny and clever, MC Hammer gave us a blast from the past with two self-deprecating appearances, Brad Pitt was boring in a Heineken ad, monkeys ran amok in a series of plugs for some website called CareerBuilder.com, Budweiser had its standard fare, etc. Yet there were certainly no commercials to spark a new catch phrase (remember "whasssup?"--seems like ages ago), nothing to discuss excitedly on Monday Morning at the ol' water cooler. Personally I think the best part of the advertising orgy was that, thankfully, only one E.D. ad ran. Remember folks, "erections lasting longer than four hours, though rare, require immediate medical help."
One final note, after the hullabaloo surrounding last year's halftime festivities revealed that Janet Jackson did, in fact, have a nipple, the NFL went to extra lengths to make sure there would not be another scandal this year. Hence, bring in 60-something ex-Beatle Paul McCartney for good, wholesome, family-friendly entertainment. And guess what? It worked. The fireworks-fueled "Live and Let Die" was off the hook, and this halftime show was among the best in recent years. Bravo, Sir Paul!
And now that the Super Bowl is over, one commercial reminds us that "we're all undefeated." Undoubtedly Bill Belichick has now exhausted his yearly quota for smiles, and will be back to work, grumpy as ever, by sunrise. With the Patriots' offensive coordinator Charlie Weis defecting to become the head coach at Notre Dame and defensive coordinator Romeo Crennel leaving for the Browns' vacancy, the Patriots may lose a step next year. But until anyone else proves otherwise, New England remains the cream of the crop. Happy offseason, everyone!
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Submission (to Fear)
Last November, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered by an Islamic extremist angry at Van Gogh's treatment of Islam in his latest film. That film, titled Submission, was highly critical of the treatment of women in many Muslim societies. With the shocking killing making news around the world, the Netherlands was forced to take a hard introspective look at its society and confront a growing cultural schism.
Instead of coming up with any helpful solutions, it appears that "Dutchland" is dissolving into a culture of fear. Submission was scheduled to be the highlight of the Rotterdam Film Festival this weekend. Until now that is. Citing security concerns, the organizers of the show have now declined to air the Van Gogh film. Not exactly the most inspiring statement of commitment to the principles of freedom of expression, huh? Meanwhile the Muslim writer of Submission, who happens to be a member of Parliament, is living under a heavy security detail.
Those who would promote a climate of apprehension can only be emboldened by the emasculated status of their adversaries. Even more alarming is the attitude of some of those who are fighting back. In today's Washington Post there was a profile of Geert Wilders, a popular Dutch politician with an "aggressively anti-Islamic" agenda. "Islam and democracy are fully incompatible," he proclaims. "They will never be compatible -- not today, and not in a million years."
Wilders' opinion about the idea of Islam coexisting in a free society seem to coincide perfectly with, ironically enough, sentiments recently expressed by the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Humor aside, the very fact that Wilders' extremist views are somehow finding support is troublesome and is indicative of the severity of the crisis in the Netherlands. Many of the affluent countries of Europe are having to deal with the societal upheaval caused by an influx of Muslim immigrants into their community. They have not always found it easy to deal with. One incident that comes to mind is the French ban on the wearing of Muslim headscarves (and other religious icons or symbols) in public schools.
But the worst of it may be in the Netherlands, where the entire concept of multiculturalism seems to be in decay. It's a sign of the dissatisfaction of the times that people like Geert Wilders can effectively channel public anger into popular support. But really, Wilders and his kind are also extremists on end of an ideological spectrum. Like the terrorists they despise, they too are contributing to the hostile atmosphere that poisons a free society.
Says Wilders, "We are in an undeclared war. These people are motivated by one thing: to kill everything that we stand for." Yes, Mr. Wilders, there is an undeclared war taking place right now in your country and across much of Europe. But it is not an ethnic conflict with "these people", as you might think, but rather a fight to maintain respect for freedom and tolerance of all people and all ideas in an era when those values are under assault.
Instead of coming up with any helpful solutions, it appears that "Dutchland" is dissolving into a culture of fear. Submission was scheduled to be the highlight of the Rotterdam Film Festival this weekend. Until now that is. Citing security concerns, the organizers of the show have now declined to air the Van Gogh film. Not exactly the most inspiring statement of commitment to the principles of freedom of expression, huh? Meanwhile the Muslim writer of Submission, who happens to be a member of Parliament, is living under a heavy security detail.
Those who would promote a climate of apprehension can only be emboldened by the emasculated status of their adversaries. Even more alarming is the attitude of some of those who are fighting back. In today's Washington Post there was a profile of Geert Wilders, a popular Dutch politician with an "aggressively anti-Islamic" agenda. "Islam and democracy are fully incompatible," he proclaims. "They will never be compatible -- not today, and not in a million years."
Wilders' opinion about the idea of Islam coexisting in a free society seem to coincide perfectly with, ironically enough, sentiments recently expressed by the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Humor aside, the very fact that Wilders' extremist views are somehow finding support is troublesome and is indicative of the severity of the crisis in the Netherlands. Many of the affluent countries of Europe are having to deal with the societal upheaval caused by an influx of Muslim immigrants into their community. They have not always found it easy to deal with. One incident that comes to mind is the French ban on the wearing of Muslim headscarves (and other religious icons or symbols) in public schools.
But the worst of it may be in the Netherlands, where the entire concept of multiculturalism seems to be in decay. It's a sign of the dissatisfaction of the times that people like Geert Wilders can effectively channel public anger into popular support. But really, Wilders and his kind are also extremists on end of an ideological spectrum. Like the terrorists they despise, they too are contributing to the hostile atmosphere that poisons a free society.
Says Wilders, "We are in an undeclared war. These people are motivated by one thing: to kill everything that we stand for." Yes, Mr. Wilders, there is an undeclared war taking place right now in your country and across much of Europe. But it is not an ethnic conflict with "these people", as you might think, but rather a fight to maintain respect for freedom and tolerance of all people and all ideas in an era when those values are under assault.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)