Joel Salatin in Michiana

For those of you who are local and hip to The Omnivore's Dilemma, Joel Salatin will be at the Goshen Theater on Tuesday.

The Onion delves into NFL playoffs

Ouch.

President Barack Obama: the official photo

This photo is the one you'll see when at embassies, and in the airport security office when you forget your passport. I find it a little jarring, personally. It's weird that he's off center and not smiling, and that there's so much space at the top over his head.

perspective

Tom Friedman, always so "serious" about foreign policy, writes a column implying that it's okay to inflict massive civilian casualties because Israel's enemies are "implacably hostile." Apparently, the "Arabs only understand force" line of argument is still all the rage in sensible centrist circles.

Luckily, the New York Times made sure to balance Friedman's column with an editorial by former Israeli soldier Jeffrey Goldberg arguing, instead, that Israel's enemies are implacably hostile and only understand force. Fair and balanced, bitchez!

Weakest Senate Majority Leader ever

Harry Reid, owned again, this time by an impeached governor and a guy who isn't even a senator yet. Perhaps it's all part of Reid's ingenious "strength through weakness" strategy.

Sports Night

Sap and I are into the third disc of this series, and it's really good. It was Aaron Sorkin's first show, and you West Wing fans out there will recognize the dialog, as well as several of the actors. It's lighter than The West Wing also, and straddles the comedy and drama genres. This appears to have given the producers some trouble early on, who inexplicably inserted a laugh track. It's particularly jarring because a) the show is clearly too high quality for that nonsense, and b) the track only gets used once or twice per episode, making it that much more noticeable.

The characters are endearing (I really thought I was going to hate the anchors at first, but they quickly grew on me), the dialog well-timed, and the relationships tangled and interesting, but it's the way that Sports Night makes sports meaningful and relevant that most impresses me. At the end of the pilot, all the characters, with their messy lives and hard, New York shells, have to stop and recognize the inspiration and connection with humanity they feel when a 41 year old South African distance runner born into poverty and hardship shatters a world record. In another, a talented and brilliant college athlete puts his scholarship in jeopardy by refusing to play under the Confederate flag that graces his school's stadium, which presents a particular moral question to Sports Night's black producer (Robert Guillaume).

I've read some reviews that try to entice savvy TV viewers by arguing that the show "isn't really about sports." I strongly disagree, in the same way I would disagree with the common argument that The West Wing isn't really about politics. Yes, both of these shows are also about relationships, but in both cases the context matters. The characters in both obsess about, and are affected by, what they see and do in their professional capacities, in both moment-to-moment emotional reactions and in their personalities and relationships. It matters that Jed Bartlett is the president and that the characters are Democrats working in the White House. The political topics they discuss aren't mere Star Trek technobabble, incoherent jargon designed to make the scenery more believable. A more accurate statement is that Sports Night is accessible to people who don't like sports, perhaps even moreso than The West Wing with non-political types. This is probably because SN is more precisely about sports media than sports per se, so it also discusses journalism, making a TV show, dealing with "the network," etc.

Nevertheless, this show is most definitely about sports. It's about sports as a repository of great deeds and amazing people, and the inspiration they can be to everyone watching. It's about the dark side of sports, the idolizing of misogynistic meatheads and the cruelty with which the female victims of sports stars are treated. It's about sports as a crucible for the culture wars, and as a way to humanize different sides by giving them a face. And that's just in the first 10 or so episodes.

Perhaps I feel so strongly about this because I really like seeing a show where you have a bunch of successful, highly intelligent, educated liberals (and even a geek or two!) who are unapologetic in their love of sports. People tend to forget that Keith Olbermann was a sportscaster first, and that the smartest guy on TV is probably Bob Costas.

Elizabeth Warren on TARP oversight

Elizabeth Warren heads the oversight board, and speaks more frankly and accessibly on bank practices in general, and this crisis in particular, than anyone I've found so far. For those of you who are interested more in media and personalities and whatnot, notice how much deference the talking heads give this amiable, frumpy professor with a soft southern drawl. Warren somewhat forcefully corrects the blonde stepford reporter on the sloppy and sensationalizing way she interprets Warren's "$350 billion lesson" remark, and virtually owns the air for the next 5 minutes.

the BCS "champions"

Congrats to the Gators. Interesting fact: Florida's margin of victory against Oklahoma was exactly the same as Texas' (10 points). Mack Brown's crew, however, didn't have a month to prepare for the Sooner hurry-up offense; they got mugged in the middle of the regular season like everyone else.

This is all, of course, beside the point made yesterday that Florida's other major win, the one against Alabama that justified sending them to the Mythical National Championship, was surpassed by Utah, who finished at number 2 in AP poll (ahead of Oklahoma) and got 16 first place votes. As in, one quarter of AP voters think Utah, not Florida, is the best team in the country (at least, now that they've finally bothered to watch them play).

Furthermore, maybe Tebow and Harvin could hang 24 on the Sooner D with that sloppy effort, but how much do you think they'd manage against Rey Maualuga and the Trojans (who finished number 2 in the coaches poll, ahead of Oklahoma)?

Thanks to the BCS, you'll never get to see these matchups!

I'd like to say a little more about Utah. We've now seen definitively that a non-BCS conference team has no chance of becoming champions even if:

* they've already won a BCS game several years before,
* they're the only team to go undefeated,
* they beat four top 25 teams in the regular season,
* they smoke Nick Saban's former number 1 team in a BCS bowl, and
* both of the teams in the Mythical National Championship Game play poorly.

That, my friends, is ineligibility. As if that's not enough of a slap in the face to the non-BCS conferences, I learned something new about the way money is allocated for BCS bowl bids yesterday. Did you know that, when a BCS conference team lands a spot in one of the big games, they get $16 million split among the teams in their conference, but non-BCS teams have to split that $16 million among all 5 non BCS conferences?

That means that, assuming the money was split evenly in all cases, Virginia Tech, for instance, received $1.3 million, USC got $1.6 million, and the University of Cincinnati received $2 million. In the Sugar Bowl this year, the University of Alabama received $1.3 million, plus another $1.3 million for Florida's appearance this week, giving them a $2.6 million bonanza. Their victorious opponent, the University of Utah, went home with $355,556.

CBS shows segment highlighting humanitarian crisis in Gaza

If there's anything promising to be found in what's going on in Gaza, it's that news organizations are giving the Palestinians a fairer shake than at any time I can remember. Still not fair in the fullest sense, mind you, but better. In fact, this segment contains the first reference (however obliquely) to the ongoing and systematic oppression in Gaza that I can remember seeing on TV.

Dems will seat Burris

I swear to God, I was telling Sap just the other day that the smart money was on Burris in this fight, that Reid's ability to get steamrolled by strong opponents is matched only by his ability to get steamrolled by weak opponents. I've never seen a boxer so afraid of a fight. Furthermore, Blago is not yet facing any formal charges, and I'm not sure what argument Reid could use in a courtroom to justify not seating someone legally appointed by a sitting, and still technically innocent, governor. I even wrote a post about it yesterday, but deleted it thinking that perhaps McConnell would figure out a way to keep Burris out just to keep the spectacle going.

Reid really is the poster child for Democratic spinelessness.

Utah AG investigating BCS for anti-trust violations

He has a point. Utah didn't just go undefeated; they defeated 4 top 25 teams and smoked an Alabama squad that spent most of the season at no.1 (beat them harder than Florida did, by the way). They really are playing at a speed equal to that of the championship contenders. Utah was also in a BCS game 4 years ago, and they won that game, too. There is literally nothing they could have done to get into the Mythical National Championship Game.

They were, for all practical purposes, ineligible, just like TCU, Boise St., and several dozen other teams because they don't belong to a BCS conference.

In my opinion, this should bring up some uncomfortable questions among the non-BCS conferences about just how welcome they are in NCAA Bowl Subdivision football. How much sense does it make to play in a league in which you're permanently barred from the championship, no matter how strong your team is?

whatever the reason, good for Today

The premise of Ann Coulter's body of work is that one quarter of all Americans are subhuman monsters who deserve to be put to death. As much as our prestigious media loves handing a microphone to the most incendiary of morons, gasping at the left-wing ones and treating the right-wing ones like they're constitutional scholars, perhaps Today is not an appropriate avenue for that level of "discourse" at a time when this country has real problems to worry about.

"I can't disagree with that, really"

More proof that the success of Leach's program is utterly inexplicable. In every interview I've seen of him, he seems to have no idea what he's talking about. Here it appears that Scott Pelley (who went to Tech! I had no idea) has called a drunkard in from the shelter to do his best Mike Leach impersonation.

they've got big bowls

Dan Wetzel, champion of the NCAA tournament system for college football, on the current bowl system, why we have it and what it looks like on the inside. It's a great article, very informative, even if it stifles debate by accusing anyone who disagrees of being on the take. I'm all for scrapping the system, and even I can admit that the "tradition" of the big bowl games is a perfectly valid argument on its own merits-- in fact, the big bowls and the big rivalries are the only instances where most NCAAF fans see anything relating to "tradition." Hell, I work on most of the most "storied" campuses in college football, and "tradition" here generally is just a euphemism for bizarre superstition and rank hedonism. Oh, and let's not forget ritual mockery of minority ethnicities!

"it opens more doors than it closes"

E.J. Dionne on the Warren invite. Dionne's point is that engaging a powerful pastor who wants to talk about poverty, disease, climate change, and genocide is a win for Democrats and a win for the world and a loss for Republicans. It would be nice if he didn't support prop 8 and believe horrible things about gays, or would at least apologize for his more incendiary comments, but as we've seen with Rich Cizik, support for gay rights is still verboten in the evangelical community. The terrible irony is that, if he did apologize or did support civil unions, he would cease to hold enough support in the evangelical community to be able to sway it in any meaningful way.

What can I say? You go to the inauguration with the country you have, not the country you wish you had.

59

Don't look now, but Al Franken just pulled to within five votes of Norm Coleman, and is now expected to win the recount.

Warren-mania: throwing God's pit bulls a bone

This morning I heard someone on NPR refer to those angry with Obama for choosing Warren to lead a prayer on Inauguration Day as "activists." What, exactly, makes them "activist?" The act of being disappointed? Why are they "activists," but those who fought to pass Prop 8 are merely "social conservatives" or even worse, "family advocates?"

While we're at it, it's not like liberals and liberal-leaners don't have a legitimate beef with Obama's choice; after all, he now has more Republicans in his administration than avowed liberals, and does so even if you concede that Hillary Clinton is a liberal. You can't swing a cat in Obama's cabinet without hitting a blue dog or three.

Nevertheless, it's worth considering that apparently there will be 2 preachers at Obama's inauguration, and the one giving the closing benediction is GLBT friendly. That, I would imagine, is a first, while every previous preacher probably had views similar to Warren. Furthermore, for all Warren's faults, he's willing to lead the evangelical community back to sanity on aid to the poor, HIV/AIDS work, and climate change. Obama and the Democrats have an interest in seeing Warren's influence over the evangelical community further increase for those reasons. Obama wants to send a message to the evangelical community that they matter in an Obama Administration, that they don't have to go Republican to have leaders who listen to them, and gay-friendly evangelical pastors just don't have much credibility within that community.

Plus, let's face it, this isn't exactly a cabinet position.

UPDATE: And as I write that Obama has appointed hardly any progressives, he names Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor, who's almost as solidly pro-labor as you can get.

Captain Obvious brings you TIME's Person of the Year

It's true that they shouldn't get into the habit of making every new president the Person of the Year, but really, this one is pretty clearly the right call. Barack has dominated the news the entire year, he's felled two of America's political titans, taken over the Democratic party, and been forced to become de facto president 2 months early. His election victory made millions of people proud to be Americans again and humbled formerly snickering European nations who have been forced to admit that, for all their liberal politics, they're not yet egalitarian enough to elect an ethnic minority head of the government. That victory also led the Iraqi government to finalize a power-sharing agreement with the United States, now confident that the next president will fulfill Bush's promise to leave Iraq.

These are really cool.

TIME also gives an uninspired list of runners up and "people who mattered," including people like John McCain and Sarah Palin who were proven notably inconsequential in front of the Obama steamroller. In fact, I would have added Katie Couric to the list of special people for single-handedly laying the death knell to Sarah Palin's fledgling career in national politics. Nevertheless, Palin landed a runner-up slot rather than Hillary Clinton, who was the first legitimate female presidential contender, a far tougher, more resilient opponent than McCain/Palin, and who exits 2008 with a much louder bull-horn than Palin as Secretary of State. More of that vaunted media "balance," I'm guessing. Both McCain and Palin place higher, incidentally, than Robert Mugabe, who has certainly influenced more lives worldwide more profoundly, not to mention international politics. One name is conspicuously missing from the list entirely, and it's the only name I can think of that could possibly have "mattered" this year anywhere near as much as Barack Obama: Vladimir Putin.

Yet TIME saw fit to add Robert Downey, Jr. to the list instead.

It looks like TIME's only real metric for deciding these lists is who gets the most mentions in the news, but that's a terrible way to decide who makes the most significant impact. In the case of Obama, that works because the United States has been obsessed with him all year long, but that system also preferences celebrity over substance. Hence you get Michael Phelps on your list because Phelps won 8 swimming medals, and not Hu Jintao, who is the president of the biggest nation on the planet and the one that hosted said Olympics. You get the CEO of Lehman Bros. because his firm made a big splash when it splattered against the pavement, but you don't get Alan Greenspan or Phil Gramm, who may be the two figures most intimately responsible for the economic collapse that's now affected the entire world. You get Mikheil Saakashvili because his name showed up in the news a lot for "poking the Russian bear," but the big winner in that conflict, the one who looked a lot bigger afterwards and affected the state of international politics, was the bear. And, of course, you get people like Downey and Phelps and Tina Fey, people we liked to watch but who weren't meaningful to our lives. Does making 2 successful movies that revive your moribund acting career mean you "mattered" this year in the same sense that Hillary Clinton or Henry Paulson "mattered?"

questioning their patriotism

The Senate Republicans torpedoed a bailout for the American auto industry, exposing countless thousands and perhaps millions of workers to the specter of unemployment during a depression, at a time of unprecedented job losses, and did so specifically because the Democrats were unwilling to cut worker salaries enough. Not executive salaries, but worker salaries. And it's an open secret that many of these Senators did so with an eye toward the welfare of the foreign automakers who employ their constituents.

That's some shameful shit.

I want you to remember this next time some pseudo-Everyman southern Republican switches out his Confederate bars for the Stars and Stripes and impugns the patriotism of liberals or Democrats.

all politics is national

My neighborhood is an old one, a haggard remnant of the Studebaker days, much like the city itself. Things had been looking up, though: many of the houses were bought up and renovated, and sold to younger families getting their start. My block was 80% unoccupied only 5 short years ago, and by last year every house save one at the end of the block was owner occupied. The mayor, meanwhile, bulldozed most of the abandoned and condemned buildings. We planted new trees and surrounded the homes with landscaping and gardens, joined neighborhood watch groups and listservs, and got the city to start plowing our alleys again.

Then the housing market crashed and the credit markets seized up. Suddenly none of the people who were planning to move can sell their house, even here, a thousand miles from the nearest housing bubble hot spot. There are several "for sale" signs nearby that have sat outside for months, and at least one of neighbors gave up trying to sell his house, and had to settle for anything that would help him recoup the cost of keeping it. Thus, for the first time in years, we have renters on our block again. Some jobs dried up, the people on the margins of the neighborhood fell on harder times, and in the blink of an eye we've found ourselves the collective victims of a massive wave of thefts and burglaries.

Sometime last night, my household suffered its own glancing blow as an intruder shattered the garage window and rode off on my bike, the shiny, black Schwinn with collapsing saddlebags I wrote about in June. It was my first bike in 20 years. I got to own it a grand total of 6 months.