Let the recriminations start....

The next week is going to drive the wingnuts crazy. Next week's publication of Bill Clinton's memoirs, concurrent with the release of two much-hyped movies on recent times ("The Hunting of the President" and "Fahrenheit 9/11"), is going to create a Perfect Storm of Republican Circlef--kery. If there has been one thing that has motivated the Far Right the last three years, it has been its desire to undo everything that the American People loved about the Big Dog, to pretend the eight brutal years of peace and prosperity never happened. Al Gore "lost" the 2000 election, in large part because he believed that spin, and perceived an hostility to Clinton that the public didn't share. It is safe to say that the public has become rather resistant to those efforts, or at least that percentage of the public that isn't waiting for the Assumption to occur the day after the election. The best thing for Kerry to do the next week (come to think of it, this is always good advice) is to lay back, let the wind take his sails, and ride on Bubba's coattails.

The one mark on Clinton's record, of course, was his impeachment by the House Republicans. His lies under oath may not have technically met the legal standard for perjury, but they reflected a character flaw in the man, a belief that he could talk his way out of (and into) anything. His subsequent fine in the Paula Jones case, together with his disbarment in Arkansas, were appropriate punishments for his civil transgressions. Yet the public still backed him, creating a firewall that prevented the Senate from taking the charges seriously, and he easily beat back the coup attempt. That victory was the high mark of his Administration, as much a defining moment for the country as September 11: after that, we would judge public figures by what they could do, not what kind of person they were.

In the end, given a choice between Clinton and his critics on the right and left, they chose Clinton, not because he was a saint, but because they knew he was better than his adversaries. Clinton liked people, didn't pretend to possess any divine authority, and the people, at first grudgingly, but by the end enthusiastically (when he left office, he, not Reagan, had the highest approval ratings of any President), liked him back.

I have oil rigs !!

Detroit 100, Lakers 87: That was truly an asswhupping. Anyway, a hearty and sincere congrats to Elden Campbell, an underrated player who was a media whipping boy when he played for the Lakers, for finally getting an overdue ring, and a tip of the cap to my many pals and booze buddies from Michigan on their good fortune, as well as for their patience the last three years when our hockey and college football teams seemed to be dominating them in big games.

And here's a scary thought: in routing the Lakers, the Pistons had to carry a piece of dead weight on their bench named Darko Milicic, the "Human Victory Cigar", whom they drafted with the second pick in last year's NBA Draft. En route to the championship, the only point he scored in the playoffs was in the first round, against Milwaukee. The player chosen right after Milicic, by the Denver Nuggets, was Carmelo Anthony, who scored almost as many points in a single game (41) as Milicic did the entire season (48). Think Larry Brown could have found a way for Anthony to fit into his team?

Sometime after midnight Eastern time tomorrow, the city of Detroit will begin celebrating a well-deserved NBA championship (and last night's game was the coup de grace; it was easily the best Laker performance of the Finals, with Shaq being unstoppable for most of the game, and Payton finally starting to show signs of his rumored All-Star form, and it still wasn't enough). Whether the ensuing party in the Motor City will vindicate Jimmy Kimmel's humorous (if cliched) comments remains to be seen, but the controversy that followed from his remarks at halftime of Game 2 reveals a remarkable double standard, and points out one of the aspects of life in Los Angeles that I absolutely cherish: our ability to take a joke, even if it's about the Lakers.

Kimmel, as you may have heard by now, went on the ABC halftime show and paid tribute to Detroit, in effect remarking that should the Pistons win the title, their fans would be well-advised not to pattern their celebration after the annual "Hell Night" (as they did after the Tigers' World Series win in 1984), since the city wasn't worth it. Ouch. As Kimmel himself later noted, Laker fans have quite a margin on the rest of the country when it comes to turning over cars following championships this century. In addition, Kimmel is a comedian, and the whole point of his late-night show is to make people laugh, sometimes uncomfortably.

Of course, the thick-skinned people of Detroit had a fit, with the local ABC affiliate protesting, the network itself pulling his show off the air that night, and angry denunciations filled the local papers. The sports pages, which only a week earlier had noted the sudden bandwagoning for the Pistons taking place in "HockeyTown, U.S.A.", took offense.

What makes this controversy so silly is that what Kimmel said is comparatively banal when juxtaposed with the standard insults made about Los Angeles, its residents and its fans. Over the years, local residents have come to accept such a national outpouring of hate with a degree of sang froid. In fact, most Angelenos take pride in certain parts of the stereotype, such as our studied desire to leave games early, which we view as a testament to our knowledge of when a game is truly "over", as well as to the high standards we demand from our entertainment. Other parts of the stereotype are much more troublesome, such as the conflation of our local culture with that of "Hollywood"; the loaded terms that are used to describe us in East Coast newspapers would not have been out-of-place in the Volkischer Beobachter seventy years ago, with barely a wink and a nudge necessary. Of course, actors and rappers make up a small but noticeable percentage of fans, but why Jack Nicholson or Dyan Cannon are not considered to be "real" sports fans, while veeps of automobile companies and corporate lawyers in Detroit are, is a mystery few out here can fathom.

Perhaps the one part of the Laker fan stereotype that most amuses and bemuses me is the notion that somehow we are all "fair weather fans". Whether Angelenos would continue to support the Lakers should the team put together a string of losing seasons is a potentiality not yet tested under laboratory conditions, but we do know from the attendance of both the Dodgers, Angels and Kings that local fans are pretty loyal, win or lose. I mean, how many years do the Dodgers have to draw three million paying customers without making the playoffs before we conclude that maybe someone out here does pay allegiance to the home team? And the only way to explain why the Raiders remain so popular locally, even after Al Davis deserted us after the Northridge Earthquake, is the notion (one which I don't happen to share) that our loyalty is not something to be given lightly, or given up lightly.

And, as I said before, we take the insults in stride, and why not. Earthquakes, traffic jams, ridiculous housing prices, and the occasional urban unpleasantness aside, we live in Paradise, and we know it. The Lakers are one of the few unifying factors in this area, perhaps the only thing that cuts across racial, ethnic, sexual, class and occupational boundaries, but they are Los Angeles. Anyone who is a sports fan in these parts will concur: the Dodgers, Angels, Kings, Clippers and Ducks all have their local followings, but it's the Lakers that define what being an Angeleno is. The other teams you follow because you come from these parts, but the Lakers are the team you root for in order to become part of our community; in much the same way an immigrant learns the English language as the first step towards becoming an American, someone who moves to Los Angeles pays allegiance to the Lakers. And regardless of what happens tomorrow, I ain't leaving.

Ralph Wiley, a prolific writer and fixture on ESPN and Sports Illustrated, died suddenly today at 52. In one of his last columns, he became one of the only writers in America to predict the pending Detriot upset in the NBA Finals; ironically, he died at home watching the player intros to last night's decisive Game 4.

Detroit 88, Lakers 80: Unless we see a collapse unlike any before in the history of the NBA, the Pistons will be the next NBA champions. The Lakers actually played a pretty tough game tonight, particularly Payton, who finally showed up in four games into the series, but a combination of some questionable fourth quarter calls (incl. a phantom foul on GP at the six minute mark, with the Pistons up by six) and some cold outside shooting doomed the Lakers to an insurmountable deficit.

Detroit 88, Lakers 68: If the Lakers were a stock, this would be the perfect time to buy. In one week, they have gone from being prohibitive favorites to washed-up prima donnas, and they are still one game away from snatching back the home court advantage. Two one-sided losses, including the debacle on Thursday, will do much to diminish one's standing with the public. Yet this has been a fairly routine part of their season. It's hard to believe now, but the Lakers looked even worse in their two losses to San Antonio, and their collective effort in the two defeats in Minnesota was equally atrocious. Each time, they came back inspired, just as they did in Game 2 of this series.

If the series somehow does head back to L.A., fans might harken back to one of the bleaker moments in Laker history, when the team lost in seven to Boston in 1984. In that series, the Lakers went in as the underdog, then pulled away late to win Game 1 in Boston. After being outplayed for most of Game 2, they made a late run to take a lead, and seemingly had the series in the bag, especially after 85% free throw shooter Kevin McHale missed a pair with less than twenty seconds left and the Celtics down by two. But after a timeout, James Worthy threw a dreadful pass that was picked off by Gerald Henderson, who hit a lay-up to tie. The Lakers had the ball for the final shot, but their star, Magic Johnson, inexplicably dribbled out the clock, and they went on to lose in overtime.

And of course, in Game 3, the Lakers blew out the Celtics, and had seemingly regained control of the series, only to have McHale cheapshot Kurt Rambis in Game 4, and change the entire tone of the rivalry. In any event, the Pistons should win this series, especially with the Mailman and the Fisher King hurt, but the Lakers have already overcome enough self-inflicted adversity to get to the Finals. Anything less than two more complete defensive efforts by Detroit, and the Lakers will give Jackson his ninth title.

After a week of relentless hagiography, and genuinely classless and buffoonish antics by the media and my fellow citizens, I would be remiss if I didn't point out how genuinely moving the private ceremony at the Reagan Library was this evening. I had managed to avoid most of the remembrances the past week, busy as I was with work and Finals, but I did catch the sunset memorial. Anyone who has ever lost a family member or friend (and I would assume that would encompass almost everyone reading this post) can appreciate the dignity and charm the Reagan children revealed in their eulogies for their father. I delivered the eulogy for my late father, and it was one of the most difficult "performances" of my life; drafting and rehearsing the speech took a lot out of me, and knowing that I helped other people get a sense of who my dad really was still fills me with a sense of accomplishment. Hearing the recollections, and sharing the grief, of those who actually knew the man as a father and family member, rather than some stock political character, enables those of us who didn't share his views an opportunity to pay our respects as well.

Lakers 99, Detriot 91 [O.T.]: In defending Tom Lasorda from second-guessing following his decision to pitch to Jack Clark rather than Andy Van Slyke in Game 6 of the 1985 NLCS, Bill James once wrote that it is always easier to take the test after you know the answers. This morning, Larry Brown's decision to not foul any of the Lakers in the final fifteen seconds has raised hackles in every newspaper, radio show and barstool in the country, and the criticism is equally unfair.

The reasoning of Brown's attackers goes something like this: fouling a player immediately sends him to the line to shoot two, and the Pistons maintain the lead for at least two possessions. Much has been said about the supposed "unwritten rule" that teams never intentionally foul a player when that team is ahead by more than two points at the end of the game. What that obscures is the context of that decision. Even for a great player like Kobe Bryant, the likelihood of hitting a trey is ordinarily close to 33%; during the playoffs, when the opposing defense is, almost by definition, tougher, that percentage dips into the mid-to-high twenties.

On the other hand, Bryant is an 85% free throw shooter, so sending him to the line is a likely two-point gift. In order to have fouled Bryant before he was in the act of shooting would have required Rip Hamilton to have been almost on top of him by the time he got the ball, so the probable result in that situation would have been to stop the clock with about nine seconds to play (any hesitation on Hamilton's part in getting over to Bryant would have resulted in a shot attempt, sending Kobe to the line for three frees and a chance to tie, or even a chance for a four-point play). If he makes both free throws, the lead is one, Pistons' ball, but plenty of time to foul or cause a turnover. The Lakers still get another chance to tie or win the game. And that assumes Kobe makes both shots; if he misses the second, the Lakers happen to have the most dominant inside player in the game poised to get an offensive board and put-back, and you're looking at the same situation all over again.

And that, of course, assumes that Bryant gets fouled before he can get off a shot. But what if the Pistons had fouled O'Neal when he caught the in-bounds pass, twenty feet from the basket. Shaq gave up the ball almost immediately, so any attempt at playing Hack-a-Shaq would have been risky; if he had been fouled a millisecond after passing the ball to Walton, the Pistons would have been called for an intentional foul, sending Shaq to the line and giving the Lakers the ball out of bounds. Even with the Lakers' star's proclivity for inept free throw shooting, that would not have been a worthwhile risk for the Pistons.

So under the circumstances, Brown made the right call. The clock is the greatest ally for the team that's ahead in that situation. Each additional possession increases the chances for disaster, so the last thing a coach wants to do is stop the clock. Ten days ago, the Lakers had turned a nine-point deficit in Minnesota into a two-point deficit in the final ten seconds, using a maddening diet of threes and time outs. Playing for their lives, it is safe to say that the Lakers would have pulled out all the stops again in the final seconds, even with no timeouts remaining, had Detroit chosen to foul early. Only seconds earlier, when the Lakers were down by six, Bryant had bricked a wide-open three, and his fourth quarter shooting percentage from outside during the playoffs was mediocre, to say the least. By contesting Bryant but not fouling him, the odds were heavily in the Pistons' favor that he would miss, and the game (and series) would be over. It just didn't work out that way.

The first poll to be released since the death of former President Reagan shows John Kerry moving out to a six-point lead over George Bush. According to Gallup, perhaps the most surprising aspect is that Kerry is within four points of Bush in the so-called "Red States", ie., states that the President won last time by more than five points. [link via Atrios]

The first draft of history: Juan Cole has an excellent recounting of Ronald Reagan's legacy, here. For all the talk of how Reagan, unlike the current occupant of the White House, was an optimist who could unite the public, not enough has been said this weekend about what a small, narrowminded hack he could be at times. His civil rights record, in particular, was dreadful; not only did he oppose the major legislation Congress passed during the 1960's, he infamously fought the extension of the Voting Rights Act during his Presidency, and attempted to extend tax breaks to segregated colleges such as Bob Jones U. His campaign for the Presidency in 1976 was based largely on attacking a fictitious "welfare queen" (wink, wink), an issue which encapsulated wedge politics during that era. The riots that ensued from the Rodney King trial in 1992 were an indirect result of Reagan's policies.

Perhaps his most significant political legacy was that the Republican Party became an unapologetically white movement during his administration, a triumph of Kevin Phillips' "Southern Strategy". When asked about the perception among many African-Americans that he was a bigot, he would defensively reply that, far from being a racist, he had always been a supporter of civil rights: in fact, back in the day when he recreated baseball games in Iowa, he claimed that he frequently pontificated against the color line from the broadcasting booth. It was perhaps a symptom of how obsequious the media was during that period that no one believed him, yet no one called him on that laughable assertion. He deserves enormous credit for joining with Gorbachev to end the Cold War; by treating the Soviet leader as a man that the West could do business with, he went against his own party, as well as many of the neo-conservatives that now dominate the current regime. But his domestic policies damaged the country irreparably, leading to the divisions that afflict us today.

Detroit 87, Lakers 75: I have a feeling that the Lakers might need a couple of games to wake up in this series. Maybe Kobe needs to be falsely accused of murder....

CNN is reporting that Ronald Reagan passed away this morning. Having lost a grandfather to Alzheimer's, I can only express my sympathy to his family and loved ones at the travail they have gone through, and hope that his end came peacefully. There will be plenty of time later to discuss his legacy.

Remember when a number of pundits predicted that l'affaire Plame was so "over" after her photograph was published in Vanity Fair? If the President has to hire an outside counsel, it's gotten serious.

Some interesting factoids about Jennifer Hawkins, the newly-crowned Miss Universe 2004:

1. Last year, she finished third in the prestigious Bartercard Miss Indy 2003 pageant. If, for whatever reason, Bartercard Miss Indy 2003 and the first runner-up are unable to fulfill their obligations, Miss Hawkins would become the first woman in history to hold both titles simultaneously;
2. She was only selected to be "Miss Australia" last month by a Sydney modeling agency, thereby beating out last night, among others, Miss U.S.A., who was forced to compete in various pageants since last summer to earn her trip to Quito, Ecuador;
3. Her "original costume" was denounced by her hometown media as "unpatriotic", "boring", panicky and "universally, a disaster". Despite those props from her homies, she finished third in that segment, propelling her to the upset win;
4. By winning the crown, she became the first contestant outside of Latin America to win since 2000, and the first Miss Universe since 2002 to prevail without telling Miss Spain that she looked fat in her swimsuit just before she went on camera;
5. The new Miss Universe (on the right) has been quoted as saying that her ideal man is a bald, shlubby, 40-something left-of-center attorney who likes to down "a pint or two".

Accountability, then and now: GA Cerny has an apt post about how a different Republican leader acted sixty years ago.

A post about nothing: You ever had one of those days, when you set your mind to work on some big project, only to have your efforts come up completely empty. I spent yesterday chasing down a story that turned out to built on gossamer and string, concerning a throwaway remark made during the early panel at the AFI Saturday night, the one that involved the "Industry".

Allegedly, according to the panelists, a favorite film director of mine had worked "non-union" on one of his films, which, ironically, was a film about union organizing. I didn't get there until afterwards, so I had no way of knowing the context of what was said, and since the only person blogging that panel to have quoted that remark was either unable or unwilling to assist me when questioned, I decided to do my own factchecking. I had some free post-holiday time, and a jones to do some real, honest-to-goodness "journalism", like my hero, Matt Welch, so I dug into the story.

As the various journalism scandals of the past decade have taught us, from Judith Miller and Jeffrey Gerth to Jack Kelley and Jayson Blair, from the NY Times of coverage of Whitewater and Wen Ho Lee to the fictional stories about Al Gore claiming to have invented the Internet, people make s*** up all the time, and if you get suckered into believing something because someone in a position of authority says its true, you deserve everything else that happens. Gossip is fun to read, but it is often enough untrue (as this scathing piece, written by the "John Kerry Intern", attests), so it's always good to have a circumstantial basis for your story, as well as an eyewitness or three.

Since the person involved was, as I mentioned earlier, a film director, there would be one easy way to determine whether he was using non-union personnel on the shoot in question. I checked IMDB.com, and examined the various credits to find someone whose lack of experience prior to the movie would indicate that the crew member did not have a union card. No luck: each of the people I checked had extensive backgrounds at their positions. A newspaper column made mention of the same director's use of non-union personnel on a later film, but the context was different, it alluded to an interview over fifteen years old (which the article paraphrased from), and there was no explanation as to what his transgression was. I found no other websites that had even a tangential reference to the allegation, nor did I uncover any usenet groups that had bandied about the subject. If this was a Hollywood scandal, it doesn't appear to have generated much heat.

Finally, I asked my brother, who when he isn't running the hippest music club in town, is a Teamster organizer, whether the director in question had a bad rep when it came to such things. He pointed out that while it wouldn't surprise him to learn that an independent filmmaker, working on a tight budget, had been allowed to skirt union requirements, sometimes even with the tacit consent of the union, he really didn't know the answer (he wasn't involved with craft unions), but that if I really wanted to know, all I had to do was check for any grievances the affected unions would have filed back then. QED, if there were no grievances filed, then the parties probably had a pre-existing arrangement that allowed the director in question to skirt the rules.

That sounds like it might be hard work and heavy research, SO SCREW THAT. I'm not a journalist; I don't even have a library card, much less a subscription to NEXIS, so others will have to do the heavy lifting if they want the truth. Since I couldn't discredit the story after a thorough review of Google, and a ten-minute chat with my brother, each of the above subjects, from the director involved to the gossips who spread the story, shall remain nameless, but anyone who wants to uncover the details can easily do so. I'm a blogger, and not really a very good one at that, but at least I have enough self-respect not to gossip, nor to blindly post something based solely on how well I know my source. But if you ever want to know what I write about when I have absolutely nothing to write about, feel free to permalink this story.

This being Memorial Day and all, I have a question that probably has relevance only to my fellow SoCals: are Dodger Dogs still sold at supermarkets? I'm quite sure that none of the local (ie., Sherman Oaks/Woodland Hills) stores have them...please let me know !!!

"Armed Liberal" has a new nom de guerre....