From Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Knight a hypocrite to the end
By Bob Smizik

The surprising resignation, but not necessarily retirement, of Bob Knight this week brought with it a flood of memories. Knight was a fascinating man, full of contradictions. He was smarter than the average journalist and probably smarter than the average college professor. He suffered fools not at all, even those who could help him win games. He was rarely boring, almost always entertaining and ever so proud of the fact he did it his way.

When he walked out on Texas Tech, the university that had preserved his career, Knight did what he preached his players never should do: He quit. He quit on his players, his school and himself. What he demanded from others, he was unwilling to do himself.

In the end, he was a hypocrite -- do as I say, not as I do.

He was ornery, arrogant, crass, combative, profane. He got away with that because he was a basketball genius. He was a master teacher and strategist. He won three NCAA championships, not always with the most talented players, and was the winningest coach in college basketball history. But it was the off-the-court Knight we best remember.

In 1984, at the NCAA tournament regional in Atlanta, Knight was at an interview session before his Indiana team played North Carolina, coached by Dean Smith and included Michael Jordan, Sam Perkins and Brad Daugherty. Knight was pressed hard about his matchup with Smith, the two reigning geniuses of the game but with one large difference. Smith, the quintessential gentleman, was widely revered; Knight, the quintessential bully, was not.

In almost every mention of the North Carolina coach, Knight referred to him as "Smith." No one called him "Smith." He was either "Dean" or "Dean Smith." To Knight that day, he was "Smith." Knight did little or nothing by accident. He was as calculating as they come. In talking as he did about the North Carolina coach, he was dispensing as much disrespect as he could.

Now flash ahead 16 years to 2000 when an Indiana student, probably seeking a confrontation, ran into the coach on campus and said, "Hey, what's up Knight?"

The very same disrespect he dished out to Smith was too much for Knight to accept. He grabbed Kent Harvey, 19, by the arm and lectured him about manners.

Knight, having been put on a zero-tolerance policy by Indiana president Myles Brand, was fired. Poetic justice.

At that very same Atlanta regional, a day after fourth-seeded Indiana had upset first-seeded North Carolina, 72-68, Knight was at his charming best. He mesmerized the media with his wisdom and wit. At one point, the moderator of the news conference told the assembled writers there was time for only a few more questions.

Knight's response has stuck with me to this day. "I don't know about you," he said to the moderator, "but I stick around for as long as these gentlemen want to ask me questions."

And he did. That was one Knight. Here's another, and one much more well known.

The next day, Indiana was upset by seventh-seeded Virginia, 50-48. Knight arrived at the postgame news conference understandably angry. Early on, perhaps by the second question which was fairly innocuous, he erupted in a rage and stormed out of the room.

At the 1984 Olympics, as he directed Jordan and what was a dream team before there was "The Dream Team," to a gold medal, Knight displayed another side of his personality.

At the Olympics, all questions were translated into English and French. Since virtually all questions at the basketball news conference were in English, only a French translation was required. Invariably, Knight would launch into his answer before the translator could even begin. He would stop and show his annoyance while the translator finished.

The translator did not appreciate Knight's behavior. Whether he noticed that or someone else did, the next day Knight arrived with a bouquet of flowers for the translator, who was female, young and attractive. Knight playfully flirted with her through the remaining sessions.

After leaving Indiana, Knight built a successful program at Texas Tech but never anything approaching what he had at Indiana. He wouldn't or couldn't change. There once was a time when players wanted the kind of basketball education Knight could provide. Such players are rare today.

At Texas Tech, he succeeded in breaking Smith's record for the most victories and eventually surpassed 900. He also crafted a deal where his son, Pat, who failed in trying to get other head coaching jobs, would succeed him. The man who believed in the hard road to success for others, did not force that same path on his son.

Yes, he did it his way. Too often, though, it was the wrong way.

Bob Smizik can be reached at bsmizik@post-gazette.com.

From The Newark Star-Ledger:
HISTORY IN MAKING
Yankees going to Ruthian lengths
to keep the new stadium like the old one

Friday, February 08, 2008

BY ED PRICE

NEW YORK -- When the architects of the new Yankee Stadium suggested the right-field foul pole be 309 feet from home plate, five feet closer than it is now, the Yankees responded, as COO Lonn Trost put it, "What part of 'N-O' don't you know?"

The Yankees are spending a lot of money -- half a billion dollars more than originally projected -- to keep the new stadium much like the old one.

Trost yesterday gave local media a tour of the new Yankee Stadium, which he said is on schedule to be ready for the 2009 season opener. Trost also revealed the price tag, footed by the team, will be $1.3 billion and not $830 million as originally estimated.

Trost said the higher cost is due to about $200 million in concession areas (which the Yankees were originally undecided about building or contracting out) and $300 million in added amenities.

"We wanted to give Yankee fans and New York fans and fans that come here what we thought they wanted and needed," Trost said.

The Yankees could have made $50 million a year by selling naming rights, Trost said, but they passed.

"How could you change the name of Yankee Stadium?" he said.

Tradition is an important part of the new stadium. While the playing field will be essentially the same as the current one, and the team's clubhouse and fan facilities will be state-of-the-art (players' lockers will include touch-screen computers), Trost wanted some features pulled from the stadium that opened in 1923.

The iconic frieze will return -- 39 six-ton sections around the rim of the stadium with the familiar white facade above an arch. The main entrance has the limestone and granite facade, with "YANKEE STADIUM" in gold letters already etched at the top. Two holes have been cut on either side of the name for the eagle logos that adorned the similar entrance to the original stadium before its early 1970s renovation.

"It will look just as if you were looking at Yankee Stadium in 1923," Trost boasted.

Even the sections will be numbered as they were in 1923, starting in right field and going up in a clockwise direction.

The new stadium will have two decks of two levels each with a gentler slope in the grandstand, fewer rows per level and an open concourse in the upper deck that allows a view of the field.

Capacity at the new stadium will be about 53,000: 5,000 bleacher seats; an upper deck with 12,000 grandstand seats and 4,500 on the "terrace" level; a lower bowl with 12,000 seats on the main level and 11,000 on the field level; and five sets of luxury suites.

The "legends suites" in the 25 sections closest to the field include access to a bi-level club, two lounges and personal concierge service. There will also be a year-round steakhouse and a banquet, conference and business center.

"We tried to reflect a five-star hotel and put a ballpark in the middle," Trost said.

But he said there are affordable seats as well. According to Trost, 90 percent of the seats will cost less than $100 in 2009 and 55 percent will cost $45 or less.

There will eventually be about 11,000 parking spots, up from 7,000 now.

Trost said the relocation program for season-ticket holders will be announced in about six weeks. The team will plan a "transition ceremony" for November to "take those ghosts over" across the street

From The Wall Street Journal:
Can Mrs. Clinton Lose?
By PEGGY NOONAN

February 8, 2008

If Hillary Clinton loses, does she know how to lose? What will that be, if she loses? Will she just say, "I concede" and go on vacation at a friend's house on an island, and then go back to the Senate and wait?

Is it possible she could be so normal? Politicians lose battles, it's part of what they do, win and lose. But she does not know how to lose. Can she lose with grace? But she does grace the way George W. Bush does nuance.

She often talks about how tough she is. She has fought "the Republican attack machine" that has tried to "stop" her, "end" her, and she knows "how to fight them." She is preoccupied to an unusual degree with toughness. A man so preoccupied would seem weak. But a woman obsessed with how tough she is just may be lethal.

Does her sense of toughness mean that every battle in which she engages must be fought tooth and claw, door to door? Can she recognize the line between burly combat and destructive, never-say-die warfare? I wonder if she is thinking: What will it mean if I win ugly? What if I lose ugly? What will be the implications for my future, the party's future? What will black America, having seen what we did in South Carolina, think forever of me and the party if I do low things to stop this guy on the way to victory? Can I stop, see the lay of the land, imitate grace, withdraw, wait, come back with a roar down the road? Life is long. I am not old. Or is that a reverie she could never have? What does it mean if she could never have it?

We know she is smart. Is she wise? If it comes to it, down the road, can she give a nice speech, thank her supporters, wish Barack Obama well, and vow to campaign for him?

It either gets very ugly now, or we will see unanticipated--and I suspect professionally saving--grace.

I ruminate in this way because something is happening. Mrs. Clinton is losing this thing. It's not one big primary, it's a rolling loss, a daily one, an inch-by-inch deflation. The trends and indices are not in her favor. She is having trouble raising big money, she's funding her campaign with her own wealth, her moral standing within her own party and among her own followers has been dragged down, and the legacy of Clintonism tarnished by what Bill Clinton did in South Carolina. Unfavorable primaries lie ahead. She doesn't have the excitement, the great whoosh of feeling that accompanies a winning campaign. The guy from Chicago who was unknown a year ago continues to gain purchase, to move forward. For a soft little innocent, he's played a tough and knowing inside/outside game.

The day she admitted she'd written herself a check for $5 million, Obama's people crowed they'd just raised $3 million. But then his staff is happy. They're all getting paid.

Political professionals are leery of saying, publicly, that she is losing, because they said it before New Hampshire and turned out to be wrong. Some of them signaled their personal weariness with Clintonism at that time, and fear now, as they report, to look as if they are carrying an agenda. One part of the Clinton mystique maintains: Deep down journalists think she's a political Rasputin who will not be dispatched. Prince Yusupov served him cupcakes laced with cyanide, emptied a revolver, clubbed him, tied him up and threw him in a frozen river. When he floated to the surface they found he'd tried to claw his way from under the ice. That is how reporters see Hillary.

And that is a grim and over-the-top analogy, which I must withdraw. What I really mean is they see her as the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction": "I won't be ignored, Dan!"

* * *

Mr. Obama's achievement on Super Tuesday was solid and reinforced trend lines. The popular vote was a draw, the delegate count a rough draw, but he won 13 states, and when you look at the map he captured the middle of the country from Illinois straight across to Idaho, with a second band, in the northern Midwest, of Minnesota and North Dakota. He won Missouri and Connecticut, in Mrs. Clinton's backyard. He won the Democrats of the red states.

On the wires Wednesday her staff was all but conceding she is not going to win the next primaries. Her superdelegates are coming under pressure that is about to become unrelenting. It was easy for party hacks to cleave to Mrs Clinton when she was inevitable. Now Mr. Obama's people are reportedly calling them saying, Your state voted for me and so did your congressional district. Are you going to jeopardize your career and buck the wishes of the people back home?

Mrs. Clinton is stoking the idea that Mr. Obama is too soft to withstand the dread Republican attack machine. (I nod in tribute to all Democrats who have succeeded in removing the phrase "Republican and Democratic attack machines" from the political lexicon. Both parties have them.) But Mr. Obama will not be easy for Republicans to attack. He will be hard to get at, hard to address. There are many reasons, but a primary one is that the fact of his race will freeze them. No one, no candidate, no party, no heavy-breathing consultant, will want to cross any line--lines that have never been drawn, that are sure to be shifting and not always visible--in approaching the first major-party African-American nominee for president of the United States.

* * *

He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you. (I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)

With Mr. Obama the campaign will be about issues. "He'll raise your taxes." He will, and I suspect Americans may vote for him anyway. But the race won't go low.

Mrs. Clinton would be easier for Republicans. With her cavalcade of scandals, they'd be delighted to go at her. They'd get medals for it. Consultants would get rich on it.

The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it's fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He's not Bambi, he's bulletproof.

The biggest problem for the Republicans will be that no matter what they say that is not issue oriented--"He's too young, he's never run anything, he's not fully baked"--the mainstream media will tag them as dealing in racial overtones, or undertones. You can bet on this. Go to the bank on it.

The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell.

From Pajamas Media:
Who will rid us of this troublesome priest?
By Roger Kimball

A month or two ago I wrote piece in this space on the Archbishop of Canterbury called “Rowan Williams, public embarassment.” That reflection was occasioned by His Grace’s opinion, expressed in the course of an interview with Emel, “The Muslim Lifestyle Magazine,” that “the United States wields its power in a way that is worse than Britain during its imperial heyday.” Obviously, the Archbishop (who once described himself, correctly, as “a hairy leftie”)
meant it to sting (what could be worse for a leftie, hirsute or not, than being “imperial”?). As I pointed out, however, being compared to Imperial Britain would, by any ordinary standard of civilization and achievement, be high praise indeed. Everywhere Britain went, I noted, she “brought the rule of law, better education, better physical infrastructure, better health and hygiene, improved literacy, greater freedom, and greater civility.” Indeed, whenever anyone brings up Imperial Britain, I think of George Santayana’s observation “The British Character” in his book Soliloquies in England, published in the early 1920s. “What governs the Englishman is his inner atmosphere,” Santayana wrote, “the weather in his soul.”

Instinctively the Englishman is no missionary, no conqueror. He prefers the country to the town, and home to foreign parts. He is rather glad and relieved if only natives will remain natives and strangers strangers, and at a comfortable distance from himself. Yet outwardly he is most hospitable and accepts almost anybody for the time being; he travels and conquers without a settled design, because he has the instinct of exploration. His adventures are all external; they change him so little that he is not afraid of them. He carries his English weather in his heart wherever he goes, and it becomes a cool spot in the desert, and a steady and sane oracle amongst all the deliriums of mankind. Never since the heroic days of Greece has the world had such a sweet, just, boyish master. It will be a black day for the human race when scientific blackguards, conspirators, churls, and fanatics manage to supplant him.

Where is Santayana when you need him? What, I wonder, would he have had to say about Archbishop Williams’s declaration earlier today that the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in Britain is “unavoidable.” In a widely reported lecture on BBC radio 4 the Archbishop called for a “constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law” and said that Britons must “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not “relate” to the British legal system. “Constructive accommodation”: let’s see, I guess that is British English for “spineless capitulation”?

And what is all this about Muslim Brits not “relating” to the law? The rule of law is is not a lifestyle choice: it is not something you can opt out of if you happen to have alternative inclinations. “Gee, in my religion, we stone adulteresses to death, so would you mind stepping aside and handing me that pile of rocks?”

The proper answer to such gambits was formulated in the 19th century by General Charles Napier when dealing with sutte, the Indian custom of burning a widow on her husband’s funeral pyre: “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

Napier flourished in an age of cultural confidence. He was unassailed by the paralyzing multicultural thought that, after all, British civilization was just another civilization and that it only stood to reason that the Indians had their way of dealing with things. He knew that suttee was a disgusting, barbaric practice and he was in India to stamp out such barbarisms and bring the Indians into the modern world. Archbishop Williams seeks instead a “constructive accommodation” with practices that, if they proceed, would destroy everything he, as chief prelate of the Church of England, stands for. Public stupidity is always disagreeable to witness. Public stupidity fired by misplaced self-righteousness and underwritten by obvious cowardice is a positively emetic combination. Henry II may have erred when he raged against Thomas à Becket, Rowan Williams’s illustrious predecessor as Archbishop of Canterbury. I certainly would not wish to have the question “Who will rid us of this troublesome priest?” answered as Henry’s question was answered. But where Becket faithfully served his church and was savagely punished for it, Rowan Williams loses no opportunity to besmirch his Church and is lavishly praised for his perfidy. As I say, for the moment there is nothing at all “unavoidable” about the institution of Sharia law in Britain. All that is necessary to countermand it is a little self-assertion on the part of the British people. Surely the instinct for self-preservation has not been totally eradicated in Britain by the enervating imperatives of political correctness—do I end that sentence with a period or a question mark? It is a mark of how serious things have become come that I am no longer certain. The triumph of Islam in Britain is eminently avoidable. But the triumph of civilizational Quislings like Rowan Williams might just change that.

From Newsday.com:
Gov't carries out sweeping mob bust
in NYC against Gambino family
By TOM HAYS
Associated Press Writer

6:15 PM EST, February 7, 2008

NEW YORK

Authorities carried out one of the largest Mafia takedowns in recent memory Thursday when they charged dozens of reputed members of the Gambino crime family with gangland crimes spanning three decades, including the brutal slaying of a court officer and extortion at a failed NASCAR track.

The charges deal another crippling blow to the once-mighty Gambino family, already decimated by prosecutions since its heyday under notorious boss John Gotti.

A federal indictment in Brooklyn named 62 defendants, including the three highest-ranking members of the Gambino family along with the brother and nephew of the late Gotti. Authorities said a separate state investigation had resulted in charges against 26 others.

The New York case coincided with a series of raids in Italy targeting alleged members of Mafia families who control drug trafficking between the two sides of the Atlantic. Authorities said the investigations, though technically unconnected, signaled an international attempt to disrupt Gambino ties to Sicilian counterparts.

At a news conference with federal and state officials in Brooklyn, U.S. Attorney Benton Campbell said the U.S. investigation had ensnared whatever members of the Gambinos hierarchy were still at liberty and would bring "closure to crimes from the past."

The investigation's scope shows the mob "still exists in the city and the state of New York," said New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. "We like to think that it's a vestige of the past. It's not."

Most of the suspects were in custody following a series of raids on Thursday, including the reputed acting boss of the Gambino family, John "Jackie the Nose" D'Amico. He is accused of playing a lead role in a broad racketeering conspiracy.

Most of the charges were outlined in a sprawling federal indictment encompassing gangland killings from the era when the Gambino crime family was run by Paul Castellano, who was assassinated in 1985. A separate state indictment accuses the Gambinos of operating a gambling ring in Queens that took nearly $10 million in bets on professional and college sports.

District Attorney Richard Brown said the Gambinos had substituted "the traditional wire room and street corner bookie who penciled in wagers in a little black book with offshore based Internet Web sites and toll-free numbers through which they were able to manage numerous gambling accounts."

Three of the seven murders alleged in the federal indictment involved victims who weren't criminals. It accused reputed Gambino soldier Charles Carneglia with involvement in five killings over three decades, including that of Albert Gelb, a state court officer who was gunned down in 1976.

"It's a fallacy to think organized crime murders occur within the closed shop," said Mark Mershon, head of the FBI's New York office.

Prosecutors have long claimed that Gelb was assassinated in retaliation for making an off-duty arrest of Carneglia after he spotted him in a restaurant wearing a gun. Previous attempts to prosecute Gambino associates for the killing, including Carneglia's brother, ended in failure.

At the time, Gelb worked for Brown, then a judge. At the news conference, Brown recalled how of the officer had walked him to his car one night and "that was the last time I saw him. ... So I have a strong interest in this particular case."

The most recent alleged crimes date back only a few years, and include charges related to drug dealing, credit fraud conspiracies and theft of union benefits. The indictment also alleges that Gambino associates extorted people in the construction industry, embezzled from labor unions and engaged in illegal loansharking and bookmaking.

Many of the charges relate to the activities of a Staten Island cement business, whose owner was identified in the indictment only as "John Doe No. 4." Prosecutors allege that mob figures extorted the owner for money and jobs, and interfered with several of his business ventures, including the proposed NASCAR track on Staten Island.

In 2006, the cement business was forced to pay extortion to reputed mobsters to prepare the race track site for construction, court papers said. The project was abandoned before the track could be built.

As part of the scheme, mobsters allegedly forced John Doe No. 4 to give $9,000 to two workers affiliated with International Speedway Corp., builder of the race track. A company spokesman said on Thursday that the men have since quit their jobs, and that the indictment "is not directed at ISC, any of its subsidiaries, or any of its current employees."

Defense attorney Joseph Corozzo Jr., represented his father, alleged Gambino consigliere Joseph Corozzo, at an arraignment. The elder Corozzo pleaded not guilty to multiple racketeering counts including cocaine trafficking.

"He's never been involved in drugs," the son said outside court.

New York's Gambino family has been the subject of a steady stream of government indictments and prosecutions since Gotti, the so-called "Dapper Don," was sentenced to life in prison in 1992. He died in 2002.

One acting boss after another has gone to prison, including Gotti's son, John Gotti Jr., who was not named in this most recent indictment. A number of other top Gambino figures mentioned in the new indictment have previously served prison time in cases that dated to the era when the family was led by Gotti, with some released in just the past few years.

Among the 29 people sought in Italy were members of clans linked to Salvatore Lo Piccolo, the Sicilian Mafia boss arrested in November, Italian officials said. When Lo Piccolo was arrested, investigators warned that as part of his attempt to become Cosa Nostra's next "boss of bosses," he had been working to mend ties with U.S.-Italian clans such as the Gambino crime family.

"We have cut short a dangerous connection that would have been the basis for new illegal trafficking," Palermo Prosecutor Francesco Messineo said.

Named in arrest warrants issued by U.S. authorities were key members of the Gambino family, including Domenico Cefalu and Frank Cali, described as the main contact between Cosa Nostra in Sicily and the United States, authorities said.

From WRAL.com:

Convention And Carolina Take A Beating
By Barry Jacobs

Posted: Today at 3:05 a.m.

This was no classic moment in a cherished series, no game to remember for its twists and turns, its suspense and drama. Then again, what emerged from Duke’s 89-78 victory over the homestanding Tar Heels, the most points scored against North Carolina this year, will likely shape the remainder of the 2008 ACC regular season race.

And, most assuredly, the first clash between the ACC’s reigning powers will bolster each team’s expectation of success when they re-engage a month from now at Cameron Indoor Stadium.

Duke continues to emerge as what coach Mike Krzyzewski said is a “very unconventional team,” finding its strength where others might see weakness. Basketball is usually played from the inside out – getting high-percentage interior shots and earning trips to the foul line have been coaching staples for a century. But this Blue Devil squad has inverted the formula, its success indicated by a 20-1 record, eight wins and no losses in the ACC, and a No. 2 standing in the national polls.

Krzyzewski has been informed by his sojourn as head coach of the U.S. Olympic team, where he trades ideas and stratagems with professional colleagues Mike D’Antoni of the Phoenix Suns and Nate McMillan of the Portland Trail Blazers, among others.

Instead of trying to force his 2007-08 squad into a mold that did not readily fit, Krzyzewski altered the mold.

These Blue Devils attack from the outside in, either by shot or drive. Leave too much space and Duke begins firing from the perimeter. Guard too closely and the Devils take the ball to the basket, garnering layups and fouls or passing unselfishly to a dangerous cadre of shooters who lurk around the 3-point arc like buzzards circling a promising snack.

Duke employed its preferred approach from the outset at the Smith Center, unleashing a barrage of 3-pointers against the more conventionally configured Tar Heels.

North Carolina feeds the ball assiduously to the low post, where Tyler Hansbrough wreaks havoc on defenses and Deon Thompson provides stylish accompaniment. Against Duke, 17 of the Heels’ first 23 points came from that pair.

Clemson extended UNC to overtime a month ago by deploying its deep corps of powerful frontline players to stifle Hansbrough. The arrangement essentially dared other Heels to pick up the scoring slack. Wing Wayne Ellington responded to the tune of 36 points, a personal best, as UNC won by a basket.

Duke made a different choice. With limited options in the low post, it harassed Hansbrough but ceded sufficient room for him to contribute 28 points and 18 rebounds. “The kid’s a great player,” Krzyzewski said. “He takes competitiveness to the highest level.”

Aided greatly by the absence of injured UNC playmaker Ty Lawson, the Blue Devils’ aggressive perimeter defense kept the remainder of the Tar Heels off balance. Exclude Hansbrough, and the Heels made a third of their shots (16-of-48).

“We knew Tyler was going to score the ball, but one of the keys to the game was that really no one else scored points or really did much,” said Duke freshman Kyle Singler. He contributed 14 points and 10 rebounds matched against Hansbrough. “We stand by our defense with great ball pressure, contesting the wings, just force people to be uncomfortable.”

North Carolina’s chief outside threats, Ellington and Danny Green, were a combined 1-11 on threes. Neither scored enough to threaten the two-basket working margin the Blue Devils maintained for most of the second half.

“We weren’t patient,” Roy Williams said of his UNC squad. “I thought we rushed our shots. We didn’t make them play defense.”

Duke also forced 20 turnovers, one short of North Carolina’s season high, and thereby negated any disadvantage on the boards. UNC's young big men Thompson, who fouled out in 18 minutes, and Alex Stepheson, with five turnovers and no assists, were repeatedly caught in uncomfortable situations away from the basket on both offense and defense.

The Devils themselves appeared relatively at ease amid the Dean Dome din. They took the lead for good midway through the period by hitting four consecutive 3-pointers, part of an 8-for-16 onslaught in the period. On the night, Duke hit 13 of 29 from long range, 44.8 percent accuracy. Junior guard Greg Paulus was 6 of 8 on threes, the highest output of his career.

“They got any shot they wanted,” Williams groused. “I don’t know very many times tonight that our defense dictated what shots they got.”

The North Carolina coach did pronounce himself “very impressed” with Duke, however. “They’ve got great chemistry,” he said. “The most disciplined team won the game tonight. The team that did most of the little things well won the game tonight.”

Clearly, though, the absence of Lawson, North Carolina fleet point guard, altered the equation. “You want everybody” able to play, Krzyzewski said. “And certainly you want the quickest point guard in the country to be playing. That has to hurt, no question about it.”

So Duke emerged with a victory, a two-game lead in the ACC race, and the confidence it can defeat UNC even on its home court. The Tar Heels came away from the game knowing that, with the return of Lawson, their catalytic agent, they will be a different and probably better team the next time they face the Blue Devils

From SI.com:
The new order
Even with Lawson, Heels aren't as good as Devils
By Luke Winn

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. -- First comes the asterisk, because any discussion of this meeting between Duke and North Carolina must be prefaced with it: When the Tar Heels took the court just before tipoff -- a running procession of their mascot, their flag-carrying cheerleaders, and an adrenaline-charged Tyler Hansbrough bringing up the rear -- there was no Tywon Lawson. He came later, walking, and while his teammates were forming a layup line, he went to the bench. That's where the Heels' No. 1 point guard and his bum ankle stayed for the rest of the night, enjoying the same vantage point as their No. 2 point guard, Bobby Frasor, who tore his left ACL in December.

And so second-ranked Duke, the asterisk denotes, beat the Quentin Thomas-at-point-guard version of third-ranked Carolina 89-78.

With that out of the way, we are free to state other truths, the most important one being this: Duke, the way it's playing right now -- as a perfectly harmonized band of perimeter weapons, one that UNC coach Roy Williams says "has all the ingredients" -- is a better team than Carolina is even with Ty Lawson.

By Las Vegas odds, what happened here on Wednesday in Chapel Hill was an upset; by preseason rankings, it was an upset. But by what has transpired this season, one in which Carolina has struggled to defend like a title team, and Duke has exceeded all expectations on both ends, this was no upset. Which is why when the buzzer sounded and the silence fell over the Dean Dome, there was no whooping from the villainous Blue Devils in their black road jerseys, no taunting of the home crowd the way Maryland did when it knocked off the then-undefeated Heels on Jan. 19. Duke merely walked through the handshake line and then walked off the floor, businesslike, having loudly affirmed its status as a bona fide Final Four contender.

The best four teams in the country right now are Memphis, Duke, Kansas and UCLA; the Blue Devils, despite lacking what's perceived to be the proper amounts of size and brawn and experience, have proven they belong in the club.

"We know who we are; we are a very unconventional team," said Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski. "We are not a very strong physical team, but I think we are strong emotion-wise and toughness-wise; we are really a together group. ... You just find different ways to win, and because we have versatile players, they are able to do that thus far."

The nagging question coming into this game, aside from the status of Lawson's ankle, was: how in the hell would Duke's front line of two 6-foot-8 young'uns (freshman Kyle Singler and sophomore Lance Thomas) be able to stop the 21.8-points-and-10.4-boards-per-game monster that is Hansbrough? The answer: It couldn't, and it didn't. Singler and a steady diet of double-teamers came at Psycho T and he still finished with 28 points and 18 rebounds. Singler pointed out the flip-side to this, something thing that probably didn't get enough attention this week: "We might have had mismatches on defense, but so did they," he said. "It just came down to whoever executed better, whoever performed better."

While Duke minimized Hansbrough's damage by locking down on the perimeter -- "no one else hurt us," Singler said, and he was right, as the Heels went 3-for-17 from long-distance -- UNC crumbled due to its inability to defend all of the Blue Devils' deadly wings. A succession of crowd-deflating threes by the Dukies put the game out of hand. Point guard Greg Paulus was 6-of-8 on the night, most of them coming against an overmatched Thomas; Singler was 3-of-6 with Hansbrough attempting to guard him on the outside; and as a team the Blue Devils were 13-of-29 from beyond the arc.

"They got any shot they wanted," said Williams, whose team allowed six Duke players to score in double figures. "I don't know very many times tonight our defense dictated what shot they got. They had better spacing; they were more patient."

Krzyzweski, as per his philosophy, never forces his personnel into a system but rather finds a system that fits his personnel. This year, that's a spread-out, up-tempo attack, very much like what the only team ahead of Duke in the polls, Memphis, has used to get off to a 22-0 start. The Blue Devils are ranked fifth in the nation in offensive efficiency, up from 40th last season, because of the problems they create for more normally constructed foes. Most good opponents have the athletes to keep one or two athletic wing players under wraps, but can they stop four, or even five? "What we do isn't very complicated," said Singler, "but we have the right personnel to do it. We drive well, people have to help a lot, and that's when our kick-outs and shots open up."

While Duke's success isn't complicated, neither is the reason Carolina isn't looking like the juggernaut it was expected to be: it hasn't executed on defense.

The Heels rank 40th in defensive efficiency, as compared to Duke's sixth. Time and time again, the Heels failed to get key stops when they needed them. The two occasions that Carolina cut the lead to one in the second half, at 42-41 and 45-44, it gave up a momentum-halting three-pointer on the ensuing possession. The Heels had an obvious excuse for their lack of offensive flow, mainly, an inability to get Hansbrough enough good touches down the stretch in the second half. They were, after all, missing their floor general. Yet the players who are allegedly their best defenders -- Marcus Ginyard, Danny Green, and Hansbrough -- were all the floor, all being shredded by Duke's spread.

"After what happened tonight," says Hansbrough, "we have a long way to go [on defense]. Coach [Williams] is nowhere near satisfied, and he definitely stressed that in the locker room after the game."

Hansbrough wanted this to be a special night. As much as it was downplayed leading into the game, he wanted to exact revenge on Gerald Henderson and the Blue Devils for the bloodied and broken nose that was delivered last March. Psycho T's passing of Michael Jordan on Carolina's all-time scoring leaders list, with his 23rd point midway through the second half, was bittersweet. He remained on the floor until the buzzer this time, unbloodied and unscathed, but facing a depressing result, and left to wonder what might have been had Lawson been in the lineup.

"It's hard," Hansbrough said of playing without his point guard, "but it's the way it happened. North Carolina lost to Duke."

And Duke, which was already ahead of Carolina in the polls, solidified its place atop the Tobacco Road hierarchy. Asterisk or no asterisk, the Blue Devils had better chemistry, better D, crisper execution. Who could have guessed, back in October, that in Round 1 of this rivalry, Duke would be the one setting the example?

Article from Accuracy in Media:
Hillary’s Crocodile Tears in Connecticut
By Jerry Zeifman

Quote by Lisa Schiffren at NRO:

"This story rings so true because we have all seen this behavior from her. Is it characteristic for Hillary to disregard legal niceties in pursuit of her higher personal code of justice/vengeance/personal advantage (and in pursuit of helping abused women and children...)? Did she do that in her First Lady years, with regard to Whitewater; the FBI files of Republicans that ended up in her offices; lucrative commodities deals: the travel office scandal; bimbo erruptions; and all the rest. Does a leopard change her spots?

Because if we believe that Hillary Clinton thinks she is above the law, that the ends justify the means, or that the law is a mere tool which can be ignored as one pursues personal power and wealth and power again — ostensibly in service of a higher agenda, then we should not be surprised when she resumes this behavior in the White House. We know everything we need to know about Hillary Rodham Clinton's character. If you have forgotten, read Zeifman's piece."

February 5, 2008

I have just seen Hillary Clinton and her former Yale law professor both in tears at a campaign rally here in my home state of Connecticut. Her tearful professor said how proud he was that his former student was likely to become our next President. Hillary responded in tears.

My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.

Hillary as I knew her in 1974

At the time of Watergate I had overall supervisory authority over the House Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Inquiry staff that included Hillary Rodham-who was later to become First Lady in the Clinton White House.

During that period I kept a private diary of the behind the scenes congressional activities. My original tape recordings of the diary and other materials related to the Nixon impeachment provided the basis for my prior book Without Honor and are now available for inspection in the George Washington University Library.

After President Nixon's resignation a young lawyer, who shared an office with Hillary, confided in me that he was dismayed by her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel-as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon. In my diary of August 12, 1974 I noted the following:

John Labovitz apologized to me for the fact that months ago he and Hillary had lied to me [to conceal rules changes and dilatory tactics.] Labovitz said, "That came from Yale." I said, "You mean Burke Marshall [Senator Ted Kennedy's chief political strategist, with whom Hillary regularly consulted in violation of House rules.] Labovitz said, "Yes." His apology was significant to me, not because it was a revelation but because of his contrition.

At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.

Her patron, Burke Marshal, had previously been Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Robert Kennedy. During the Kennedy administration Washington insiders jokingly characterized him as the Chief counsel to the Irish Mafia. After becoming a Yale professor he also became Senator Ted Kennedy's lawyer at the time of Chappaquidick-as well as Kennedy's chief political strategist. As a result, some of his colleagues often described him as the Attorney General in waiting of the Camelot government in exile.

In addition to getting Hillary a job on the Nixon impeachment inquiry staff, Kennedy and Marshall had also persuaded Rodino to place two other close friends of Marshall in top positions on our staff. One was John Doar; who had been Marshall's deputy in the Justice Department-whom Rodino appointed to head the impeachment inquiry staff. The other was Bernard Nussbaum, who had served as Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York-who was placed in charge of conducting the actual investigation of Nixon's malfeasance.

Marshall, Doar, Nussbaum, and Rodham had two hidden objectives regarding the conduct of the impeachment proceedings. First, in order to enhance the prospect of Senator Kennedy or another liberal Democrat being elected president in 1976 they hoped to keep Nixon in office "twisting in the wind" for as long as possible. This would prevent then-Vice President Jerry Ford from becoming President and restoring moral authority to the Republican Party.

As was later quoted in the biography of Tip O'Neill (by John Farrell), a liberal Democrat would have become a "shoe in for the presidency in 1976" if Nixon had been kept in office until the end of his term. However, both Tip O'Neill and I-as well as most Democrats-regarded it to be in the national interest to replace Nixon with Ford as soon as possible. As a result, as described by O'Neill, we coordinated our efforts to "keep Rodino's feet to the fire."

A second objective of the strategy of delay was to avoid a Senate impeachment trial, in which as a defense Nixon might assert that Kennedy had authorized far worse abuses of power than Nixon's effort to "cover up" the Watergate burglary (which Nixon had not authorized or known about in advance). In short, the crimes of Kennedy included the use of the Mafia to attempt to assassinate Castro, as well as the successful assassinations of Diem in Vietnam and Lumumba in the Congo.

After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O'Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O'Neill's statement that: "To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series."

Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee's then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff-where they were no longer accessible to the public.

Hillary had also made other ethically flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with-or take depositions of-any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Department's special Watergate prosecutor.

Only a few far-left Democrats supported Hillary's recommendations. A majority of the committee agreed to allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses. This recommendation was voted down by the full House. The committee also rejected her proposal that we leave the drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow impeachment-inquiry staffers.

It was not until two months after Nixon's resignation that I first learned of still another questionable role of Hillary. On Sept. 26, 1974, Rep. Charles Wiggins, a Republican member of the committee, wrote to ask Chairman Rodino to look into "a troubling set of events." That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had asked "that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon." And, while "no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use," Wiggins had just learned that such a study had been conducted-at committee expense-by a team of professors who completed and filed their reports with the impeachment-inquiry staff well in advance of our public hearings.

The report was kept secret from members of Congress. But after the impeachment-inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published commercially and sold in book stores. Wiggins wrote: "I am especially troubled by the possibility that information deemed essential by some of the members in their discharge of their responsibilities may have been intentionally suppressed by the staff during the course our investigation." He was also concerned that staff members may have unlawfully received royalties from the book's publisher.

On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: "Hillary Rodham of the impeachment-inquiry staff coordinated the work. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form." No effort was ever made to ascertain whether or not Hillary or any other person on the committee staff received royalties.

Two decades later Bill Clinton became President. As was later to be described in the Wall Street Journal by Henry Ruth-the lead Watergate courtroom prosecutor-"The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party."

Mr. Zeifman is a life-long Democrat, served for 17 years as Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, and is the author of Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot and Impeachment of President Clinton (1995) and Hillary’s Pursuit of Power (2007) See his website http://www.Jzeifman.com.

Radical Muslims for Obama

By Joe Kaufman
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, February 05, 2008

With its similarity to popular online sites such as Facebook and MySpace and its links to a network of grassroots blogs, Barack Obama’s campaign website has been hailed as a testament to the candidate’s transformative politics. But at least part of the senator’s online outreach, “Muslim Americans for Obama ’08,” proposes installing Muslim prayer areas in public places and giving Muslims time off for prayer and has denounced Obama’s colleagues in the U.S. Senate who happen to be Jewish. This segment of Obama's online outreach also has ties to unindicted co-conspirators in terror trials and has recruited Obama supporters from among the ranks of fundamentalist Muslim extremists.

On the blog, which is attached to BarackObama.com, viewers can read about “the Senate pro-Israeli zionist hawk Joe Lieberman,” as well as criticism aimed at Obama himself for getting too cozy with the Israeli lobby. As stated on the blog, that last part was derived from information found on Electronic Intifada (EI), a terror apologist website based in Chicago, Illinois, Obama’s hometown. According to the site’s co-founder, Ali Abunimah, Senator Obama once told him, regarding Abunimah’s anti-American and anti-Israel writings, to “Keep up the good work!”

While the Muslim Americans for Obama ’08 blog is hosted by Obama’s website, it is actually part of another site that goes by the same name, located at muslimsforobama08.com. The registered agent for the site is Zakiyah Omar, a women’s costume designer from Jacksonville, Florida. Omar has been involved in the Obama campaign since December 2006 (She has had the site since February ’07). She too has her own blog hosted by the official Obama website.

On the Muslim Americans for Obama ’08 site, one will find a list of upcoming events, issues and solutions, details on how to join, a links section to sites of interest, and of course, a link to the blog. There’s even a toll-free number to call for more information.

Within the events section, a number of the listings pertain to conferences and conventions being sponsored by organizations that have a number of troubling ties. One is the 44th Annual ISNA National Convention, held in Rosemont, Illinois.

ISNA or the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was recently named an “Unindicted Co-conspirator” for a Dallas trial that dealt with the funding of millions of dollars to Hamas. Beginning in December 2003, ISNA was the subject of a Senate investigation into the financing of terror groups overseas. The group currently uses its website to propagate violent hatred against Jews and Christians.

Another of the events listed is the 32nd ICNA-MAS Convention, held in Hartford, Connecticut. ICNA or the Islamic Circle of North America, in August 2006, was the top donor to a Pakistani charity that, at the time, had given $99,000 to the head of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal. Four people associated with the ICNA-related ‘Houston Taliban’ were arrested and charged with jihad training with firearms, for the purpose of joining the Taliban to attack Americans overseas.

MAS or the Muslim American Society, like ISNA, uses the web to spread violent hatred against non-Muslims. In April 2004, MAS’s Communications Director, Randall Todd “Ismail” Royer, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for his activities within the ‘Virginia Jihad Network,’ a group that was conspiring with Laskar-e-Taiba (LeT) to attack Americans and Indians abroad.

Yet another event listing is the 2007 MANA National Convention, held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. MANA or the Muslim Alliance in North America was founded in May of 2000, in response to the arrest of cop killer H. Rap Brown, a.k.a. Jamil Al-Amin. The President (Amir) of the organization is Siraj Wahhaj, an individual that was named by the U.S. government an “Unindicted Co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

According to Muslim Americans for Obama ’08, it took part in “VOTER REGISTRATION/INFORMATION BOOTHS,” at each of the above venues. Taking that into consideration, since Muslim Americans for Obama ’08 is officially part of the Barack Obama for President team – or as the campaign puts it, “Community” – one can conclude that Senator Obama and/or his campaign had sanctioned its attendance at these events.

Further troubling are the following “Issues & Solutions” on the site:

• Institute a Law to allow Muslim Employees to take an hour off from work for Friday Jummah Prayer.
• Make the 2 Eid’s recognized National Holidays on Calendars with days off from work.
• Provide prayer areas suitable for Salah and Jummah, in public and private facilities. (i.e. Malls, Airports, Universities and government buildings.)

Found on the right side of the website’s homepage are a series of links, most of which deal with information about Senator Obama and the campaign. One of them, though, is a link to Aswat Al-Islam, a radical Islamic multimedia outlet. Muslim Americans for Obama ’08 lists it as “Quran (Audio) English Translation.”

Aswat Al-Islam features the works of such Islamist luminaries as: “Uninidicted Co-conspirators” of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Siraj Wahhaj and Bilal Philips; anti-Christian bigot, Ahmed Deedat; pro-wife beating author, Jamal Badawi; suicide bombing supporter, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi; and the chief cleric of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, who has called for the murders of Jews, Christians and Americans and has described Jews as “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the killers of prophets, and the grandsons of monkeys and pigs,” Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais.

According to Muslim Americans for Obama ’08, Senator Barack Obama “is the BEST candidate for the job in 2008.” But being the best candidate should have as a requisite keeping company that is worthy of respect. Recently, Obama has been cited for having a racist and anti-Israel pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and a campaign advisor that has expressed sympathy for Hamas and Hezbollah, Robert Malley.

If Sen. Obama truly is worthy of the presidency of the United States, he should publicly distance himself from these extremist groups and individuals. And if he does not want his campaign to be seen as hospitable to radical voices, he should sever his ties with the blog that provides credible evidence for this charge.

---

Joe Kaufman is the Chairman of Americans Against Hate, the founder of CAIR Watch, and the spokesman for Terror-Free Oil Initiative.

From CBS Sunday Morning:
The Fashion Designer And The Artist

Feb. 3, 2008(CBS) Todd Oldham has been a fixture in the fashion world since he burst onto the scene in the 1990s, with bold colors and potholder pockets. In recent years, he's teamed up with companies like Target, La-Z-Boy and FTD, to design everything from dorm room furniture to floral arrangements.

But five years ago, Oldham's design career took an unexpected turn when he happened across a promotional magazine published by the Ford Motor Company in a junk store.

"I'd never heard of Ford Times," Oldham told CBS News correspondent Cynthia Bowers, "but the illustration of this bird, a red-eyed vireo that was on the cover, it kind of just stopped you in your tracks. I couldn't figure out why my hands were zombied to this thing, and I bought the one and then looked up Charley Harper. Didn't know who the guy was, but, oh my God, what a genius!"

Turns out, that genius was the same Charley Harper who illustrated a book Oldham owned, and cherished, as a boy growing up in Texas.

"I had the giant 'Golden Book of Biology,' which was one of my favorite things I've ever had in my life," reminisced Oldham. "I kind of remember, it was like I crawled into that book. It wasn't like a book in the room. It was this fort, this immersion for me."

Oldham was determined to find the man whose illustrations had so captivated him. He found Charley Harper living in Cincinnati where he had been a working artist for the last 60 years.

Harper, his wife Edie and son Brett - artists too - were all part of the local art scene.

Oldham arranged to meet Harper, hoping to learn more about the man, and his work, face to face. Brett Harper remembers his dad was less than impressed that the world-famous Todd Oldham was one of his fans.

"He would say, 'Who's Todd?' or 'Todd Schmodd' or 'Todd's not a God,'" said Harper, laughing.

Despite Charley Harper's jokes and a forty-year age difference, an unlikely friendship sprung up between the artist and the designer.

"What happened with him?" Bowers asked Oldham. "What was the connection?"

"Well, with Charley, I mean, I loved what he did so much," Oldham told her. "He's one of the few people that I actually respected so much that even if he wasn't gonna be nice, a nice guy, I don't think there would be anything that could get in the way with how much I loved the work. So the fact that when I met him, he was enchanting and more lovely and inspiring and hysterical and sweet - I mean, way, way, way more than I ever imagined - it was really kind of a dream come true."

A dream come true, because Harper's art had such a profound impact on him.

"Charley influenced so many facets of my life," Oldham explained, "starting with my color sense. That's what fuels everything else I do."

"So, was most of, you know, what you guys became as friends, was it all centered on art?" Bowers asked, "Or did you talk about life?"

"Oh, everything, yeah," Oldham said. "I mean, Charley was so kind. He never bristled at the five bajillion questions I hammered him with, wanting to know everything about everything."

And as their friendship grew, Oldham began keeping a video journal of their get-togethers and conversations, which often came back around to the art that drew them together and how Harper evolved from naturalist to minimalist.

"Minimal realism", Harper called it, a spare, geometrical style.

"The words that he used were flat, hard-edged and simple. What do you think he meant by that?" Bowers asked.

"Well, Charley was very practical," Oldham answered. "So those were, are indeed, unemotional observations of the art. He's leaving out all of the fuel that makes those things, those works, magical."

Of all the magical works Harper created, his favorite was one he called "Jesus bugs." Harper explained that as a young boy on a farm in rural West Virginia, he became fascinated with insects that seemed to walk on water.

"But he spent a lot of time staring at the creek," Oldham shared, "and there were these water striders on these shallow creeks. And he started realizing that because of the lightness of the bug, it would create these little, circular rings around the feet."

"And then the full reduction of it was shadowed on the bottom. He had this 360 way of being able to show something above, something underneath, underground. And it was so inherent in him. But the sum of all those pieces came out with the point of view we've never seen before, and probably never will."

And as the years passed, Oldham made it his mission to expose more people to that distinctive Harper point of view. Oldham devoted five years to tracking down, cataloging and archiving all the works produced by Charley Harper, everything from posters to paintings to illustrations.

"I'm a Harperologist," he said. "It's a rare opportunity to, like, micro-study someone for five years. That's really something."

"Did you ever imagine five years ago that this, your life would have taken this turn?" Bowers asked.

"Well, with this, no, no. Unfortunately, if I had seen a list of what was involved I don't know anybody that would have really signed up for it, because it was a Herculean task, you know?"

But Herculean as it may have been, it's also reaped some rewards for Oldham. He was inspired to incorporate Harper's art into some of his furniture designs.

"When you look at his work, what makes you think couch, ottoman and La-Z-Boy?" Bowers asked.

"Well, the forms can be adapted to many, many things."

And those adaptable forms usually center around wildlife, everything from raccoons to cows to ladybugs to birds.

"Now these three images are all silk-screens that were first seen in Ford Times Magazine," Oldham said, describing three of the designs.

In August, when the Cincinnati Art Museum opened an exhibition of Harper and his wife Edie's early works, Todd Oldham was there too to introduce a new Harper work, a book called "Charley Harper: An Illustrated Life."

Just weeks before the exhibition, Oldham flew to Harper's sick bed to show his ailing friend their collaboration which features over 700 of the artist's works.

"We walked in on him," Oldham remembered, "and he was more unwell than I had seen him in a while. It was a little startling. And he wasn't able to speak much, but we went through every page of the book, and he thanked me for doing the book and said he loved it."

A few days later, Charley Harper passed away at the age of 84.

"Well, he meant and means everything to me," Oldham told Bowers. "It was a bond, I don't know - it was, it was otherworldly."

"Why did you do it?" she asked him.

"I've gotten to do a lot of things in my life. But this was one of the few things I knew, it was like, it must be done. There was no choice. It must be done. And I'm just so happy I got to do it."

From Libertas.com:

Ole’ Blue Eyes Is Back

All kinds of great things are happening to honor the tenth-anniversary of the death of Frank Sinatra. (ten-years, already?). The New York Post details the goodies coming out including ten previously unreleased films, boxed sets, and a number of TCM specials:

Warner will release two five-disc sets that are billed as containing all DVD premieres. “The Golden Years'’ includes “The Tender Trap,'’ “Some Came Running,'’ “None But the Brave'’ and “The Man With the Golden Arm.'’ … Pity Warners couldn’t get its mitts on Frank’s other PD [public domain] gem, “Suddenly,'’ for which he received an Oscar nomination. The final set is “The Early Years,'’ which includes such curiosities as “It Happened in Brooklyn,'’ “Step Lively,'’ “Higher and Higher,” “Double Dynamite'’ and the notorious “The Kissing Bandit.'’ … Reprise Records will release a 22-track album and TCM will get to show four of Sinatra’s TV specials from the 1960s along with a raft of his films[.]

Turner Classic Movies has had many of the unreleased films in heavy rotation for years, especially Some Came Running and The Tender Trap, but the opportunity to get these technicolor widescreen gems on DVD is very welcome. The public domain copy of Man With The Golden Arm is actually pretty good but the Suddenly one is horrible. I’ve purchased most every version available (they cost a buck) and all are from horrible prints.

Sinatra’s television specials from the 60s might still be available on DVD, I scooped them up in the late 90s and each is like the man himself; classy and classic. I’ll keep my eyes open and try to give you a heads up when they air on TCM.

As you can tell I’m a Sinatra fanatic and have been since I was a teenager in the 80s, albeit not a very cool one, but the songs and the singer combined are the greatest of the twentieth-century. In 500 years Sinatra and his music will survive right next to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. There simply can’t be enough Frank Sinatra in the world.

From washingtonpost.com:
Knight's Best Was as Good as It Gets
By John Feinstein

Tuesday, February 5, 2008; 1:25 PM

It is never easy or simple with Bob Knight.

His decision to walk away from coaching two-thirds of the way through his 42nd season is bound to be questioned and, in some quarters, criticized. But who among us would expect him to leave the game in a predictable fashion. If there has been one consisent about Knight, it is that you can never predict what he will say or do next.

He's not the first iconic coach to walk away in mid-season: John Thompson left Georgetown eight years ago after the Hoyas had dropped their first four Big East games and to this day has never really explained the timing. Lefty Driesell did the same thing at Georgia State five years ago and did explain his thoughts: "I woke up in a motel room in Nashville one morning, looked around and said, 'I'm 71 years old; what in the world am I doing here?' " Dean Smith quit on the eve of the first practice prior to the 1997-98 season because the idea of going to practice didn't excite him anymore.

The truly great ones, the ones who put every drop of energy they have into what they do, often reach a point where, very suddenly, it occurs to them that they aren't what they once were. Their energy level isn't the same; their enjoyment of what they do isn't the same; their desire isn't the same. And, in most cases, they aren't winning as much, and every one of them craves winning.

For all his success, Knight had reached a plateau at Texas Tech that was well below where he wanted to be or thought he should be. His work in six-and-a-half seasons there was admirable: four NCAA tournament bids, one trip to the round of 16. But that's a long way from the glory days at Indiana; all the Big Ten titles; the five trips to the Final Four; the three national championships. Knight last won a national title in 1987; last went to a Final Four in 1992. In his last 14 seasons as a coach he reached the round of 16 twice and never went beyond that.

At some point a man who takes every loss as a personal affront was going to get tired of that. He had set all the records he was going to set. He had won his 900th game, and his team was 12-8 and spluttering along in the middle of the Big 12. There had been losses to Sam Houston State and Centenary and, recently, a 26-point loss at Texas.

Army Coach Jim Crews, who played on Knight's first national championship team in 1976 (the last undefeated college team) and then coached under him for eight years, almost predicted this three days ago. Crews is as bright and thoughtful as anyone in coaching and understands Knight as well or better than anyone who ever played for him or worked for him.

"I just wonder how much longer he's going to want to do this," Crews said when the subject of Knight came up Sunday. "I remember looking in the paper and seeing they had lost to Centenary and thinking, 'Wow, I just can't imagine what it must be like around there [Lubbock] right now.' I think there's going to come a point where he says, 'Enough is enough.' I wouldn't be surprised if it was sooner rather than later.' "

Crews probably didn't expect it this soon, but he obviously knew what he was talking about. Those who will criticize Knight for walking away from his team will miss the point entirely: There is no doubt he believes it is better for his players to be coached by an energized Pat Knight than by a worn-out Bob Knight. That's a fact.

His legacy will always be a mixed one and that's the sad part. The chair (1985) will always come up and so will Puerto Rico (1979); the LSU fan in the trash can (1981); Neil Reed (1999); his firing at Indiana (2000); the salad bar incident with the Texas Tech chancellor (2004) and on and on.

There's no excuse for that behavior or for the bully act he frequently put on or for some of the emotional abuses he heaped on players and assistant coaches and, for that matter, close friends. Those who try to justify that behavior are just as foolish as those who refuse to acknowledge all that he accomplished.

Most who played for him swore at him frequently while they were with him and swore by him after they left. His often convoluted notions of loyalty could make life very difficult, but almost everyone who has ever been around him for any length of time would agree they learned from him and that if you dealt with all the baggage, he would be there for you when you needed him.

Knight was never easy on any level for anyone, but he was often worth all the trouble.

I certainly fall into that category. The season I spent with him (1985-86) was one of the most fascinating and frustrating periods of my life. The access he allowed me provided the material to make "A Season on the Brink" a bestseller. After the book was released, Knight called me every possible derogatory name he could think of because he said I had told him I would leave his profanity out of the book. It became an ugly dispute, and to this day, I know there are people who believe I betrayed Knight.

We made up eventually, carving out what could best be described as a civil relationship in recent years. When I wrote a book about Red Auerbach several years ago, Knight and I talked at length because Knight would have done anything for Red.

Often, I'm asked my most vivid memory from the time I spent with Knight. There are so many - both good and bad - but one sticks with me because it says so much about who Knight really wanted to be.

He and I were sitting in a Bob Evans in Indianapolis at about 1 o'clock in the morning on the eve of Indiana's game in a holiday tournament against Mississippi State. Knight was talking at length about his team's lack of toughness when a boy approached the table very gingerly. Almost always in public situations, Knight was extremely approachable as long as people were polite.

"Coach, I'm sorry to interrupt," the boy began. "But I wonder if I could ask you a big favor."

I began reaching for a pen, assuming the youngster wanted an autograph. I was wrong. His name was Garland Loper, and he was 12 years old. He explained to Knight that his father and brother would like to meet him.

"Of course," Knight said. "Where are they?"

Garland pointed across the restaurant.

"You see, Coach, they're both deaf and mute," he explained. "They talk through me. They'd like to say hello to you if it's okay." Knight instantly waved over the two older Lopers. They signed to Garland, who spoke to Knight, telling him how much they loved Indiana basketball and how proud they were of him and his players. Knight was clearly touched by all three. He took down their home address and phone number and sent the entire family Indiana memorabilia and souveniers. He also invited them to a game.

Prior to the game, Knight took the Lopers into the locker room. He introduced them to his players, and then Garland again acted as the family spokesman so he, his dad and his brother could speak to the players. When he was finished, the room was absolutely silent.

"Boys," Knight said as he always did when his team had visitors. One by one, the players lined up to shake hands with the Lopers and introduced themselves.

When the Lopers had left, there was a long silence, and then Knight said, "Boys, I don't ever want to hear again how tough your lives are."

That was his pregame talk.

To this day, everyone on that team with whom I keep in touch remembers that scene.

There's no wiping out all the moments of Knight's bad behavior. They will always be part of his legacy.

But so too will the Loper family. That was the best of Bob Knight. And there is no arguing that his best was as good as it gets.

From The New York Times:
There Will Be Blood
By MAUREEN DOWD

LOS ANGELES

Suddenly, everyone was in the mood for love. Would the scream team turn into the dream team?

After Thursday’s Democratic debate, CNN’s Carol Costello said there were “heart palpitations” and “ripples of joy” in the glittery Kodak Theater audience at the idea of a Hillary-Obama or Obama-Hillary ticket, after he was gallant with her and she laughed gaily with him.

How could Hollywood not fall in love with Hollywood’s favorite plot? After lots of sparking and sparring, the couple falls into each other’s arms in the last scene.

The would-be matchmakers didn’t seem to know that in Hollywood, couples who have chemistry on screen often don’t like each other off screen, and ones who are involved off screen often don’t have any chemistry on screen.

And so it is with Barack and Hillary. Thursday night was not the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Just a beautiful, dare we say, fairy tale.

Hillary is done with playing a supporting role to a political natural. And why would Obama want to follow in the frustrated footsteps of Al Gore, who became Bill Clinton’s vice president only to find that the job was already taken by Hillary? Think about being third banana to Billary? There won’t be any Dick Cheney-style coup in Hillary’s White House.

“Can you imagine being in that position?” a member of Team Obama said tartly. “Well, neither can he. It’s just part of their campaign to marginalize him. I think they’re pushing every freaking button they can right now.”

Team Obama refers to the Clinton campaign as “Jaws” because “just when things are quiet, they keep trying to come back and capsize the boat.”

A more accurate snapshot of the frosty Clinton-Obama relationship came on a frosty December day in a scorching encounter that is now known simply as “the tarmac moment.” On Dec. 13, the two senators were preparing to board their private planes, parked next to each other at Reagan National Airport, to go back to Iowa for a debate. Hillary sent word to Obama that she wanted to talk to him. Obama’s aides figured that she wanted to make a pro forma apology for the comments of Billy Shaheen, the Clinton co-chairman in New Hampshire, who had told The Washington Post that Republicans would pounce on Obama’s confessions of cocaine and marijuana use in his late teens. Shaheen would step down the next day, but Camp Obama did not think the slam was a mere slip of the tongue.

In front of her plane, Hillary apologized to her rival about Shaheen. Obama replied that he was concerned at the pattern of insinuations and attacks from her supporters and that a message needed to be sent from the top that sharp attacks were not, as Hillary had put it, “the fun part.” He brought up another recent example: the Clinton volunteer in Iowa who had been asked to leave after forwarding sleazy e-mail falsely claiming that Obama was a Muslim.

Then, according to witnesses from the Obama camp, Hillary got very agitated and was “flapping her arms.” All her simmering grievances spilled out during the 10-minute talk. She was still furious about David Geffen’s searing interview with me the previous February, charging that she and Bill lie with such ease “it’s troubling.” While Geffen’s fund-raiser for Obama spurred the column, Obama knew nothing about the interview until it appeared. Hillary was also angry that Obama had called her “disingenuous,” telling Newsweek that it was a contradiction for her to claim that her tenure as first lady gave her more experience but then refuse to release her first lady papers from Bill’s library, saying she had no control over them.

At some point, an Obama intimate recalled, he “gently put his hand on her arm to chill her out.” The tall senator often leans down to put a friendly hand on the shoulder of his fellow senators — male and female — on the Senate floor, and they seem charmed by the gesture.

But Senator Clinton and her circle were not. They had been surprised and troubled by what they saw as his attempt to grab her arm and hold her in place while they talked, an unpleasant flashback to Rick Lazio getting in her space. As Queen Bee of the Clinton hive, Hillary has created a regal force field that can be breached only with permission, so something that wasn’t even a jostle was perceived as a joust.

The encounter seemed to have steeled them both. Hillary, to knock back the upstart who had unexpectedly gotten in her way, and Obama, who came away feeling that, for all of Hillary’s outer strength, she was afraid of him in some ways, and for all of her supposed poise, she had a more spiky temperament than he had realized.

But on Thursday, when he leaned down to whisper and put his hand on her shoulder, she looked up at him with a glowing smile. They really should have taken home gold statuettes.

Venerable rocker Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers took center stage for a four-song performance
in halftime festivities that stretched out 28 minutes. (Stan Grossfeld/Globe Staff)

Tom Petty Plays It Cool at Super Bowl

Posted: Today at 3:08 a.m.
Updated: Today at 3:15 a.m.

GLENDALE, Ariz. —Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers' surprisingly subdued Super Bowl halftime show was as uncomplicated in person as it looked on television. There were no wardrobe - or any other kind - of malfunctions.

Moments before the performance, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers calmly waited on the Patriots' side of the field. Once given the go signal, the musicians quickly took the stage, picked up their instruments and started performing. They made playing a concert for about 100 million people look almost effortless.

On the field, it was impossible to tell that the illuminated stage was heart shaped or that a large arrow was headed straight for it at the beginning of Petty's by-the-book rendition of "American Girl." The visual effect wasn't broadcast on the jumbotron. There were other illusions at play, too.

That cross-sectioned crowd of moms, dads and teenagers didn't descend from the stands to spontaneously rock out at Petty's feet. No, they had been assembled just outside of the University of Phoenix Stadium, waiting for their moment on the field since the start of the game in a long line reminiscent of an "American Idol" audition.

However, the audience did actually sing-along when Petty launched into "I Won't Back Down." That wasn't fake, although the screens featuring the words behind Petty seemed slightly unnecessary. Everyone sang like they already knew them.

When the stadium lights dimmed for "Free Fallin,'" those weren't lighters the audience just happened to have in their pockets, ready to whip out in unison for some groovy ambiance. They were actually tiny flashlights that had been previously distributed among the crowd. Hey, free souvenir!

The most spontaneous moment during the halftime performance didn't even make it on TV - and it probably happens every year. After Petty closed the halftime show with "Runnin' Down A Dream," the mob assembled around the stage confusingly ran off in all directions as stagehands frantically disassembled the stage at the same time.

It was the craziest part of the whole evening - except for the part when the Giants won.

From The Kansas City Star:
Pressure didnt kill Patriots
By JASON WHITLOCK

GLENDALE, Ariz. | In hindsight, the pursuit of perfection proved too daunting, but there is no reason to fault the Patriots for trying or lambaste the Super Bowl XLII effort that left them a few seconds short of the ’72 Dolphins.

Just as Super Bowl III has been remembered for Joe Namath’s guarantee and Matt Snell’s heroic running, the new Greatest Upset in NFL History should evoke memories of Eli Manning’s final drive and a defensive front four that battered Tom Brady.

The previously unbeaten Patriots did not lose this Super Bowl; the New York Giants won it, 17-14, thanks to a brilliant defensive performance and a 12-play, 83-yard touchdown drive in the final 3 minutes.

“They won the game,” said New England coach Bill Belligerent, who jogged off the field and into the locker room before New York ran the game’s final play.

Yeah, the Giants won this thing. Michael Strahan, Jason Tuck and Osi Umenyiora — the stars of New York’s pass rush — set the table for Manning’s late-game heroism. The Giants held the NFL’s greatest offense to a single touchdown for 57 minutes, 28 seconds. They did it by denying Brady time to throw downfield, sacking the Patriots QB a season-high five times and knocking him to the ground countless times.

“We rush the passer,” Strahan said. “That’s what we do.”

Trailing 10-7 with 8 minutes to play, Brady and the New England offense finally acknowledged that they couldn’t throw deep and stuck strictly with the underneath routes. The result was an 80-yard, 12-play, go-ahead TD drive that ended with Brady hitting Randy Moss on a 6-yard fade with 2:42 left on the clock.

“I thought that play right there gave us the momentum,” Moss said.

Nope. It put the Giants in position to make Super Bowl XLII, a defensive struggle, a dramatic, unforgettable classic. It put Peyton Manning’s little brother in position to join Namath and Y.A. Tittle as all-time great New York quarterbacks. It put Eli Manning in position to produce the most improbable, exciting, clutch play in Super Bowl history.

Facing third and 5 at the New York 44, Manning 360-spun, escaped two would-be sackers and uncorked a 32-yard rainbow to receiver David Tyree, who was standing flatfooted at the New England 24. Tyree leaped high in the air, caught the ball with two hands, maintained it with one hand against his helmet as safety Rodney Harrison bent Tyree backwards.

It was a better catch than Lynn Swann’s Super Bowl X, falling-to-the-ground catch against the Cowboys.

“It was mostly hands,” Tryee said of the grab. “They forced the ball into my helmet. I wasn’t letting it go. It was an amazing feeling.”

From there, you knew the Giants would get into the end zone. It was destiny. The Patriots inexplicably left Plaxico Burress one-on-one on Manning’s game-winning TD pass. Maybe the Pats just wanted to return the favor, because Moss was left in single coverage on his TD catch, too.

Today there will be lots of second-guessing of Bill Belichick. He eschewed a 49-yard field-goal attempt early in the third quarter and instead had Brady throw deep to Moss on third and 13. Brady’s pass never had a chance.

I’m sure some people will question the sanity of New England’s perfection pursuit. They’ll say the Patriots cracked under the pressure of being undefeated and the Spygate stories that wouldn’t go away.

Belichick is certainly furious with the Boston Herald writer who reported this week that the Patriots videotaped the Rams’ final walkthrough practice before the 2001 Super Bowl. Were the Pats distracted?

I say no. They were tired. As difficult as it was for the Dolphins to go 17-0 in the 1970s, you can multiply the degree of difficulty to go 19-0 in the new millennium by about 20. There was no Mercury Morris bragging about the Dolphins on ESPN around the clock in the 1970s. There weren’t a hundred Web sites and sports-talk radio shows dissecting every Don Shula decision or Bob Griese ankle injury or Larry Csonka’s choice in female companionship. There were no U.S. senators calling for investigations into Shula’s tactics.

The Patriots took on the world and almost won. We shouldn’t blame them for trying. They’d already won three Super Bowls. Why not go for it all, why not try to establish themselves as the greatest of all time?

They reached for the moon and took us on a magical ride. They made this season and the Giants unforgettable.