You'd be smiling like this too

(Paul Sancya/AP)

... if you just signed a contract for $75 million.

This could be a very good move for my Detroit Tigers. Magglio Ordonez, if healthy, is one of the best hitters in Major League Baseball. But coming off a season in which he tore ligaments and developed bone marrow edema in his left knee, such a big contract seems like a huge risk. But the Tigers appear to have covered themselves. If Ordonez misses more than 25 days of this coming season because of the knee, the Tigers can void the contract.

Over at peregrine.blog, John likes the signing too.

However, the U.S.S. Mariner says it "might be the worst free agent signing ever." I could spend the rest of the day finding other blogs criticizing this deal. Here are a few notable ones: Salt and Ice, Mr. Irrelevant, Houston's Clear Thinkers, and Bush League.

Battle of the bulge

This is an old story now, with the election three months ago. I wish I'd started my blog earlier in the fall so I could've said my piece on the subject. But at the Romenesko media blog, there's a report from FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) that the New York Times had a story on the infamous "Bush bulge" - the strange shape visible underneath the back of President Bush's jacket during the first presidential debate - and chose to kill it, rather than run it.

from Salon.com

NASA scientist Robert Nelson examined photos from the debate and digitally enhanced them, as he'd been doing with images of Saturn's moon Titan to determine contours and craters on its surface. "It could be some type of electronic device," he told Salon.com. "It's consistent with the appearance of an electronic device worn in that manner."

Nelson initially shopped his findings around to several newspapers, including the Pasadena Star-Times, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Los Angeles Times, and each of them passed on the story, which brought him to the New York Times. The Times was interested in the story, but kept pushing it back due to more pertinent stories (such as the missing explosives in Iraq) occurring in the news. Eventually, editors decided to kill the story. Nelson then went to Salon.

But why did the New York Times decide not to run this? According to the FAIR article, the Times, due to flack from conservatives and the Bush campaign about its criticisms of the Iraq War leadership, was nervous about publishing the story so close to Election Day.

Here's what's eating me: Didn't the Times have a responsibility to run a story that could've affected the outcome of the election? Maybe it wouldn't have, in the end. But shouldn't such information have been made available to the public? Would the revelation that President Bush may have been getting answers fed to him during a debate prompted some voters to reconsider their support?

What's even more disturbing is the implication that the story may have been spiked to avoid charges of "liberal bias." That's pull-your-hair-out maddening. What's more important: kowtowing to one side or another - in a misguided concern over fairness - or releasing an arguably significant story and giving people information they should have?

Super Bowl post-mortem

Now that was a game, even closer than I thought it'd be. Patriots 24, Eagles 21. The ending was a little ho-hum, however, because of the Eagles' seeming ineptness in running a hurry-up offense. (Well, it wasn't completely inept; they did score a touchdown to cut the margin to three points - on a great throw from McNabb to Greg Lewis.) But like the FOX announcers, I was baffled that Donovan McNabb and the Eagles' offense was taking its sweet time calling plays and moving down the field. It's like they didn't realize how little time was left in the game. Or thought their two time-outs would save them precious minutes.

McNabb also made an inexplicably boneheaded play with less than a minute left and 95 yards to go. With no receivers open down the field, McNabb settled for a short pass over the middle to his running back. Not only did the pass gain no yardage, but since it was complete, the clock kept running - a clock the Eagles couldn't stop because those last two time-outs had to be used on defense. And that sealed the game. 95 yards in 17 seconds? No way. McNabb should've thrown that ball away, settling for an incomplete pass and keeping at least another 10 seconds on the clock. It's easy for me to say, and I'm sure instinct takes over when you're in such a position, but McNabb lost his head on that play.

Maybe I'm being too hard on McNabb, but he made the mistakes when the game was on the line, and New England's Tom Brady didn't. McNabb had two interceptions, while Brady had none. And in a three-point game, that was probably the difference.

Other random thoughts:

● The Eagles' Terrell Owens was a man on the field. The man has two screws holding his broken (and badly sprained) ankle together. But Owens insisted he'd play, despite doctors telling him he was endangering his football career. Not only did Owens get on the field, he had nine catches for 122 yards. He was Philadelphia's leading receiver in the game. That was an impressive performance. Owens might be a loudmouth, but he plays and plays hard. He did everything he could to help the Eagles win the game.

● Deion Branch, not Tom Brady, won the Super Bowl Most Valuable Player award. One of the amazing things about New England's success is that their players are low-key, relative no-names even to die-hard football fans. They're not attention-grabbing stars like Terrell Owens. But Branch quietly killed with the Eagles, grabbing 11 catches for 133 yards. It was a star-making performance. It'll be interesting to see if he draws the kind of attention and commercial endorsements in the weeks following this game that Brady would've if he'd won the MVP.

● Did anyone else think the commercials were lackluster? Only two stood out to me: the Diet Pepsi ad with P-Diddy hitching a ride with a Pepsi truck driver and the CareerBuilder.com spot that had a man working with monkeys in an office. But I can't imagine morning radio shows and water cooler conversations will be talking much about the commercials this year.

(The geek in me loved that "Batman Begins" trailer, though.)

Chasing Oscar, part 1

Andrew Sacks for The New York Times

My beloved hometown Michigan Theater got some national exposure in Thursday's New York Times. It's a beautiful theater, run as a non-profit organization, and truly one of Ann Arbor's cultural gems. Of all the things I miss from my hometown, the Michigan Theater is at the top of the list. They have great popcorn, too.

But Micheline Maynard's feature focused on the frustration faced by filmgoers who live in smaller cities, far from bigger cities and media centers, and don't get an opportunity to see all of the Academy Award contenders. And even when those films do open in wider release, it's months after they premiere in cities such as New York and Los Angeles, and then markets like Chicago or Seattle. But Ann Arbor has it better than, say, Iowa City. For example, "Sideways" just opened here last weekend - undoubtedly due to its Oscar nominations. It was originally released in October. I saw it in Ann Arbor over the Thanksgiving holiday.

I know it's a matter of dollars and cents. Studios and distributors can't afford to exhibit movies everywhere. And a lot of theaters will make more money showing "Are We There Yet?" and "Hide and Seek" than a smaller, independent film like "Vera Drake." That's simple reality. I just wish I didn't have to wait until the majority of these movies are released on DVD to see them.

I hear there's a football game tomorrow

It happened some time this morning, while I was sipping a latte and flipping through a left-behind copy of yesterday's USA Today at a nearby coffee shop. I finally got Super Bowl Fever. Now, approximately 30 hours before the big game, I can't wait to watch it. (And I mean the game, not the commercials.) The last two weeks have been torturous; I hate the extra week the NFL places between the semi-final games and the Super Bowl. It just gives the national sports media more time to write irrelevant stories about what players like to wear, what sorts of insults they're hurling back and forth, how reclusive the coaches are, what kinds of movies they like to watch, blah blah blah.

A loudmouth like Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver Freddie Mitchell wouldn't have received anywhere near the attention he's gotten over the past two weeks if it weren't for all this time that needed filling. Mitchell's been flapping his yap to anyone with a camera or notepad, trying to sell himself as an important player and taunting the New England Patriots, and the story-starved media laps it up like water. How significant has Mitchell been for the Eagles? He had 22 catches in 16 games this season. That's roughly one catch a game.

Here's how I like to look at that: that's only one more catch per game than I made, and I sit on my fat ass every Sunday, watching football on TV, figuring out whether I should actually cook or order a pizza for dinner. Yet from all the attention this guy has gotten the past two weeks, you'd think he'll actually influence the outcome of the Super Bowl. He might play a part in one interesting aspect of the game: the players he's been taunting, such as Rodney Harrison, might knock him unconscious when they get the chance. Can I make a bet on that, Las Vegas?

Meanwhile, the New England Patriots just sit back, waiting to play in the game, knowing that their actions on the field will speak louder than words away from it.

I think the Patriots are going to win this game, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just trying to be daring and swim against the current. The two-week break also gives people enough time to convince themselves that anything can happen, ignoring the cold evidence they've been given over the past 20 weeks or so. I'm not saying the Eagles can't win this game. They're obviously very good, and know exactly how difficult it is to get to the Super Bowl. They won't want to squander this opportunity. And with Donovan McNabb, the Eagles have a special player who is talented enough to beat a team by himself.

But the Patriots know they can be considered one of the better teams in NFL history if they win tomorrow, and I think they want that. Their eyes are on the prize; all the other stuff like media attention and commercial endorsements doesn't matter to them.

Tom Brady will finally avenge his loss to McNabb back in 1998 when Michigan played Syracuse. (McNabb looked like one of the greatest players of all time that day.) It will be a close game, maybe coming down to yet another Adam Vinatieri game-winning field goal. Patriots 27, Eagles 20.

Another Super Bowl note: here's a column from one of the four writers who have covered every Super Bowl, the Detroit News's Jerry Green. He thinks Jacksonville's ineptness at hosting this year's game will make Detroit look better next year. I hope you're right, Jerry.

Still swimming in the deep end

After seeing a TV review of James Cameron's new documentary, "Aliens of the Deep," I was intrigued by the footage showing a variety of bizarre aquatic life, including something that looked like a large underwater curtain. (I know, great description. End of a long week.) But I did find myself wondering the same thing Bryan Curtis asks in this Slate article: When is Cameron going to make another feature film? (As opposed to a documentary.) Here's Curtis's theory on Cameron's current career path:

"What happened to James Cameron? He hasn't directed a feature since he began working on Titanic 10 years ago, delving instead into utterly safe—and utterly mediocre—documentaries. Critics have mockingly compared him to Steve Zissou, the hero of The Life Aquatic, and like Zissou, Cameron seems waylaid by a severe case of filmmaker's block. His is an unusual problem: Hollywood has polished his reputation too much. Titanic and its attendant glory lent him a Spielbergian gloss of respectability, and Cameron, a B-movie wizard who was never high on respectability, doesn't seem to know quite what to do with it. He's an auteur turned recluse—Cameron obscura."

I'm not a huge fan of Cameron's films, though I liked the first two "Terminator" movies and consider "True Lies" a guilty (very guilty) pleasure. Like many people, I detached my retinas while rolling my eyes during Cameron's "I'm the king of the world" Oscar acceptance speech. But the guy does damn interesting things in his movies, always trying to push the boundaries of filmmaking technology. And if he wants to take a break and figure out how to incorporate 3-D technology into his next movie, or wait for projection technology to catch up with him, I believe he's earned that.

Though I admire Steven Soderbergh as a director, I would've liked to see what Cameron ould've done with the remake of "Solaris." Stanislaw Lem's original novel not only detailed what was happening to the astronauts exploring the planet Solaris, he portrayed the planet itself - and I think Cameron (who was a producer on the film) could've created some compelling imagery of that.

But I agree with Curtis in that I'd like to see good directors make more films. (David Poland has an interesting take on this at The Hot Button.) My friend Pete and I got into an interesting chat about this a couple of months ago. I expressed my frustration with guys like David O. Russell and Quentin Tarantino, who make fascinating films, but take years off between projects. There's something to be said for working when inspiration strikes, but pushing yourself to find that muse is a valuable creative exercise, as well. Pete seemed to disagree with me, maybe not in spirit, but perhaps in philosophy.

Cameron's spent a lot of time looking for his next muse. It'd be nice to see him finally get out of the pool and towel off. (And maybe he has. Rumor has it he's going to adapt the Japanese manga "Battle Angel Alita" into a film.)

The Matrix revisited

Is anyone else watching "The Matrix" on HBO right now? (HBO's running each installment of the Matrix trilogy over the next three nights.)

With the disappointing taste of the sequels - "The Matrix Reloaded" and "The Matrix Revolutions" - still in my mouth, I'd forgotten just how amazing the original "Matrix" was. The effects and fight scenes were eye-popping at the time, only looking less special because they've been imitated in virtually every action movie over the past five years. The premise of living in a world controlled by computers instantly appealed to anyone stuck in an unhappy, unfulfilling life. I hesitate to use this term, but the movie really tapped into the cultural zeitgeist.

And then, of course, there's Carrie-Anne Moss in those tight black pleather pants.



Mercy.

Maybe I'll appreciate the sequels with time. I think the story and premise (not to mention the expectations of fans, critics, and academics) just got away from the Wachowski brothers. But on its own merit, "The Matrix" is still an incredible film. To me, it's easily one of the best science fiction flicks of the last 10 years.

Tipping points

What are some topics sure to ignite an argument among friends, colleagues, strangers, etc.? Politics? Surely. Religion? Almost certainly. Sports? Possibly. But a lot of us get into arguments about tipping. I know I have. Friendships have been strained. My mother began sending me to warm up the car (even in the summer) so she could leave a tip (or not leave a tip, perhaps) without me clucking my tongue over her shoulder. They say I leave too much, I say they're cheapskates. But I know it's not just me. I see you have the same arguments. I hear you bicker with your dining and drinking companions.

"15 or 20 percent? What? Only 10?"

"Dude, all they do is pour."

"She wasn't that great. She never even asked me if I wanted more water."

"It's a buffet. We get our own food."

"I don't get tipped at my job! And my job's stressful as hell! Why should I tip them?"

And so on and so on. Some feel strongly about tipping for service, others feel the opposite just as passionately. Many people don't understand how much of a waiter's wage depends on tips. Yet plenty of us wonder where the line is drawn when we see tip jars popping up seemingly everywhere. We argue ourselves into the ground, ultimately agreeing to disagree.

More gasoline was poured on the fire in yesterday's New York Times food section, with Julia Moskin's piece on waiters and restaurant staffers who complain about customers all over the web on sites and blogs such as Waiter Rant, The Stained Apron, and bitterwaitress.com, home of the Shitty Tipper Database.

This reminded me of a blog I discovered over the summer (also run by Jim Romenesko) called Starbucks Gossip. If you haven't already heard of it, there's a bunch of stuff about Starbucks's prominence in our culture, which is all fine and dandy. But the best entry was easily the one about tipping. The level of venom being hurled back and forth between baristas and customers will astound you. And amuse you. Maybe even frighten you. It's addictive reading. And there's a lot to read, man. (The page takes a while to load because of all the comments.)

The debate rages on. Here are two books on the subject: The Itty Bitty Guide to Tipping and Fodor's FYI: How to Tip.

Au revoir, Pierre

Oh, the University of Iowa campus was buzzing yesterday afternoon, with the news that men's basketball coach Steve Alford kicked his star player, Pierre Pierce, off the team. Pierce is being investigated by West Des Moines police for intent to commit sexual abuse, burglary, criminal mischief and false imprisonment. Though the alleged burglary probably would've gotten Pierce at least suspended, once the police added the charge of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse, the UI athletic department made its decision. In 2002, Pierce was arrested on a felony sexual assault charge, and later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault causing injury.

"I regret this step has become necessary, but Pierre has betrayed the trust we placed in him when he was given a second chance two years ago," Alford said in a statement released by the university. "Pierre is an excellent basketball player who will be missed by our team. But, given the circumstances, I feel this is the only appropriate response."

Though it was clearly the right thing to do, this might also result in the end of Steve Alford's career at Iowa. His basketball team got off to a blazing start, winning 12 of its first 13 games. Since then, however, Iowa has struggled against its Big Ten conference opponents, winning only three of seven games. And as Ryan Suchomel pointed out in last Sunday's Iowa City Press-Citizen, Alford was already on pretty shaky ground with Iowa. Attendance is dwindling. Players have been dismissed because of poor academics. The team fails to meet expectations. This thing with Pierce just amps up the level of disgust. (And many people thought Pierce never should've been allowed back on the team after the 2002 incident.)

Here's more on the Pierce story from the Des Moines Register and Iowa City Press-Citizen.

The Dean machine

So I missed the State of the Union address. Boy, I tried to get home after class to catch it. Really. But I had to pick up some dinner. And stop at the gas station. Oh, and when I got home, "Pardon the Interruption" was waiting for me on tape. So geez, I didn't get to watch it. Tuned in for a little bit of the Democratic response, though. And I suppose Nancy Pelosi had some interesting things to say. But you know who I would've liked to see give the official party response? Howard Dean. I don't know if the head of the Democratic National Committee would get that face time or not. But Dean is apparently the front-runner to win that job now.

I'm a little worried that he'd be a polarizing figure within the Democratic party, but I think he deserves to be one of its leading voices after bringing some spine back to the opposition. When Tom Daschle and his ilk were laying down for President Bush, Dean was the only one speaking up against the war in Iraq. Eventually, the other Democratic candidates jumped on the wagon he built. Dean also utilized innovative methods of grass roots campainging and fund-raising through the Internet. I think he still has much to offer the Democratic party, and a lot of unfinished business to take care of.

More thoughts on the State of the Union and Howard Dean (along with a bunch of other stuff) over at raging red. I just discovered her blog the other day (she's probably wondering who the new guy making all the comments is).

Ouch, babe

©2005 Mark Tatulli

Mark Tatulli's comic strip "Heart of the City" is in "reruns" this week, and one of my all-time favorites ran yesterday. (This strip is tacked to my refrigerator.) I never did get around to writing Mr. Tatulli on behalf of Ians everywhere, but now I have a second chance to mobilize my troops. I'll show you who the dorkus is, pal.

Funny/Not Funny

• How many comic strips would you be willing to pay for? Since I don't get a newspaper (and the local ones have bad comics pages, anyway), I subscribe to comics.com and ucomics.com and get my favorite strips e-mailed to me. Maybe I'm a sucker, but I love the convenience. I like knowing that "Get Fuzzy" and "Pearls Before Swine" are waiting for me each day.

Another favorite of mine has been Michael Jantze's "The Norm," but last fall, he quit working with his syndicate and decided to go into business for himself. Or maybe more specifically, Jantze's wife appealed to fans, asking them if they'd be willing to pay for more Norm, essentially bankrolling an online version of the comic. The initial subscriber drive didn't quite meet expectations, but it was apparently close enough for Jantze to go forward and continue the strip. (Here's the story.)

$25 for a one-year subscription. At first glance, that seems a little rich for my blood. But that works out to about 7 cents a strip for the year? (Sure, I did that in my head.) That's a damn good deal, especially if you enjoy a comic strip. And I like "The Norm." It started out as sort of a "Dilbert" imitation, but eventually found its voice as a man trying to figure out who he is, what he wants from life, and trying to navigate that trail from overgrown kid to adult.

• Has anyone else watched NBC's horrible new sitcom, "Committed"? My oatmeal this morning was funnier than this dross. Annoying characters (one with a grating voice) and ridiculous story premises shoehorned into the same, boring, routine sitcom formula. Awful. It looks even worse, following an actual funny show like "Scrubs."

The fantastic four

I found this over at Jim Romensko's blog, which is an embarrassment of riches for media junkies. This is one of those stories that gets (quietly) mentioned every year, but the actual number keeps shrinking, and the longevity becomes more impressive. As a kid who wanted to be a sportswriter when he grew up, I was kind of awed by this. Only four sportswriters have covered all 38 Super Bowls: Jerry Izenberg of The Star-Ledger in Newark, N.J., Edwin Pope of The Miami Herald, Jerry Green of The Detroit News, and Bob Oates of the Los Angeles Times.

I don't know if either of these guys has written a book about the experience, but one of them should. I'd read it, anyway. I'd love to see what they think about how the hype leading up to the big game has changed over the years. For instance, did any of you watch the "highlights" from Super Bowl media day yesterday on the news or ESPN? A bunch of guys trying to concoct stories, making proverbial mountains out of molehills. Actual journalists jostling for space with phoney "correspondents" from MTV, Nickelodeon, or "Entertainment Tonight." I'd go straight to the bar afterwards and ask for my own bottle of scotch.

The best stupid question at Super Bowl media day? In 1988 (Super Bowl XXII), someone asked Washington Redskins quarterback Doug Williams, "How long have you been a black quarterback?"

Stu-to-the-Pid

To quote the cut-out cartoons on the Guinness commercials: "Brilliant!" I'm a day or so behind with this, so maybe you've already heard about it. But if you haven't, Anheuser-Busch is introducing a new beer that contains caffeine. I'll quote from Peter Carlson's article in the Washington Post, because he explains the beverage's name much better than I could.

"The beer is called B{+E} -- with the E raised up, like an exponent in math, which is why the name is pronounced "B to the E." (The B stands for Budweiser. The E stands for extra.)"

The guy who created this is either desperate to hang onto his job, has too much time on his hands, or wants to get fired - I haven't figured out which yet. Actually, his name is Nathaniel Davis, and according to him, the drink "has an aroma of blackberry and a little bit of cherry, which is unexpected." Boy, I'll say. But he's not done yet. "It has typical beer flavors, like hops and malt, and it finishes with what we're calling the wow factor."

And the "wow factor" is a "bright, slightly sweet tart finish." I bet a cup of urine has the same kick, Nate, but I'm not about to drink that.

No way you're getting me to order something called "B to the E" in a bar. I don't care if it keeps me awake while wanting to pass out. And, oh dear God, if you thought your friend - the "I love you, man" drunk - was already annoying, wait until he's bouncing off the walls and can't stop talking. ("Listenlistenlistenlisten! No, c'mon, man, listenlistenlisten. Itsoundscrazyyou'regonnathinkthisisstupid. But listen. Weshouldstartachickrockband. EXCEPT - we'dbethechicksdressedindraghellyeahIbetyouhavegreattitsman!")

But I think the real losers in this will be anyone who has to go to the bathroom in a bar. Let's see, beer makes you piss a lot. Caffeine makes you piss a lot. (Or maybe I'm just associating that with coffee.) How much piss can a human being possibly produce? Maybe "B to the E" should come with a tube and a bag. "Heymancheckitoutmyownbag! Heymypisslooksreallyyellowman!"