James 1:27

A New York Times columnist reveals that not all Christians are just pro-life when it comes to abortion; they're also the leaders in helping the poor, the sick, and the oppressed.

Downed Rockets

The Newton South girls basketball team has advanced to the quarterfinals of the Division 1 South state tournament.

Olympic conundrum

A lot of people have been squawking about not being able to see some Olympic events as they are happening (since NBC has delayed them for a prime-time package), and as the New York Times writes today, this has led to ESPN's bid for the next round of the Games including plans to go live with most events if it is awarded the contract.

Many of the concerns about when to air events centers around the problems of NBC being in the "network" category (which, in the up-to-the-minute current world, seems to be more and more of an albatross) while ESPN is a niche, sports-only area where you'd expect constant access.

But the key to venerable media institutions keeping their ground while the world speeds toward vast, changing, niche markets is exactly what NBC is doing. They're not just showing the Olympic games; they're creating a package. Sit down in front of your TV for the two weeks of the Olympic Games, and you will be treated each night with a thought-out plan of the day's best events, complete with solid interviews and interesting stories.

(As a side note, I don't read the Boston Globe's Olympic coverage to know what happened; I read it for its reporting, photos, and good columns. Thus is the role of established, large media.)

I can easily see ESPN botching this: You go home after work and flip on the TV, only to see that you're not going to get the ski event from earlier in the day, because you were expected to watch it when it was on at 11 a.m. Then ESPN cuts from curling, or speed skating, or whatever, to show you the winner, but you don't get to see the full event and all of its suspense (and nationalities, which will be the first thing to go if we're just satisfying consumers' desires). Instead, it just feeds the "I need to constantly know what's going on and watch every minute!" gusto at the expense of getting the cream of the crop. And as the Times article writes, the advertising dollars may go, too.

Yes, NBC has botched some of the coverage this year (ahem, USA vs. Canada hockey), but its approach to the Games is the best way to go: An overall view of a magnificent event, exciting to watch in full even if you already know what's going to happen. (And for goodness' sake, just don't get on the Internet if you don't want to know who won the two-woman bobsled preliminary round in the morning.)

A Swish from downtown

This New York Times article today looks back on how great Nick Swisher has been for the New York Yankees: from the jovial attitude to his batting resurgence to the fact that he replaced the horrible Wilson Betemit.

Falcons Madness

It's March Madness come early for the Trinity Catholic Falcons, as featured in the Daily News Tribune.

Hard-core journalism

The Daily News Tribune reports on the sudden demise of the Mount Ida women's basketball team.

February book reviews, part 4

A continuation in the series of book reviews of what I am reading in February.

Today: Breaking Back by James Blake.

For tennis fans, the names James Blake is a fairly familiar one. He's an American pro who's been on the circuit for around eight years who is best known for breaking his neck against a net post in 2005 then recovering and playing some great matches, especially against Rafael Nadal and Andre Agassi.

While that in itself is a great story, most people don't know the extent of the situation. And in his book, Blake (without ever promoting himself) tells what was going on behind the scenes of what was for him an extremely difficult year.

The neck thing was just the beginning. Blake's father also died that year, and when dealing with the stress, Blake contracted the zoster virus, which is basically a flare-up of shingles that in his case paralyzed parts of his body.

The emotional, physical, and mental journey proved to be a learning experience, and Blake found a new appreciation for life, friends, and tennis. As he came out of the horrid year and moved back into peak form, Blake saw how much his story encouraged others, and the book was spawned.

But this is no ordinary athlete book. This is not a Shaquille O'Neal-in-1998 look at a guy and his career.

This book is a work of art.

With any sport, you're going to have to deal with numbers and events and explanatory measures, but this book has found a way to do without letting it dominate what is a compelling narrative. (Note: Blake did have a co-author.)

The approach is thought-out: The book finds a way to take the theme of the story and weave it in with the event-telling. There are few blow-by-blow accounts of matches, and the tennis terms are relegated to glossary in the back for those unfamiliar.

The book doesn't just explain what happened over the years for Blake; it shows it, hooking the storyline into the larger theme of life and tennis in an easy, enjoyable way. We see what Blake looked like as half his face drooped from the zoster virus, and we can picture his dad wasting away with cancer. Then, mixed in, we get an analogy that helps us understand how Blake's lessons constantly grew out of the battle he had with tennis that year.

Artistically, the book does "tennis as a metaphor for life," such as the idea of "breaking back," which is not only a pivotal move of pointed resurgence in tennis but also what Blake had to do constantly in his year of struggle. You can see how the understanding of the game of tennis helped Blake handle his personal live, and vice versa.

The telling is good (not Agassi good, but sports-book-good), but the actual story is remarkable as well, of course. The authors should be credited for taking a hugely emotional story and not dwelling on it too much. There's no overkill here. You get the story, the effect, the lessons without ever feeling pulled along.

Whether a tennis fan or a fan of life, this is a must-read.

Fear of the shuttle bus

How do they not catch these people?

Most people who fire a shotgun three times, "accidentally" killing their brother in the meanwhile, then are investigated 10 years later for sending a bomb to a professor (as well as regularly cursing out the neighbors' kids for being too loud) would be stymied by somebody. But that's not what happened with the Alabama professor who killed three of her colleagues, as a Boston Globe story reports.

She had been denied tenure and was afraid of what happened next; she said she didn't want to end up like someone else she knew who didn't get tenure and was reduced to driving a shuttle bus.

How do they not catch these people?

February book reviews, part 3

A continuation in the series of book reviews for what I am reading in February.

Today: The Art of a Beautiful Game by Chris Ballard.

OK, so it's another sports book, but at just over 200 pages, it's definitely worth the time.

Chris Ballard, a sportswriter for Sports Illustrated who writes some of the magazine's better columns, tags this book a "thinker's guide" to the game of basketball, and he means it. For anyone who's ever tried to pick apart the art of rebounding or figure out why really, really tall guys can somehow not play basketball, this is the book.

But Ballard doesn't so much try to answer enduring questions about the game; he does one better by merely exploring its intricacies.

With a great combination of technical explanations, storytelling, player quotes, anecdotes, and contextual information, Ballard spends a chapter on different parts of the game (rebounding, shot-blocking, shooting) and puts each facet in its own snapshot for the reader to meander through.

In the shooting chapter, for example, he explores the idea of whether a "natural shooter" exists, or if you can learn the skill. Ballard spends a lot of time talking about Ray Allen's exact form, training regimen, and shooting accuracy, then goes to Phoenix and sees if all-time-great shooting guard Steve Kerr can still hit an obscene amount of shots despite being out of the league for a while. Mixed in are statistics, quirky anecdotes about other shooting greats, and examples of how mere mortals (such as Ballard) compare to these NBA guys who make it look so easy. The final product? An easy-to-read, instructional yet not juvenile chapter that opens the game without breaking the brain.

The whole book is made better by Ballard's obvious understanding of the game (this isn't some guy who hasn't shot the ball in a year, or a sportswriter whose columns focus on an athlete's choice of socks), balanced by his sheer wonder in unlocking the hidden secrets of a sport that still amazes him.

It's clear that Ballard is familiar with not just the game but also the men who play it; he knows what questions to ask and which details to highlight. He also has a good enough connection with a wide variety of NBA players to get an adequate range of information and quotes.

Some chapters are better than others. The chapter on dunking in particular is a pitiful mishmash of a tale we'd rather see on film. Ballard's morose telling of how dunks are cool but players' legs quickly fail them is not an enjoyable read, and the chapter overall lacks the revealing, candid, inside-telling feel of the rest of the book.

Other chapters are more nuts-and-bolts than others; the chapter on defense is incredibly instructive, but you've got to appreciate Shane Battier to enjoy it.

Overall, it's a great book for its purpose, and short enough to read and enjoy but still deep enough to learn. Ballard put a lot of work into it, and you can tell. Better yet, all his little details point toward one focus: This thing that started with a peach basket and a rubber ball really is a beautiful game.

Excuse me, Mr. Zoubek

Duke's 7-foot-1 senior center, Brian Zoubek, may have heard my comments about Duke's uncomfortable win over North Carolina on Wednesday, because today he came to play.

Behind 16 points and 17 rebounds, Zoubek led a Duke team that slaughtered the second-place team in the ACC, Maryland, 77-56, giving the Blue Devils the top spot in the ACC and making me breathe easier about Duke's woes in the paint.

Yes, Maryland is a guard-dominated team, but Zoubek still did a good job fighting for rebounds, and he showed a certain adeptness for tipping balls in (and making foul shots). All these will be needed for an actual NCAA Tournament run.

The Terps were expected to make a stronger showing after being humiliated by 41 points the last time they matched up with Duke.

In a humorous turn to the afternoon, Coach Mike Krzyzewski (who was appearing in his 1000th game at Duke) refuted rumors he was jumping to the New Jersey Nets by invoking his Polishness.

Hey Obama, this is the "change" Americans wanted

In his latest for the New York Times, David Brooks explains that Barack Obama ran on two major points of "change": less partisan politics, and a more activist government.

And as Brooks argues, Americans wanted the less partisan, but they never said much about the activist part.

The problem is that in his first year in office, Obama has instead heavily promoted that second part (the activist government) while not making any inroads on partisan politics. Brooks suggests he flip-flops his agenda and give the people the change they want.

When Obama came into office, the press and other politicians were talking about Obama being the next FDR, but the American people were asking for economic recovery and jobs (two totally different concepts, despite them once coinciding during a war-time president's term). Obama's priorities instead focus on ushering America into a great new age, with new programs and fixes and health care and climate change and ah ah ah!

Now, as things are worse for the people, they just want some help. As Brooks says, "Voters are in no mood for a wave of domestic transformation. The economy is already introducing enough insecurity into their lives. Unlike 1932 and 1965 [when FDR and Lyndon B. Johnson brought similar "great new ages" to America through Democratic politics], Americans do not trust Washington to take them on a leap of faith, especially if it means more spending."

There's a reason Obama is having trouble floating bills out there that people like: "Voters are not reacting to the particulars of each bill. They are reacting against the total activist onslaught." They want a fix, not an agenda. Although Obama thinks he's giving them what he promised in his speeches, they insist on results now, or at least a president who is OK with setting aside sweeping changes to make sure people can get through the next few years.

Brooks' solution? "The next challenge is to find a new project, a new one-sentence description of what this administration hopes to achieve. It is obvious: President Obama will show that this nation is governable once again. He should return to the other element in his original campaign.
That would mean first leading a campaign of brazen honesty with the American people. He could lay out the fiscal realities and explain that voters cannot continue to demand programs they are unwilling to pay for."

Obama needs to remember that, for many people who voted for him, there was an intense desire to not so much change the way America's government affected life (which is what he's trying to do now) as there was to change America's government, period. (Once government changes, than its effects will, too.) Obama promised ditching partisan politics, and finding compromises, and helping everyone get along. He said there wouldn't be backbiting, and that one party wouldn't take over the process to push its way through (speaking against the Republicans then, but that's what his party is doing now).

People genuinely want that. And Obama has the speaking chops and leadership ability to bring it. But does he really want that? Or was that a campaign slogan he used as part of his grand scheme to usher in his Democratic system?

One of Brooks' suggestions is this: "Obama could serve as a one-man model for bipartisan behavior. Right now, the Republicans have no political incentive to deal on anything. But the president could at least exemplify the kind of behavior voters want to see in their leaders."

Or, in my own words: The politicians are going to fight, bicker, be self-serving, and shoot down any hope of progress either side has, so if most measures are going to fail, why not just take the high road? Be a new kind of person. Set a new kind of example. Show the politicians, stuck in their ruts, that there's a different way of doing business. Don't tell them; don't complain about them; don't whine when progress isn't made. Show them. Show.

This, of course, starts with the outlandish spending. There are cuts that can be made. (Imagine how much money could be freed up if the extremely expensive health care battle was shelved and, shock and awe, the President focused on reducing health care costs before trying to overhaul the system. He has said saving money was the point of the whole reform, right?)

As Brooks says, "If he really put aside the publicity gimmicks, he could illustrate the difference between responsible government and the permanent campaign."

That's what people are looking for: leadership, not more politicians constantly trying to woo people. Obama has the brain to think up new solutions, the leadership to unite people and charge into new challenges, and the communicating ability to reach out to politicians of both stripes as well as the populace. He could do much good in changing the political culture without ever passing a bill.

Isn't that what many Americans were voting for in November 2008?

A final word from Brooks: "We can spend the next few years engaging in kabuki bipartisanship, in which each party puts on pseudo-events to show that the other party is rigid and rotten, or somebody can break the mold."

For that person, I suggest the President of the most powerful country in the free world.

Middle East solutions

The Middle East, and whatever passes as an attempt at a peace process there, is currently a mess. I don't pay much attention to attempts at negotiation and settlements, mostly because I think it's a lost cause, but this column by Roger Cohen in the New York Times got me thinking.

Near the end, he says something especially interesting: "If there are not two states there will be one state between the river and the sea and very soon there will be more Palestinian Arabs in it than Jews. What then will become of the Zionist dream?"

That is really the crux of his whole argument, and of mine when I say that the U.S. needs to be a little tougher if it wants to see real results in Israel. Statistics for a while now have been showing that the Palestinian population is outpacing Israel's. For the United States, it's vital and right to be Israel's ally, but sometimes doing what's best for your friend is tough love, and that's what Cohen argues here. Rather than totally jumping on Israel's bandwagon, and pushing away everything the Palestinians want to do, the U.S. has to help foster some kind of compromise if it's serious about real change in Israel. Whether the two-state solution is a good idea or not, I don't know, but Palestinians are going to outnumber Israelis eventually, and then there's not going to be a need for negotiations anymore. And the U.S. obviously doesn't want this, to see an ally dilluted by a non-ally, right?

Israel is the ally, but that doesn't mean other human beings aren't involved. As Cohen says: "...past persecution of the Jews cannot be a license to subjugate another people, the Palestinians." [You can at least give them a few of their requests/demands, right? And it's still in U.S. interest:] "Nor can the solemn U.S. promise to stand by Israel be a blank check to the Jewish state when its policies undermine stated American aims."

Plus, Israel is no longer in the hole it once was: "...the 'existential threat' to Israel is overplayed. It is no feeble David facing an Arab (or Arab-Persian) Goliath. Armed with a formidable nuclear deterrent, Israel is by far the strongest state in the region. Room exists for America to step back and apply pressure without compromising Israeli security."

By all means, be Israel's ally. But also realize that in this peace process, which hasn't gotten anywhere in a long time, it may not be a bad idea to be the older, wiser friend who knows what's best...and not just look out for your friend, but yourself as well.

February book reviews, part 2

Continuing reviews of books I am currently reading.

Today: Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin.

I finished a great book about the 2008 election, Game Change, about a week ago, but due to the slog of going through a 436-page book over two weeks, I haven't put together my comments until now.

That doesn't mean, however, that this book wasn't knock-out terrific.

For anyone who is at least a remote fan of politics or current events, this book is a must-read. It takes the storylines so many people saw in public in the run-up to the 2008 election and balances them with what was going on behind the scenes. Don't worry, it's not a rumor-mill hype extravaganza. In fact, it's quite the opposite: An even, methodical, well-told narrative about the story that was the 2008 election.

The characters and main plot lines have long been known, but Game Change puts in the added elements of framing in text what the candidates and their campaign aides were saying and thinking while it all happened. Furthermore, with the dust settled from all the excitement around the election and the campaigns, this book provides a simple retelling of events that could often become muddled in the thick of the race.

Halperin and Heilemann are both well-seasoned reporters, and you can tell this by the care they take with constructing their themes, chapters, and patches of dialogue. They include enough detail and plot hints to carry the story along and inform the reader but not so many that the reader feels thwatched over the head by recurring points. Even better, Halperin and Heilemann have a knack for knowing which names and points to repeat (for those not in the middle of politics) while letting other big-brand names, with their history long etched in America's mind, simply speak for themselves.

No spoilers here, but there are tons of scintillating details in the book that reveal how much of the race was how it looked like on the surface, and how much was drummed up by a candidate's campaign or the press. (Ah, the poor press. That's a theme, too.)

And best of all, Halperin and Heilemann do it all using the candidate's words and stories. Especially riveting are the mental gymnastics inside the Clinton campaign, the lunacy that is John and Elizabeth Edwards, and the sadness of Sarah Palin admitting she had no clue what she was getting into. (They're pretty light on the Palin-bashing, preferring to use the classic media approach of, "We'll let Sarah incriminate herself by just talking.")

The book is heavy on the Democratic side of the race, which makes sense considering it had more candidates, was a lot closer, and was basically repeated in the general election. But the book also gives a fresh view of John McCain that Republican diehards will appreciate when wondering what happened in November 2008.

And, to top it all off, there are some glimpses of Barack Obama that show he's not as fallible as everyone thinks. A year later, people are beginning to grasp that. But Halperin and Heilemann also capture it in their book.

The project is an excellent benchmark for closing up the 2008 scrum and looking ahead to the future, whatever that may be.

A Letterman rebuttal, and understanding Nazis

I love David Letterman, and especially how he stays above the fray of his often crazy or misspoken guests. But in last night's segment with Inglourious Basterd's actor Christoph Waltz, who has been nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Academy Award, he blew it.

From the beginning, you could tell that Waltz had a bit of trouble with his English and was slow in framing his answers. Dave carried it along just fine but seemed to keep pushing the Nazi point, as in "We all love that your movie totally took down the Nazis!" and "You played a great evil Nazi!"

Waltz said early that he didn't think he was characterizing evil, per say, and Dave sort of moved over it and went on to other things, and it all seemed fine. But after airing a clip from the movie, Dave went back to the "playing a Nazi" point, and Waltz, as an actor genuinely offended by the populist gusto, tried to make his point again.

He asserted that he was as Colonel Hans Landa is in the movie: not so much a Nazi as a man taking advantage of an opportunity. Landa says he thinks of himself as a detective, hired by the Nazis to do that job. He wasn't out to kill Jews and be an evil man; he was a shrewd guy taking advantage of a situation.

In fact, although Waltz did not say this in this interview, part of the great irony of the film is that Landa gets branded at the end for a movement he never supported. He was a parasite latched on to a mission of filth, and he had to pay for it. Landa never intended to be anything more than a mercenary.

Waltz said to Dave that he viewed his role in that way, that he was not playing a Nazi so much. He should have gone on to explain that further, and say he was actually playing a schemer, etc., etc., but Dave ended the interview and flat-out said he didn't get what he was saying. Then, as they closed the segment, Waltz left the stage before the camera had even cut out. I think he may have been offended.

I understand completely what Waltz was saying, and I think it speaks of a deeper misunderstanding America has with the whole World War II struggle and the Nazi party. Yes, the Nazis were evil and horrific. We've been branded to think so as good, patriotic Americans who helped our European friends.

But a lot of the German people were just going along with a nationalistic movement. And a lot of the most sadistic SS or Gestapo guards were just nasty people with an outlet to indulge themselves. Many who "crawled in bed with the Nazis," as my history professor would say, did so because at that time in history, it was the most opportunistic place to be. The Nazis were in charge; they paid well; they let you kill and pillage. Tons of people signed up for the benefits of that.

So, it is disappointing to see Waltz's point (which I think is very instructive to American society as a whole) brushed aside. On the other hand, Letterman is not the place to try to explain such an idea.

Here's hoping that rather than being misunderstood, others can see the layers in Colonel Hans Landa and what he represented for people living in the time of the Nazi regime.

An uncomfortable win

In this season's first meeting of ACC rivals Duke and North Carolina, the Blue Devils came out on top with a 64-54 victory on North Carolina's turf, but it was an uncomfortable win for Duke fans.

UNC came into the game reeling, with a four-game losing streak, an 13-10 record, and a considerable gap away from preseason expectations. Duke, although statistically much better off, came in hungry, with a couple bad losses on the scorecard to be quickly forgotten if the Blue Devils could give the Tar Heels a knockout punch on their own homecourt.

Despite the 10-point edge that emerged over the last five minutes of play, though, which gave Duke the win, the Blue Devils did not do much to calm the concerns of a fan base that has already seen too often the chinks in the armor for Duke, which has spent the last few years getting bounced prematurely from the NCAA tournament.

The main story tonight was Duke's shooting woes. Despite the preseason hope that a couple new bigs (the Plumlee brothers) would help Duke get away from the concentration on perimeter scoring that has dominated the team for the last half-decade, the Blue Devils have spent much of this season firing from the outside. Senior Jon Scheyer (18.9 ppg), junior Kyle Singler (16.6 ppg), and junior Nolan Smith (18.1 ppg) have contributed the bulk of the scoring, with inside big men Brian Zoubek (7-foot-1, 5.1 ppg), Lance Thomas (6-8, 5.9 ppg) and Mason Plumlee (6-10, 4.6 ppg) merely cleaning up the boards.

Tonight was no exception, but once again, it wasn't as if Duke was trying to live and die by the 3; the Blue Devils took tons of shots inside early.

The stumbling Tar Heels just swatted them away.

Duke went into halftime (leading 28-27) having made only three 2-point field goals, with Singler's 3-for-3 and Scheyer's 3-for-5 marksmanship outside the arc accounting for the bulk of the points. The Tar Heels had to be feeling pretty good about themselves, because no team can sustain that 3-point shooting pace for a whole game. Luckily for Duke, UNC couldn't sustain its defensive pace inside the arc in the second half, either, which is where Duke made 10 shots after intermission and iced the game.

Duke ended the night shooting 13-for-51 on non-3-point field goals (25%) along with a UNC-crippling 9-for-18 on 3-pointers (50%), with six of the deep balls in the first half.

Duke also had the advantage on the boards, 51-42, which is where having those big guys helps, even if they can't score. Despite UNC blocking a terrific 12 shots, Duke gobbled up 23 offensive rebounds and cashed them in for 21 second-chance points. That, right there, is the victory. And a reason to remain hopeful when Duke's offensive inside game gets pummeled by a team of pretenders.

Scheyer ended the night with 24 points on 5-for-9 3-point shooting, and Singler had 19 on 4-for-5 shooting. He also had nine rebounds.

Mason Plumlee collected nine rebounds for Duke (6 offensive) and scored seven points, the biggest being a reverse two-handed jam that broke a late-game tie and put the visitors up for good.

Early on, UNC proved that it could dunk and run, but the only other thing it did with consistency was turn the ball over. The Tar Heels seemed to be moving too fast for themselves, with high-flying blocks certainly intimidating but not stopping the Duke attack. The Blue Devils, although not dominating, had the consistency edge early and had a slight lead until a couple UNC treys worked a tie at 20 with 8:26 left in the half.

Zoubek, Duke's 7-foot letdown, provided an excellent example of what Chris Ballard talks about in his book The Art of a Beautiful Game when he showed how completely inept he is at grabbing rebounds. With a massive wingspan and superior positioning under the basket, Zoubek continued to find ways to not come up with the ball (although, in an early exchange, he did make up for one whiff with coast-to-coast hoofing and a ferocious block at the other end).

UNC's offensive rebounds and put-backs were more than enough for the Tar Heels early, but Duke kept its nose in the game with some great hustle.

After UNC pulled ahead 24-23 with 3:38 left, scoring went back and forth through halftime, when both teams emerged playing the same game.

It was mind-boggling how many Duke shots bounced out of the basket when the Blue Devils were in close, but UNC was still reckless enough to not take control of the game.

Duke players weren't just getting their shots blocked; they were bungling their approaches to the point of defenders swatting the ball out of the air five feet from the source. But the Tar Heels could not pull ahead.

At the 16:02 mark, Duke got a basket inside, and the tide slowly began to turn away from Duke scoring by the deep threat to the balanced game that would win the second half for the Blue Devils. At 10:18, with the game tied at 43, Duke's inside production moved from dastardly to at least normal (which, as aforementioned, is not so much) with another score.

Duke was up 54-48 by the 4:34 mark, and a Scheyer 3 put Duke ahead 59-50 with two-and-a-half minutes to go.

Meanwhile, the Blue Devil defense did the work as UNC was held without a field goal for five minutes.

Duke fans were treated to the sight of former UNC star Tyler Hansbrough's mournful face, a sight Blue Devils supporters had not seen during his reign of Tobacco Road, as the game slipped away from UNC. Duke rose to 20-4 on the season, and 8-2 for first place in the ACC.

UNC, in falling to 13-11, had its first 11-loss season since 2003-2004.

This Saturday, Duke gets an immediate chance to defend its spot atop the ACC with a matchup against the conference's No. 2, Maryland (6-2). Duke won last year's contest by 41 points, but the quick Terp guards will probably be a bit more prepared this time. At least the Blue Devils aren't facing a team that's big inside, because, from the looks of tonight, these Dukies aren't quite ready.

Grey Ghosts and mental toughness

In my latest girls basketball coverage for the Daily News Tribune, I cover Grey Ghosts and mental toughness.

Calories are king

I've recently started counted calories, in part to know what I'm eating and to keep the waistline under control, but more to force myself to realize that the 1,000-calorie nachos are usually a poor choice. As this New York Times editorial shows, restaurants posting calorie counts does help people eat less calories (which is usually accomplished by just choosing a healthier menu option, e.g. salad over nachos). I know it definitely helps me...and if more restaurants posted, I wouldn't have to spend as much time googling erroneous calorie totals for everything from broccoli to chicken parm.

February book reviews, part 1

Now that it's February, it's time for a new section of book reviews. I have been reading a book about the 2008 election, the much-hyped Game Change, but a trip to Barnes & Noble today got me distracted by another book, and yes, it was a sports book.

Today: The Roger Federer Story by Rene Stauffer.

This book pulled me in and didn't let me go until I had finished it five hours later, which may be surprising considering it is your basic sports biography: a clean, chronological take of the subject's career; nice quotes from colleagues and friends; important dates and scores; pictures at the center.

What made this book such a fantastic read, though, was its subject: Roger Federer. Like any good author should, Stauffer let the man's life and career speak for themselves, which is what made the book so excellent.

Stauffer put the book together as a well-written, thought-out, logically progressing package that lets the reader know what they're getting, which is important with a sportsman's career that will include a lot of record-breaking numbers and events. Even the photo spread in the middle has the best selection of shots, placed in an order that will show the reader how the story will go.

Within this excellent structure is where Stauffer weaves his revealing of Federer. The book is divided into two parts, with the first being the biography (through 2007, when the book was written) and the second being little capsules that highlight different portions of Federer that would have broken up the flow of the narrative. Part II looks at Federer as a person, as a player, etc.

Stauffer captures all the details, and he moves the story along well without dramatics yet still with a sufficient emphasis on important moments and events in Federer's career. Unlike some sports books that try to convince you that their subject overcame the most adversity known to mankind, with the subject being the meanest man around until his great transformation, overcoming huge obstacles with superhuman force, Stauffer instead approaches Federer in a very Roger-like way: humble, evenly, with a couple basic sentences that completely show how the situation was without hitting you over the head.

The details and quotes are plucked and used appropriately so that the reader knows just what is going on without being dragged into an never-ending glut of match reenactments and adolescent racket-breakings.

Stauffer reveals Federer as a person, with his story being told over the arc of a life. He uses statistics and quotes appropriately to show that the man is great, and has broken records in legendary ways, without any overkill.

Since it was written in 2007, much of Federer's latest conquests are missing, but that is one of the best features of this book. It is a good precursory overview to any first-person or end-of-career accounts yet to come, when people will look back on Federer's reign as a whole. It captures, in 2007, the allure of the moment as Federer had done much greatness but had not equivocally staked his claim as the best-ever-with-no-doubt (or had his most testing matches with his nemesis, Rafael Nadal).

There's no trumping up of the legend that is Roger Federer here; we know who this man is, we just want to be shown what his story looks like. And that is what Stauffer does.

Scintillating basketball action

Here's some scintillating basketball action from the Catholic Central Small: Trinity Catholic clinches a playoff berth.

A correct assessment in the abortion debate

The abortion debate is a sticky one, with one side asking how anyone could want to kill a baby while the other side says that's the last thing it wants, but yet.... Neither side can get the other to back down. And any advantage to one side or the other can quickly raise emotions.

That's why the issue of Tim Tebow appearing in a commercial (to be run in the Super Bowl) that supports pro-life movements has brought so much controversy. Pro-lifers see nothing wrong with a guy talking about his mom choosing to save his life by turning down an abortion years ago. What a great testament to anti-abortion stances!

Meanwhile, pro-choice women's groups are fuming, because they think it's not always that clear-cut. And, as this Slate article argues, it isn't.

Part of the problem with the abortion debate is that it isn't one or the other, as much as pro-lifers want to make it out to be. They say it's either killing a baby or not. If you kill it, you're terrible. Even if not killing it could kill the mother (also leaving her current children mother-less), or could keep her from having more kids, it's still terrible. In their eyes, you should have faith, and if you're a champ and choose the baby, it will all work out. The mother will survive, the baby will grow up healthy, or plenty of parents looking to adopt will have their dreams realized.

But life is often much tricker, and as the Slate article shows, Tebow's mom got lucky (or God chose to let her have her son, but if you want to advance that argument, why does God not allow all those mothers to have their sons?). What about the other women whose "chose life" and found other lives taken away, whether it be their own or the life of that child who now grows up with defections?

In no way do I support abortion, even if you know it's dangerous or the kid is going to come out hurt, but I think it's a question worth asking. We're not in a world where you choose one thing and get the same effect. Every choice has multiple, serious implications.

But here's what I will argue against: Pro-lifers who use stories such as this to try to advance their point.

When I went to Liberty, the "abortion" part of our "Contemporary Issues" class was not treated in a balanced way, such as "this is what the pro-life camp thinks," and "this is what the pro-choice side thinks." It was "pro-lifers are right," and "pro-choicers are hideous human-killers who only care about themselves and would rather kill a baby than take on an added expense." No discussion was given to rape victims or disease-ridden fetuses or the litany of other factors that go into the debate.

Worse yet, the main crux of all pro-life arguments was the teacher pulling some adopted kid out of the crowd and having him or her share with us how he or she wouldn't be alive if someone hadn't chosen to let them live and be adopted by someone else who wanted them. It was all economical, all healthy-babies-no-one-wants.

Christians are well-known for having their heads in the sand, and this issue is one of the worst. Yes, you can be pro-life, but your whole argument can't be sob stories of adopted kids. There are many, real issues out there surrounding the abortion debate, and none of them will be solved if this is the only approach to abortion.

What of the pro-lifer who knows her child will be born with a terrible disease?

And what of the pro-choicer who has just decided, despite all her support for women's rights, to have a baby because she's far enough in her pregnancy to know it just wouldn't be right?

Who's right?

I think the one who's right is the one who listens to all sides, not the one who pickets or runs one-sided Super Bowl commercials. I'm happy things worked out for the Tebows, but can I dare say they may be bringing great pain to those who didn't have the same fortune? How can we solve this debate?

Educating sex ed

Ross Douthat's editorial in the New York Times today is an excellent take on the state of sex education, specifically, how Washington is sticking its nose where local governments could handle it better.

Both sides (abstinence-only and sex-safety/pregnancy-preventation) have a lot to say about statistics and which methods will work, but I think this is a clear-cut case of a place where one sweeping government mandate, whichever one it is, will do no good for the nation. As Douthat shows, different areas deal with different beliefs and concerns, and it's most often the kids' environment and parents that affect them the most (as they should). Getting the government to command people what to do, when they are long entrenched in a particular point of view, is just asking for trouble.

(Caveat: The moral question of this is aside, of course. If people's hearts could be changed, there would be a totally different form of sex ed sweeping the nation. But people are what they are, and trying to get the government to change them is one of the stupidest ideas I can think of.)

Kudos, Douthat; you hit this one right on the head.