"W": Better than the reviews.

The reviews that have come rolling in for “W”, the Oliver Stone biopic about America's 43^rd president, were disappointing. People complained that it lacked bite, that it was too episodic, and that it did not live up to the reputation of a maverick director such as Stone. We have come to expect from the man at least one hyper controversial, highly memorable, and risqué scene. While this film may not have delivered that (the fist fight between Bush Sr. and Jr. coming close), I found myself fully engaged from start to finish. And I think that the immaculate casting, from Rove to Cheney to “W” himself, was the main reason.

From the first scene involving Bush and his entire team of policy advisers whom we have come to know so well huddled around the Oval Office, the movie captivated me. It just felt so real.

Richard Dreyfuss played Dick Cheney to a fault, with his manipulative ways and his overall sense of evil and mischievousness on full display. Something about him standing up leaning against the door while the rest of the team sat around on couches during the first scene, showed his (dare I say) maverick ways.

Karl Rove was played by Toby Jones, a total unknown to me going in. But something about his facial features and his delivery gave the viewer the clear impression that not only was he evil and conniving, but that this was all he had in his life and in the end, was an extremely sad and lonely character.

Condy Rice didn't say much but the resemblance between the soon to be ex secretary of state and Thandie Newton was uncanny.

Jeffrey Wright turned in a powerful performance as the least hawkish of the hawks (and an Obama supporter to boot), Colin Powell. His passionate displeasure with the Iraq war plan in the war room was a scene to behold. Note: for the most part, the film told a story and did not take any clear stance on the issues. The exception to this was the introduction of sappy piano music during Powell's eloquent refusal to agree with the hawks that Iraq was the country to invade. Clearly, Stone was trying to invoke a positive relationship between Powell and the audience. We all know how, in perhaps the most disappointing moment in Powell's political career, he eventually played an integral part in the selling of the war. And here, once again when Stone recounted it, the audience could feel his pain and ashamedness.

James Cromwell played the part of Bush Sr. One of my favourite actors, he portrayed the 41^st president as a highly conflicted character, often having to take sides with one of his sons. By the end, politics had seemed to take a tremendous on not only him, but his family.

And finally, Josh Brolin was a great choice for the man himself. While it may not be the hardest impression to pull off, Brolin did it without seeming too caricatural. He succeeded in portraying an extremely stubborn man, one who does not bend or break, and everything from his physique, to his dress, to his down-south accent, to his snicker, and to his “man's man” persona were spot on.

One thing I noticed about this character was that, (whether it was the burger at the barbecue or the ham and cheese sandwich/cheetos lunch with Mr. Cheney), a clear relationship was made between the man and his consumption. Perhaps his gluttony was meant as a symbol of his haste, his overall lack of sensibility, and his inability to think through issues in a logical fashion. I truly felt that Stone was trying to say that “W” ate like he lived his life: with reckless abandon. Remember in Kill Bill 2, when you couldn't take your eyes off David Carradine preparing the sandwich? In very much the same way, my attention was drawn to Bush's devourous eating habits. And while I'm not sure exactly what Stone was going for with this, there is no question that it was a recurring theme.

Anyway, I could go on. Barbara and Laura Bush were both extremely well cast as well. Tony Blair, Jaques Chirac, and Vladimir Putin all show up for quick cameos.

If not for the immaculate casting, this film would have been merely satisfying. In other words, its well worth watching, if only for this reason.

On another note, maybe there are some reasons to ACTUALLY miss Bush. Oh, and the video is funny too.

Congratulations to the President-elect and his family.

What a game!

Wow.

Role reversal in the cards?

It was the 7th game of the season for the Toronto Raptors while the reigning NBA champs were playing their 8th. A Tuesday night game. The playoffs are miles away.

Yet nobody could have predicted this level of intensity, passion, and moxy. One only needed to look at Kevin Garnetts (rather annoying) attempt at intimidation by trying to coax Calderon out of his rhythm to realize that this was more than an early season game. There was some real feeling behind it and it was felt not only by the players and the coaches, but everyone in the arena as well as everyone watching from home. For the record, I'm lovin' it! Sure beats the snoozer of a win over the lowly Bobcats on Sunday afternoon.

And don't get too excited, but I am stating for the record that tonight could be a (very) early sign of a possible...dare I say the "R" word? That's right folks. Rivalry.

I'm sure that not many of the Celtics players or fans have forgotten Calderon's amazing game-ending three point play last season (scroll down to check it out). Could this have been part of the reason for the jawing between him and Garnett? My prediction would also be supported by the fact that Bosh is currently making that jump to superstar status while Garnett is sort of being ushered out of it. A chance for Bosh to match up with one of the best power forwards in the game. And a chance for Garnett to show the young kid that he's still got it. This just adds another layer to the story.

I'm not saying it's going to happen. But don't be surprised to see some serious sparks if these two teams meet in the playoffs. The new beasts of the East? We'll just have to wait and see if the Raps are up to the challenge.

Europe: the Ultimate Team Player

Another oldie.

The Ryder Cup ended on Sunday afternoon with another lopsided US defeat, ending in the exact same deficit (18.5 to 9.5) as two years ago on US soil when the Ryder Cup was last held. It was a clear drubbing, with the Europeans winning every session, including the Sunday singles, which have historically been dominated by the US. That makes Europe the winner of five of the last six Ryder Cups, not to mention the last three. And if it were not for an historic and unprecedented comeback by the US in 1999 in Sunday singles, you would have given Europe the last six Ryder Cups. Even more demoralizing for the team that boasts the top three golfing talents in the world in Woods, Mickelson, and Furyk, Europe has pulled off two thorough thrashings of the US in the last two Ryder Cups, making Sunday singles a mere formality.

As an aside, the US was victorious in the most recent edition. You think Boo Weekley wasn't pumped up?



Anyway, back to the article...

Rudy Tomjonovich once said of his Houston Rockets: “Never underestimate the heart of a champion”. It was clear from the first tee ball that the Europeans were looser, more relaxed, and more “into it” than the US. The Europeans play the Ryder Cup like the Americans play majors; with passion, focus, and heart. Conversely, the Americans play the Ryder Cup like it’s a two dollar skins game; with disinterest and aloofness. When Greece (absent of any NBA players) beat the likes of Lebron, Wade, Carmelo, and Bosh at the World Basketball Championships this past summer, they displayed a much higher level of team chemistry, camaraderie, and once again, heart. They came together as a team in the same fashion as the Europeans come together for the Ryder Cup. It is one of life’s puzzles why the US (with clearly the most raw talent) usually does not fare well in the Ryder Cup as well most international team competitions. Here are a few theories as to why.

The US is grounded in the power of the individual. Their constitution for example makes far more mention of individuality than collective prosperity. They pay less taxes, meaning that less wealth gets re-distributed, which is another sign of their “go it alone” attitude. It is not uncommon in Europe for income tax rates to flirt with the 50% mark, leaving a lot of extra money to be redistributed to those who need it most. It may seem silly to compare tax rates and sporting outcomes, but the analogy is clear. Many countries in Europe enjoy spreading the wealth, believing that an egalitarian society produces the best society. America has always been about the freedom to pursue individual personal wealth, with little or no limits set. Could this “team-first mentality” in European society help to foster a team first mentality on the golf course, the hardcourt, or the soccer pitch? And could this focus on the individual in American society be a hindrance to the performance of American sports teams? Potentially. Just think of American sports coverage.

Baseball coverage often fixates on home run tallies; who’s got the most, when is Bonds going to break Babe Ruth’s record, etc. Golf focuses on the majors and the player of the year race. Basketball focuses on scoring leaders and MVP’s. This is not to say that sports analysts in the US don’t speak of team play, but they do seem to spend a lot of time discussing individual accolades. Conversely, in Europe, when analysts speak of soccer (football to them), it’s often with an emphasis on the team effort. Think of how well the US does in the Olympics, which are mostly individual efforts. Now compare that to American results in international team events such as soccer, golf, and basketball.

Something doesn’t add up.

I also believe that no matter what the Americans say, Europe treasures the Ryder Cup more. I truly believe that the Ryder Cup for the Europeans is right up there, and possibly more important to them than winning majors. For the Americans, it is no contest. I don’t care what the Americans say, they would much rather win a US Open or a Masters than a Ryder Cup.

It is obvious that the US struggles with team sports. On paper, they should win every Ryder Cup, and they should win the gold medal game whenever they hit the hardcourt. Instead, the US has dismal records recently both in the Ryder Cup and in international team competition in general. Chemistry goes a long way. Heart goes a long way. And the passionate will for your team to win is vital. For now, I think it is safe to conclude that team success is not as important to the US as it is to Europe, the ultimate team player.

Homosexuality in Sports

OK, I admit it. I wrote this one awhile ago. But I'm going to post it anyway. The story is a little out of date but will always be relevant.

In the wake of ex-NBA player John Amaechi announcing that he is gay, Tim Hardaway said some things that he shouldn’t have. His comments were hateful, ignorant and biting.

For those of you who aren’t familiar, here’s a clip:



For one of the great point guards of the game, the punishment came swiftly and decisively. Hardaway was promptly fired from his job as an NBA analyst, banned from the All-Star Game in Vegas, and was suddenly in everybody’s bad books. Hardaway’s reputation will forever be tarnished. Decades and decades of hard work, of being an outstanding player and teammate, and earning respect for his work as an NBA analyst after his playing career; all of this was thrown away in a 2 minute homophobic rant.

NBA players have always and will continue to censor their words. They are often afraid to speak what is truly in their hearts and minds, afraid of controversial comments that will create a public backlash and could have some severe consequences. What happened to Tim Hardaway will only make that fear more palpable.

Just like politicians and celebrities, athletes feel a lot of pressure to watch what they say. In this new technological age, gossip can spread even faster. In the same way that politicians will always “say the right thing” to clamor for votes; and celebrities will rarely say anything controversial so as not to jeopardize future movie roles; athletes must also bite their tongues in the interest of self-preservation. Instead of votes or movie roles, athletes watch what they say so as to stay on the good side of the media, of the fans, of the coaching and management staff, and last but not least on contracts and endorsement deals. I am definitely not insinuating that the bulk of NBA athletes agree with Tim Hardaway’s comments, although there are likely a few. I am simply saying that one has to take the comments of NBA players with a grain of salt, because you can never be sure what is driving and motivating them.

Tiger Woods is a good example. He is Nike’s dream client. A recognizable face, an astonishing game, intensity and charisma on the golf course, and interviews that will make you fall asleep. If you watch these interviews, he usually will say some variation of the same thing every single time. Even when faced with tough questions that may result in some controversy, he will cleverly sidestep it in order to not take a side. This is what Nike wants. Controversial comments such as Hardaway’s alienate large segments of the public. Nike wants Tiger to stay neutral so as not to alienate anybody, hence selling more products. Tiger feels that if he helps Nike sell more products, then they are more likely to keep him as a client. See how it works?

This is why for all of the politically correct, seemingly tolerant, and accepting comments by NBA players in the wake of Amaechi’s surprise announcement; one has to wonder if some of these players are only thinking about the bottom line. If they are carefully weighing their words.

Let me make myself clear once again. In no way am I saying that all of the lovey dovey talk is a hoax. I truly believe that many NBA players would openly accept a gay teammate, especially those who come from large, diverse cosmopolitan cities where differences are celebrated and embraced. Amaechi has been quoted as saying that he thinks a city like Toronto would openly accept a gay NBA player. I read a very touching and heartwarming story about Andrei Kirilenko (still playing for the Jazz), who was teammates with Amaechi when this story happened.

It was New Years Eve, and Andrei was hosting a party. Clearly sensing something in Amaechi that others may not have, he sent him a text message that Amaechi later said “brought tears to his eyes”. The message read “Please come, John. You are welcome to bring your partner, if you have one, someone special to you. Who it is makes no difference to me.” Amaechi already had plans and couldn’t make it, but he still sent Andrei a $500 bottle of champagne for his kind gesture. I truly believe that there are many other current NBA players whose reaction would mirror Andrei’s.

Conversely, I also feel that there would be many NBA players whose reactions would be more like Hardaway’s than Kirilenko’s. The US (and Canada) still has a lot to work on in terms of accepting people who are different. Racism and homophobia continue to be chronic problems in many parts of both countries. Moreover, the NBA locker room (not that I’ve ever been in one) is likely a place of alpha-male machismo. Not exactly the ideal environment for a gay person to co-exist.

Amaechi was not a superstar. He never won a ring, and he was never the top player on his team. But he has taught us something. He has taught us that all types of people play this game. And that even in modern society, there still exists some pressure among NBA players to hide any sort of gay or effeminate behaviour (otherwise Amaechi would have come out while still in the league).

And Hardaway's words have also taught us something. They have taught us that we have a long way to go in our society towards respect and tolerance. They also present a conundrum. If NBA players were hesitant to appear homophobic in the public eye before Hardaway’s comments, then they must be seriously scared now in the post-Hardaway world. So therefore it is near impossible to gauge how an openly gay NBA player would be accepted if every NBA player now just spouts stock answers.

To be honest, I truly don’t see a current NBA player coming out of the closet in the near future. Don’t bet on it happening. There is no doubt in my mind that a gay man concealing his sexuality among a group of alpha males could possibly be morally destructive. Therefore, I would sincerely hope that a gay NBA player would have the courage and conviction to come out while still in the league. And while I’m hoping, let’s hope to see him accepted by his teammates for who he is.

Raptors 2008/09: Three Reasons for Optimism

The swagger of Jermaine O'Neal

Up until this aquisition, the Raps were often written off as a good jump shooting team with little to no toughness. Pundits were constantly (perhaps with good reason) labeling them as “soft”. Defensive toughness is the kind of thing that allows teams to leave the realm of pretenders and to enter the world of contenders. During the off season, they finally aquired it. Once a truly elite power forward, he has regressed in the past few years while undergoing surgery on his leg. Armed with a fresh start as well as a healthy leg, O'Neal has something to prove to his detractors who mostly see this when they think of him. The “Malice at the Palace” was clearly an unnecessary and scary incident, one that will always be a black eye for NBA league marketers and gave Mr. Stern fits. Yet after the brawl, nobody would dare label the Pacers a “soft” team. O'Neal acted with brashness, to be sure, but he did stand up for his teammates. We have never had a figure like O'Neal in the low block as well as in the locker room, and – if he stays healthy- will give this team a defensive presence unprecedented in Raptors history, as well as some much-needed toughness and swagger. And you can be sure that, if confronted by the same situation in Toronto that happened in Detroit, he will show a tad more self-control. Check out this vid for a more mature, yet no less motivated Mr. O'Neal:

Expect him to be a defensive anchor, a big rebounder, a solid shot blocker, a scoring threat, and perhaps most importantly, an enforcer.

A Recently Turned Bonafide Superstar in Chris Bosh

For the past 2-3 years, Chris Bosh has been an elite power forward in this league. He has always had the conditioning, the quick first step, a reliable jump shot, the leadership qualities, and a work ethic to be envied. But something seems a little different this time around and we have his integral play in this summers US Olympic teams gold medal campaign to thank. Not only was Bosh an important piece of this summers “Redeem Team”, but he started every game, was integral as a communicator on defence, as a consistent threat on offence, and was rewarded with high praise from the Kobes and Lebrons of this world. This experience (and plays like this) have done wonders for the confidence of Bosh. He seems to have more of a bounce to his step, is vastly improved in terms of self-confidence, is displaying more vocal and effective leadership, and has clearly become far more relevant defensively. Basically, he and the rest of the world finally realize just how good he really is. Now we can all add the words “bonafide” to precede Chris Bosh the superstar.

Expect him to play like one this year.

Just for fun, here's a taste of Chris Bosh the comedian:

Lack of Tension and Ego at the Point Guard Spot

Nothing undoes a team quite like infighting and conflict between teamates and/or coaches. TJ Ford, notwithstanding his impressive skills and quickness, was a piece that needed to be moved. The “PG 1A and 1B experiment” (i.e. minute-sharing between Ford and Calderon), while effective for so long, finally lost its legs when Ford publicly sulked about being replaced as the starter. Coming in off the bench and doing his best impression of He Who Shall Not Be Named was too much of a chemistry killer to be worth keeping around. One of them had to be moved. The decision was made easier by Calderon's apparent team-first attitude, his wildly efficient statistics, and his on-court chemistry with Mr. Bosh. Fast forward to the present, we now have Jose Calderon as the face of the position, readying himself to show his teammates, coaching staff, and fans around the world what he can do with the added responsibility. Numero Ocho has suddenly become Numero Uno.

Expect him to average a near double double in points and assists and make a serious run for his first ever All-Star spot. Oh, and hopefully, we'll see a bit more of this:

"Joe Six Pack" running the US? No, thank you.

Paying attention to political events in the last decade or so, one cannot help but notice something strange and disconcerting about American (and Canadian at that) election time. One would not be going out on a limb to say that elections are predominantly about image. It is about casting one's candidate in a way that will appeal to, and ultimately propel the maximum number of citizens to get out and vote. Over the years, elections have become more and more about image and less and less about actual policies. You know, those ideas, plans, and strategies the candidates have for running the country if elected. The important stuff, right?

Recently, what with the onslaught of our senses from Youtube and the news, citizens are usually only privy to certain sound bites, oftentimes not lasting longer than 10 seconds. This reality is partly due to the fact that the candidates (perhaps partially rightly so) don't expect much out of their citizens. They feel that sound bites will affect us more given our ever-shortening attention spans. It is also a strategy being used by the candidates themselves, because it allows them to make a strong impression on their citizens without really doing or saying anything substantive. Sarah Palins “joke” about the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom allowed her to show off her grit, determination, and sense of humour. Obama's “yes we can” speech, followed by a music video featuring an assortment of B-list entertainers allowed him to paint himself as a beacon of hope and change. George Bush saying that “we're gonna smoke em out” showed the country that they have strong, brave, and decisive leadership at the top running this thing. John McCain constantly reminding people that he was a POW. By the way, if I were pressed to say whether this was a detriment or an advantage, I'd probably say the former. Wouldn't you? The point is that these moments remain etched in peoples minds, and for better or worse, have huge impacts on whose ticket they punch come election day. Charlie Sheen said in “Wall Street” that “life comes down to a few moments”. What a great way to also describe US politics. Unfortunately, people will often cast their ballots based on a “few moments” that succeed in defining a candidate for them.

Nobody likes long and drawn out explanations. People tend more for the snappy, to the point, and often frustatingly vague sweeping statements. For some inexplicable reason, pragmatic, sensible, and intelligent speeches are too much for many. People get bored. These moments, unfortunately, do not win elections. These moments often lead the candidate to be labeled “elitist” or “overly-intellectual”.

Which leads me to the crux of this piece: Are these bad qualities? The quick answer is, they shouldn't be. But unfortunately, in one of the most personally disappointing developments in elections, they often are. Intelligence in terms of understanding the ridiculously complex international social, cultural, and economic system should not only be sought for, but it should be mandatory. Being president is not an easy job and requires a keen intellect at the very least. Therefore, it is unfortunate that elections are being decided with large swaths of the population believing that intelligence and sophistication are, in fact, poor qualities for the leader of the free world to have. These people love their leaders decisive, down to earth, and “just like you and me”. I don't know about you, but I am not ready to be president. Neither are my friends. The reason why we hold elections is so that we can elect the most qualified person for the job. Not so that we can choose someone "just like you and me". So how could a presidential candidate who reminds you of “your good buddy Joe”, is a down to earth decisive “straight talker” possibly be something you look for in a leader? I mean, isn't decisiveness just a euphemism for hard-headedness, for stubborness, and for quick (and therefore potentially flawed) decision-making.

Nobody likes a labourer. Many Americans (i.e. Bush 2004 supporters) want somebody who has the ability to make decisions immediately, somebody who “will not blink”. Many of them clearly do not see the logic behind the idea that a carefully formulated, well thought-out, rational, pragmatic, and tempered response to an issue will more likely than not, yield a more positive outcome for all. Stephen Colbert once told Bush that he was like him because they both spoke “from the gut”. Clearly not noticing the sarcastic nature of the whole ordeal, Bush laughed along. But little by little, he realized that Colbert was in fact attacking him for making decisions that not only affect the citizens of America, but the world as a whole, “without blinking”. Sarah Palin, in her now infamous interview with Katie Couric, used those exact same words. The dogma that has defined America for the past 8 or so years has been one that says that compassion, intellectualism, and dragging ones feet are a sign of weakness and therefore, unpatriotic. The idea that we cannot, nor will we ever show weakness to our enemies has been a cornerstone of recent US political activity. Personally, I would take a pragmatic solution, (one that is actually based on the realistic current international climate rather than losing face), from an elitist intellectual sophisticate who sips Chai Tea Lattes over one from someone who may be more “decisive” in his thinking anyday. Let's hope Americans agree with me this time around.