That's two hours of my life I'll never get back

The movie The Black Dahlia would have been more accurately named The Black Hole. I hate ripping a movie with Hilary Swank in it, but if you get the chance to see it, run the other way, especially if you know anything about the historical Black Dahlia murder.

Better sit down for this one

Jason Whitlock says the NBA's infestation (infatuation?) with thugs boiled over on All-Star Weekend in Las Vegas:

The game is a sloppy, boring, half-hearted mess. The dunk contest is contrived and pointless. The celebrity contest is unintended comedy. And, worst of all, All-Star Weekend revelers have transformed the league's midseason exhibition into the new millennium Freaknik, an out-of-control street party that features gunplay, violence, non-stop weed smoke and general mayhem.

Word of all the criminal activity that transpired during All-Star Weekend has been slowly leaking out on Las Vegas radio shows and TV newscasts and on Internet blogs the past 24 hours.

"It was filled with an element of violence," Teresa Frey, general manager for Coco's restaurant, told klastv.com. "They don't want to pay their bills. They don't want to respect us or each other."

[...]

But there were multiple brawls, at least two shootings, more than 350 arrests and a lot of terror in Vegas over the weekend.

And the police might want to talk to NFL player Pacman Jones about a nasty shooting spree at a Vegas strip club. Jones and the rapper Nelly were allegedly at Minxx Gentlemen's Club Monday morning shortly before (or during) the shooting.

Two victims, male employees of the club, were listed in critical condition at the hospital; a third, a female patron, sustained non-life threatening injuries after being grazed by a bullet.

I guess my first question is, even without this incident, why is Nelly even walking the streets? Even by the disgusting standards of (c)rap, his work qualifies as musical terrorism. He should be, at the very least, arrested just on general principles.

There were so many fights and so many gangbangers and one parking-lot shootout at the MGM Grand that people literally fled the hotel in fear for their safety. I talked with a woman who moved from the MGM to the Luxor because "I couldn't take it. I'll never come back to another All-Star Game."

There are reports of a brawl between rappers and police at the Wynn Hotel.

What? Rappers fighting police? Whoulda thunkit?

Vegas police were simply overwhelmed along The Strip. They were there solely for decoration and to discourage major crimes. Beyond that, they minded their own business.

I was there. Walking The Strip this weekend must be what it feels like to walk the yard at a maximum security prison. You couldn't relax. You avoided eye contact. The heavy police presence only reminded you of the danger.

David Stern seriously needs to consider moving the event out of the country for the next couple of years in hopes that young, hip-hop hoodlums would find another event to terrorize. Taking the game to Canada won't do it. The game needs to be moved overseas, someplace where the Bloods and Crips and hookers and hoes can't get to it without a passport and plane ticket.

Young, hip-hop hoodlums? This whole rap and thug thing again. I just can't believe it!

I'm serious. Stern has spent the past three years trying to move his league and players past the thug image Ron Artest's fan brawl stamped on the NBA.

After this weekend, I'm convinced he's losing the battle. All-Star Weekend Vegas screamed that the NBA is aligned too closely with thugs. Stern is going to have to take drastic measures to break that perception/reality. All-Star Weekend can no longer remain the Woodstock for parolees, wannabe rap artists and baby's mamas on tax-refund vacations.

I'm shocked!!! SHOCKED, I tell you!!! Thugs and the NBA. You just don't normally connect the two. Like Islam and violence.

My sarcastic comments aside, Whitlock is exactly right here. These incidents are a symoptom of the thuggishness that has destroyed the NBA and is driving fans like me away.

Coachus Maximus Mediocratus

Well, well, what to make of this?

The Chargers have turned to an old hand to replace Marty Schottenheimer as their head coach.
Norv Turner has agreed to become the new head coach of the defending AFC West champions, one week after Schottenheimer was fired.

Turner, the San Francisco 49ers offensive coordinator the past two seasons, was the Chargers offensive coordinator in 2001. That was LaDainian Tomlinson's rookie season. Turner is credited with installing the offense that Cam Cameron tweaked and made his own for the next five seasons.

This will be Turner's third head coaching job. In stints in Washington (1994-2000) and Oakland (2004-05) he was 58-82-1.

He is among the most respected offensive coordinators in the game and was considered a leading candidate for the Dallas Cowboys head coaching job last month before former Chargers defensive coordinator Wade Phillips got that post.

This hire certainly does not get me excited, but for what the Chargers were looking for it makes a certain amount of sense. Marty Schottenheimer was never an X’s and O’s guy. His forte was preparation, organization, efficiency and motivation. What A.J. Smith and Dean Spanos wanted to do was to preserve the offensive and defensive systems that had been so successful these past three seasons. That goal was threatened when Cam Cameron and Wade Phillips left to become head coaches elsewhere, and was positively imperiled when Marty wanted to interview his brother Kurt to replace Phillips.

That goal is now achieved as much as possible. The offense the Chargers run is Norv Turner’s offense. He designed it. Cameron ran it these past five years, but Turner designed it and has run it before. Unlike Marty, he is an X and O guy. The hiring of Ted Cottrell as defensive coordinator helps keep Phillips 3-4 system in place, as much as possible.

So that goal has been achieved, which fits in with the Chargers excellent level of talent. This is not a rebuilding job.

That said, I am underwhelmed. Personally, I was hoping for Ron Rivera, who is apparently going to be let go by the Chicago Bears. All the time coming home from Cleveland Browns games I hear complaints on the call-in shows about how their head coach, be it Chris Palmer, Butch Davis or Romeo Crennel, had to undergo “on-the-job training” and how Browns fans deserve a coach with head coaching experience.

The problem with that philosophy is that it gets you a Norv Turner. This is his third head coaching gig, assuming you count coaching Al Davis’ Raiders as a stint. Turner’s career record is 58-82-1 with one playoff appearance. On the sidelines he always looks like he’s going to pull a Sally Struthers and ask you to puh-LEEZE help these starving children in [insert name of random African country here]. Someone with “head coaching experience” usually has tried and failed miserably before. Dan Henning, anyone? You need to get someone young and hope you get lucky. That’s how the Steelers end up with a Bill Cowher.

But the Chargers situation would not be ideal for a young coach, like a Rivera. He would want to bring in his own system. But the Chargers, on the verge of a Super Bowl, don’t want to step back anymore than they have to. Bringing in a new coach is bad enough. Bringing in new offensive and defensive systems compounds the problem. But forcing existing systems on a first-time head coach can get you a Bud Carson, which, coincidentally, was the result of Marty’s firing under similar circumstances in Cleveland in 1988.

As underwhelmed as I am, though, some of the alternatives could have been worse. Ravens defensive coordinator Rex Ryan? Please. His father Buddy Ryan may have designed the 46 defense, but he was a complete jerk who proved himself to be a coaching disaster in Philadelphia and Arizona. They were noted for a lack of discipline and dissention in the locker room. As an assistant coach for the Houston Oilers, Ryan even punched offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride on the sidelines during a game. This was after his head coaching stint in Philadelphia ended, from which he should have leaned something but apparently didn’t. Rex Ryan is no great shakes himself. Working for the Ravens is bad enough. Having your vaunted defense collapse against the Colts is worse.
So, count me underwhelmed, but I can understand hiring Turner. It could have been worse.

Sounds about right

The Union-Tribune asks: did Marty engineer his own firing?

Will the real Cleopatra please stand up?

I can't say that I'm impressed by this story on one of my favorite figures from antiquity, the last Ptolemaic Queen of Egypt, Cleopatra VII Philopator, or as we know her, Cleopatra:

So maybe Mark Antony loved Cleopatra for her mind.

That is the conclusion being drawn by academics at Britain's University of Newcastle from a Roman denarius coin which depicts the celebrated queen of Egypt as a sharp-nosed, thin-lipped woman with a protruding chin.

In short, a fair match for the hook-nosed, thick-necked Mark Antony on the other side of the coin, which went on public display Wednesday at the university's Shefton Museum.

"The image on the coin is far from being that of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton," said Lindsay Allason-Jones, director of archaeological museums at the university, recalling the 1963 film Cleopatra, which ignited the tempestuous romance between the two stars.

The notion that Cleopatra was not in Taylor's league was hailed as a revelation in British newspapers on Valentine's Day, though the image is hardly a discovery.

Replicas of the denarius can be found on eBay, and images on other ancient coins are no more flattering.

Cleopatra's legend has grown over the centuries.

Plutarch, in the Life of Antony written a century after the great romance, said of Cleopatra: "her actual beauty, it is said, was not in itself so remarkable that none could be compared with her."

"But the contact of her presence, if you lived with her, was irresistible; the attraction of her person, joining with the charm of her conversation, and the character that attended all she said or did, was something bewitching. It was a pleasure merely to hear the sound of her voice..."

I don't hold myself out to be in league with the academics at the University of Newcastle, but I've studied ancient Greece, Egypt (both Pharonic and Ptolemaic) and Rome extensively. I've read such accounts of Cleopatra's beauty or lack of same before, and while they may be probative, I do not believe they are dispositive. I still believe that the evidence, on balance, shows that Cleopatra was far more looker than not, more Leonor Varela than Leonard Maltin.

It is true that ancient coins minted with the head of Cleopatra do not necessarily portray her in an attractive light. They probably were not supposed to. A coin is currency, an instrument of the government and an indicator of the government. It is probably because of a dearth of female rulers throughout history that we assume women would want or need to look attractive on such coins. We don't know how they would or should behave. We just know that men want to look attractive on their representations by government -- see, e.g. George Washington not showing his teeth, or more relevantly, Julius Caesar's images not showing his receding hairline -- and we assume women would be the same. That is not necessarily true.

Men might have an easier time looking both attractive and authoritative than women would. Men and women can and do look up to men who are attractive, but men would not necessarily look up to a woman who is attractive. She has to project authority. Put simply, Cleopatra wouldn't necessarily have wanted to look like Elizabeth Taylor or Leonor Varela on her coins. She would have wanted to look like a queen.

Make that Cleopatra would have needed to look like a queen. Cleopatra's hold on the throne was shaky. She had to fight a civil war with her brother and sister and a corrupt regency council to take the throne, and even then it was only with the help of Julius Caesar's legions that she was able to win. She had Rome drooling to take Egypt from the Ptolemies. While Cleopatra herself may have had some popularity with the native Egyptians, the Ptolemaic dynasty was hated for its corruption and opulence. She needed to project a strong, not necessarily attractive image to her people.

But this is a Roman coin, a denarius, you say? The equation changes, but the result is the same. The article doesn't say when the coin was minted, but given the presence of Mark Antony, I would guess it was made during the time of the Second Triumvirate or shortly thereafter between Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony), Marcus Aemelius Lepidus and Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, known to history as Octavian or Octavius, known in his time as Caesar and later designated Augustus. Probably minted by parties loyal to Antony. It was not in Antony's interest to make Cleopatra look like the Vixen of the Nile, either. He already took heavy political flack in Rome for his dalliance with Cleopatra. Having an alluring Cleopatra on the coin would only further an image he wanted to avoid.

On the off chance that the coin was minted by Octavius (to celebrate his victory at Actium, perhaps?), again, the result is the same. He certainly had no motive to make Antony (who's not a looker himself on this coin) or Cleopatra look good. Octavius was a master politician whose propaganda has succeeded in demonizing Antony and Cleopatra throughout history, or at least until Shakespeare came along. This could have been another example.

Unfortunately, there are very few contemporary images of Cleopatra apart from such coins. I am personally aware only of two busts and perhaps one sketch. Their images are better looking than the coin shown here, but again we have the same issues with the objective of the image.

Accounts of Cleopatra's life strongly suggest that she was a very alluring woman. She certainly was well educated and very smart -- she spoke at least four languages and was one of the few Ptolemies who could speak the language of her people. She was definitely a charmer. But that charm had to have a physical component, and the physical descriptions of Cleopatra and her activities suggest a physically very attractive woman. She was described as small and very athletic, and a very talented dancer. Finally, she had children by two of the most powerful men of her time, Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, who could (and in Caesar's case did) have any woman (and in Caesar's case, man) they wanted. She seduced at least Mark Antony and possibly Caesar as well. Cleopatra certainly did not have the look of an East End prostitute.

In short, there is more reason to believe the legend of Cleopatra's beauty than the coins. She had every reason to play down her beauty for political purposes. So did Antony. Legends do not arise out of thin air, and the legends of Cleopatra's beauty should not be easily dismissed by jaded coins.

Marty repeats history

Maybe I spoke too harshly yesterday in ripping Dean Spanos and A.J. Smith for firing Marty Schottenheimer so late in the game for reorganizing coaching staffs, if this story is any indication:

Chargers President Dean Spanos reversed course from just four weeks ago and fired head coach Marty Schottenheimer last night, ending one of the most strained relationships in the NFL.

“When I decided to move ahead with Marty Schottenheimer in mid-January, I did so with the expectation that the core of his fine coaching staff would remain intact,” Spanos said in a statement. “Unfortunately, that did not prove to be the case, and the process of dealing with these coaching changes convinced me that we simply could not move forward with such dysfunction between our head coach and general manager.”

Schottenheimer and General Manager A.J. Smith have hardly spoken since January, often communicating only through an intermediary. Their lack of communication proved disastrous in a time of much transition over the past few weeks.

“This entire process over the last month convinced me beyond any doubt that I had to act to change this untenable situation and create an environment where everyone at Charger Park would be pulling in the same direction and working at a championship level,” Spanos said.

Smith made it clear in December that he largely credited offensive coordinator Cam Cameron and defensive coordinator Wade Phillips with the Chargers' success.

Spanos and Smith said Jan. 17 when they announced the decision to retain Schottenheimer for a sixth year that they did so to maintain continuity after a season in which the Chargers had the league's best record.

That continuity was shattered, however, as both coordinators left for head coaching jobs – Cameron in Miami, Phillips in Dallas – and two of the team's position coaches became coordinators elsewhere as well.

The front-office tension built over the past few weeks, sources said, as Smith and Spanos disagreed with Schottenheimer's decision to allow linebackers coach Greg Manusky, tight ends coach Rob Chudzinski and assistant strength and conditioning coach Matt Schiotz to interview elsewhere. All three eventually took other jobs.

But, according to sources, the final straw occurred yesterday when Schottenheimer wanted to interview his brother Kurt for the defensive coordinator position. Spanos and Smith did not approve, but Schottenheimer held firm in asserting that he had the right to hire his own staff.

After that early afternoon meeting, Spanos returned to the Chargers' offices shortly before 5 p.m. and told Schottenheimer he was dismissing him.

“I met with Dean early in the day and, later on, he said, 'Let's get together and talk about it later,' ” Schottenheimer said. “And we did. He told me that he made the decision to move forward.”

In letting the head coach go, Spanos sided with his general manager, something he might have done all along had he known what was going to happen over the past four weeks. Smith has almost entirely rebuilt the Chargers roster, creating a team that has gone from the absolute bottom of the league when he took over in 2002 to the top in terms of regular-season record. (emphasis mine)

If this story sounds familiar, it should.

Back in 1988, when Marty was coach of the Cleveland Browns, Art Modell (more sinner than saint, he) wanted Marty to make changes on his coaching staff after a disappointing season. In particular, Modell wanted the special teams coach, who had been hired onlythe previous summer, removed. This seemed reasonable, as special teams had been a particular problem during the 1988 season. Marty refused, and was forced out by Modell and General Manager Ernie Accorsi as a result.

Who was that special teams coach with whom Marty refused to part? Kurt Schottenheimer.

Kurt's qualifications for the job seemed to consist mainly of being Marty's brother. The special teams in Cleveland took a nosedive under his stewardship.

Now Marty has had his brainlocks over the years. Remember when he actually compared Herman Fontenot to Marcus Allen? Replacing Wade Phillips with Kurt Schottenheimer would at first blush appear to be another brainlock.

But given Marty's history with Kurt, I wonder if Marty was angling for a resolution of his feud with Smith.

As far as I am concerned, Kurt Schottenheimer is justification enough for firing Marty. I like Marty, but Kurt's performance over the years including that 1988 in Cleveland gives me little confidence in him. Marty going to the wall for him -- again -- is very questionable.

But Smith and Spanos are not blameless in this. The decision was ultimately the correct one because of Kurt, but Smith and Spanos let this drag on for so long that with the Bolts coaching staff depleted and most of the good assistants in the league under contract, Smith will be hard-pressed to come up with a competent, let alone talented, coaching staff for next year.

Charger meltdown continues

You're kidding, right? Nope.

Chargers coach Marty Schottenheimer was fired Monday night in a shocking move by team president Dean Spanos, who cited a "dysfunctional situation" between the coach and general manager A.J. Smith.

The move was first reported by ESPN's Chris Mortensen.

Less than a month after San Diego's NFL-best 14-2 season was wrecked in a playoff loss to New England, Spanos cited the exodus of both coordinators and other assistants in firing Schottenheimer, who had a year left on his contact.

"This decision was so hard because Marty has been both a friend and valued coach of our team," Spanos said in a statement. "But my first obligation is always to do what is in the best interest of our fans and the entire Charger organization. I must take whatever steps are necessary to deliver a Super Bowl trophy to San Diego. Events of the last month have now convinced me that it is not possible for our organization to function at a championship level under the current structure. On the contrary, and in the plainest possible language, we have a dysfunctional situation here. Today I am resolving that situation once and for all."

Mortensen reported that Spanos told Schottenheimer on Monday that it wasn't going to work between him and Smith.

Schottenheimer didn't immediately return messages left on his office and cell phones.

Unfriggin' believable. You wait until February, lose your top assistants in Cam Cameron (who will bomb in Miami) and Wade Phillips; and then fire your head coach? Brrrrrilliant!!!

I hope you've got someone in mind, A.J. Smith and Dean Spanos. Because you've managed to foul up this playoff team beyond belief.

A li'l Jeopardy

The Answer: Shakira.

The Question: What star can be provocative without looking like a complete slut?

Certain very talented stars mentioned below should take note. As should Madonna. I'd add Britney Spears to the mix, but she jumped the shark after her first album and has taken a nosedive of Stuka-esque proportions to the point where now she is one step away from crash-landing in MC Hammer-land.

(You still get credit if you answered with this question: What star won't you hear on the musical cesspool known as Indianapolis radio?)

Cawfee Tawlk (or Some Jokes Just Write Themselves)

Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic.

I went to Pittsburgh today to see my Penguins play the evil Washington Capitals (the Pens won 2-0). While I was there, I saw an ad for an upcoming concert at Mellon Arena -- that of Pittsburgh-native Christina Aguilera. Her opening act? The Pussycat Dolls.

Discuss.

(Bonus Item -- on the promo poster, Christina appeared to be wearing only a pink blouse and fishnet pantyhose. Discuss.)

What is the Enemy at Home?

So I just got Dinesh D’Souza’s new book, The Enemy at Home, about “the Cultural Left and its responsibility for 9/11.” I’m only in the middle of the introduction and already I don’t like it.

I ordered the book thinking that its premise was that the Left had verbally trashed American so much over the years as corrupt, racist, sexist, capitalist, etc. And indeed that is part of D’Souza’s premise. But he also believes that the Left has substantively trashed America. He cites the replacement of “traditional morality” with such “liberal” ideas as “personal autonomy” and “self-fulfillment” with specific cites to sexuality and gay marriage as examples of how the Left has hollowed out America..

Maybe I’m missing something here, but I find his argument objectionable both on intellectual and substantive grounds. America was founded on “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” That seems pretty consistent with “personal autonomy” and “self-fulfillment” and not with “traditional morality.” The people who settled and immigrated to the United States did not share one “traditional morality.” You had Puritans and Anglicans, later Catholics, Orthodox and other Protestants, still later Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. All with their own versions of “morality.” You cannot base a free society on “morality.” You have to base it, as we have, on “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” which are inherently individual in definition. You set boundaries so that such individual pursuits do not harm others, but you do not impose a narrow definition of “traditional morality” on everyone. Otherwise you can end up with Taliban Afghanistan.

Furthermore, “traditional morality” as D’Souza seems to see it, is artificially restrictive on the marketplace of ideas, which is one of the shining jewels of a free society, one which lets the best ideas develop to the betterment of the general population. You’re going to get some bad ideas in the mix, but that is the price of getting good ideas. If you suppress only what you consider to be “bad” ideas you will inevitably lose out on good ones, to everyone’s detriment.

I am so turned off by the introduction that I don’t know if I can stomach finishing the book.