NBA Finals: Kobe vs. "Orlando Who?"

All during this season's NBA Playoffs, the mantra that's been sent down from the league and relayed through their TV partners and commercials for Nike have been . . .LeBron vs. Kobe . . . LeBron vs. Kobe . . .LeBron vs. Kobe.

In spite of better-than-average TV ratings and a classic seven-game series between the Chicago Bulls and Boston Celtics, all signs pointed to a clash of the NBA titans: LeBron James' Cleveland Cavaliers meeting Kobe Bryant's Los Angeles Lakers in the finals. LeBron vs. Kobe . . . LeBron vs. Kobe . . . LeBron vs. Kobe.

Except somebody forgot to tell the Orlando Magic. They made the Cavs (and LeBron) disappear in six games to win the Eastern Conference title, and will play the Lakers (who beat the Denver Nuggets in six) starting Thursday.

For the city of Cleveland, the long drought of not having won a sports championship since Lyndon Johnson was President continues. The Cavaliers have yet to win a title. All those rumors about James taking off for New York once he becomes a free agent in 2010 are going to get louder. He has a better chance of winning a championship there than he would in Cleveland. Just ask Kevin Garnett, whose fortunes improved dramatically once he left Minnesota for Boston.

ABC and ESPN, which now has to sell this series as Disney World vs. Disneyland (nice corporate synergy) instead of--well, you know, is stuck running a version of a sitcom they just canceled : Orlando Who? How many players on the Magic can you name besides Dwight Howard (or is that Juwan) ? To be fair, can you name anyone on the Cavs and Lakers besides . . . Kobe and LeBron? Phil Jackson, maybe?

The Magic have not been to the NBA Finals since 1995, when Shaquille O'Neal made the first of many appearances on the big stage. It's easy to forget that now, having seen him lead the Lakers and Miami Heat to titles since then.

Ever since Shaq and Kobe's acrimonious parting ended the Lakers' mini-dynasty a few years ago, Bryant has been trying to prove he can win the NBA title all by himself. This is the year he accomplishes that goal. Lakers in five games. Then we can come up with a new mantra.

Stanley Cup Finals: Deja Vu All Over Again

For the second consecutive year, the Pittsburgh Penguins and the Detroit Red Wings will face off for hockey's Stanley Cup. That hasn't happened since 1984, when the New York Islanders and Edmonton Oilers met for the second time.

The National Hockey League must be thrilled. The Penguins are stocked with young talent such as Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin and Marc-Andre Fleury. The defending champion Red Wings boast veteran talent such as Marian Hossa (who used to be a Pen), Niklas Lidstrom and Chris Osgood.

The Penguins won two hard-fought series against the Philadelphia Flyers and Washington Capitals, then breezed past the Carolina Hurricanes in four games to win the Eastern Conference.

The Red Wings swept the Columbus Blue Jackets in the opening round. Then they struggled past the Anaheim Ducks and Chicago Blackhawks to take the Western Conference championship.

The last time a team won consecutive Stanley Cups, it was the Red Wings in 1997 and 1998. For them to do that this time, they need to overcome sluggish play and a long list of injuries that have brought many a team down. Failing that, Pittsburgh should win this in six games.
* * *
In what could be the NHL's swansong season on network TV, NBC is televising every game in the series except for games three and four in prime time. Cue the crickets. For those of you who aren't blessed with having Versus on your cable system, be advised that they are showing games three and four. Pray that there isn't a sweep.
* * *
Meanwhile back in Minnesota, Chuck Fletcher is the new Wild general manager, replacing Doug Risebrough. Fletcher comes from the front office of the Penguins, so why would he leave when the team is still in the playoffs?

Fletcher, whose father Cliff was a GM in Calgary and Toronto, came highly recommended even though he has never actually run a team before. Now that he is, Fletcher's main priorities are to get a new coach to replace Jacques Lemaire, and to keep Marian Gaborik out of the jaws of free agency. Oh, and to convince the Team of 18,000 that the Wild will no longer be the plodding, just-happy-to-be-in-the-first-round-of-the-playoffs collection of players that has sufficed since the team was founded. Times, and expectations, have changed. Shouldn't the Wild be where the Red Wings and Penguins are today?

Another First For The Supreme Court

President Barack Obama did the expected thing in nominating a woman who also happens to be a minority as a Supreme Court justice, replacing the retiring David Souter.

The President introduced Sonia Sotomayor at a White House ceremony Tuesday morning, hailing her as an "inspiring woman who I believe will make a great justice". He also touted her vast experience as a jurist for three decades, more than anyone currently on the Court.

If she is confirmed by the Senate, she would become not only the third woman on the Court, but the first Hispanic justice as well.

Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent, came from the housing projects of the South Bronx in New York. After graduating from Princeton and Yale's law school, she moved up the ranks from attorney to judicial stints in the federal court system, promoted by Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Compared to the other justices, Sotomayor is not exactly wealthy. According to CNN.com, a 2007 financial disclosure form lists her bank account assets between $50,000 and $115,000.

It's a nice story, but it won't matter once Sotomayor enters the Supreme Court chambers, where you might as well be cut off from the rest of the world.

The President's choice of Sotomayor is not what you'd call earth-shattering, since she's a moderate/liberal judge replacing another moderate/liberal on a conservative-leaning Court. So what do Republicans have to complain about besides ringing the alarm bells over her past decisions? They'll have plenty of chances to grill her on that during the confirmation hearings.

Sotomayor's chances of getting confirmed in a Democratic-controlled Senate look pretty good, unless she gives them a reason not to. In the Obama administration thus far, that's not always a sure thing.

With Governor Pawlenty Around, Who Needs The Legislature?

When the Minnesota Legislature began its session in January, their mission was to trim down a $4.6 billion deficit, the biggest in state history. After the final gavel sounded amid much partisan bickering Monday night, the deficit was still there.

It wasn't for lack of trying. The DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor party)-controlled House and Senate passed bills that would have raised billions by raising taxes on the wealthy, credit card companies, and those who purchase liquor. And both times, they have been (or soon will be) vetoed by Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty, with no chance of an override or a special session to change things.

But the budget will be balanced anyway, and to do that, the Governor plans to go over the bills with a fine-tooth comb and veto everything in there that smacks of tax increases. With a Governor like that, who needs the Legislature? Presidents would love to have that kind of power.

This is not the first time Pawlenty has taken advantage of a weak-willed Legislature to mold the state's budget in his own image, and it won't be the last. See, his constituency is the "no new taxes" crowd bent on running Minnesota into the ground, instead of the people who live here and have to pay for the consequences of his actions. He also wants to prove how "presidential" he could be in case he wants to run for the White House in 2012. But Pawlenty is going to have problems if he decides to stay home and run for a third term as Governor.

With the spending cuts Pawlenty plans to make, he's betting Minnesotans can get along just fine with fewer police, libraries, and other social services. That's a lot to ask for in an economy like this one, with people losing jobs left and right. But that's the way it's been ever since he took office.

As for the Legislature, they don't seem to have learned much about the dangers of partisanship from their Washington brethren, if at all. Despite a Democratic majority, they are still at the mercy of a man who can't seem to get it through his head that times have changed, and his policies must change along with it. Sound familiar?

Is Obama Turning Into Dubya 2?

President Barack Obama always talks about how his administration is going to be different from the previous one, looking to the future instead of looking back. When it comes to the topic of the alleged torture of enemy combatants on government property, however, the past keeps intruding into the future.

In case you haven't noticed, torture has become the topic du jour online and on the cable news channels in recent weeks. Keith Olbermann has made it a regular feature of his MSNBC show when he's not making fun of Fox News Channel. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has been making the rounds on TV, scaring the hell out of people even though this isn't Halloween, when he really should be going back to his undisclosed location. Sometimes, listening to all this talk about torture is, well, torturous.

Really, the issue of torture has been with us since 9/11/01, when the George W. Bush administration started arresting every real or perceived threat they could find, shipping them off to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba without so much as an explanation or legal representation. Were these people treated fairly or not? Who knows? Who cares, so long as we knew when the next attack on American soil might occur? All of this was allegedly done while President Bush kept insisting that we do not torture.

Now, as Gitmo is closing and documents have been released revealing the extent to which interrogators got their answers, Obama has had second thoughts about revisiting the past. First, he is reviving military tribunals for the few detainees deemed too dangerous for the U.S. judicial system, which is something he initially opposed. This time, the administration says, it will be handled with better legal representation for the detainees.

Second, Obama has reversed himself on releasing pictures of prisoners in Iraq being abused, setting up a legal showdown with the ACLU over this. The generals convinced him that showing the photos might reveal that American soldiers are a bunch of sadists who get off on naked prisoners, and that they might become targets (like they aren't already?). We've already seen the photos from Abu Ghirab prison in 2004, so the excuses the Pentagon are making is just lame.

People like Cheney have been telling us that America is still in a War Against Terror, and that we need to be vigilant. If that's true, how come factories aren't making tanks and battleships instead of cars and appliances? (Oh, right. They're all closed.) Where are the Victory Gardens (and we're not referring to the PBS show)? Why aren't we all driving at 35 mph? Why aren't Hollywood and other celebrities out there selling war bonds? Or have I been listening to too many World War II-era radio programs?

President Obama has had the support of those who want to make a fresh start, but who don't want to ignore the past. He needs to make sure the past doesn't catch up to him.

Roxana Saberi: No "Damsel In Distress"

Some of you may be wondering what all the fuss was about American-born journalist Roxana Saberi, who spent four months in an Iranian prison before she was acquitted of being a spy for the United States.

Saberi's plight got plenty of attention in the local media because she hails from Fargo, North Dakota, and began her career at the local NBC station. She has since worked as a freelancer for news organizations such as CNN, NPR, and the BBC. She's also 32 and a former Miss North Dakota, which makes her marketable to advertisers who want to reach women whether they pay attention to the news or not.

Is Saberi really the "damsel in distress" that the media made her out to be? She was originally sentenced to eight years in an Iranian prison on espionage charges, in a brief trial held in secret. But she was given the chance to explain her side in an appeals court.

In the appeal, Saberi's attorney says that, while working as a translator for a group connected to Iran's ruling clerics, she admitted to copying confidential documents pertaining to the U.S. war on Iraq, but did not give to American officials. She apologized and was given a two-year suspended sentence.

And all this time, we were told that Saberi was working on a book describing life in the country for which she has dual citizenship. That still might be true, but who knows?

The Saberi case also got caught in the middle of U.S.-Iranian relations, which are strained at the moment. President Barack Obama has been trying to normalize relations with a country that once held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, and is now accused of having a nuclear weapons program aimed at wiping Israel off the map.

Now that Saberi is on her way back to the United States, you're going to be seeing a lot of her in the next few weeks on talk shows from Oprah to "Today". Then she's going to fade into obscurity, just like the last American female journalist who had the misfortune of spending quality time in a Middle Eastern country against her will. Whatever happened to her?

Brett Favre: Retired Today, Playing Tomorrow?

If what Yahoo! Sports reported Thursday is correct, then we don't have to worry about currently-retired quarterback Brett Favre putting on a Minnesota Vikings uniform next season. He's not going to. He's going to stay retired, according to his agent. As of today. Who knows what his answer will be tomorrow?

ESPN, the Worldwide Leader in Hype, cut away from its Boston Red Sox/New York Yankees obsession to give us the breaking news that Favre and Vikings coach Brad Childress were going to discuss the possibility of maybe joining the team. That sent everything into overdrive--Sportscenter,talk radio, blogs--Favre a Viking?!? Super Bowl, here we come!

OK, time out. We've been down this road before. Favre's first retirement came after the 2007 season, in which his Green Bay Packers lost to the New York Giants in the NFC Championship game, which was played in the below-zero tundra of Lambeau Field. Then, as training camp rolled around, Favre got antsy. He wanted to un-retire and play for the Packers again, but the team declined, having already entrusted their future to Aaron Rodgers.

Favre tried to sign with the Vikings, but the Packers wouldn't hear of him defecting to a hated rival. So they traded him to the New York Jets, where he had a so-so season, throwing as many interceptions as he did touchdown passes. Then, citing an injury to his bicep, he retired again.

What is the Vikings' motivation for signing Favre, who turns 40 this fall? Are they admitting that the quarterbacks they already have--Tarvaris Jackson, Sage Rosenfels (just acquired from the Houston Texans) and John David Booty (who also happens to wear #4)--are the weakest link towards a championship run? Putting enough rear ends in the Metrodome seats to avoid embarrassing TV blackouts? Finally convincing the Minnesota Legislature that they deserve a new stadium?

Favre has had a Hall of Fame-worthy career, taking the Packers to two Super Bowls and creating many memorable moments that could stock a spinoff of NFL Network. But the more he acts like a teenage girl who can't decide which boy she wants to go to the prom with, the less respect he gets. Make a decision and stick with it.

Meanwhile, ESPN can now obsess over Manny Ramirez, the Los Angeles Dodger who was suspended for 50 games by Major League Baseball for using a banned substance. He used to play for the Red Sox.

Souter Retires. Can Anyone Hear a Pin Drop?

David Souter has announced his retirement as a U.S. Supreme Court justice for nearly two decades, effective after the current term ends this summer.

Normally, an announcement like this would set off alarm bells in Washington. Those who support Roe v. Wade, civil rights and other liberal causes would be worried that Souter's departure would produce dire consequences if a Republican president chose to make the Court more conservative than it already is.

Not this time. President Barack Obama, a Democrat, now gets to decide who should replace Souter. He's being urged to choose a woman and/or a minority so Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who has been the only female justice since Sandra Day O'Connor left) or Clarence Thomas (the only African-American justice) could have someone to talk to. Or not.

Whoever is nominated would have to face the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then the full Senate for confirmation. As long as this person doesn't have tax problems or nanny issues, the process should run smoothly.

And the nominee wouldn't really change the ideological balance currently on the Court. Obama would essentially be swapping one liberal for another.

There is one drawback that Obama needs to take note of. Presidents have been known to regret their choice of justice because of the simple human trait they sometimes have of changing one's mind over time. Take Justice Souter. He was nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1990 in the apparent belief that he would help steer the Court to the right. When that didn't happen, conservatives were all over Bush I for making such a bonehead pick in their eyes.

This could only be the beginning. The longer Obama remains in the White House, the more likely it is that other, more conservative Supreme Court justices might want to get out like Souter did before they have to be carried out. Then the ideological balance could shift again, leading conservatives to whine in the same manner their liberal counterparts are doing now. You just can't satisfy some people.

When Viruses Fly

For years, those in the scientific community have been warning us of the possibility of a deadly new virus that could kill millions, just like the Spanish Flu did nearly a century ago.

Actually, they've sounded the alarm twice this decade with SARS and the avian flu epidemic. Neither of them, fortunately, mutated into mega-pandemic status.

Now it's the H1N1 swine flu that maybe, could be a major killer, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers (?) For Disease Control (CDC). As of May 3, there have been 787 cases worldwide. The death toll in North America stands at 20--nineteen in Mexico, one in the United States. (In Minnesota, there has been one confirmed case and eight are pending.)

Almost as widespread as the disease is the misinformation and paranoia that comes with it.

• If you believe Michele Bachmann, the Republican congresswoman from Minnesota, the first swine flu epidemic in 1976 occurred on President Jimmy Carter's watch. It was actually Gerald Ford, and he came from Bachmann's party.
• According to conservative talk radio, President Barack Obama's refusal to close the U.S.-Mexican border will result in sicker illegal aliens crossing over, and that the swine flu is a plot to take down the U.S. government.
• Vice President Joe Biden, who's been known to make an idiotic comment or two, told NBC's "Today" show that he would not recommend to family members that they use public transportation, fly airplanes or go to Mexico. The White House quickly disavowed Biden's comments. What's next? His predecessor Dick Cheney claiming that H1N1 is an Al Qaeda plot?
• Even the liberal Huffington Post is not immune, so to speak. They've published columns proclaiming that the news media coverage has been overblown, and that the disease itself is no different than the garden variety ones that kill over 30,000 every year in this country. Try telling that to the folks who have suffered already.
• The purveyors of the Other White Meat have leaned on the WHO and the CDC to stop calling the disease "swine flu", claiming that you won't get sick from eating pork (vegetarians beg to differ). Well, what else are you gonna call it? H1N1 isn't exactly catchy (sorry), and "The Mexican Flu" might run into political correctness problems--even though that's where the outbreak originated.

The truth is, we don't know. At this point, world health officials, while encouraged by the relatively low totals, are stressing that we are in the early stages of the outbreak. It might lie dormant during the summer, then come back with a vengeance during the fall and winter. Just as in 1918, And the vaccine might not arrive in time.

Until the "all clear" is sounded, it might be wise to heed the precautions recommended by physicians and government. Because modern medicine can only do so much.