Who hasn't chuckled at the late night TV segments where the host puts up preposterous headlines, articles and advertisements filled with typos, misspellings and unfortunate word choices? Or, perhaps you've channel surfed your way onto one of those silly video clip programs where people are caught in embarrassing predicaments by their loved ones holding a camcorder. Of course, no one can escape landing on the email distribution list of the kooky cousin or coworker with too much time on their hands and a penchant for collecting and sharing goofy signage, cartoons and other comical images.

All of these items are published and passed around for their entertainment value. Many times they do offer plenty of opportunities to have a laugh at the expense of the anonymous stranger.

While the above are humorous displays of mishaps that usually have no lasting impact, there are times when similar examples might not be so funny. Anyone who has ever had any involvement with recruiting or hiring can attest to a similar phenomenon when it comes to resumes, cover letters, online profiles or other screening tools in the process. However in this instance, the outcome of the error causes irreparable harm to a reputation when applied to a human subject in the midst of a job search or someone simply interested in being viewed as credible resource or subject-matter expert.

The concept of personal and professional branding continues to be considered an important element of a person's career marketing package. Even the most rudimentary advice related to resume writing, building a social media profile or sending out business correspondence constantly reminds the audience to pay attention to detail and proofread thoroughly to catch and avoid mistakes.

Why then, when everyone knows you only get one chance to make a great first impression, are people so careless about how they portray themselves?

Below are several actual examples of text pulled from various materials, including resumes, bios, profiles, blogs and Website "about" sections depicting evidence of such brazen branding bloopers and blunders. The names and identifying information have been altered or removed to protect the identity of the source.

Mgr, Store Operations /Communicatons

My name if Frank

He has run many small and medium size companies and has owed a few including...

...the areas where negligence can lead to lead to significant legal judgments...

I work incredible well with people

I consider the work I have doe over the years to be of a consulative nature.

President of Some Name-Communicaitons

He has establishing sales records in organizations 

I enjoy working with most people

I welcome and feedback and/or ommentary.

My name is _ and I have over 30 years Public and Private sector. I would be my priveledge in helping your firm work with _ at any level.

Barbara's breath and scope of experience spans the _, _ and _ fields.

I can do _ for you clients.

He is been with our group since the the late 1990's. Prior to working with our team, Evan was with a National recruitng firm.

I'm exceptionally skilled at _ the situations that I commonly encounter when helping my clients in this critical area. I have been an _ for over 30 years and have a large _ practise in south Oranga County.

Western Regiona Director

As a recruiter or hiring authority, what are your reactions when you see content of this nature?

 

~~~ 

http://www.talenttalks.com

TalentTalks partners with job seekers to build competitive career marketing strategies and compelling professional branding materials to create a lasting positive impression. TalentTalks consults with the business community on innovative and customized human resource and organization development initiatives to enhance talent management, talent acquisition, corporate communications and employee engagement programs.

 

 

How much does it cost to stage a play? Do reviews matter? What should the bar staff be paid? Legendary producer Michael Codron tells Mark Lawson what a lifetime in theatre has taught him

There are two types of people who should be especially grateful for Michael Codron's six decades as a West End theatre producer: young playwrights and desperate women. Regarding the former, Codron commercially produced early work by Harold Pinter, Christopher Hampton, David Hare, Simon Gray and Tom Stoppard. As for the latter, the Aldwych Theatre, which Codron runs, has increased the number of cubicles in its ladies loos from 21 to 30 – a response to furious queues during the interval of Dirty Dancing, the female-friendly hit currently showing in the theatre.

The booking of that lucrative show, and the addition of the new loos, are representative of Codron's practical, managerial side. But his artistic heart is elsewhere, as is clear from the framed playbills that run floor to ceiling in the lobby of his office, high above the Aldwych. "Lindsay Anderson called it my wall of shame," he says.

Codron, who turns 80 in June, has just been honoured with an Olivier award for lifetime achievement. In the early stages of his career, however, he was not always so lauded. In the 1960s, by backing such works as Joe Orton's Loot and Frank Marcus's The Killing of Sister George, he became involved in the so-called "dirty plays" controversy, which saw first nights greeted with booing and abuse. He acknowledges now that "it was a campaign – we were trying to liberalise things in theatre".

Codron later began to specialise in the literate long-runner: Stoppard's Night and Day lasted two years; Gray's Butley and Hampton's The Philanthropist even longer. The last of these, he says, remains "the favourite of all my productions" – largely because its success vindicated his bloody-minded instincts.

This 1970 comedy about a man who understands words but not the world was playing at the Royal Court, where Codron sat on the board, and was seeking a transfer. It was turned down by every West End theatre. So Codron simply created a new one, the Mayfair, out of a hotel conference venue. "We had to strike the set every night so they could use the room for meetings next day."

Despite such difficulties, Codron says: "There's no doubt it's infinitely harder to be a new play producer now than it was." Why? "Well, stars don't want to do long runs any more." He believes you need a minimum of six months from a lead actor to maximise the chances of making money, but these days top talent prefers 10-12 weeks between movie jobs. He rejects the common complaint, however, that the West End has become celebrity-dependent, with producers now only interested in performers who have Baftas, Emmys or Oscars. "I don't think that's true. Or at least, nothing has changed. Throughout my career, people have wanted to see stars in shows."

But surely there has been a shift in commercial theatre. Writers Codron would have premiered in the West End in the past – Stoppard, Hampton, Hare, Michael Frayn, Alan Bennett – now send their scripts to the National first. "Yes," Codron agrees. "But I would happily produce any of those writers in the West End today." So why don't you? "It's the playwrights' choice. Why wouldn't they prefer the National? They get eight weeks rehearsal and far less risk and exposure."

The economics of commercial theatre are terrifying, with British impresarios traditionally vague about figures, but Codron takes me through some numbers for putting on a production. Suppose I wanted to bring The Guardian!: A Drama into the Aldwych. Well, he says, the production costs would depend on how much I paid my stars and creative team, but I'd be lucky to get away with under £400,000. Then it would set me back around £20,000 per week to rent the Aldwych, and I would also have to pay the "contras" – ie the running costs of the theatre, technicians, ushers, bar staff and so on (around £35,000 a week).

This explains why tickets are so costly and why some London venues bring in shows (such as creaking touring productions) that seem pointless: when it comes to paying the contras, anything is better than nothing. Has Codron, at the Aldwych, ever gone against his own taste for financial reasons? "There was a Glasgow Citizens production of Phèdre, starring Glenda Jackson. A friend told me, 'Book it, but don't see it.' So I followed that advice. It did very well."

Everyone in the profession has a list of the hits they missed. Codron staged early plays by Willy Russell, such as Breezeblock, but he turned down Blood Brothers. "Musicals weren't really my thing." Does he feel regret every time he walks past the hoardings reading: "Now in its 21st year"? "No, no. You can't afford to think like that."

Surprisingly, this gentle and courteous man wishes theatre critics would be nastier. When I ask if he ever throws first-night reviews to the floor and shouts, 'The bastards!' he replies, "No. Far more often, I ask myself, 'Why on earth have they been so kind to that?' Yes, even with my own shows."

His single flash of anger is aimed at the bloggers who, in defiance of theatrical convention that comment is embargoed until press night, review a play during its previews. "It's almost invariably reactionary responses. They're the modern equivalent of the lot that used to boo the plays in the 50s and 60s. I think they're ghastly."

As an undergraduate student thinking of going to law school to become a public interest/civil rights/human rights lawyer, I’ve been talking to a lot of attorneys in the recent months. Informational interviews galore. I literally scoured the Northwestern University alumni database and searched for attorneys, both in the corporate and public interest area. I then sent them emails asking if they were willing to chat, and most of them responded immediately and were more than happy to speak about their career paths. I highly recommend conducting as many informational interviews as possible - it gives you an excellent understanding of the field you’re getting into, and what types of career paths people follow.

It was no surprise that corporate lawyers didn’t seem to love their work. Those I spoke with seemed okay with their life, and generally resigned to it. They spoke about the great benefits, salaries, and cushy lifestyle - but none of them actually seemed enthusiastic about whatever they were doing. As I said, this is not surprising.

But what particularly interested me was when I spoke to public interest attorneys, they were highly fulfilled by their work, but they generally told me straight off the bat - “If you want to do public interest work, don’t even start working at a corporate law firm. Just start doing the work you want to ultimately be doing. Period.” I always wanted to find out whether corporate law experience can be helpful in other areas of the law, but apparently, it’s really not.

This is interesting to me because in the field of finance and consulting, for example, private sector experience seems to be valued even in the non-profit world. Organizations like Acumen Fund, various social enterprises, microfinance institutions, and international development organizations all highly value private sector experience. This seems to be the case because business practices can be really useful when it comes to management of non-profits, or even in areas such as marketing, operations, logistics, and so on. Social enterprises also really draw on business practices, so having private sector experience can be valuable in this arena. And of course, work in the financial services field can be parlayed to some extend to work in the microfinance arena.

However, I always thought the same thing about law. I had imagined that working in corporate law would give you a very strong legal training, because firms have so much money to train you well. I thought that working in such a fast-paced environment and getting exposure to corporate law work would equip you with some basic skills that would make you a better attorney. Apparently, though, that’s not at all the case. In the public interest legal field, it’s better to jump into public interest work from the get-go. Start interning, volunteering, taking classes in, and doing clinics in the area of public interest law you’re interested in - whether it’s provision of legal services to the poor, immigration and refugee law, criminal defense work, or international human rights law. Private sector experience is useless, and often it makes you less desirable because public interest employers will think you’re not committed to the sector. On the other hand, it’s possible to transition into the corporate law sector even if you started out in the public interest sector.

I didn’t know any of this before I spoke to people, and it’s definitely shaped my thinking. I always thought it would be fine to go work at a firm for a couple of years, pay off my loans, and then devote my time to public interest work. But, apparently, that’s not the best route to take, as the training provided by big law firms may take the form of an organized program — but it does not allow young associates to gain the level of responsibility that many public interest employers generally provide. Moreover, the skills developed in the corporate law arena (e.g. mergers and acquisitions, securities) aren’t necessarily transferable to the public interest area you might be most interested in.

A word of caution to other aspiring public interest lawyers, from a helpful guide from Yale Law School (I recommend anyone interested in this area of work to read this guide!):

If I work at law firms after I graduate, can I make a switch later to public interest work?

It is possible, but several facts conspire against you. First, you grow accustomed to the money. Just as you cannot imagine making $160,000 a year now, after you’ve made it for a few years you will not be able to imagine making $50,000. You will have expenses that seem necessary. Family and friends will tell you that you are insane. You’ll wonder if it’s fair to the spouse and kids (who, by the way, have been hanging out with other folks who made $160,000 to $2 million). Second, you will then have an uphill battle in actually getting a public interest job. Your resume does not demonstrate commitment to public interest; your experience from a corporate law firm may not demonstrate the needed skills or knowledge. Quite frankly, everyone is a little suspicious about whether you are serious about the cause and if you’ll stay. These can all be overcome by making sure you do lots of pro bono work during private practice, maintain
and cultivate contacts in the public interest community, and continue to live a simple life…but most people working in private practice find it difficult to do these things.

So, the lesson is: do the work you’re interested in now, not later. Don’t postpone it. You’ll get stuck in a life you aren’t passionate about, and you’ll never be able to accomplish your big dreams if you give them up for a high salary and cushy job. In some fields, it might be possible to get your private sector experience AND become a leader in a public interest organization. You might still be able to rise in prominence and affect people’s lives. But if you want to be an attorney, this isn’t the best way to go. So suck it up, get on a loan repayment program, and don’t postpone your dreams. Start living them now; otherwise, it may not even be possible.

Algorithms producing journalism? What might sound like a futuristic setting is already becoming reality.

Journalistic texts are characterised by a certain structure that algorithms can be programmed to imitate. The first tests still read or hear like early prototypes, but they're already around in sports journalism, with finance or local news to come next.

In the US, two different projects have started work on algorithm produced journalism. Last week the sports statistics website StatSheet announced a plan to produce completely automated sports content as of this summer. The algorithm produced content will take the form of blogs, with a target that at least 90% of the readers should think the content was created by a human.

And in a partnership with the Medill school of journalism, the Intelligent Information Laboratory of the McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University has developed an algorithm called StatsMonkey that publishes game stories.

Automated journalism can basically be understood as search algorithms programmed to look out for certain key findings. then to put them into a certain structure. For a report on a football game for example, the StatsMonkey calculates the narrative based on the numerical data.

Using the score, the algorithm captures the overall dynamic of the game, highlights the key plays and key players, looks for quotes, and generates a text out of these elements. In addition, it configures an appropriate headline and a photo of the most important player in the game - and there goes a very rough sketch of a sports article.

Michigan State silences Notre Dame, 3-0

SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- Tony Bucciferro put the Michigan State Spartans on his back Sunday and spurred them to a 3-0 win over the Notre Dame Fighting Irish (7-11) at Frank Eck Stadium.

Bucciferro kept the Fighting Irish off the board during his nine innings of work for Michigan State (12-4). He struck out five and allowed one walk and three hits.

Senior Matt Grosso was not able to take advantage of a big opportunity for the Irish in the ninth inning.

After freshman Frank Desico walked, Ryne Intlekofer doubled and Ryan Connolly was hit by a pitch, the Fighting Irish were trailing by three when Grosso came to the plate against Bucciferro with one out and the bases loaded, but he flew out.

Brandon Eckerle was perfect at the plate for the Spartans. He went 4-4 at the dish. Eckerle singled in the first, third, fifth and ninth innings and walked in the seventh inning.

Michigan State scored in two innings to claim the victory. The Spartans scored one run in the first and two runs in the third. In the first, senior Eric Maust gave up one run on a double by Jeff Holm. In the third, Maust gave up one run on a single by Holm. Later that inning, a run came in when Bo Felt reached on a fielding error by third baseman Adam Norton.

Maust took the loss for Notre Dame. He went six innings, gave up one walk, struck out three, and allowed three runs. Michigan State's next game is on Friday, March 26 at Oakland.

As programming semantics got better and better in the recent years, automated journalism will become more widely available.

"Sports is an unbelievable ground for this because it's data intensive," says Kristian Hammond, co-director of Intelligent Information Laboratory in Illinois. "The system knows how to go off and find information, it knows how to find quotes, it knows how to collect data, but then a traditional journalist has to bring his or her perspective to that story. It will only provide journalists with a starting point."

Both projects emphasise that they are working in areas where journalists aren't working.

The Lab in Illinois for example is testing its StatsMonkey algorithm in a pilot with The Big Ten Network which is dedicated to covering college and university sport. "We are the premier publisher of women softball stories," says Hammond.

The Intelligence Information Laboratory is also interested in programming algorithms to cover local stories. As the local news outlets are struggling to stay alive, they might have better chances if they can expand their news coverage, to additionally expand their advertising, Hammond says. "We see it as an engine that is increasing the scope what is out there and what is publishable."

Apart from StatsMonkey, which is focused on data-intensive information, the lab also programmed a system that automatically generates a virtual show designed to be funny, focusing on light news like celebrity gossip or movie reviews. The system, supported by the National Science Foundation, collects, parses, edits and organizes news stories and then passes the formatted content to artificial anchors for presentation.

The outcome is sometimes barely comprehensible, but gives a rough idea of what is possible. Picking up opinions using the comments of people, the anchors have a dialogue to balance the pros and cons. If everybody likes the film, they talk about different aspects of it.

The programs are just early prototypes, but will improve quickly with the further development of intelligent semantics. The team of the Intelligence Information Lab is already working on a couple of related projects - Brussell, for example, helps people track developments in ongoing news situations, and Beyond Broadcast is watching television with the user to be able to search for deeper content when asked.

"We know enough intelligent semantics to guide intelligent information systems. We don't want to give them a list of links, so we started working on machine generated content. The next step is finance where we are often looking at data and raw numbers. You can create a graph, or you can write a story out of that," says Hammond.

While the first prototypes stutter a lot, it is likely that algorithms will change journalistic tasks in the long term, although they won't replace journalists, just as much as spell-checking programs haven't replaced secretaries.

"As far as I can tell, journalists are terrified and needlessly so," says Hammond.

In the future, writing might not be something anymore that is entirely done by humans, which will surely be debated - and necessarily so.

Apart from the man v machine issue, there are a lot of topics on the table. Should it be made transparent if a text is written by a human or an algorithm? Who controls what the algorithms finds? Is an algorithm more or less open to influence than a journalist? And as the algorithm partly uses what was already written, what happens with copyright?

And last but not least, assumed the programming is getting better: do algorithms steal the work of journalists - or help them to cope with information overload?

DOUBLE SPOILER ALERT: This weekly blog is for those who have already seen The Wire in its entirety – and, for one week only, The Sopranos in its entirety. This week: there could only ever be one winner

The Wire: the book

The Wire Re-up: The Guardian Guide to the Greatest TV Show Ever Made is out now from Guardian Books, and available in all good bookshops. The book features blogposts on every episode from all five seasons, plus interviews with the cast and features on the show – as well as many, many of your comments, which have made this blog the great forum it is. Buy the book by clicking here.

Season five, episode seven

OK, let's do this.
 
The Wire v The Sopranos debate is the televisual equivalent of the cold war. It is not fought face to face nor through conventional means. The battle lines spring up on unexpected fronts – not for these superpowers of drama the need to compare ratings, or awards, or length of service to their audience. Everyone who has seen these two magnificent programmes knows the quality inherent in every episode, so comparing them is like asking a mother to pick her favourite son.

First, one has to consider whether we are comparing like for like – are we indulging in a pub debate of the "Muhammad Ali v Mike Tyson" or "Beatles v Stones" ilk, or in pursuit of something more obtuse, like whether Buffalo Bill would beat Hugh Laurie at backgammon. The answer is we are in effect doing both: two unconventional dramas from the HBO stable, free from censure in language and subject matter, critically acclaimed yet both failing to capture the audience numbers most feel they deserve and both regularly extolled as the greatest TV show of all time.
 
Second, does it matter which is better? Not really; they are not mutually exclusive – in fact, quite the opposite; if you like one you are highly likely to enjoy the other. And any conclusion drawn, no matter how detailed any comparison of plot, characters, camerawork or dialogue, will eventually come down to personal choice. Which is what makes debates like these simultaneously frustrating and engaging.
 
So I cannot pretend to be trying to offer a definitive argument over which of these two shows edges the other; what I can do is tell you I have watched both in their entirety in the past few months and tell you what I believe and how I reached that conclusion.

The setting

The Wire is an unknown universe for most viewers, and I am not just talking about Baltimore and its locales. The setting of the programme in several different quarters all at once – the police force, the projects, City Hall, the schools and the newspaper – makes it an oddity in itself. Add to this the dimension of a generally unfamiliar (especially for non-Americans) setting: had the show been about New York or LA or even Chicago, visual keys would have set off viewing familiarity, whether it was the Brooklyn Bridge, Hollywood sign or the Windy City's "L" train.

Now, this works to both its advantage and detriment as viewers warm to the characters and city – even having been a fan of Homicide: Life on the Street, I know if I had happened upon The Wire by accident, channel-surfing one night, I probably wouldn't have been gripped enough to ensure I watched it again. There is no self-containment – unapologetically so; one of the show's strengths when seen as an entire body of work – but my question is, had this programme emerged before the days of DVD box sets, in the dark ages of waiting years for anything to cross the Atlantic or come out on video, would it have generated the same interest?

I don't think so. I believe David Simon and Ed Burns would have made it in exactly the same way and been equally unapologetic, but I do not honestly believe the show could have risen to the level of popularity it has without the availability factor.
 
The Sopranos, on the other hand, takes a seemingly familiar world and seeks to subvert it from within. I am talking about viewing familiarity; I do not know any New Jersey mobsters, but the mafia or gangster film or TV show generally has some common factors – shellsuits, Italian-American slang, protection rackets, old men kissing each other.

The opening scene of the programme has Tony Soprano staring at a statue waiting to see a psychiatrist, filmed in luxuriant colour with a wide aperture and reminiscent of Scorsese or De Palma, so we are already on familiar yet unfamiliar ground. Tony looks like many other mafia characters we may have come across, but he's seeing a shrink.

In each episode there is generally one story arc on a lower level while the broader strokes operate on a far grander scale. So, in the first series we see Tony murder a "rat" in a single episode, while a far wider plotline of his toxic relationship with his mother gathers momentum throughout the series. But were you to watch a single episode, you would follow the lower arc relatively easily and definitely enjoyably, while knowing something else was happening in the bigger picture – leaving you wanting more.
 
Winner: The Sopranos

The experience

What do we feel when we watch The Sopranos? Coming as it did after HBO had already produced some groundbreaking TV with The Larry Sanders Show and Sex and the City, expectations were naturally high. Sure, Analyse This came after the first season, hilariously referenced by Tony's new shrink in season two, but the comic and bemusing potential of gangsters has always been present. Think of the ridiculous bar brawl in Mean Streets after one of the crew is called a "mook", or Jimmy Two-Times from Goodfellas. Or any scene in Goodfellas, especially with Joe Pecsi.

Italian mobsters have long been lampooned for their tacky tastes and peculiar methods of psychological intimidation, but also for their banter and quick thinking in dangerous situations, so The Sopranos perhaps takes this to its natural conclusion – seeing the home life, anxieties and fears of a big, tough mafia chief.

The show is very funny, sometimes darkly funny and sometimes, well, just funny. Surreal dream sequences or inner thoughts visually manifested are nothing new but here offer perspectives from several of the characters – whether it's people imagining their friends know they have "flipped" to become informants for the FBI or Tony himself painting his deep and dark desires on the canvas of his troubled psyche.

We are laughing, and spellbound by some exceptional acting, but we never feel we are watching something entirely new. We are made to feel comfortable but jolted every so often to remind us exactly where we are and who we are with – perhaps like being invited to a friendly gangster's house for dinner. He welcomes you with a bear hug and plies you with fine food and wine and cigars, and you like him, and you are having a great time, and then you hear him slap his wife in the kitchen, and he asks you what you think of his sister, and you are very unsure how to respond without offending him.

We have been here before, only this time it's a bit different. We see the banality of parent-teacher meetings, the trials of juggling a wife, mistress, female shrink and mother on Tony's fragile mind, the vast gaps between action and ennui for the crew – not unlike soldiers in combat – and of course the postmodern chat about which is their favourite scene in The Godfather. The Sopranos makes you laugh, and it makes you think, but not beyond a nod of recognition that what you are watching is a refreshing take on a well-known genre.
 
Watching The Wire, emotions run the gamut from joy to heartbreak. It is funny, too – downright hilarious when it wants to be – and achingly poignant when it wants to be too. The Wire met with nowhere near as much fanfare as The Sopranos, and was a far bolder project in terms of its realism, educational aspect and demanding subject matter. David Simon's mantra may have been "fuck the average viewer", but the average viewer was never likely to be drawn immediately to such ambitious art.

Watching this show, we are transported to the corners themselves – the language, the feel of the scenes, the still camerawork and extended, lingering shots over significant cinematic motifs such as the pit sofa, radio cars, City Hall or the classrooms. The audience is invited into this world and asked to bond with it. Not only do we become attached and engaged to the characters, we travel with them on their dark journeys. We come to inhabit this landscape in a way no other show asks us to. We are urged not simply to worry about the fate of the hoppers, police, schoolkids and stevedores but also of their environments and professions – and we do.

How many programmes can you say make you do that? I certainly am not as bothered about Newark's welfare as much as I am Baltimore's docks. Nor are my sympathies especially unbolted by Cracker's Manchester, Morse's Oxford nor The Shield's Farmington district of Los Angeles. The Wire is inseparable from its setting and is so much the better for it. It could not possibly be set anywhere else and nor would we wish it to be, predicated as it is on so many real-life incidences, people and history. So we feel connected to The Wire in a way we do when we watch soap operas or dramas that last decades, or read vast expansive novels or series of novels, as Simon indicates when he references Dickens's London or Balzac's Paris. No mean feat in five seasons.
 
Winner: The Wire

Storylines

This week's episode sees the culmination of McNulty's hoax, as he uses Templeton's own bluff against him – this is the moment when everybody starts "gettin' paid off this motherfucker", as Norman later puts it. A crucial moment in the dynamic of this whole season for the show as a whole: a lie that actually gets the city working as near its best as we have seen. City Hall pulls out its finger and allocates resources, the police and the newspaper cooperate to try to gain the public's help to catch the madman, rallies are held to shine a spotlight on the ignored plight of the homeless – and it's all based on a lie.
 
How does one compare two dramas with such a density of plot? Both very deliberately and meticulously spread grand themes and story arcs over several seasons. Is the tragic fall and rise of Bubbles any more or less engaging than the rise and fall of Christopher Moltisanti? Both are drug addicts who we come to care about, but while Bubs is a good man in a bad world, Chris is a bad man with moments of goodness – not unlike his uncle and boss. Are Artie Bucco's attempts to stay on the straight and narrow among his mobster buddies any more or less sympathetic than Poot being one of the rare hoppers who manages to escape the game? Why are all gangsters' mothers seemingly intent on putting their sons in harm's way? Does The Wire jump the shark with the serial killer plotline in season five – any more so than Vito's gay sabbatical in New Hampshire, in The Sopranos' sixth series?
 
The grand storylines in The Wire are ultimately: the capture of Avon, which bleeds into the rise of Marlo – both symbolic of the shambolic war on drugs; shining a light on corruption across the ruling elite of the city, as best illustrated by the slow case built against Clay Davis; the dashing of optimism as personified by the schoolboys and the depressing paths most of them follow; Carcetti and his breaking of promises to the voters, Daniels and ultimately, us; and the trials and tribulations of Jimmy McNulty and all they encompass.

There are myriad other tales woven into the tapestry of Baltimore's saga – Frank Sobotka's fight to save the docks, Scott Templeton's creative journalism, the antics of Omar. But in terms of these larger plotlines, we follow them through their many machinations and, as in real life, many lead to a climax, while many others lead to frustration or an underwhelming resolution. Police work is represented at its most realistic – often inspiring, mostly soul-destroying – while lofty ideals in any field are soon grounded in the petty grudges and vitriol that shroud them.

The plots themselves make the show stand apart from its peers. Nowhere else do we see the guts of an investigation or political campaign with such ambivalence – there are few compromises that allow characters to do the right thing while also keeping their principles, as so often happens in The West Wing or Life on Mars or countless other shows. We see each storyline take a piece of the characters' souls and often we may not even agree with their actions. Bald, unrelenting and believable – entertainment and social comment stuffed into one defiant envelope.
 
The heavyweight storylines in The Sopranos are: Tony. There are of course many, many plots within the intense study of the mob boss and constantly-eating, panic attack-ridden father of two – the fractious relationship with the New York family, Dr Melfi's ethical and personal conflicts over treating him, the FBI's often haphazard attempts to arrest him, Junior Soprano and his anhydrous resentment. But the central tale is of Tony and how everything affects him – gangster friends and enemies, mistresses, a family structure not so much dysfunctional as dystopian, and all the threads these lead to.

His sister ends up whacking someone he intends to kill after a domestic row, he kills his own nephew after a car crash, two families go to war after his cousin causes a rift too far … The Sopranos is essentially one big, thrashing mass of a plot that we are asked to tame with our patience.

And where it does trump The Wire is in its female characters. Meadow Soprano journeys along the arc from teen know-it-all looking to escape her family's shady links to toeing the line, claiming the mafia is a fantasy and her father is simply the victim of a civil liberties-trampling FBI. Jennifer Melfi, an educated, sophisticated Italian-American psychiatrist, as refined as they come, is drawn despite herself to someone she considers a brute.

Olivia and Janice Soprano – manipulative, calculating harpies cut from the same cloth. And most electric of them all, Carmela Soprano, the don's wife constantly in turmoil over her high morality and her love of jewellery and wanting the best for her children. She puts up with the "goomas" (mistresses), the late nights and even the murders, seeking solace with the words of a vacuous priest, but when confronted by an unapologetic psychiatrist who tells her to leave her husband and his blood money, she demurs, and drowns in her wretched torment of self-loathing and helplessness. We want the best for Carmela but we recognise her pomposity and hypocrisy, as does she. A breathtaking character who we often come to begrudge, as we see her through the eyes of her husband. A highwire act of writing and acting practically unique in its audacity.
 
Winner: draw

Tony v the crew

To add a third metaphor to our comparison (along with boxing and music): in football, two goals often compete for the distinction of best ever – if The Wire is Brazil's sublime team effort against Italy in the 1970 World Cup final, The Sopranos is Diego Maradona's enchanted solo effort against England in 1986.

The Wire was not the first programme to have an extensive ensemble cast but its strength in depth of characters certainly makes it one of the most memorable. It lends itself beautifully to the playground game of picking your favourite characters (Bunk, in case you didn't know mine by now) but also allows you the freedom to see each situation in its own context. In exchanges between Prop Joe and Cheese, we feel the sense of the older man's disappointment in his nephew's generation and its lack of respect or sense of history. We understand the dynamic between Stringer and Avon as time goes by, and understand their motives more clearly.

Clay Davis's oleaginous funding tricks, Ziggy Sobotka's desperation to be taken seriously, The Greek's urbane ruthlessness, Landsman's acute balancing act between good police and bad bureaucrat in homicide, Brother Mouzone, Gus, Randy, Rawls, Beadie … even the "minor" characters are every bit as sympathetic and sketched out as the "major" ones. We do not need to know their complete backstories or futures as the show is set within a fixed timeframe within a fixed locality. The rest we are left to speculate on and fill in our own blanks.

Will Carcetti regress to his idealistic principles now he has the state under his grasp, or is the state merely a ladder to a presidential run? Will Lester and Jimmy form their own detective agency? Will Bubs stay clean? We can but guess. As for the characters' central motivations, dreams and anxieties – we learn about them individually and in the context of what they are doing. We hear their tales of how they grew up or what they knew, but we the audience are the only ones privy to the lot, which juices us in to the brickwork of Baltimore as the odyssey unfolds.

And this is where I think the fundamental difference and debating point lies between the two shows – Tony himself. Tony is one of the most charismatic characters to ever appear on TV. And he is a murderer. OK, you could say so is Omar, or Avon, but the cusp of what differentiates the programmes for me is how we get to to know, love, loathe, despise, hail and dread Tony Soprano over the years. His innermost fears and desires are revealed to us, through his candid outbursts in therapy, his arguments with his wife and his flashbacks to his childhood – not to mention the baroque dream sequences that see him wish to screw his shrink (several times over the seasons), be a Roman soldier (having sex with an Italian princess, who happens to be a distant cousin and the head of an Italian crime family), knowing Pussy Bonpensiero has flipped, knowing he has to kill his own cousin Tony B to spare him Phil Leotardo's fiendish wrath, being haunted by the captain he's personally killed (Ralphie) and on one occasion hallucinating his ideal, Italian, plump-breasted, generous and kind woman in a lithium-based funk.

I cannot think of a character who we are invited to become so intimate with. We are never asked to judge him, but the writers remind us he is a monster every so often – dishing out a punishment whipping to a politician for sleeping with his ex-girlfriend, baiting his sister into a row as he can't bear to see her happy while he isn't, punching his mistress, phone-whipping a bouncer in the Bada Bing! – lest we be too taken in by his magnetic personality. A funny, jovial man, often a great father and on rare occasions an incurably romantic husband, but all to often a cold-blooded killer, philanderer, bully and volatile psychotic.

And this is all ignoring the immediate supporting cast: Paulie "Walnuts" Gaultieri, a hilarious grotesque of a mafioso, with his hair wings and shell suits; Silvio Dante (my favourite), the dapper consigliere whose advice is marginally bettered by his mimicry of the Godfather films; Chrissy, often misguided, often put-upon, but also smart when he wants to be, and even Bobby "Bacala" Baccalieri - whose journey from irredeemable oaf to likeable friend of ours is compounded by the mesmerising, pulsating, Hitchockian scene (perhpas the best secene in the entire show) in which he is whacked, and we actually care.

The Sopranos has as many rich characters as The Wire, it is just that the main one has more purchase than any other I know. Tony is The Sopranos, and it is this that edges it as the better of the two shows – the breadth of perception one character brings, and it has to be this specific one, tips the scales for me. Only just.
 
Winner: The Sopranos

Conclusion

Oof, Madon! Facing this near-impossible task, I weighed up every aspect I could consider. Most of it never even made it into this article but remains locked inside my head. I mean, the effect on our collective lexicons could have monopolised this entire article: weighing up "Bada Bing!", "gabagool", "retirement community", "our friend" or "that thing" against "mos def", "true dat", "what the fuck did I do?" or "same as it ever was". Are the malapropisms in either funnier? Chris saying the FBI wants to "spread some dysentery in the ranks" compared to Bodie saying "this is one of those contrapment things". The clothes, the habits, the food, the direction, the quotability factor, the sexy character quotient … these are the bedrock on which such debates are made.
 
The Sopranos is the better show in my humble opinion, but not by much and while I have tried to explain why, I don't really know why. The character of Tony Soprano is the best factor I can divine at this time, he is a character like no other I know of on TV. There are other killers, sure – I like Dexter but am under no illusions about its utter daftness – and were we allowed to know some Wire characters in greater depth things might be different. On another day I would probably offer another reason, but the result would remain the same. Perhaps it was because I saw The Sopranos first, or that it makes me laugh more, or that I love that it tackled the issue of stereotyping Italian-Americans within the show itself. Or maybe it's just because of the Pine Barrens episode alone. Ultimately, much as I love the Wire, I love The Sopranos more. Truth be told. Wha'yougonnado?

Quote of the week:

"Gimpy as a motherfuck'." Kenard's verdict on the limping Omar.

Running totals

Murders: up two to 79: Savino and another Marlo man are killed by Omar.

McNulty giving a fuck when it's not his turn: up two to 41: now imitating a serial killer on the phone to the press, and giving out overtime left, right and centre like he's running the place. Drunk: steady on 24. Dubious parenting: steady on eight.

Bunk drunk: steady on 10.

Herc fuck-ups: steady on 20.

Omar stick-ups: up one to 15. He stole Marlo's stash and flushed it away.

Bubbles attempting to get clean: still on the same attempt. Seven.

Almost a year has passed since we first interviewed exceedingly talented textile artist Yasmine Louis in her Queen West studio, so we couldn't wait to sit down with her and see what she's been working on this year. We weren't surprised at all to hear she's been busy not only developing new lines of shirts and pillows, but also undertaking commissions for the AGO and Yonge-Dundas Square, both of which combine two of her great loves: screenprinting and Toronto.

Back in the fall of 2008 when Frank Gehry's new AGO building was unveiled, the gallery commissioned five artists to each design a t-shirt inspired by the opening. Louis was one of them, and her limited-edition shirt must have been well-received, because she was asked to do another—this time representing the architectural exterior. Just before this past Christmas, the second shirt went on sale at the AGO gift shop, highlighting the bold front facade.

For the Yonge-Dundas Square project, Louis was hand-picked to create a design that will be printed on five thousand reusable shopping bags, slated to be given free-of-charge to customers of the Arts at the Heart summer artisan market. As with the AGO commission, someone at Yonge-Dundas Square already knew Louis's work and approached her. "They kind of had this vision for the bag and they thought it would be nice to do an artistic project, so I had no limits," Louis told us. "It was just like 'we want your vision of the square,' so that was great." We got a sneak peek at the design on Louis's computer (fantastic), but it's under wraps until the summer when the bags are released.

Aside from all of these commissions, Louis has been hard at work preparing new lines of shirts and pillows that will be seen for the first time at the upcoming One of a Kind Spring Show and Sale. Over the past fifteen years, Louis has amassed a sizable following of Toronto-philes who adore her images of the city printed alongside achingly personal, yet somehow universal, thoughts in her own handwriting. This year, Louis is diving one level deeper and focusing on neighbourhoods, her own—Queen West—in particular.

While speaking of her new local designs, she told us she wants people to recognize and connect with the less obvious Toronto images. "If you’re from that neighbourhood, you notice that restaurant and that payphone because there’s not that many phones left. It's so Toronto, but there’s no CN Tower."

In addition to the man-made landmarks, every single tree and bird on Louis's shirts is also based on a real-life local model. "I think it’s cool for people to know it’s a tree from Bellwoods—not a random tree. I like doing work about the greenspace in the city. Toronto is not just all the buildings, but also the trees...the trees on the street, the trees in the park."

Louis will be at the One of a Kind Show from March 31–April 4 in booth H-40 (centre aisle) at the Direct Energy Centre. If you can't make it to the show, she also sells from her studio by appointment.

Photos by Ayngelina Brogan/Torontoist.

I LOVE all this stuff! The "A" word! Hester Prynne!  Adultery! Sex, betrayal, lies, broken vows, taboo, sin and the eternal fires of hell! Who needs Melrose Place when we have real life?

Thing is, I'm half French, half American, and I see adultery differently. In fact, I don't see "adultery" at all. Just adults, living the way they always have, always will. Shouldn't Americans finally cut loose from the ridiculous Puritan roots from which an increasingly tiny percentage of them sprang, and realize that NOBODY lives the way they're told they should by religious bigots of whatever stripe?

People fall in love, fall out of love. They lust after people they're not married or otherwise bound to. Even Jimmy Carter, that sanctimonious southern Baptist (hey, I know he's done good work, but still), admitted to having committed adultery in his heart. In his heart means he wanted to go to bed with someone besides his wife, but his Baptist moralizing stopped him. Dang it, Jimmy, don't that just mean you "sinned," but didn't have the balls to go through with it?

In France, nobody gets hot and bothered about this stuff. Félix Faure, president of the republic in the last years of the nineteenth century, died in the bed of his mistress; people respect him for that. François Mitterrand, who was president of the republic for twelve years toward the end of the twentieth century, had a mistress and a love child whom everybody knew about; in fact they both marched in his funeral procession, behind his official wife. Nobody gave a merde. The centrist presidential candidate in the last presidential election openly consorts with his longtime honey, while his Catholic wife stays home with the kids. It's the arrangement they have.

And yes, there is a sexist component to this--to roughly the same extent that France, like most Western societies, remains a sexist patriarchy. But I would say that the French, in good Cartesian fashion, generally recognize that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Witness the wife of the current president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who consorted with her boyfriend quite publicly in New York while Nico was running for office. (Cécilia Sarkozy left him shortly after he became president).

I remember the astonished reaction in Paris to the Monica Lewinsky brouhaha. Few in the French capital understood why an affair, however jejune, should have any bearing on a politician's professional standing. Yet here was the president of the United States being impeached--for a blow job! As if Bill Clinton's penchant for interns had any bearing on what to do about Bosnia, or the Israel-Palestine conflict.

These are all glitzy examples. The real point , though, is that the French recognize people are human. As the father in the eighties movie, Heartburn, says: "You want monogamy? Marry a swan." People get sick of one another and split up; and sometimes they don't split up, for various reasons, and still they seek solace in someone else's arms. And so what?

I argued in a response to an earlier post that monogamy might be an idea linked to the 99% of human history when the average life expectancy was around age forty. In other words, you reached puberty, got married, raised a lot of children, and promptly croaked. Life was brutish and short, to quote Hobbes, and you just didn't have time to get sick of your spouse.

Now, however, we live roughly twice as long. Our kids are gone for the second half of our allotted span. Perhaps the human brain is hard-wired to start again at the beginning of any new life cycle.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that breaking vows, lying, or deceit are fine. They are not. Deceit poisons human relationships, and ultimately corrodes the deceiver as well as the deceived. But "adultery" very often does not rely on deceit. I can think of a half-dozen friends who have had loving, sexual affairs with people they were not married to, based on either the proverbial "open relationship" or on a frankly stated "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

But deceit is, unfortunately, common. Let's forget the idea that "honest" people never lie. Everybody lies, simply because society could not exist if total frankness were the norm. Omission and the less-than-truth are how we lubricate human interaction. Imagine telling everybody you met exactly what you thought of them, in every detail!

Very often the lie by omission, or the outright fib, is how less-than-perfect people take the first steps in adultery as in other life-changing activities. If they are kind, and thoughtful, in my experience the deceit stops early. Too often, however, the deception become harder to pull out of, and everyone's lives--especially if there are children involved--suffer from the consequences.

It would be stupid to underestimate the scale of human tragedy that can happen when people leave each other, for whatever reason. But it would be equally foolish to hew to antediluvian notions of probity and fidelity in judging those who stray. Unfortunately--and the American side of me wrestles daily with this fact--the image of the United States is built on precisely the kind of snake oil that allows us to condemn people for not hewing to the straight and narrow in their personal lives. We have never lost a war (1812? Vietnam?) America stands for freedom in the world (the Saudi royal family? Trujillo? the Shah of Iran? The Guatemalan military? or Saddam Hussein in the days we thought he was OK?) Real Americans are god-fearing and moral (like Henry Hyde, pictured above--one of the loudest in calling down the vengeance of god and religion to punish the adulterer Clinton, while having indulged in a four-year extramarital affair with Cherie Snodgrass?)

Mark White's post was lucid and even-handed in its approach to adultery and divorce. He implied (I think) that the gold standard here is kindness. Kindness to others, kindness to yourself.

I would add that tolerance is another virtue we should aspire to, in an increasingly "diverse" and multi-religious society. Tolerance for the moral, tolerance for the lucky. And tolerance for humans who have to cope as best they can when things, as so often they must, go straight to hell.

Pope Benedict faces an epic scandal as victims of clerical sex abuse in Ireland, Western Europe and America raise the issue of justice denied by secret tribunals that allowed predators to remain priests. Yet an editorial in the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, scored the media for "an ignoble attempt to strike at Pope Benedict and his closest aides at any cost."

Benedict is grappling with an unfinished crisis that drew media coverage in America in 1992; victims' lawsuits revealed bishops who had sheltered predators from prosecution. By 1994 the coverage had ebbed. Then, in 2002, The Boston Globe gained access to voluminous documents, exposing a vast clergy sexual underground. Pope John Paul II called the American cardinals to Rome for an emergency conference. In June, the U.S. bishops enacted a youth protection charter. Lay review boards would comb clergy files and investigate new accusations. Bishops began weeding out sex offenders.

The Vatican drew the line, however, at giving these review boards the authority to investigate bishops. That decision has come back to haunt the church.

Cardinal Bernard Law, who resigned in disgrace as archbishop of Boston in late 2002, remains today part of the Roman Curia and pastor of a great basilica, St. Mary Major. In recent years, at least 16 bishops who sexually abused children quietly "stepped down." One was a cardinal, Hans Hermann Groer of Austria, who has since died. A Vatican double-standard -- priests subject to defrocking, bishops quietly moving on -- has made the pope vulnerable to even greater criticism amid a new round of investigative reports.

Benedict's most immediate task is to change the Vatican's archaic system of closed tribunals, which prize secrecy. The pope is final arbiter on canon law, a sovereign who has the power of a one-man Supreme Court to intervene, halt or change a canonical decision. But changing that system is a much tougher reform than meets the eye.

Ironically, for all the bad press he is getting, Benedict has done more to confront the abuse crisis than anyone else in the Vatican. But he must choose between governing and upholding his theological vision as a moral absolutist. As many a president and prime minister has learned, the shift from an ideological stance to a pragmatic one can be laden with risk.

The root crisis lies in the church's view of apostolic succession. The pope and bishops consider themselves descendants in a spiritual lineage from Jesus's apostles. Apostolic succession is as much a part of Catholicism as icons and stained glass windows. But Judas was also an apostle -- a reminder that all humans, regardless of proximity to the Word, are capable of betraying the faith. Apostolic succession has fallen victim to hubris, the pride and entitlement of a religious elite who consider apology or penance a substitute for human justice.

Bishops answer directly to the pope, also known as Supreme Pontiff. But this monarchical system of governance is colliding with two pillars of democracy, a court system and a free press. As abuse victims clamor for the punishment of bishops, information from America holds a stirring of hope. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released data that show a 32 percent decline in reported cases of clergy abuse from last year. Most involved priests were deceased or out of ministry. The USCCB reported six victims in 2009 who were younger than 18. Six too many, yes; but after an estimated $1.8 billion in losses from payouts to victims, legal fees and therapy for sex offenders, the youth protection charter is taking hold. Moreover, 96 percent of Catholic school students have "safe environment" training to warn against improper adult behavior.

The Vatican has no youth protection charter, nor binding procedures for the world's bishops. Some church leaders, however, now see a crisis in that aloofness. Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany bravely distanced himself from the Roman Curia in telling Italy's La Repubblica, "We have to seriously clean up the church."

Benedict faces a stark dilemma. To "clean up," he must challenge apostolic succession, start a process of sacking bishops who abused children, and demote prelates who grossly betray the trust. Such as:

- Frank Rodimer, who as bishop of Patterson, N.J., used church money to pay $250,000 after he was personally sued in a case with a priest who for several summers had sex with a boy in a beach house they shared with Rodimer. The priest went to prison. Rodimer stepped down, on reaching the retirement age at 75, and simply moved into a house the diocese bought.

- Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, who used church money to pay $450,000 in 1998 to silence a former male lover. When ABC News broke the hush money story in 2002, Weakland resigned his office -- but not his title. As archbishop, he was high-handed toward victims while playing musical chairs with pedophiles.

- Anthony O'Connell, who resigned as bishop of Palm Beach, Fla., in 2002, admitting that he abused a seminarian years before. He moved into a South Carolina monastery.

To defrock bishops who abused children would send a vital signal to all Catholics that Benedict is serious about reform. His recent letter to Irish Catholics, which followed lengthy government investigations of the church, was strongly worded. Citing "grave errors and failures of leadership," he said: "I can only share in the dismay and the sense of betrayal that so many of you have experienced on learning of these sinful and criminal acts and the way church authorities in Ireland dealt with them." His words evince a deeper struggle: "I openly express the shame and remorse we all feel."

Still, his delay on the offer of four Irish bishops to resign spurred more outrage, as did his role as archbishop of Munich, decades ago, in approving treatment for a pederast. Will Benedict demote bishops for "grave errors"? That would mean a new juridical standard.

As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he was decisive in running the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is housed in a 17th-century palazzo where Galileo the astronomer was convicted of heresy. On issues ranging from the Vatican prohibition of birth control devices to Liberation Theology of Latin America, the C.D.F. used anonymous investigators to critique the works of suspect scholars. In closed tribunals, Ratzinger and his assistants interrogated those out of step with doctrine, punishing some by excommunication or orders to keep silent for periods of time. Catholic liberals were aghast as Ratzinger clashed with some of the church's leading thinkers. The Swiss theologian, Father Hans Küng, famously called him "The Grand Inquisitor," after Dostoevsky's religious persecutor in "The Brothers Karamazov."

Ratzinger's belief in absolute moral truth drove him to confront the pedophilia scandals when just about every other Vatican leader recoiled from it.

John Paul, so brilliant a geopolitical figure, stood passive as scandals jolted America, Ireland, Canada and Australia in the 1990s. In 2001, Ratzinger persuaded the pope to take the authority for such cases from scattered Vatican offices and consolidate them in his tribunal. Insisting on secrecy from bishops sending the files, the C.D.F. began defrocking scores of priests.

Küng wrote in a March 18 essay for National Catholic Reporter: "Honesty demands that Joseph Ratzinger himself, the man who for decades has been principally responsible for the worldwide cover-up, at least pronounce his own 'mea culpa' " -- Latin for "my fault."

Küng is an esteemed scholar, but this opinion is off base. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest organization in the world, and as split as Congress in its warring tribal camps. Who could orchestrate a global cover-up of anything? The crisis arose in countries that share a base in English common law with surgical discovery procedures for secret documents. Italian law is more restrictive; Italy has reported far fewer cases. Most cardinals in the Curia look to Italy as a base line, which has created a huge myopia, to put it charitably.

In a 2005 Good Friday sermon, Ratzinger decried the "filth" that had crept into the priesthood. Several days later, in a sermon opening the conclave that would elect him pope, he gave a cri de coeur on Europe: "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive."

The crisis of moral relativism he faces now is internal. Consider the dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sodano, 82. As secretary of state under John Paul II, Sodano defended to the hilt the notorious Father Marcial Maciel. Maciel, who died in 2008, was a Mexican who founded the Legion of Christ, a small religious order known for militant spirituality, papal loyalty and a $650 million budget. The Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who lent The New York Times $240 million, was a major benefactor.

In 1997, nine ex-Legionaries opened their lives for the Hartford Courant, telling me and Gerald Renner how Maciel had sexually abused them in seminary. Asserting his innocence, Maciel refused to be interviewed. The Vatican was utterly silent on our questions about victim accusations against Maciel that went through church channels to Paul VI in 1976, John Paul II in 1978 and 1989. In 1998, the men filed a prosecution request in Ratzinger's tribunal. Sodano pressured Ratzinger to halt the case. Maciel and Sodano were close friends for years. As secretary of state, Sodano was effectively John Paul's prime minister. Finally, with the pope dying in 2004, Ratzinger broke ranks with Sodano and ordered an investigation. In 2005, Sodano's office stated, falsely, that the investigation was over. In 2006, Benedict banished Maciel to "a life of prayer and penitence."

The Legion then compared Maciel to Jesus for refusing to defend himself. When he died in 2008, the Legion Web site said Maciel had gone to heaven. In 2009, the Legion revealed with "surprise" that Maciel had a grown daughter. On March 4, in Mexico City, Maciel's three grown sons (by a second woman) publicly accused the Legion of denying them financial compensation. Two of the sons said Maciel had sexually abused them as boys.

A new investigation of the Legion, ordered by Benedict, is under way. If he follows his theological bearings, Benedict has the capacity to engineer radical reforms (from the Greek, meaning roots or primary things). He should disband the Legion of Christ. If he holds listening sessions with a representative group of victims, he will dramatize reconciliation to a scandal-wearied church that aches for moral leadership.

He should also convene a group of legal scholars to create a Vatican criminal court system. By forcing bishops and cardinals who have done the most damage out of the hierarchy, he can restore integrity to the concept of apostolic succession. It is probably beyond him to make the celibacy law optional; but if he takes these other hard steps to reverse the scandal, he will put himself on the right side of history. To stall or continue making merely symbolic gestures will produce an even worse spectacle.

"Justice is that virtue that gives every one his due." -- St. Augustine.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

by Grist

The Environmental Protection Agency just released a report ranking U.S. cities based on their number of ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings. These rankings make us, well, warm all over, so we decided to check out the sexiest top nine ENERGY STAR buildings of the bunch. Are you in search of the perfect match? Look no further than these sassy personal ads. Maybe we’ll all get lucky. 

 

Los Angeles

The Watt Plaza: The twin office towers encompass 900,000 sq. feet. L.A. dominated the list, for the second year in a row, with 293 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009 and $93.9 million in cost savings.

L.A. twins seek a deep green relationship
Hugh Hefner need not apply. We are 29-year-old twin office towers, all business and too old for him anyway.

As the killer Watt twins, we have earned high ENERGY STAR accolades every year since 2004; we were the first L.A. office buildings to earn Gold LEED certification for existing structures in operations and maintenance. We’ve been fighting “fake Hollywood” stereotypes forever and don’t buy into empty greenwashing.

Not that we are all work and no play. We boast water-free urinals and a waste program that diverts 70 percent of the building’s waste to a recovery facility. Yowza!

 

 

Washington, D.C.

204 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009; $62.3 million in cost savings.

One Franklin Square: Built in 1989, the building encompasses almost 600,000 sq. feet. Photo: Wikipedia Commons

One Franklin Square seeks one and only
Tall (only the tallest commercial building in D.C.), bright, and handsome office type is looking for someone with whom I can enjoy my new lighting upgrades and on-peak energy load shedding program.

No liberals please. I’m conservative with my kWh (I save over 1.7 million a year through lighting upgrades alone).

 

 

San Francisco

100 Pine: The 400,000 sq. feet building was built in 1972.173 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009; $69.4 million in cost savings.

High achiever seeks business type
This three-time San Francisco Recycler of the Year is sick of sorting through everyone else’s castoffs.

I knew I had to change during California’s energy crisis in 2000, and got myself an environmental consultant who gave me $40,000 in light retrofits. Best money I ever spent. In only two years I saved over a million kWh, not to mention the $400,000 nest egg I saved in energy costs.

Despite all I’ve made and saved, I’m still lonely. Any innovative, business types up for a LTR?

 

 

 

 

 

Denver

136 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009; $29.6 million in cost savings.

The Wellington E. Webb Municipal building, built in 2002, spans 630,000 sq. feet. Photo: Wikipedia Commons

Bureaucrat enjoys certification processes, seeks efficient tax payers
I know I may sound a bit boring, but what I lack in personality, I make up with good looks and innovations!

I was designed to be 25 percent more efficient than a conventional building, saving the city of Denver $218,000 in energy costs in 2003 alone.

But there’s so much more to me than numbers. As a LEED Gold certified building, I have a broom closet full of impressive features:

Low-energy compact fluorescent task lighting, occupancy sensors, and LED exit signs.  Instead of traditional air conditioning, I’m part of Xcel Energy’s district chilled water loop. And when it’s cold outside, steam-based hot water exchangers make my tenants toasty.

Who wants to watch the savings add up with me?

 

 

Chicago

The Chicago Transit Authority office, built in 2004, spans 400,000 sq. feet.134 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009; $50.2 million in cost savings.

Large-and-in-charge organizer seeks quick-mover
Well, let’s see. I’m bossy. I’m the first stop to see on the tracks. I switched up the beat of the drum and was built with efficiency in mind.

As the Chicago Transit Authority office, I can move you, of course. But with CFLs, a green roof, HVAC automated systems, and 89 percent of my office spaces receiving natural light, I’m downright irresistable. 

I’m on the right track. What’s not to love?

 

 

 

 

Houston

This Houston skyline giant, built in 1983, spans 1.6 million sq. feet.Photo: Wikipedia Commons. 133 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009; $73.9 million in cost savings.

Tall, southern stranger shines a light for love
I’ve always been a bit of a romantic, towering above the other buildings, shining my iconic searchlight on Houston’s lovers.

I earned my ENERGY STAR and LEED Gold certification thanks to a computerized building management system, lighting upgrades, and zone by zone cooling.

In fact, my annual greenhouse gas reductions are the rough equivalent of removing 2,125 cars from the road. Hot!

Have I won you over yet?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dallas-Fort Worth

The Chase Tower was built in 1987 and is 1.4 million sq. feet.Photo courtesy Majdan via Flickr113 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009; $33.7 million in cost savings.

Bobby Ewing type seeks Pamela Barnes look alike
I was born into the Dallas of the ‘80s. Luckily, I’ve always been more Bobby than J.R.

I earned my ENERGY STAR rating thanks to the extensive retrofitting of my lighting and HVAC systems.

C’mon, you know my thermal storage system heats you up.

 

 

 

 

 

Atlanta

The Hurt Building, built in 1913, is over 430,000 sq. feet. Photo: USGBCGA102 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009; $23.9 million in cost savings.

Let’s make history together!
This Southern belle just got a fresh makeover and is ready for love.  

You know me as the Hurt Tower; and I may be one of the first skyscrapers in America, but I’m all youth and vitality on the inside, wrapped in a well-preserved exterior.

I have a rainwater collection system and water-efficient toilets, which reduced my consumption by 44 percent. That’s a lot of sweet tea!

I may not be a perfect 10 but I do have an ENERGY STAR rating of 91. You know you want me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York

The Riverhouse spans 470,000 sq. feet. 90 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009; $88.3 million in cost savings.

High class Riverhouse seeks refined live-in
I’m probably not a very good match for the average environmentalist’s wallet. Only the most refined tastes seem to appreciate my automatically rotating photovoltaic roof cells and rainfall recycling system. A natural beauty—I was constructed with locally acquired renewable materials and non-toxic paints—I’m ready for the real deal when it comes to green.

Update: Rumors are swirling about a Leonardo DiCaprio sighting in one of my units. Sources close to the star say he was wooed by my double-paned windows, filtered air, and gray water recycling system. Leo’s dog Rufus approves of this flirtation, thanks to my luxury dog spa.

Related Links:

How the West is Winning Against Coal

Performance issues in Chicago men’s room reek havoc on water conservation

Zero-Carbon Buildings

by Charles Franklin

I've been pointing out the similarities between the circumstances of Presidents Obama and Reagan for a while now. See an earlier post on this here.

The short version is both come in with inherited economic troubles that don't turn around miraculously in the first 24 months. Both replace deeply unpopular predecessors, and suffer from high expectations in comparison. And both set out to dramatically change the direction of national policy. Reagan suffered substantial losses in the House in his first midterm (26 seats lost), and Obama looks headed to similar if not larger losses in 2010.

So how is the analogy holding up? In approval terms, still quite well. The two continue to track rather well. Obama has occasionally been slightly below and recently slightly above Reagan's trend, but the parallel movement remains striking. Likewise, their relative location compared to other first term post-war presidents continues to drive home the point that these have been (so far) among the lowest approval ratings in the first 24 months.

Despite the similarity, I don't think the two presidents are metaphysically linked by fate. Both suffer from the economy and their large policy goals. At the moment, the economy is looking to have turned up sooner for Obama than it did for Reagan (who suffered until the very month of the midterm before the economy bottomed out and started to recover.) Obama has a more hopeful looking GDP trend, though his unemployment trend has not yet started down. (Political science finds that GDP is consistently a better predictor of midterm outcomes than is unemployment, despite the vastly greater emphasis on unemployment in public commentary.)

So I don't think the 2010 results are yet set in stone, nor that the track of Obama's approval is necessarily going to continue following Reagan's. Rather it has been driven by similar circumstances, and those circumstances appear to be diverging on the economy at least. Whether Obama's approval responds, and with what effect on midterm outcomes, remains to be seen. The politics is yet to finish baking.

Bonus Chart: The first term presidents through midterm but in separate charts rather than overlaid. Data are Gallup polls only to provide comparability over the decades.

The crash of a shattering window as a brick is hurled at a politician's office; the hiss of gas from a slashed utility line outside the home of a congressman's relative; snarling epithets left in the voice mailboxes of elected officials. These are among the most unsettling noises of the backlash against the new health care law, and to some, they sound like an echo of a checkered American tradition: vigilantism, taking the law into one's own hands.

Vigilantism is often presumed to be synonymous with racism or irrational political extremism. True/Slant's Sarah Libby decries "the notion of vigilante justice" as "a scary one that has deeply racist roots" in the post-Civil War lynchings of southern blacks. Frank Rich of the New York Times termed the spate of post-vote incidents "vigilante violence" and compared the perpetrators to the Nazis on Kristallnacht. Even the Associated Press is using the magic V-word in its write-throughs about the unrest.

Since 2008, instances of anti-government outrage have gradually escalated, from Joseph Stack's plane crash into an Austin federal building to the vandalism, death threats and intimidation of the past few weeks. According to a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the United States has enjoyed a 244 percent increase in the number of active patriot groups--"militias and other extremist organizations that see the federal government as their enemy"--in 2009. Pundits nervously wonder what the future of vigilante violence will hold. "The weapon of choice for vigilante violence at Congressional offices has been a brick hurled through a window," penned Rich. "So far."

While the facts of some of the recent incidents are disputed, it's incredibly appropriate that vigilantism is being invoked to brand the instances of political violence. Vigilante justice is not a historical artifact of the Wild West, where American pioneers on the lawless frontier banded together to protect life, liberty, and property. From the "Dirty Harry" movies of the 1970s through the eco-terrorism of the animal rights and anti-mansionization movements, the impulse to impose "justice" where the system fails to is not confined to one era or ideological extreme. Recalling the historical roots of American vigilantism can help us understand where the current anti-government violence fits and where it may be headed.
 
While vigilantism has been defined in a variety of ways by academics, there is broad agreement that it is essentially a conservative impulse. Vigilante scholars H. Jon Rosenbaum and Peter C. Sederberg situate vigilante activity between revolutionary and reactionary violence, as "acts of threat or coercion in violation of the formal boundaries of an established sociopolitical order, which, however, are intended by the violators to defend the order from some form of subversion." Historian Richard Maxwell Brown, a long-time scholar of American violence, sees vigilantism as inherently driven by the desire to restore the sociopolitical order to a previous level of stability. The sources of instability vary throughout history--crime, demographic shifts, government corruption--but the impulse remains the same: to restore stability to a world turned upside down, and reinforce those values at risk in a rapidly changing world.

No wonder, then, that conservative backlash and the vigilantism associated with some of its adherents has been accelerating since the economic collapse and the 2008 election; notions of "change" coinciding with economic instability are a classic recipe for anxiety and paranoia.

While vigilantism was a fixture on the American frontier in small settler communities since the end of the 18th century, the current uproar has much in common with the granddaddy of large-scale American vigilante movements, the San Francisco Vigilance Committee of 1856. San Francisco had already been home to a small vigilante movement in 1851, when fears of arson and larceny in the face of the California gold rush prompted the organization of a temporary militia until municipal law enforcement could take control. But a few years later, with street crime in check, the issue was soaring municipal debt, rising taxes, and bankruptcy under corrupt political leadership, in a city described by Brown as a "seething caldron of social, ethnic, religious, and political tensions." The political elite exploited those tensions to mobilize support from its base, strong-arming elections and mobilizing the Irish-Catholic and mostly Democratic working class of the city as its political backbone. After a muckraking journalist, James King, who had been exposing machine abuses, was murdered by a political operative, enrollment in the vigilance committee soared. The vigilantes saw the municipal courts as corrupt and ineffective, so they methodically collected material evidence of election fraud and municipal corruption before ousting the machine.
 
The San Francisco Committee shares many of the same features and focus as the recent political unrest: frustration with government, underpinnings of socio-cultural strife, and urgency to act promoted by an aggressive, inflammatory press. Students of today's anti-Obama, anti-Washington rhetoric will recognize the style King employed, portraying his city as caught in the grip of a "second class" of men who "stand all day at the street corner, flourishing whale bone canes and twirling greasy mustachios. At night they flock to the gambling halls, abounding in all our thoroughfares, where they feast and carouse, bet and blackguard, damn their own souls and take the name of God in vain. Or else, flushed with wine and lust, they throng the houses of prostitution." Concluded this latter-day Glenn Beck: "Men without one particle of claim to the position have filled the post of Mayor and Councilman in the city, for the sole purpose of filling their pockets with the ill gotten gains of their nefarious schemes, their pilfering and dishonesty." King's editorials created a "near-panic psychology" concerning municipal crime (despite low crime rates reported by the California Alta), bringing the anger of average citizens to a boiling point before focusing their popular rage on the negligent state government.

This phenomenon was repeated in the Montana vigilante movement of the 1880s, where leader Robert Fisk used the territorial press to hype a declining crime problem and feed the vigilante fever by demonizing his adversaries: "There is no disguising the fact that Helena at this time is the rendezvous for a score or more of very hard characters--men that have no visible means of livelihood and that are watching for opportunities to rob and even murder, if necessary, to carry out their infamous purposes," wrote Robert Fisk in the Helena Daily Herald. "Would it not be a wise precautionary step to invite some of these desperate characters to 'take a walk' or shall we wait for other murders and robberies, and perhaps until they burn the town down again?" Next to this, Sarah Palin's use of "crosshairs" to mark her political targets almost seems tame.

Such scare tactics have found fertile soil in modern media. Cries of socialism, Marxism, communism, and totalitarianism broadcast--usually unchallenged--across the airwaves and blogosphere resonate with those already unnerved by "change you can believe in." Thus, a bill that true leftists abhor promoted by a president unloved by the hard left is easily spun into a subversive effort by committed enemies of the American way to undermine the fabric of American society. Rep. Michelle Bachmann's (R-MN) recent calls for civil disobedience are self-explanatory. Steve Benen highlights the incendiary rhetoric of Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), who claims "Americans are reacquainted with the danger of an arrogant all powerful government, a deadly enemy within, a clear and present danger in Washington." Or, as Glenn Beck puts it: "the end of America as we know it."

History suggests this level of fear--and the activism, non-violent and otherwise, it fuels--is difficult to sustain. Even with control of the press, the leaders of the San Francisco and Montana vigilantes could not maintain a panic psychology after justice was served, and their movements dissolved. But today's digital media provides a wider--and more accessible--avenue for rabble rousing, and there's nothing to stop those who want to keep the fire burning from doing so. Take away her book, speaking engagements, and Fox News platform, and Palin could still have an impact; during her post-resignation months in the political wilderness, she built a loyal base entirely through her Facebook page. And no one can control the likes of Mike Vanderboegh, the 57-year-old former militiaman from Alabama who encouraged those who agree with him to throw bricks through the windows of Democratic offices nationwide in protest of "Pelosi's Intolerable Act." (profile) The easily accessible platforms of the blogosphere and social media can make any wing nut an overnight pundit with a digital bully pulpit.

The sight of partisans quickly taking sides and pointing fingers in the debate over the emerging vigilante culture and violence associated with it suggests another reason why the phenomenon may linger--it's in the self-interest of some to keep it going. We're already seeing how both Democrats and Republicans have recently sought to capitalize on these months of political upheaval as a fundraising tool. Even if saner heads do prevail, they'll likely be drowned out by media outlets catering to an ideological ("narrowcast") demographic. Video of rabid right-wingers hoisting signs equating Obama with Hitler is mother's milk to the talk-show hosts on MSNBC, just as ceaseless garment-rending over the "Cornhusker Kickback" is a ratings-grabber for Fox. Any hope of more sober dialogue will surely have to wait until after the November election, or perhaps beyond--unlike the social and political grievances that inflamed 19th century San Francisco and Montana, our economic woes and complex health-care reforms won't be resolved in short order. The "mad as hell" crowd of the moment seems destined for a madder than hell future.
 
Today's journalists and politicians correctly invoke vigilantism to describe the recent violence. But having done so, they bear responsibility for learning history's lessons. For instance, Reason's Matt Welch chides journalists for their emphasis on the "narrative" of politics and encourages them to focus on policy rather than inflammatory sidebars. Politicians should also heed Welch's advice and reconsider the need for narratives, for as much as modern vigilantism reflects the cycle of populist violence in America's history, the prospect of a never-ending crisis spun by message-makers is cause for concern that vigilantism's comeback might be a permanent one.

The Grander Canyon

My horse had run off during the night. My map was swept away in a Flash flood. I thought I was lost. Little did I know I’d just found myself.

I wandered the canyon for days, foraging for food, half-mad from not hearing another human voice for so long. I was just about to eat some kind of crawdad I’d dug out of a creek bed when the aroma caught me.

Was it blackberries? Blueberries? Leather? White pepper? Or even… rose petals? It was all those things, a complex potpourri that set my mouth to watering. I followed that scent like a bloodhound, deeper into the canyon, deeper into the lengthening shadows of afternoon, deeper…

...and found a gulch that flowed purple. Dark, rich purple. It didn’t occur to me that the color could be due to blood, or pollution. I just knew I wanted to drink from it. Yearned to drink from it. Ached to drink from it. So drink from it I did.

After days of eating things I’d never thought I’d eat, the flavor was a revelation. Smoky, intense, almost like bacon. Why, this is the kind of flavor that gets a 91 in Wine Spectator, I thought. I slurped at that little stream until my guts couldn’t hold any more. You better believe I fell asleep with a smile on my face that night.

I’ve been here ever since. You can call it a Lost Canyon if you want. Frankly, I hope it stays lost to the likes of you city folk. But me? I know right where I am.

2007 Lost Canyon Stage Gulch Syrah:

• Harvest Date: October 10, 2007
• Vineyard: Stage Gulch
• Brix: 25.5
• Acid: 3.78pH
• Bottle Date: September 9, 2008
• Time in Oak: 11 months 50% new, 50% 1 year St. Martin
• Wine Alcohol: 14.7%
• Cases Produced: 550

Rules and restrictions:

• Wine sold by winery (or a retailer in your state where necessary)
• You must be 21 or older to order
• Whoever receives the package must be 21 or older
• If you're drunk when the package shows up, you will not be allowed to receive it
• Wine cannot be delivered to a P.O. Box
• We highly recommend you use a business address as your shipping address

Thanks to stick-in-the-mud buzzkilling state legislators, wine may only be delivered to the following states:

• Arizona
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• District Of Columbia
• Florida
• Georgia
• Idaho
• Illinois
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Louisiana
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Missouri
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• New Mexico
• New York
• North Carolina
• Ohio
• Oregon
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Vermont
• Virginia
• Washington
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

If your state's not on the list, you're out of luck... for now. Keep up with the ever-changing laws over at ShipCompliantBlog.com, and/or sound the alarms with your state assembly person through FreeTheGrapes.org. Meanwhile, all Federal, state and local laws are complied with in providing this wine.

After three long days off, the Tournament is BACK. SB Nation's Chris Dobbertean has full previews and predictions of tonight's Sweet 16 action. Gus Johnson is involved, and America's darling, Cornell, takes on Kentucky. Can't. Contain. Excitement.

SB Nation's Chris Dobbertean, editor of Blogging The Bracket, has your rundown of Thursday and Friday's Regional Semifinal action in the NCAA Tournament, including announcer pairings and picks.

All games are on CBS, check your local listings to see your affiliate's choices. You can watch all the games at NCAA® March Madness on Demand®. 

Thursday night sees action in the West and East regions.

West Regional

Gus Johnson and Len Elmore will have the call for the doubleheader in Salt Lake City. 

Game 1: No. 5 Butler vs. No. 1 Syracuse, 7:07 p.m. ET

Road to the Regional
Bulldogs: Defeated UTEP, 77-59, and Murray State, 54-52
Orange: Defeated Vermont, 79-56, and Gonzaga, 87-65

The Orange had better be prepared to face a team that is a bit more defensively focused than either of their opening weekend opponents, which also happens to own a 22-game winning streak. Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim mentioned Wednesday that Butler has played 10 straight games against teams operating a man defense, so the Orange's 2-3 zone may cause them some problems. Turnovers could be key, as the Bulldogs don't turn the ball over much and they know how to capitalize on their opponents' errors.

Arinze Onuaku's missing his third straight game thanks to an injured quad, on the surface, would appear to be an issue, given that Gordon Hayward and Matt Howard are both solid interior players for the Bulldogs. However, as Hayward has struggled offensively lately and foul-prone Howard has issues staying on the floor, that ends up being a push. (Seriously, I'm of the opinion that Howard's foul issues, particularly in Anaheim over Thanksgiving weekend ended up costing Butler a seed line or two.) If Rick Jackson can stay off the bench himself and DeShonte Riley can play the smart game he did against Gonzaga Sunday, the Orange should have enough to advance.

My pick: Syracuse

Read more at our Orange blog, Troy Nunes Is An Absolute Magician.

Game 2: No. 6 Xavier vs. No. 2 Kansas State, approx. 9:37 p.m. ET

Road to the Regional
Musketeers: Defeated Minnesota, 65-54, and Pittsburgh, 71-68
Wildcats: Defeated North Texas, 82-62, and BYU, 84-72

On the surface, this looks like a matchup between two evenly matched teams, but this wasn't the case when they met way back on December 8. That contest resulted in a 71-56 win for the Wildcats, as K-State dominated on both ends of the court. (The Musketeers didn't even break 30 percent from the field for the game.) Expect this one to be a bit more of a contest as Xavier star Jordan Crawford has matured considerably in the intervening three months, and the first weekend was his coming out party, as he averaged 27.5 points and 6 rebounds a game in the first two rounds. 

Both teams have capable scorers (Jacob Pullen, who took over in the second half of the December meeting, vs. Crawford) good point guards (Denis Clemente vs.Terrell Holloway) and talented forwards (Curtis Kelly vs. Jason Love). However, except in the case of Pullen vs. Crawford, the Wildcat player has a clear talent advantage. In terms of intangibles, Xavier has been to the Sweet 16 three straight times, while none of K-State's players were alive the last time they made the second weekend (1988). Love, Holloway, Jamel McLean and Kenny Frease all played on last year's Xavier squad that fell to Pitt at this stage, while the Wildcats will obviously be lacking the Musketeers' experience.

While both squads aren't afraid to get down and dirty, Frank Martin's team is a bit more tenacious on the defensive end, which should be the difference again.

My pick: Kansas State

Read more at our Wildcat blog, Bring On The Cats.

East Regional

Dick Enberg and Jay Bilas will be courtside in Syracuse.

Game 1: No. 11 Washington vs. No. 2 West Virginia, 7:27 p.m. ET

Road to the Regional

Huskies: Defeated Marquette, 80-78, and New Mexico, 82-64
Mountaineers: Defeated Morgan State, 77-50, and Missouri, 68-59

The Mountaineers suffered a blow with the news Tuesday that point guard Truck Bryant was lost for the Tournament with a broken foot. Bryant is allegedly WVU's "scoring" point guard, something that you wouldn't have figured out just by looking at his recent game log. (He hadn't scored in double figures since the 11 he put up against Georgetown on March 1, and he only managed 14 points combined in the next five games.) But he is among the team's top jump shooters and more of a threat than Joe Mazzula, who takes over at the point.  Our Mountaineer blog, The Smoking Musket, says the team's forwards will have to take on a greater role because of the lack of depth at the point guard slot.

Again, without another point guard on the bench, both Devin Ebanks and Da'Sean Butler will see their ball handling duties to dramatically increase. Mazzulla can't play 40 minutes, so these two must deputize in his absence. Both have shown they are capable of doing exactly that, but when the stakes are this high, the element of doubt starts to rear its ugly head. 

The Mountaineers struggled on offense in Buffalo last week and advanced because they were able to shut down their two opponents. They'll have trouble doing that against Isaiah Thomas, Quincy Pondexter, and company, who are one of the hottest teams in the country right now. Our Washington blog, UW Dawg Pound, credits an emerging interior force with taking a lot of focus away from the Husky guards.

The thing that is driving this surge has been the play in the middle by Matthew Bryan-Amaning. Make no mistake that every Husky who hits the floor is contributing in a big way but the play of Bryan-Amaning is deflecting the pressure on Thomas and Pondexter. his extra push in the middle has helped Washington push its level of play up a couple of notches and the experts are noticing.

Of course, if the Mountaineers can force a free throw duel, they'll likely prevail, as they're just a bit better from the charity stripe. The Huskies beat New Mexico handily despite only hitting half their foul shots, and 68.8 percent against Marquette meant they needed a last-second Pondexter scoop shot to claim the win.

My pick: West Virginia

Game 2: No. 12 Cornell vs. No. 1 Kentucky, approx. 9:57 p.m. ET

Road to the Regional
Big Red: Defeated Temple, 78-65, and Wisconsin, 87-69
Wildcats: Defeated East Tennessee State, 100-71, and Wake Forest, 90-60

Two of the most impressive teams of the first weekend meet in Syracuse. Both teams are going to score, as each sits in the top 10 of Ken Pomeroy's adjusted offensive efficiency ratings. However, the Wildcats rate far higher than the Big Red in the adjusted defensive efficiency ratings (8th vs. 130th). Matt O'Brien points out that Cornell is actually the worst defensive team remaining in the field, making their two easy wins all the more impressive, but a lot of that has to do with some truly mind-boggling offensive numbers.

Cornell had an adjusted offensive efficiency of 158.6 points per 100 possessions through the first two rounds. To give you an idea of how absurd that is, the gap between Cornell and the second-best team (Kentucky) was larger than the difference between the second and eleventh teams.

Our Kentucky blog, A Sea Of Blue, examined the two teams' effective field goal percentages (eFG%) and came to the conclusion that even the Wildcats may struggle to stop Cornell. But that doesn't mean an upset is in the making.

...both Temple and Wisconsin are average offensive teams, both shooting right around 50% eFG% for the season. Kentucky is much, much better than either of them offensively, and the Big Red was unable to hold either Wisconsin or Temple below 50% eFG%. This augers very well for the Wildcats, because the offensive advantages Kentucky has over the Big Red are truly legion, and it hasn't much mattered to Kentucky whether opponents play zone, man, or junk.

Kentucky presents numerous matchup issue for Cornell, but one in particular stands out to me. Jeff Foote has been impressive inside for the Big Red, but he may struggle against the physical combo on DeMarcus Cousins and Patrick Patterson. If Foote is limited inside, the Big Red will have to shoot more threes, which could result in one-and-done possessions and transition baskets for John Wall and the Wildcats. 

My pick: Kentucky

Follow Chris on Twitter, @BracketDobber, for his thoughts and reactions throughout Thursday and Friday evenings' action.