Arizona’s “Religious Freedom” Bill (aka SB 1062): Bad, Bad Bill that Needs to be Vetoed, Stat
What is wrong with the Arizona legislature?
Last week, on a mostly party-line vote, the Arizona legislature passed controversial state Senate Bill 1062, titled the “Religious Freedom of Expression” bill in much of the media. This bill seeks to amend the Arizona state statutes in order to allow people to deny services to people who don’t meet their own religious standards, as best I can discern, and is widely seen as an anti-LGBT measure.
As you might expect, many people — in and out of Arizona — are calling upon Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) to veto SB 1062, including both of its United States Senators — Republican John McCain, and Republican Jeff Flake. In addition, three Republican members of the state Senate who just voted for the bill last week are also calling for it to be vetoed. And their reasoning is somewhat surprising.
From the story at the Los Angeles Times:
“While our sincere intent in voting for this bill was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has instead been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance,” State Sens. Bob Worsley, Adam Driggs and Steve Pierce wrote in a letter. “These allegations are causing our state immeasurable harm.”
In other words, they are saying the perception of the bill is harming the state much more than they thought, so the bill should be vetoed even though they still believe it’s a good bill.
(Hard to believe they didn’t understand just last week that they were making a mistake, but better late than never.)
The problem I see with SB 1062 goes far beyond it conceivably being an anti-LGBT measure. While that’s more than bad enough, after reading this bill in its entirety, I see it as having a much more fundamental flaw:
It is against the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plain and simple.
Why?
Well, the First Amendment is pretty straightforward. It says that you cannot establish a state religion, but you cannot deny someone the ability to express his or her own religious faith, either. And it also says you cannot deny freedom of expression (among several other things) . . . all of which seem in direct contradiction to Arizona’s SB 1062.
You see, if you allow a bill like this to stand as read, it conceivably allows someone to deny someone service based upon your religious faith or your own, personal beliefs. It makes your own discrimination allowable under Arizona’s state constitution, and further it shields you from harm if someone then sues you because you contravened their rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution of freedom of expression or freedom of religion.
None of that is acceptable.
Furthermore, there are additional, practical reasons as to why SB 1062 should be vetoed without delay by Gov. Brewer, including these stated by the website Arizona Central:
The CEOs of the state’s top business groups – Greater Phoenix Economic Council, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Greater Phoenix Leadership and the Southern Arizona Leadership Council – want Brewer to veto.
“The legislation is also already clearly having a negative effect on our tourism industry, one of the largest sectors of the economy,” several of the CEOs wrote. “The bill could also harm job creation efforts and our ability to attract and retain talent.”
From reading this, it seems these CEOs see SB 1062 as being a job-killer.
But wait, here’s more. From Arizona Central’s editorial:
The damage will grow the longer this bill survives. Brewer can start the healing with a quick, decisive veto. She can use the opportunity to loudly and clearly tell the world that Arizona is an open, welcoming state that does not countenance discrimination.
The Legislature’s approval of the bill undermined the state’s goal of attracting high-tech industry. Seventy percent of people born after 1980 support same-sex marriage, according to Pew Research. High-tech firms locate in places talented, young people find attractive.
The right to refuse service bill makes Arizona an unattractive butt of late-night comedy and snarky tweets.
While I’m not necessarily moved by the need for any state to specifically attract “young people,” I agree that if you want high-tech industry, you want smart people of all ages. And most smart people just do not see the practical sense in legalized discrimination, regardless of age . . . which is why there are people in all age groups who believe marriage should be a civil right irrespective of whether or not your partner is of the opposite sex or the same sex, providing you are both of sound mind and are both adults.
So to sum up, here’s the two big problems with Arizona’s SB 1062:
- It appears to legalize discrimination against people based on a person’s religious beliefs — a no-no under the U.S. Constitution.
- And it appears to be something that’s highly impractical that actively harms the state of Arizona.
If I were Gov. Brewer, I would veto this bill without any further delay . . . it’s clearly the right thing to do, it will save the state of Arizona from having to defend this terrible bill in court (where it’s likely to be struck down and the state penalized for wasting the federal government’s precious time), and it will stop harming the state’s image in the court of public opinion.
The Governor has until February 28 to either veto this bill or sign it. So keep your eyes on Arizona, to see if she’ll do the right thing . . .
Or not.
Answering Questions — Milwaukee Brewers First Basemen, Figure Skating, and More
Folks, sometimes people ask me questions . . . and when I’m hunting for a blog subject, as now, I decide to answer them. (Lucky you, huh?)
The first question goes something like this: “So, Barb. Why is it that you get so hyped up about figure skating, anyway? You’re not a figure skater, so why do you care?”
Hmph.
Well, I care because I like to see justice done. I got upset back in 2010 during the Vancouver Olympics when Johnny Weir didn’t get the score he deserved as he should’ve won the bronze medal. So I signed petitions, formed groups, wrote to the United States Figure Skating Association (to no avail) . . . all because I felt injustice should not be a part of sport.
Why?
Obviously, I realize that nothing in life is fair. But we should strive to make our pursuits as fair as we possibly can.
And sports, in particular, should be much fairer than most other things. People spend years of their lives in the pursuit of perfection, so when inaccurate or shoddy judging — or worse, potentially corrupt judging as in the case of the 2002 Olympics — ruins the skater’s Olympic experience, that can’t help but make me take notice.
Another question: “But Barb. Seriously, Yuna Kim is a millionaire with a gold medal from the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. She doesn’t need your help, so why is it you’re so upset regarding Adelina Sotnikova’s free skate in Sochi? Will anyone really care in four years anyway?”
I don’t know if anyone will care in four years or not. But the system needs to be overhauled. Ashley Wagner was right when she said the judges should stop being allowed to hide behind their supposed anonymity . . . if the skaters must identify themselves (as they do), the judges also must identify themselves so if they get something wrong, they can be retrained — or at the very least questioned as to what happened that led to whatever wrongness that occurred.
And again, I go back to Johnny Weir’s skate in 2010. I still care about it in 2014, because justice was not served.
So it’s quite likely that in 2018, I will still care about this if justice is again not served.
Onto another topic: “Barb, who do you think the Milwaukee Brewers are going to trot out at first base this year? They didn’t sign Manny Ramirez, so who do they have as possibilities?”
Heh. The Manny Ramirez thing was something I threw in there just to see if people were paying attention, though I honestly think the man can still hit and could learn to play first base if he wanted . . . but as the Brewers didn’t sign him, here are the potential first basemen in camp at this time:
- Hunter Morris (spent last year at AAA, hit .247 with 24 HR and 73 RBI). He is a bit raw, but has power to burn and a good, solid work ethic. He’ll probably start the year again at AAA but might come up later.
- Lyle Overbay (hit .240 with the New York Yankees with 14 HR and 59 RBI in 2013). Overbay still fields well at first, and continues to have some pop. He’s been with the Brewers before, so he knows Milwaukee well. My guess would be that he starts the year with the Brewers, as Overbay also can pinch hit and is a left-handed bat.
- Mark Reynolds (hit .220 with two teams with 21 HR and 67 RBI in 2013). Reynolds strikes out a ton. He is not a good defensive first baseman, to put it mildly. But he does have some power and it’s very likely the Brewers will keep him around to see what he’ll do as some of his HRs are moon shots of the Russell Branyan variety.
- Juan Francisco (His 2013 campaign was split into two parts — he hit .221 with 13 HR and 32 RBI in Milwaukee; before that, he hit .241 with 5 HR and 16 RBI in Atlanta). He is not a good first baseman, though some of that is because he’d never played the position prior to last year. He has astonishing power potential, but strikes out a good deal — nearly as often as Mark Reynolds. It’s likely that the Brewers will keep him around, but they also could trade him if they can find a buyer.
- And finally, there’s always Jonathan Lucroy. Yes, Lucroy’s a catcher, but he played first base several times last year and was competent if not comfortable. Lucroy is a consistent hitter who’s only weakness is grounding into double-plays . . . then again, Carlos Lee used to ground into double-plays all the time and no one complained, so it’s unlikely anyone’s going to say much about Lucroy either.
One final question, this yet again on a different topic entirely: “So, Barb. Why didn’t you review any books last week at Shiny Book Review?”
This one’s easy, folks . . . as I was doing my best to get a major edit out the door for a client, I simply ran out of time.
But I’ll be reviewing at least two books this week, so do stay tuned.
Milwaukee Brewers Find Stray Dog, Incorporate Him Into Team Workouts
Folks, after the sturm und drang of the last week’s figure skating results, I needed some lighter fare.
So what could be better than this blog post from USA Today’s “For the Win,” which has a bunch of pictures of the adorable dog Hank that’s been unofficially adopted by the Milwaukee Brewers?
As FTW says:
The Milwaukee Brewers are down in Arizona right now for spring training, and at one of the first days of their new season they happened upon a stray dog roaming around their practice field. After failing to locate an owner, the team has been taking care of the little guy. They named him Hank after Hank Aaron, and he’s become the unofficial mascot of the team.
Click through to see the pictures, and pay special attention to the one where Yovani Gallardo is walking Hank on a leash. Gallardo looks as relaxed as I’ve ever seen him . . . who knew having a cute little dog around would bolster everyone’s spirits? (Well, besides us dog lovers.)
More Olympic Figure Skating Controversy: Korean Olympic Commitee Sends Protest to IOC
This time, folks, I’m not mistyping — the Korean Olympic Committee has sent an official letter of protest to the International Olympic Committee demanding answers regarding the ladies figure skating event in the 2014 Olympic Games, according to this article from the USA Today filed as of 4 a.m. EST 2/22/2014 (today).
The Koreans are concerned that Yuna Kim was not scored fairly, and want answers as to what happened.
Personally, as I’ve said several times, I believe Carolina Kostner was also underscored (Mao Asada, too), and believe Adelina Sotnikova was wildly overscored.
Regarding the substance of the protest, it’s unclear how much good it can do. The International Skating Union still says they haven’t received the official complaint from the Korea Skating Union I discussed in my last blog post (this also according to the USA Today article), and it appears that will be needed also.
(One would hope that if there was a face-to-face meeting between the bigwigs as Reuters reported — which I discussed in my earlier blog post, someone will let the rest of the ISU know about it one of these years?)
However, the fact that the KSU and the KOC have both complained has to matter somehow . . . so my thought is that the IOC and the ISU will both have to respond and figure this out.
If there really was a bias in favor of Adelina Sotnikova, the IOC and ISU should move to fix this as fast as they possibly can. Because this looks very, very bad and it’s not going anywhere anytime soon.
As this controversy appears to have legs, I promise to stay on top of it as best I can, and will post updates as I receive them. (But for right now, I need to go get some sleep. Seriously.)
Figure Skating Controversy Deepens as S. Korea Asks ISU for Inquiry
Folks, it’s official: South Korea has asked the International Skating Union# for an official inquiry into whether or not the judging at the Sochi Olympics in the ladies figure skating event was fair.
Later on Friday the Korea Skating Union (KSU) issued a statement saying it had met with International Skating Union (ISU) President Ottavio Cinquanta and “officially requested to confirm whether the figure skating ladies single competition was held fairly based on the ISU’s regulations and procedures.”
All I can say is, it’s about time. Because with an official inquiry, it’s possible this nonsensical result will be overturned.**
As I said yesterday, I believe Ms. Sotnikova should’ve been on the podium — but in the bronze position. Both Carolina Kostner (the official bronze medalist) and Yuna Kim outskated her.
(Mind you, I’d also have been perfectly fine with Mao Asada winning a bronze medal, as I believe Ms. Asada was underscored in her long program. But that’s a side issue.)
And I’m far from the only one who’s upset about this highly questionable result, as this online petition calling for an investigation into the judging of the Olympic figure skating event has already garnered nearly 1,900,000 signatures as of this hour (roughly 1:35 a.m. CST) . . . in less than two days.
My final thoughts tonight? Well, it’s simple: Ms. Sotnikova benefited from a home-field advantage and a stack of judges that seem, on their face, to be highly questionable. (Please see this article by the redoubtable Christine Brennan if you don’t believe me.)
She did not deserve gold.
And to my mind, she also did not deserve silver.
———
**Note that the Korea Skating Union needs to file an official protest to get this result overturned. But it’s possible the inquiry might be the first step into that, as I can’t remember enough of what happened during the 2002 figure skating fiasco that resulted in Jamie Salé and David Pelletier of Canada initially being given a silver rather than gold, then later being awarded gold after Canada filed a formal protest, to tell you the exact steps Korea needs to go through to get this injustice rectified.
# An earlier version of this blog said that the Korea Skating Union had gone to the IOC (International Olympic Committee) over this — that’s what happens when you write a blog at 1:35 a.m. in the morning, as that was a complete and utter misstatement on my part. I regret the error and have corrected it for the record . . . mea maxima culpa!
WI Gov. Scott Walker in Trouble Again as 28,000 e-mails Released in “John Doe” Probe
Folks, I have said this time and time again: Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) has a lot of explaining to do.
Why?
Well, last night 28,000 e-mails were released due to an Open Records request by several state newspapers due to one of the latest “John Doe” probes against Gov. Walker. (There currently are at least two and possibly three “John Doe” probes going on, but this one deals with former staffers convicted of electioneering on government time — basically, being paid to perform other duties, or doing election business on state time — a felony under Wisconsin law.) This specific “John Doe” probe was about Walker staffers who’d set up an illegal campaign network only steps from Walker’s own desk when he was still campaigning for the job of Governor and was serving as Milwaukee County Executive.
While my hometown newspaper the Racine Journal-Times buried this story for whatever reason, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and the Wisconsin State Journal — Wisconsin’s two biggest newspapers — came out strongly against what has since been found in the massive e-mail release.
The Journal-Sentinel was blunt in its assessment:
Daily calls. Walker was hands-on. In April 2010, Nardelli sent an email to top aides saying Walker wanted 8 a.m. conference calls between campaign and key county staff “to review events of the day or of a previous or future day, so we can better coordinate sound, timely responses, so we all know what the others are doing.”
Cover blown, no more laptops. In addition to running a secret email system inside the Milwaukee County Courthouse, Walker’s aides used laptops to perform campaign work.
After prosecutors seized a computer of Walker aide Darlene Wink, who spent a good chunk of her time on the county dime posting positive comments about Walker online, Walker sent an email and ordered his aides, “no laptops, no websites, no time away during the work day, etc.”
Note that this last point is a particularly big deal as Scott Walker has insisted throughout that he knew nothing about the fact his staffers were doing campaign work while being paid by the city and county of Milwaukee — in short, committing felonies.
But if Walker truly knew nothing, why did he say “no laptops?”
And if he didn’t know anything, yet was a micro-manager otherwise, how is this remotely credible?
As Dee J. Hall of the Wisconsin State Journal put it, Walker “must have known” about the “private e-mail, laptop system.”
Mind you, neither of these reports go anywhere near as far as reporter Ruth Coniff of The Progressive, who notes that Walker’s scandal is far worse than New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s “Bridgegate”:
But Bridgegate is minor compared to the “John Doe” investigations that have dogged Walker for the last four years, landing one of his closest aides and longtime political advisers in prison.
…Six Walker staffers and associates racked up 15 felony convictions and three misdemeanors in the first John Doe investigation, begun in May 2010 — a secret probe into illegal campaign work on taxpayer time while Walker was county executive of Milwaukee.
Walker started a criminal defense fund — an unprecedented move for a Wisconsin governor — in response to the first John Doe. In total, he paid more than $650,000 for lawyers representing himself and his campaign committee, according to Jason Stein of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
The first John Doe investigation ended on March 1, 2013 with no charges against the governor.
A second John Doe probe, begun in 2012, focuses specifically on illegal coordination between rightwing groups and the governor’s campaign during the recall election, according to Dan Bice of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
I posted all of this to give those who don’t live in Wisconsin some idea of what we’ve been living through here in the state. We’ve never had a Governor do anything remotely like what Scott Walker has been accused of doing.
And when Walker got through the first “John Doe” probe without being charged, Republican radio commentators (including Charlie Sykes of WTMJ-AM 620, perhaps the most widely-listened to conservative radio host in the state) called this a “Democratic witch hunt” and said Walker had been “vindicated.”
So the release of these 28,000 e-mails has been a stunner — at least to the Republicans who have to discuss it.
Note that most of the sitting Republicans in both the statehouse and in Washington, DC, have been ominously silent. Two of them, U.S. Representative Paul Ryan of Janesville and U.S. Senator Ron Johnson, are particularly close friends of Walker and were the fastest to say Walker was vindicated last year when the first “John Doe” probe ended without the Governor getting charged.
As state Sen. John Erpenbach (D-Madison) said on Ed Schultz’s show on MSNBC this afternoon, “This probe is far from over.” The Progressive has had a number of updates today, including this one about a chief investigator insisting that Walker used the illegal communications network (written by reporter Matthew Rothschild), and this one written by the staff of The Progressive that reports one of the now-convicted felons who used to work for Scott Walker, Kelly Reindfleisch, knew what she was doing was wrong.
This evidence is so damning, the Journal-Sentinel — a paper that endorsed Scott Walker twice (once in the 2010 election, and again in the 2012 recall) — has written an editorial calling for Walker to give the state of Wisconsin some answers. Now.
As their editorial says:
Gov. Scott Walker needs to talk. He should hold a news conference to explain how much he knew about a secret email system as Milwaukee County executive. And he needs to let reporters ask as many questions as they want.
Why wouldn’t the governor want to clear up questions raised by the release Wednesday of 27,000 pages of emails related to a John Doe investigation into links between his county government staff and his gubernatorial campaign staff in 2010? State law bars public employees from working for political parties and campaigns while being paid by taxpayers to provide government services.
While I don’t often agree with the Journal-Sentinel about Wisconsin state politics, I am in full agreement here.
Scott Walker must answer these questions, fully and openly. And he’d best tell the truth.
Any other action does not befit the sitting Governor of Wisconsin.
———-
** One, final thought: thus far, Democratic candidate for Governor Mary Burke has yet to say anything about this latest scandal. This seems, at best, nonsensical on her part. (Where is Sen. Kathleen Vinehout when we need her?)
Olympics Controversy in Figure Skating Again as Sotnikova “Wins” Gold over Kim, Kostner
Folks, I have rarely been as upset about a result in Olympic figure skating as I am right now.
In fact, the last time I was this upset, it was over Johnny Weir’s brilliant skate in the 2010 Vancouver games being marked too low for him to medal (he started in sixth after the short and stayed there despite his brilliant long program).
But this time, it’s because one skater — Russia’s Adelina Sotnikova — was given marks that were far, far too high, allowing her to “win” the gold medal over two far superior skaters — South Korea’s Yuna Kim, and Italy’s Carolina Kostner.
This is a controversy of major proportions for two reasons: One, Kim, the reigning Olympic gold medalist, skated a clean, challenging program, but was not rewarded to the same level as Sotnikova. And two, Carolina Kostner’s program was perhaps even better than Kim’s and Sotnikova’s from an artistic perspective, yet she, too, was undermarked.
Here are just a few articles talking about the controversy:
Yahoo Sports columnist Dan Wetzel says:
(Sotnikova’s) score was through the roof, 5.76 points higher than what Kim was given on another flawless-looking program and 7.34 above what Kostner received for her own tremendous program.
The judging, because of the size of the gap between the scores, is likely to be analyzed and criticized for years to come. In fact, American Ashley Wagner wasted no time, saying “people need to be accountable.”
The Age, an Australian newspaper, was much more blunt in its assessment:
Russia’s Adelina Sotnikova rode a powerful wave of national emotion to win a controversial Olympic figure skating title on Thursday as the Sochi Games felt shockwaves from Ukraine’s bloody civil unrest.
Sotnikova, 17, captured Russia’s first ever women’s individual gold as defending champion and red-hot favourite Kim Yu-Na was dumped into the silver medal position.
The Age also points out that Sotnikova made at least one obvious error — double-footing a combination jump (this is when both feet come down at the same time, and is unmistakable) — when both Kim and Kostner made zero errors in their respective programs.
Kostner was gracious, being quoted by the Age as saying, “I just have faith that the judges made the right decision.”
“People don’t want to watch a sport where you watch people fall down and somehow score above someone who goes clean,” she said. “It’s confusing and we need to make it clear for people.
“People need to be held accountable. They need to get rid of anonymous judging. There are many changes that need to come to this sport if we want a fan base.”
Note that Wagner may be complaining more about the fact that Gold, who fell, was placed ahead of Wagner in the standings than the current controversy. But her point is still well-taken; if Kim and Kostner both skated difficult and clean programs, why did Sotnikova, who skated a difficult program but did not skate clean, get rewarded?
My own assessment is this: Sotnikova deserved a medal. Bronze.
Kostner should’ve won the gold, to my mind, but I’d have been OK with her winning silver and Kim winning gold because both skated clean programs with lyricism and heart.
I watched Sotnikova’s program several times. She actually double-footed two jumps (the last two) in her three-jump combo, and she also had a slight double-foot on one other triple jump. Those all should’ve had negative grade of execution scores that should’ve been reflected in her overall scores . . . but weren’t.
And while I enjoyed commentator Johnny Weir’s assessment immensely on NBCsn’s coverage — he did a fantastic job with every event alongside Tara Lipinski and Terry Gannon — I do not agree with him or Lipinski that Sotnikova deserved gold.
A few other final thoughts about the women’s figure skating event:
- Mao Asada had by far the most impressive skate in the long program, landing at least one triple axel cleanly and skating with a buoyancy I hadn’t been expecting after her disastrous short program. It’s truly a shame that she wasn’t able to get some sort of combination into her program yesterday, as she might well have medaled despite the bad fall had she done so. She ended her competitive career with grace and dignity; it was an honor to watch her skate for so many years.
- Ashley Wagner’s skate was clean; she had one under-rotation and one wrong-edge entry deduction (this is really tough to spot, but it’s when a figure skater starts the jump on the wrong edge and switches over just before making the jump in order to make it a little easier to perform), but these things happen. She looked good and validated her entry into the Olympics.
- Polina Edmunds had a fall in her long program and didn’t skate as well as she did at the U.S. Nationals, finishing in ninth place. (This is who should’ve been replaced by Wagner; Mirai Nagasu should’ve gone instead as I believe she’d have placed above Edmunds.)
- Gracie Gold had one fall that looked almost like a somersault on the ice (as she got up so quickly, you almost didn’t notice it was there). She’s a rising star.
- Julia Lipnitskaia had a nice free skate with one fall and was placed about where she should be in fifth place due to her incredibly difficult spins. Ashley Wagner is not happy about it (see this article by Yahoo Sports writer Martin Rogers), but Lipnitskaia’s marks were not anywhere near as wildly inflated as Sotnikova’s.
Ultimately, Sotnikova’s “gold” medal is yet another black eye for figure skating. And while I was sure as of last night that the judges would not do something like this — as they had to know a protest would ensue (Italy is not likely to protest, but South Korea sounded to me as if they’re strongly considering it) — the judges have exceeded my expectations . . . in a bad way.
Don’t be surprised if the IOC overrules this one and gives Kim a gold medal along with Sotnikova.
Olympic Thoughts: Dance, Ladies Short Program
Folks, the last few days have been hectic. So I’ve not had much time to discuss the latest doings in the world of Olympic figure skating.
But since I had a request from a friend to discuss a bit of the ice dancing, I thought I’d talk about that.
But wait — there’s more.
Because I managed to see every single one of the ladies perform their Olympic short programs yesterday, I thought I’d discuss a little bit about that competition as well.
First, let’s talk about the ice dancing. United States figure skaters Charlie White and Meryl Davis excelled in their short program, and skated a solid long program to a beautiful piece of music (Scheherezade by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov) with technical brilliance and a great deal of speed to win the first-ever gold medal for the U.S. in ice dance. (Note that Davis and White won silver in 2010, while Tanith Belbin and Ben Agosto also won silver in 2006.)
I enjoyed White and Davis’ skating, and felt they were worthy of a gold medal.
However, in some ways I responded a whole lot more to Canadians Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir. They, too, are excellent skaters with the whole repertoire of moves . . . they won gold in Vancouver, though, so it’s hard to feel like they’ve been cheated.
As for the women’s short program, here’s my take:
- The American women are in good shape, with Gracie Gold in fourth place, Ashley Wagner in sixth and Polina Edmunds in seventh. All skated credibly or better; Gold has a real chance to win a silver or bronze if she skates a clean long program.
- There’s no way in the world Adelina Sotnikova belongs among the top six. Her scores were wildly inflated.
- What a shame that Mao Asada wasn’t able to complete her triple axel or her combination jump. Her program was lovely except for the fall, but missing those required elements dropped her all the way to sixteenth place. She’d need several miracles to get within striking distance of the podium.
- My overall winner of the short program? Carolina Kostner of Italy. She skated beautifully to “Ave Maria,” and was every bit as good as Yuna Kim.
In case you’re wondering what I’m looking for in Friday’s long program from the ladies, here goes:
- Russian ladies’ scores will continue to be wildly inflated, but none will medal (as if they did, an international judging controversy would no doubt ensue).
- Mao Asada will land at least one triple axel and a three-jump combo (probably triple-triple-double).
- Gracie Gold will skate clean and medal.
- Podium (who I think should win): Carolina Kostner, gold; Yuna Kim, silver; Gracie Gold, bronze.
- Podium (who the judges will inexplicably pick): Yuna Kim, gold; Carolina Kostner, silver; probably still Gracie Gold, bronze, unless Mao Asada lands two triple axels cleanly (if so, she’ll win the bronze somehow, and deserve it).
NBC’s Christin Cooper Pushes Bode Miller to Tears After Bronze Medal Win
Every time I think I’ve seen it all when it comes to the Sochi Olympic Games, something happens to make me change my mind.
In Sunday’s Super-G Olympic ski race, American Bode Miller won the bronze medal (actually tying with Canadian Jan Hudec) behind fellow American Andrew Weibrecht and gold-medal winning Kjetil Jansrud of Norway. In doing so, the thirty-six-year-old Miller became the oldest Olympic medalist in skiing history, and has now won six Olympic medals — one gold, three silvers, and two bronzes.
However, NBC reporter Christin Cooper, herself a past Olympic medal winner in skiing (silver in 1984 in the Giant Slalom), pushed Miller way too far in an interview aired in prime-time television an hour or so ago. The interview has been transcribed by Yahoo’s Fourth-Place Medal column; here’s Cooper’s first question and Miller’s first answer:
Cooper: Bode, such an extraordinary accomplishment, at your age, after a turbulent year, coming back from knee surgery, to get this medal today, put it in perspective. How much does this mean to you?
Miller: I mean it’s incredible. I always feel like I’m capable of winning medals but as we’ve seen this Olympics it’s not that easy. To be on the podium, this was a really big day for me. Emotionally, I had a lot riding on it. Even though I really didn’t ski my best, I’m just super super happy.
This is a perfectly reasonable question, and a good answer by Miller. No problems here.
Next was Cooper’s second question:
Cooper: For a guy who says that medals don’t really matter, that they aren’t the thing, you’ve amassed quite a collection. What does this one mean to you in terms of all the others.
Miller: This was a little different. You know with my brother passing away, I really wanted to come back here and race the way he sensed it. This one is different.
This, again, is a reasonable question and a good answer by Miller. He was starting to tear up at this point, though, and most interviewers would’ve backed off and thanked him for his time.
For whatever reason, Cooper did not do this.
Here’s Cooper’s third question and Miller’s third answer:
Cooper: Bode, you’re showing so much emotion down here, what’s going through your mind?
Miller: Um, I mean, a lot. Obviously just a long struggle coming in here. It’s just a tough year.
This wasn’t a terrible question, but it wasn’t good because Miller was already in distress. Miller again gave a credible answer, but he teared up and was having a lot of distress in the process.
Again, most interviewers would’ve backed off. But again, Cooper did not do this.
Instead, here was Cooper’s fourth question and Miller’s abortive fourth answer:
Cooper: I know you wanted to be here with Chelly, really experiencing these games. How much does this mean to you to come up with this great performance for him? And was it for him?
Miller: I don’t know if it’s really for him but I wanted to come here and, I dunno, make myself proud, but … (trails off)
Here is when Cooper made a big mistake. She mentioned Chelone Miller, Bode’s brother, by name — Chelone was only 29 when he passed away in 2013 of a seizure, and was considered a possibility to make the Sochi Olympics in snowboarding until the end of his life.
Then Cooper made an even bigger mistake — she asked a fifth and final question:
Cooper: When you’re looking up in the sky at the start, we see you there and it looks like you’re talking to somebody. What’s going on there?
Miller: (breaks down and cries, Cooper puts an arm on him)
Now, this was just way out of line. Miller had answered the question already, as best he could, at least twice, and was obviously emotional. (Cooper even said this, earlier, so she was aware of it.) His brother has been dead for less than a year, for pity’s sake (see this story about Chelone Miller’s passing if you don’t believe me). The wound is still fresh, and Miller was showing the strain after Cooper’s second question.
But she didn’t back off.
As a journalist — no matter how unemployed I may be at the moment — I can tell you right now that Cooper’s behavior was completely wrong. She should’ve backed off after the second question and not asked the third, but once she did ask the third and saw that Miller was so emotional, she should definitely have backed off then.
That she instead chose to ask the fourth and fifth questions after he was already extremely upset for a completely understandable reason made absolutely no sense.
Fortunately, I’m not the only person out there who feels this way, either, as Yahoo’s Fourth-Place Medal column written by Mike Oz (about Olympic events) has also taken Cooper to task. Here’s a bit of that:
Reporters have to ask tough questions. It’s part of being a journalist. One of the hardest parts of the job — and one of the toughest nuances to learn — is knowing when enough is enough in an emotional situation. Cooper, it’s worth nothing, was a skier before getting a TV gig with NBC, not a lifelong journalist
Maybe when she looks back at the tape on this, she’ll realize that one question about Miller’s brother was enough — perhaps two would have been OK. But the third one, the one that broke Miller down into a ball of emotion, came off as, at best, insensitive and, at worst, cheap.
All I can say is, I sincerely hope so.
Because what Christin Cooper did wasn’t just poor journalism and wasn’t just insensitive.
It was plain, flat wrong on every level. Period.
Just Reviewed Four Romances at SBR
Folks, it had been a while since I did a Romance Saturday review over at Shiny Book Review (SBR for short, as always), I thought I’d do more than one.
This time, I reviewed four.
And, because I was feeling a little puckish, I decided to call it a Romance Saturday “Four-Play.” (Pardon the pun. Or don’t. I’m not going to change it, so there. Nyah.)
The best of the lot beyond a shadow of a doubt is Rosemary Edghill’s excellent time-travel romance MET BY MOONLIGHT, recently re-released as an independent e-book. It is outstanding in just about every way there is, but if you are of the pagan persuasion, you probably will like it even better. (Even if you aren’t, though, you should adore this book. Truly.)
I also reviewed a nice debut Regency by Giselle Marks, THE FENCING MASTER’S DAUGHTER. I agonized over this one, as there are some glaring weaknesses mixed in with some strong strengths, but ultimately decided that the couple of big laughs and the excellent historicity was enough to give it a B.
As THE FENCING MASTER’S DAUGHTER would be much better if Ms. Marks had somehow won access to a top-notch editor, I had to say that. (I also said whoever edited for her did a competent job. He or she presented the romance nicely, and it was grammatical and with few typos. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s not as much work as most of the really good editors I’ve been around would do if they’d seen a manuscript like this one land on their desks.)
Then I was presented with two romances by Sherry Thomas, one a YA fantasy romance called THE BURNING SKY and the other a 19th Century English historical romance, THE LUCKIEST LADY IN LONDON. I really like Ms. Thomas’s writing style, and think she’s one of the best younger romance novelists around (by “younger” in this context, I mean “under forty”).
I liked THE BURNING SKY, but did not love it. I thought it had some nice touches, believed in the romance between the two principals, and the magical system was acceptable to better. I didn’t find it ground-breaking, though, as some reviews have called it, mostly because Mercedes Lackey has been doing books about Elemental Magic for years — also set in England, many of them set in late 19th Century England at that — and while Lackey’s Elemental mages aren’t exactly like Thomas’s, they’re close enough for government work.
As for THE LUCKIEST LADY IN LONDON . . . how can I say that I was completely underwhelmed without being a complete and utter boor? (Oops, I just said it anyway.)
Look. Ms. Thomas writes well, so even a C-level romance (which is exactly what I adjudged THE LUCKIEST LADY IN LONDON to be) is probably worth your time, especially if you’ve read nothing else by her before.
But considering the level of her other books — her excellent debut, PRIVATE ARRANGEMENTS, her excellent war romance, NOT QUITE A HUSBAND, or even the recent TEMPTING THE BRIDE — this just was not up to Ms. Thomas’s standards. At all.
I’ve had to give other writers whose work I generally find to be exceptional C-ratings before, and probably will again. Most of the time, I try not to agonize over this, especially if the novelist in question has put out a number of books (by my count, Ms. Thomas has now put out eight full-length romance novels, one fantasy romance novel, and at least one novella, so she’s put out ten books). I figure that someone with a track record, as Ms. Thomas now has, should have to be held to a higher standard than someone who’s just starting out — because really, don’t you want to top yourself?
That’s why I admire the work of Ms. Edghill so much, and Katharine Eliska Kimbriel, too. Those two writers do not settle, ever. They put out top-notch efforts, their books are memorable and lively, and even something that I don’t find to be quite at an A-minus or better is still well worth my time.
More to the point, I never forget what those two write about. Never.
Whereas with THE LUCKIEST LADY IN LONDON, I put the book down for a week and a half. I forgot everything about it. I had to go back and re-read, then I saw a few really good, sparkling passages that reminded me of how good Ms. Thomas can be when she puts her mind to it — and a bunch of passages where the editing was not there (something rare in a mass-market romance, where the editing is usually outstanding), or the focus was not there, or something just was a bit off.
Worse yet, even in THE BURNING SKY, I put the book down for a week and a half and wasn’t really inclined to finish it excepting I’d already said I’d review the thing. I was pleasantly surprised by it, as it picked up considerably after a very slow start, and I think Ms. Thomas shows promise as a fantasy novelist.
That’s the main reason why the latter book got a B from me, while the first one only received a C. A book that’s uneven, poorly edited, and unfocused — no matter how good the writing is at its best — can only garner a C.
But a book that gets significantly better as time goes on, and holds my interest despite putting it down for a week-plus at a lull, can still get a B or maybe even better, depending.
Look, folks. My own novel isn’t yet out. I know people could be coming after me with pitchforks, for all I know, because I’m willing to tell it like it is when it comes to some of my otherwise-favorite novelists.
I also know that sometimes the demands of contemporary publishing schedules means that the quality of books will sometimes be lacking.
My view is simple: Ms. Thomas can ascend to the same level of storytelling as seen by Ms. Kimbriel and Ms. Edghill, but Ms. Thomas needs to demand more. Whether she needs to get her agent to buy her more time to turn something in so she can polish it up, whether she needs to just write fantasy romances for the time being as that seems to be where her heart is, I don’t know — but whatever it is, she needs to do that.
I don’t care how many places, some of which are very well-known, give these last two books high ratings or say that they’re up to the standards of Ms. Thomas’s other books. The plain and simple fact of the matter is, they aren’t.
Anyway, this is why I wrote these particular reviews — my “after-action report,” as it were. I hope you found it of interest.
Now I’d best get back to editing, as I have an author eagerly awaiting my latest comments . . . and who am I to make him wait?
Barb Caffrey's Blog 