March 26, 2006











  • Saturday, March 25, 2006







    ‘Rollie’ a favorite with fans


    March 25, 2006


    ‘Rollie’ a favorite with fans

    By DAVID JONES
    FLORIDA TODAY

    MINNEAPOLIS — Walking through the crowd with former Villanova coach Rollie Massimino, in town for Friday’s regional semifinal games, was like venturing through an endless sea of handshakes.

    “We have a lot of friends,” said Massimino, 71, who has been traveling with the Wildcats this season. “It’s been a great run. . . . I’ve got about 15 or 16 of my former players tonight.”

    He was kissed and got hugs everywhere he went. Fans chanted, “Rollie” as he walked through the halls of the Metrodome during halftime of ‘Nova’s game against Boston College.

    Massimino was Villanova’s head coach when it won the 1985 national title as an eighth seed, upsetting No. 1-seeded Georgetown 66-64 in the national title game. It is still considered one of the greatest upsets in NCAA Tournament play.

    Massimino sat just behind the scorer’s table during Friday’s semis. Current Villanova coach Jay Wright was a Massimino assistant from 1987-92.

    “Jay was one of my assistants for quite a while,” Massimino said. “I’m thrilled to see him doing so well.”

    Massimino last coached at Cleveland State in 2003 but is planning a return to coaching next season at Northwood University in Palm Beach.

    He said details are being finalized for his first game back on the bench to be against Florida in a preseason exhibition next fall. NCAA rules allow Division I teams to schedule lower-level teams for exhibitions in November. Northwood is an NAIA school.

    He also said his first-year team will also play a game with Villanova on either Dec. 2 or Dec. 9.

    “I’ve already got six kids on scholarship,” Massimino said. “It’s going to happen. I’m really excited about it.”

    He coached against Florida coach Billy Donovan when he was known as Billy the Kid and played at Providence College.

    “He’s a good kid,” Massimino said. “He was always a hard worker and he still is. I think he’s done a great job there.”

    Memories. Donovan’s father, Bill, attended Friday’s games with some unusual emotions. He was excited to see his son on the Sweet 16 but also wanted to see his old college play.

    “I’ve seen them on television a lot,” he said. “But I haven’t seen them live for about five or six years.”

    Bill Donovan was a three-year letterman at Boston College and scored 1,014 career points. He was the school’s third all-time scorer when he left, averaging 16.6, 10.7 and 16.0 points.

    The Donovans are close friends with Wright, so it was tough to decide who to cheer for between Boston College and Villanova.

    “Very mixed emotions,” the elder Donovan said. “It’s kind of a strange feeling.”

    Bill Donovan is still No. 31 on the Boston College all-time scoring list.

    “But,” he said with a laugh, “it’s going down fast.”

    Free throws. With teams from Boston, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., in the regional semis, the media list was impressive both in the number of local papers and national publications covering play in Minneapolis. Newspapers ranged from Boston to New York to Denver to Los Angeles. . . . Joakim Noah’s father, Yannick, missed the game because he had a concert. The elder Noah, who was a tennis star in his playing days, is now a well-known reggae singer in France. . . . Georgetown reached the Sweet 16 for the 10th time. Florida had reached this point three other times.



    Contact Jones at 321- 242-3682 or djones@flatoday.net


     







    Tradition more than a mantra for Villanova










    CHARLIE NEIBERGALL/Associated Press
    Villanova’s Allan Ray goes up for a shot as he and Boston College’s Craig Smith fall in the first half of Friday’s regional semifinal in Minneapolis.

    Tradition more than a mantra for Villanova
    By KEVIN ROBERTS
    Courier-Post Staff
    MINNEAPOLIS

    They sound alike, actually, in the way they quote former coach Rollie Massimino and the way they talk about Villanova basketball and the way they refused to look ahead and insisted on focusing on one game at a time.

    Villanova coach Jay Wright was talking about how he wants to keep the former Wildcats players and alumni in the fold and around his team. Then he said: “It’s like Coach Mass used to say: Tradition doesn’t graduate.”

    And then Friday Dwayne McClain, a forward on the 1985 national championship team, explained why he was so eager to be around the team and travel to Minnesota for this tournament run by saying: “It’s like Coach Massimino says: Tradition doesn’t graduate.”

    So everybody’s on the same page.

    And everybody was here Friday; or at least it seemed that way. Massimino and several players from that 1985 team were in the stands Friday for Villanova’s game against Boston College, sitting behind the Wildcats bench and rooting on their alma mater.

    “I love Jay, I love these kids,” said Harold Jensen, the sixth man for that Villanova team. “Jay’s done a great job of helping the kids understand that there is a history to it. The players seem to understand they’re part of a bigger picture.

    “Jay really has an appreciation of the university first, and the basketball program second. He’s really been a great communicator to the kids that there is a history and a legacy to this program — and how valuable that is.”

    Jensen and McClain still live in the Philadelphia area, and said that making the trip wasn’t even a decision.

    “Once the postseason starts, we’re there,” McClain said.

    “It’s great to see what they’ve done; they’ve earned it,” Jensen said. “Villanova is going to be an upper-echelon program at a high level for years to come.”

    Jensen wore a blue Villanova sweater, while McClain dressed in neutral colors but had a blue “V” painted on to his right hand. Jensen seemed relatively calm as he watched the game. McClain was more jittery.

    “It’s worse than when I was playing,” McClain said. “When you’re down on the court you at least have a chance to determine what happens.

    “I’m 20 years removed, and I still feel like I’m running up and down the court with the kids.”

    Georgetown played the second game in this regional, and the presence of the two teams kicked off a lot of talk about the 1985 championship game. McClain said he never tires of the questions and the requests to discuss the game.

    “To be honest, I can’t think of anything better to talk about,” McClain said. “Other than your children, or family, what’s better to talk about than that? If I’m only remembered for one thing, I’d like to be remembered for ’85. It never gets old.”

    Not so much: You know who doesn’t like to be asked about the 1985 title game? Former Georgetown coach John Thompson.

    Thompson is here doing color commentary for Westwood One radio, and he’s also on hand to support his son, John Thompson III, who is now coaching Georgetown.

    Reporters approaching Thompson to get his memories of 1985 found the former coach didn’t have much reason to re-live that moment.

    “I resent being asked about it,” Thompson said. “I’m asked about it more than I think about it. Falling is part of climbing. Those who don’t climb don’t know the importance of falling. If you run into a cave, you can’t fall. Well, I didn’t run into a cave. I earned the right to lose to Villanova.”

    Once again: It’s a blessing being a number one seed. But it’s not a sure thing.

    Never in the history of this tournament have all four number one seeds advanced to the Final Four. Only four years have all four number ones so much as reached the Elite Eight (1987, 1993, 2001 and 2003). Reach Kevin Roberts at kroberts@courierpostonline.com
    Published: March 25. 2006 3:00AM


     







    Bonnie Fuller.










    Christian Oth for The New York Times
    Bonnie Fuller.
    March 26, 2006
    Questions for Bonnie Fuller
    Too Much Isn’t Enough

    Interview by DEBORAH SOLOMON
    Q: As a wife, a mother of four and a symbol of female accomplishment who has served as the editor of Glamour, Cosmopolitan, Us Weekly, Marie Claire and other magazines, why would you stoop to writing a book like “The Joys of Much Too Much,” which basically argues that greed is good?

    I think it is good to be greedy in terms of your dreams and in terms of trying to have everything you want out of life. The road to the richest life is one in which you partake of careerhood, lovehood, mommyhood — all of those things.

    But we can’t have everything. We’re in a moment of postfeminist Realpolitik, when women are realizing that juggling a job and family life requires some sacrifices. It’s impossible to do everything well all the time.

    I’m not suggesting that you do. In fact, I say it’s O.K. — your house doesn’t have to be clean. You don’t have to have clean floors. Your drawers don’t have to perfect, and dishes can pile up in the sink. That’s part of my philosophy.

    What philosophy is this? The philosophy of Dishevelism?

    It’s certainly a philosophy of nonperfectionism. It’s O.K. to let newspapers and magazines and the mail pile up.

    You mention several times in your book that you are the main breadwinner in your family. Are you boasting?

    I do like it. I don’t mind it.

    But how does your husband feel about that? You never even say what he does.

    He is a self-employed architect. At one point, after we had our second child, he decided to take time off and stay home. I think he’s happy that at least one person in our family is a breadwinner.

    And how are you faring as the editorial director of American Media, where you oversee many magazines, including the celebrity weekly Star?

    I love overseeing Star. I love being at a newsmagazine and breaking a big story. I am much more sought after at dinner parties now. Most everybody is eager to ask me whether there is a contract between Tom and Katie, is Britney really pregnant, all the basics.

    Fashion magazines teach readers to cultivate an aesthetic sense. What can one say about Star? Does it have any socially redeeming value?

    A lot of the traditional women’s magazines are too much work. They are full of how-to service information, and that can feel like homework. It’s like how to ace a job interview, organize your desk, make a good impression on a first date, make sure he will call you back, paint your kitchen, not to look needy.

    But didn’t you yourself promote that how-to-do-everything-better trend at Glamour?

    It can make you feel inadequate! When you come home and want to relax, you may not want to read about improving yourself 100 percent. You might want to be satisfied with yourself and have a good laugh looking at what happened to Brad and Angelina this week.

    What field do you think is a good one for young women now?

    The field of celebrity journalism.

    Oh, no. I hope that is not an expanding field.

    Yes, it is. That’s why I suggested it. We’re all competing to find writers and editors who can do it. The circulation of the Star is 1.5 million every week, and then it’s 9.5 million readers, because it has a lot of pass-along readers.

    >Where are you politically? Are you a registered Democrat?

    I guess I am registered as a Democrat. I guess, because you have to register?

    Right. You can be a Democrat, a Republic, an Independent.

    No, I believe we registered as Democrats, my husband and I.

    Perhaps Star could introduce a column on politics in time for the next elections.

    We cover Hollywood’s political fund-raisers. A lot of people in Hollywood feel that Ben Affleck has a political career in his future as the senator from Massachusetts. But you have to stick to what works for your brand, and readers are not coming to Star to read a political column.

    Which magazines do you subscribe to?

    I don’t subscribe to any magazines. Subscriptions come too late for me, and I am too impatient. I have to get my magazines at the newsstand.

    Copyright 2006The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top


     







    Globalization 2.0










    Marilyn Silverstone/Magnum Photos

    A nuclear reactor in Trombay, India, not far from Mumbai, in 1959.


    March 26, 2006

    The Way We Live Now

    Globalization 2.0




    Globalization is both unavoidable and of great benefit to the world as a whole. At least that has been the conventional wisdom for more than two decades now, except at the far fringes of the radical, antiglobalization left and the xenophobic, protectionist right. But is it true? Is the march toward economic interdependence, open markets and the weakening of national identity really as unstoppable as all that?


    Two recent controversies the sale of port facilities to a company owned by the government of Dubai and the negotiation of a controversial nuclear cooperation deal with India underscore the tensions and contradictions between America’s commitment to economic globalization and its political priorities in a post-9/11 world.


    In part, these controversies pitted desirable outcomes political stability and national security on the one hand; economic dynamism on the other against one another. In the ports case, the principles of globalization demanded that the Dubai company be allowed to take over the management of the six ports in question. But advocates of globalization never really took into account the possibility that even as nations become interdependent on one another, political difficulties may continue to separate them.


    Globalization is a coherent theory for times of comparative peace and economic expansion like the 1990′s. It is less persuasive in times of conflict and fear like those we live in today. Although the presidential adviser Karl Rove has insisted that Democrats live in a pre-9/11 world and Republicans do not, the Bush administration’s defense of the ports deal seems like a classic case of pre-9/11 thinking. The administration argued that the deal had to go forward if Americans were to remain true to their commitment to open markets and the free movement of investment capital. But add the threat of terrorism and the specter of weapons of mass destruction to the equation, and suddenly the words “free movement” seem more like a threat than a harbinger of a more prosperous economic future.


    Bush’s deal with India also illustrates the new and unexpected conundrums of globalization. The administration pledged to help India develop nuclear power plants despite that country’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and its maintenance of an atomic-weapons arsenal. An implicit argument was this: Because India is so important a strategic partner and, prospectively at least, a major economic power, Washington is no longer in a position to insist, even rhetorically, that New Delhi abide by the established rules of the nuclear game.


    U.S. officials made little effort to deny that they were making an exception in India’s case an exception they were at pains to point out they would never make for Iran. Rather, as Bush made clear in his joint press conference with the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, the cementing and deepening of the U.S.-Indian alliance were simply too important to allow a mere international legal regime to get in the way. In a world where the economic balance of power is steadily tilting toward Asia, American concerns about runaway arms races are very likely to be overshadowed by American concerns about the need to prevent a destructive competition for scarce fossil-fuel resources with India and China. Better to accept an India that uses more civilian nuclear power (and offers U.S. companies the chance to benefit from the sector’s expansion) than to vainly chastise an India that is not going to abandon its nuclear arsenal anyway, whatever the effect on nonproliferation globally.


    In retrospect, globalization’s most fervent partisans and critics were both nave to imagine that geopolitics would play second fiddle to geoeconomics. Obviously, the Dubai ports fiasco and the nuclear agreement with India posed very different policy challenges. In the case of Dubai ports, America’s traditional role of sponsor and advocate for globalization was politically unsustainable, much to the chagrin of the Bush administration. In the case of the agreement with India, the administration took the view that long-term global stability, including the stability of energy prices, required the abandonment of long-held international legal rules. This is certainly not your grandfather’s globalization.


    The Achilles heel of that “inevitabilist” vision of globalization, so dominant in the 1990′s, was its rigid, almost Marxist-like economic determinism. Today’s globalization inseparable from political concerns, no longer able to overrule nationalist sentiments or national security objections, increasingly marked by the phenomenon of Asian companies buying European and North American assets is most likely to be far more controversial and far less orderly.


    In all likelihood, Asians will complain about Western hypocrisy. After all, when globalization meant Western companies buying one another and acquiring assets in Asia, the U.S. and the countries of the European Union were unstinting advocates of globalization. Now it may seem that Western nations were never committed to economic interdependence globalization in the true sense of the word but simply to opening new markets for their own corporations and exporting political and legal norms coined in Washington or Brussels. But could it have been otherwise? As both the Indian nuclear agreement and the furor over the Dubai ports deal demonstrate, imagining that nations could not politicize international trade and economic issues or legal norms is as vain a hope as expecting them to act against their own self-interest in any other sphere of public life. Doubtless, some form of globalization is unavoidable. It will just not be the globalization we had been led to expect.


    David Rieff is a contributing writer for the magazine.





Post a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *