King Kaufman's Sports Daily - All Salon

Best NCAA Tournament ever? Top seeds ousted one by one by one, and No. 11 George Mason goes to the Final Four.

Toward the end of Florida’s 75-62 win over Villanova Sunday night, the last of the four regional finals, CBS announcers Jim Nantz and Billy Packer agreed that this NCAA Tournament was the best they’d ever seen.

What a load of hogwash.

Wait, sorry. Force of habit. It’s the best one I’ve ever seen too.

George Mason’s overtime shocker of top-seed Connecticut Sunday was the best yet, a crowning moment in a Tournament that still has a weekend to go. The Patriots, No. 11 in the Washington region, match LSU in 1986 as the lowest seed ever to reach the Final Four.

But it’s hardly a match. Those were the LSU Tigers of the SEC, who, coincidentally, also made this year’s Final Four. These are the George Mason Patriots of the CAA.

That stands for Colonial Athletic Association. I didn’t have to explain SEC, did I?

For the first time since 1980 and the second time ever, no No. 1 seed is in the Final Four. Three of them were knocked off in the regional finals, four games that all featured that greatest of NCAA Tournament sights, the team in the dark suits winning. It’s the first time that’s happened since 1980 also.

No. 2 UCLA beat No. 1 Memphis in the Oakland final Saturday, right after No. 4 LSU upset No. 2 Texas in Atlanta. After George Mason took care of UConn in Washington, No. 3 Florida routed No. 1 Villanova in Minneapolis.

From the competitive, nearly blowout-free first round through the overtime-flecked, thriller-laden, upset-studded next three, the 2006 Tournament has been a gem. The Tournament is such a great event because of what it provides from time to time: thrilling games, unthinkable upsets, indelible memories.

From time to time? This Tournament has had that stuff cranking nonstop.

And win or lose against Florida in the semifinal game in Indianapolis Saturday, George Mason will forever be the star of it.

The Patriots’ victory over UConn will go down in history as one of the greatest upsets of all time, but it really didn’t look like that as it was happening. Even though Connecticut was bigger and more athletic and threw an eight-man rotation at the five guys GMU coach Jim Larranaga stayed with for 200 of a possible 225 minutes, George Mason was in control for most of the game.

Without a man taller than 6-7, George Mason outrebounded UConn. That’s pretty much all you need to know.

Can George Mason keep it going, beat Joakim Noah and Florida Saturday and then beat the LSU-UCLA winner for the NCAA championship? Of course not. No chance. Just as the Patriots had no chance to go on a four-game Tournament winning streak over Michigan State, North Carolina, Wichita State and Connecticut.

An Elite Eight thoughts to wrap up the Elite Eight round, not to mention the Sweet 16. And doesn’t Sweet 16 seem like a long time ago? I think I feel a song coming on …

What? No singing? Fine.

1. After two weeks of sober coverage, CBS opened things up a bit during this weekend’s broadcasts. I didn’t notice it so much in the Sweet 16 games Thursday and Friday, but the Elite Eight games Saturday and Sunday brought a definite return to two of my least favorite specialties of network TV, lousy-seat cam and under the basket during a fast break so you can’t see the outcome of the play cam.

There were also sideline reporters this weekend. Fewer games as the Tournament goes on, so guys like Mike Gminski, who were analysts in the early rounds, are relegated to sideline duty.

Sideline reports are almost never a good thing, but at least the ones this weekend tended toward the “I talked to Coach XYZ as he brought his team back on the floor and he told me they’ve got to get better spacing on offense” end of the spectrum, as opposed to the dreaded “I got a chance to sit down and talk to Power Forward this week and he told me he owes his ability to crash the boards to Fluffy, the dog his mom bought him when he was 7″ side.

2. I know you didn’t have George Mason winning the Washington regional final Sunday, and a lot of you did have UConn winning it. So, UConn fans aside, how many of you who had picked UConn were rooting for UConn?

I’ve done better with my bracket this year than I can ever remember doing. I even had a chance at winning a fairly large pool before my champ, Villanova, went down Sunday. And I had UConn going to the Final Four. But it didn’t occur to me for a moment to root for UConn, to put my bracket’s potential ahead of the fun of seeing one of the great upsets in Tournament history.

And it’s not just because I like to write about how lame my bracket is. I think we can all agree that schtick’s as played out as a Chris Berman home run call. I’d actually been looking forward to crowing a little bit about my triumphant bracket. But still, I was rooting for the underdog and got a genuine thrill when George Mason came through, my picks be damned.

Then again, I didn’t have money at stake.

How about you? Did you find yourself rooting for Goliath Sunday for any reason other than being an already-existing Goliath fan? And how did that make you feel? Would it really have made you happy to see those plucky Patriots from George Mason go down to defeat, just to preserve your bracket?

It’s OK. You can tell me.

3. I think George Mason would have beaten UConn in regulation but for a bizarre strategy it employs while shooting free throws to try to salt away a late lead. A lot of college teams do this, and I think it’s crazy every time one of them does it.

When shooting free throws late in a game George Mason is leading, the Patriots put no rebounders on the lane.

So GMU had everyone in the backcourt except Tony Skinn as Skinn shot a one-and-one with 5.5 seconds left in regulation and a two-point lead. If Skinn were to miss, UConn would get a free rebound, and sure enough that’s what happened.

Now, if there had been a couple of GMU players there, the Huskies would have had to fight for the rebound. They’d have probably gotten it, but then they’d have had two defenders to avoid before making a mad dash upcourt.

It might only have taken a second to avoid those two and make the outlet pass — but that second would have come in awfully handy for George Mason considering the game-tying shot left Denham Brown’s hand with 0.2 seconds left on the clock.

And that’s not to mention that if a George Mason player manages to get the rebound, the game’s all but over.

If the theory behind not having guys on the line is to set up a defense: Well, where was George Mason’s defense? Brown knifed to the baseline unmolested, though he did have to make a tough reverse layup. With competent defense, he wouldn’t have gotten that deep and wouldn’t have had time to score. If he has to make one move, the game’s over!

If the theory is to avoid fouls, I think the Patriots and all those teams that think the same way are giving up too much to avoid that possibility. And anyway, leading by two, you’d rather not foul and send an opponent to the line to shoot two, but at least that way you know you won’t be beaten by a three. A foul’s not the worst possible outcome.

The exact same strategy, with 6.1 seconds left, almost blew up in George Mason’s face again in overtime. But Brown missed a three-pointer for the win and the Patriots held on.

4. The George Mason-UConn game was not decided by officials, but for a terrible moment, it looked like it might be.

A palming call against UConn’s Marcus Williams with 1:02 left in regulation was so bad that when CBS showed a replay after a commercial, announcer Verne Lundquist mistakenly thought it must have been a different play.

“Here’s is the palm by Marcus Williams,” Lundquist said. “Well, that was the, uh, that was the basket by Williams. There was a turnover by Williams.” No, Verne, that was it. Williams hit a bank shot after the whistle had blown. That’s why it looked like a scoring play with no turnover.

Not only did Williams not palm the ball, he didn’t even come close. That’s why Lundquist thought the guys in the truck had played the wrong clip.

George Mason didn’t score on its next possession, Williams hit a layup, was fouled and converted the free throw to bring UConn within one, and the Huskies eventually forced overtime. So folks in Connecticut can talk about the Phantom Palm for a few days, but not for 50 years.

The refs might have decided the game, though, had Brown hit that three-pointer at the end of overtime to give UConn the win. With 46 seconds to go and George Mason up by four, Jai Lewis of George Mason stripped Williams of the ball near the corner of the key, but the officials incorrectly ruled it a tie-up and the possession arrow gave the ball back to Connecticut.

5. I want a copy of Gus Johnson’s call of the end of the UCLA-Gonzaga game on my iPod. Come to think of it, I want an iPod.

6. Watching Villanova play Boston College Friday, I thought, for the first time, that there was no way the Wildcats, the team I’d picked to win the Tournament, were going to win the Tournament. It didn’t make me feel any better about my pick to note that I also thought there was no way the Wildcats would beat Boston College, which they did.

For all the talk of guard play being supreme at Tournament time, you just can’t win six straight Tournament games relying so ridiculously heavily on guard play as Villanova does. Four guards! Too many things can go wrong. Such as, just to pull an example out of thin air, your outside shooting can go cold.

Right, Wildcats?

7. I don’t want to say that college coaches call too many timeouts at the end of a game, but in the Florida-Georgetown game Friday, Georgetown was down by four in the final seconds, and the Hoyas missed a three-pointer. The ball went out of bounds to Florida with one second left and, again, a four-point lead.

And I was genuinely surprised when Florida coach Billy Donovan didn’t call timeout before the inbounds pass.

8. In overtime of the Washington-Connecticut game Friday, Williams hurt his leg and had to come out just before shooting a pair of foul shots. Brown took the free throws for Williams and made both, and Williams returned to the game shortly thereafter.

Why aren’t there a lot more feigned injuries in these situations?

Williams and Brown are both 86 percent free-throw shooters, so UConn gained no advantage in this case, but if your 58 percent shooting center gets fouled at a key moment and you’ve got a shooting guard who cans them at an 88 percent clip, isn’t that a good time for an intensely painful cramp?

Don’t lecture me about fair play. It’s a bad rule and if I were a coach I’d be bringing in insurance scam artists to teach my players how to exploit it. “Let some drool spill out, son. Nothing says pain like a little slobber.”

- – - – - – - – - – - -

Bookmark http://www.salon.com/sports to get the new Kaufman column every day.

Discuss this column and the sports news of the day in Table Talk.

To receive the Sports Daily Newsletter, send an e-mail to kingnewsletter@salon.com.

- 46Comments
- Permalink
- Print
- Short URL
Share:
- Email
- Twitter
- Facebook
- LinkedIn
- Digg
- Reddit
- StumbleUpon
- ShareThis

U.S., China need a green peace, not a trade war

As Obama meets Xi, the U.S. is investigating China’s practices in the solar and wind sectors

By Joanna Lewis

Solar panels in the city of Baoding in China. (Credit: Reuters/David Gray)

Topics:Alternative Energy, China

Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping’s visit to the United States comes at a contradictory time in clean energy relations between the two countries. On the one hand, significant progress has been made under the clean energy cooperation agreements signed by Presidents Hu Jintao and Barak Obama in the fall of 2009. On the other hand, the two countries may be on the verge of a clean energy trade war. As a result, the positions that Xi and Obama take on these issues over the next week may well set the tone for that relationship’s future for better or worse.

China and the United States have launched numerous energy cooperation initiatives during the past 30 years. Only over the past decade, however, have they become global leaders in the relevant technologies, both as users and manufacturers. China now leads the world in wind power deployment, followed by the United States. Chinese investments in clean energy exceeded those of any other country in both 2009 and 2010, but the U.S. was back to number one in 2011 (where it had been for several years prior to 2009).

The seven new bilateral clean energy initiatives launched in 2009 focused on key areas, including renewable energy, advanced coal technology, energy efficiency and electric vehicles. The US-China Clean Energy Research Center (CERC) (a virtual center which sponsors work in several locations in both countries) in particular has established a new model for cooperative clean energy research, development and demonstration that spans the public and private sectors and involves top researchers from universities and national laboratories in both countries. These programs have propelled numerous other collaborations, some of which—if the two sides decide to emphasize clean energy cooperation over competition—may be included in major announcements during Xi’s visit.

However, at the end of last year the United States initiated antidumping and countervailing duty investigations into China’s practices in the solar and wind sectors, and the Department of Commerce will decide soon whether to impose duties on Chinese solar panels and wind turbine components. Meantime, election year politics and a slow economic recovery are fueling competitive tensions.

President Obama announced in his State of the Union address last month that he would establish a new trade enforcement unit to speed investigations of unfair trading practices by China. Beijing has (not surprisingly) responded with its own investigation into American clean energy support programs. This comes as the US renewable energy industry is increasingly divided over China’s role. For example, the “Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy” (a US solar industry association) has asked the “Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing” (another US solar industry association) to drop its petition which launched the solar panel investigation. A CASE report estimates that higher US import duties on Chinese solar panels will eliminate up to 60,000 American jobs and hurt US consumers even more than US producers.

We are entering a period in which the incentives for conflict may overpower the incentives for cooperation. China and the United States are the world’s two largest economies, and should be leaders in establishing and enforcing the rules of the global trading system. But as the largest producers and consumers of energy, as well as the largest greenhouse gas emitters, they also have a responsibility to develop domestic, clean and affordable sources of energy for themselves as well as for others.

Both nations recognize the vital importance of strengthening innovation systems to inspire economic competitiveness, and both are increasingly becoming the leaders of the clean energy industry. These technologies are global industries with global supply chains, however, and national technology providers increasingly are crossing borders for both innovation and production. Our leaders would be well served to focus on how the two nations can work together to develop crucial energy technologies for the future, rather than on how to create even more obstacles.

: Dr Joanna L. Lewis is an assistant professor at the Walsh School of Foreign Serivce, Georgetown University. Her focus is on science, technology and international affairs, especially issues related to renewable energy. More Joanna Lewis

- 0Comments
- Permalink
- Print
- Short URL
Share:
- Email
- Twitter
- Facebook
- LinkedIn
- Digg
- Reddit
- StumbleUpon
- ShareThis

Santorum mangles the Founding Fathers

It's the GOP insurgent, not Obama, who is waging a war against religious freedom

By Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg and Nancy Isenberg

James Madison and Rick Santorum (Credit: Wikipedia/Reuters/Rick Wilking)

Topics:2012 Elections, Rick Santorum, Religion

Each time erstwhile presidential candidate Rick Santorum rears his righteous head, it is to exploit a social issue that is of no import in a national election. But he knows that the way to keep the cameras pointed at him one more day is to manufacture a new bit of hysteria.

Last Thursday, Joan Walsh reported on Santorum as he clamored to punish non-Catholics by limiting their access to contraceptives if their workplace was in the hands of the Catholic Church. She rightly pointed out that he “absolutely mangles” what the founders said about religion. Raising the specter of the atheistic French Revolution and its notorious use of the guillotine, the former Pennsylvania senator planted a seed in the minds of his hearers: A left-driven tyranny was where the anti-Christian Obama administration would be heading next.

The fear-monger tosses out familial metaphors with devilish glee. At once subverting patriarchy within the home and turning the federal government into Big Brother, the sitting president stands in moral opposition to all that is good. And only the moral policeman Rick can stop him.

“They are taking faith and crushing it,” Santorum howls at the political left. “When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights then what’s left is the French Revolution…. What’s left are no unalienable rights. What’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine.”

This is a combination of really bad history and undisciplined demagoguery. What we’d like to focus on is not the fractured logic of the demagogue so much as the perversion of history by the two-term senator. We consider it quite sad that a presidential candidate in 2012 should be resurrecting the same dirty campaign tactic that accompanied the charge that Thomas Jefferson, for five years U.S. minister to France, would, if elected president, shut down churches and burn bibles.

Start with the fact that in his superficial evocation of the 1790s, Santorum was referring not to the French so much as he was unconsciously reviving the propaganda used by New England Federalists against the “atheist” Thomas Jefferson, who championed freedom of conscience and refused to wear his religion on his sleeve. From 1793 on, conservative Yankees predicted that the social chaos of Paris would wash ashore in America. Indeed, conservative academics of our own time view the French Revolution as the first step toward the Russian Revolution and the rise of the Soviet Union–all of which fits neatly with the crack-brained Tea Party narrative in which President Obama is a sworn socialist and enemy of capitalism.

Mitt Romney is not beyond indulging in the same polemical game, associating Obama with European social programs. Yet Santorum does what the Mormon cannot, by playing the “Catholic card” in his effort to “other” the president. It is an especially bizarre move in historical relief, because the Federalist critics who most loudly warned of the French-tainted Jefferson were New England Calvinists who feared Catholics as much as they feared French anarchy.

Federalists termed the French Revolution a “contagion,” a violent, sickening, uncivilizing process. If Santorum sees the metaphorical blade of the guillotine hanging over the heads of the Catholic bishops, it is well worth noting that eighteenth-century conservatives were so carried away by their own outlandish predictions that their panicky congressional majority passed a series of repressive laws, the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, which first targeted French émigrés and then U.S. citizens who needed to be silenced. The Sedition Act authorized the imprisonment of journalists and politicians who criticized the president. The main purpose of the legislation was, as James Madison observed, to shut down free and open political debate–to derail democracy. Cleverly drafted, the Sedition Act allowed the government to punish critics of the president, but not the vice president. Why the omission? Because in 1798, John Adams’s vice president was the unAmerican Thomas Jefferson.

It certainly seems that Rick Santorum reads the First Amendment just as the Federalist Congress of 1798 did. As we all know, though, the First Amendment was intended to uphold religious freedom, protect speech, and ensure liberty of conscience. Madison, who conceived the First Amendment, defended the last of these three principles as a deeply private, individual right shielding citizens from the coercive, invasive force of a church or state government.

It is Santorum, not President Obama, who is waging a war against religion. It is the fear-mongers who endanger religious freedom. Why should the Catholic Church impose its doctrines on employees who are not Catholic? Why should any who are not Catholic be deprived of access to a health insurance benefit solely because they are employed by a Catholic hospital or university? Why should the Church be permitted to impose its doctrines on an individual who not a member? The First Amendment does not grant any church the power to deprive individuals of rights.

Santorum is waging a war not only on religion but on all Americans who do not share his faith. The Catholic Church has every right to impart its doctrines; its members can accept or reject them. The majority of Catholic men and women have rejected the particular doctrine prohibiting the use of contraception. Employees possess the right to insurance and the right to adhere to their own religious beliefs.

As Madison argued in a 1788 letter to Jefferson, religious fanaticism was as serious a danger to religious liberty as excessive state authority. In his words, “rights of conscience” were undermined by “overbearing majorities” who were intent on advancing the interests of a particular “religious establishment.” In plain and simple terms, the founders meant to protect individuals against excessive encroachments by church as well as state.

We might all wish to heed Madison’s further warning: “It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the Government has too much or too little power.” Religious liberty required the protection of state authority, in creating a barrier around the individual and guarding against intrusions from religious institutions.

The fact remains that President Obama is no more a French Revolutionary Jacobin than Jefferson or Madison. It appears, in fact, that the president has a very clear understanding of religious liberty, appreciating the boundaries between church and state just as Madison intended. His promptly conceived compromise solution, respecting religion without restricting rights, fits the balanced, reasonable approach our founders prescribed when they fought, state by state, to eliminate state funding and sanctioning (i.e., disestablishment) of privileged sects.

If the last three years tell us anything, 2012 will not usher in a new Age of Reason. Fanaticism will continue to seize the news cycle. Rick Santorum has learned (perhaps from Donald Trump and birther mania) that the best way to grab the headlines is to ramp up the epithets, bark the loudest, and fantasize a history that never was.

: Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg are Professors of History at Louisiana State University and coauthors of "Madison and Jefferson." (Random House, 2010). More Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg
: More Nancy Isenberg

- 0Comments
- Permalink
- Print
- Short URL
Share:
- Email
- Twitter
- Facebook
- LinkedIn
- Digg
- Reddit
- StumbleUpon
- ShareThis

Chris Christie’s gay marriage headache

What’s good for his 2016 dreams could complicate his ability to survive 2013

By Steve Kornacki

Chris Christie (Credit: AP/Mel Evans)

Topics:War Room

There are two elections on the horizon that Chris Christie has a particular interest in. The first is in New Jersey next year, when he’ll seek a second term as governor. The second is in 2016, when he’ll make a logical presidential candidate — if he wins reelection in ’13 and if the Republican nomination is open. (For now at least, let’s leave aside the idea that Christie might serve as his party’s vice presidential candidate this year.)

This makes the debate over gay marriage in the Garden State, where the Democratic-controlled Senate approved marriage equality legislation yesterday, a problem for him.

On the one hand, support for gay marriage among New Jersey voters is solid — 52 percent favored it and 42 percent opposed it in one recent poll, while another pegged the margin at 48-37. Among independents, support is even higher. And the trajectory seems clear: Just five years ago, those overall numbers were reversed when the topic was polled. Given how rare Republican victories in New Jersey are (Christie’s 2009 win marked just the fifth statewide triumph for the GOP in 37 years, and only the second that was won by more than a point), Christie has to be very careful as he approaches his reelection race. He doesn’t have much margin for error when it comes to alienating swing voters — one of the reasons he was so colorful and adamant in denying interest in the presidential race last year — and swing voters in New Jersey are generally fine with gay marriage.

But Republican voters nationally are not, and it will be a long time before they are (if they ever are). So if he wants to preserve his viability for ’16, Christie can not be known as the New Jersey governor who enacted same-sex marriage. But he also can’t position himself as a hardline, stop-at-nothing-to-derail-it opponent of it; to do so would reek of the cultural conservatism that has made most national Republicans unmarketable in New Jersey and endanger Christie’s reelection prospects. And if he gets the boot in ’13, it could sink whatever ’16 ambitions he has.

Christie’s workaround has been to oppose gay marriage while calling for a public referendum. This has elicited howls from gay marriage supporters, who argue that minority group rights should never be put to a vote, but it has aligned him with a clear majority of voters, who say they like the referendum idea. Of course, a referendum campaign would be long, messy, and divisive. And anyway, Democrats in the legislature have the votes to make sure one never takes place.

But yesterday’s state Senate vote offered another potential way out for Christie: a legislative override. 24 of the chamber’s 40 members — including two Republicans — voted for gay marriage, a surprise result and a significant increase from the last such vote in 2010. It would only take three more votes to reach the number needed to override Christie’s veto. In the Assembly, where the bill will now head, Democrats enjoy a 47-33 majority, with 54 votes needed to override a veto.

The Republican Party in New Jersey has its very conservative pockets, but the cultural moderation of Clifford Case, Tom Kean and Christie Whitman is still prevalent too. There probably are a handful of GOP senators and a scattering of Assembly members who are personally OK with gay marriage and who could survive politically if they voted for it. This presents a Machiavellian possibility for Christie: Wink at them, continue voicing his opposition, then throw up his hands as the legislature overrides him and takes the issue off the table. As Josh Benson of Capital New York theorizes:

That would be a slap in Christie’s face, for sure. But it’s not clear that it would hurt. After all, if Christie vetoes same-sex-marriage legislation and gets overridden, he’ll be able to tell conservatives one day, when he’s asking for their support, that at least he tried to keep the liberals in check.

The legislature has until the end of its current term to override Christie — meaning nearly two years. So don’t expect an override anytime soon. But if popular support keeps growing and Christie finds himself staring at a difficult reelection race in ’13, it might start to make sense.

: Steve Kornacki writes about politics for Salon. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki More Steve Kornacki

- 2Comments
- Permalink
- Print
- Short URL
Share:
- Email
- Twitter
- Facebook
- LinkedIn
- Digg
- Reddit
- StumbleUpon
- ShareThis

Joan Walsh on NPR’s On Point

The Salon writer debates author Charles Murray about the supposed decline of the white working class

By Carmen Garcia

Charles Murray

Topics:2012 Elections

On NPR’s On Point this morning, Joan Walsh debated “libertarian lightning-rod” Charles Murray about his argument that values, income, and “religiosity” have irrevocably split America between elites and “everybody else.” Challenging Murray’s belief that “the sorting and separation of the classes is inevitable,” Salon’s editor-at-large pushes her interlocutor to swap his outdated thinking for a far more realistic, 21st-century take, one that takes into account the vastly more complicated forces behind class division.

Listen here.

: More Carmen Garcia

- 0Comments
- Permalink
- Print
- Short URL
Share:
- Email
- Twitter
- Facebook
- LinkedIn
- Digg
- Reddit
- StumbleUpon
- ShareThis

Do we still need Black History Month?

Three great documentaries air, including "More Than A Month," where one filmmaker explores his conflicted feelings

By Roger Catlin

A still from "More Than a Month"

Topics:Television, TV, Documentaries

Black History Month is an idea that filmmaker Shukree Hassan Tilghman finds passé. In his documentary “More Than a Month,” which premieres Thursday on PBS’ “Independent Lens,” he walks around with a signboard that says END BLACK HISTORY MONTH and receives plenty of dirty looks. But he also gets more support than he suspected — after he explains that history should be part of the American story, told even during months with more than 28 or 29 days.

As he goes about his somewhat whimsical quest, some caution him that without that annual anchor, there’d be even less black history taught than before. He takes his campaign on the road; peers into the home of the month’s originator, Carter G. Woodson in Washington, D.C.; meets with the Association for the Study of African American Life and History; and goes to Virginia to see what black history means to big fans of the Confederacy.

Eventually he gets more serious about his task, realizing that while history may convey how we were, the way we tell history conveys how we are. And he’s had one direct effect: His mother, an activist, moves the date for a black history performance she had been planning out of February to help demonstrate that it is part of the fabric of U.S. history all year round.

One day, even television networks may spread their black-heritage documentaries beyond the confines of February as well. Unfortunately, two remarkable documentaries air at the same time Tuesday in many markets.

After demonstrating that he’s a sensitive observer of life in black America with “Hoop Dreams,” Steve James is back with “The Interrupters” – a more ambitious film that follows a fearless group of activists and amateur psychologists determined to end urban violence. It makes its national TV debut this evening on Frontline (check local listings).

That James and author Alex Kotlowitz (“There Are No Children Here”) decided to focus on Chicago at the precise time its youth-killing rates and lurid viral videos made it a national news story put them in the center of the cyclone. Their alarming footage, from the center of exploding violence and retribution, put the superficial approach of the national news media and government officials — who did little more than hold press conferences — to shame.

Even more remarkable are the counselors and community-minded people, many of whom learned their lessons in the streets, who put their lives on the line to defuse the mayhem out of a regard for love and doing what’s right.

Among them, Ameena Matthews deserves to be some kind of national heroine for her street sense, humor, decency, insight and bravery, which seem to change everyone she approaches. No matter how explosive the situation, she can enter, speak sensibly and have people listen.

James and Kotlowitz do treat their subjects seriously, listen to what they have to say and show how the activists are getting things done. For the inches of progress made before our eyes, it’s a hopeful film.

“The Loving Story,” on HBO, may seem like it is tied to Valentine’s Day. But it’s only providence that the couple at the center of the story is also named Loving.

But loving is the key. Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter were both members of a small community in Virginia where whites and blacks freely worked and socialized. They met and fell in love, and like anyone else might do, got married.

But there were laws in Virginia, as there were in more than a dozen other states, outlawing any such mixing of races through marriage, using a word that is as ugly as the prejudice, miscegenation.

Somebody called the cops and the happily married duo were hit with a felony charge in 1958 — and a year in jail – which would be suspended if they’d just leave the state. Any visits back to see family or friends would have to be done individually, lest they risk arrest. They decided to fight the law, not only for their own sake, but as Mrs. Loving says in the sweetest possible way, for other people as well — because “it isn’t right.”

“The Loving Story” is in some ways the exciting case of the two young American Civil Liberties Union lawyers who agreed to take the case on and brought it to the U.S. Supreme Court. But that’s only because lawyers like to talk, especially looking back at what they can now see was the biggest case of their lives. Although there is a surprising amount of footage of the Lovings in the film, they never do say very much. They just want the right thing done. And in the end, it is.

The two are not around to tell their story, though one of their daughters is. He died in a car accident in 1975; she in 2008 at 68, surrounded by family and friends. The last anti-miscegenation law wasn’t repealed until 2000 in Alabama. Theirs is a love story that hasn’t been fully told previously — and may not have had a showcase had it not been for Black History Month.