Valerie D’Orazio has the rundown of actors doing voicework on Marvel’s new animated omnibus superhero series. Ready to have your head explode?

* Kevin Sorbo

* Tricia Helfer

* Mark Hamill

* George Takai

* LeVar Burton

* Adrian Pasdar

* James Marsters

* Michelle Trachtenberg

It’s like a DagonCon on every show!

Now that he’s eaten Federer’s brains, there’ll be no stopping him!

(That is, unless Serena’s lineswoman can use the sword of destiny to travel back in time and prevent Sylar from ever winning Legg Mason . . . )

Evidently Michael Jordan’s Hall of Fame speech was less than gracious. Some highlights:

Jordan spent more time pointlessly admonishing Van Gundy and Russell for crossing him with taunts a dozen years ago than he did singling out his three children. When he finally acknowledged his family, Jordan blurted, in part, to them, “I wouldn’t want to be you guys.” . . .

No one ever feels sorry for Isiah Thomas, but Jordan tsk-tsked him and George Gervin and Magic Johnson for the 1985 All-Star game “freeze-out.” Jordan was a rookie, and the older stars decided to isolate him. It was a long time ago, and he obliterated them all for six NBA championships and five MVP trophies. Isiah and the Ice Man looked stunned, as intimidated 50 feet from the stage as they might have been on the basketball court. . . .

Worst of all, he flew his old high school teammate, Leroy Smith, to Springfield for the induction. Remember, Smith was the upperclassman his coach, Pop Herring, kept on varsity over him as a high school sophomore. He waggled to the old coach, “I wanted to make sure you understood: You made a mistake, dude.”

Which brings me to Serena’s outburst in her semifinal. The entire incident was striking but the most striking aspect was that it was a woman doing the tirading. When most of the other women players on tour flip out, you’ll see pouting or even crying. Serena’s bad behavior was more like a guy’s bad behavior than a gal’s bad behavior. That’s why it seemed so doubly shocking.

But let’s say this for her: She took her medicine like a man, too. After the decision was made, she moved on. She was gracious to Clijsters and she faced the music in her post-match presser with a pretty fair amount of candor and perspective. She’s certainly a much, much better sport than Jordan ever was.

(Also worth noting: Clijsters was going to win that match anyway.)

Galley Friend Mike Russell has a new CulturePulp out that’s a comic-adaptation of his giant, sprawling interview with Steve Lieber. I recommend both, highly.

For those who don’t know Lieber, he did the art (and lettering) for the comic Whiteout, which is in my top-10 books, all-time. (And recently turned into what looks to be a sub-par movie outing, but well worth your $11 for a copy of the original book.) Whiteout is a noir thriller set in Antarctica where a U.S. Marshall finds herself leading a murder investigation, and to say more would be telling. It’s crazy, crazy good, the type of comic that even non-comics fans will love.

Lieber’s art is just breathtaking. Perfectly pitched, beautiful. You’ll think about it for a long time.

Consider this a gift.

So Andrew Sullivan gets caught for possession on park service grounds. The penalty is a $125 fine. But because he’s Andrew Sullivan, the State quickly decides to drop the charges “in the interest of justice.” The interests of justice seem to be that this $125 fine would create a record which would hinder Sullivan’s immigration status.

The unequal treatment prompted Judge Robert Collings to write that fantastic memorandum. But Collings only briefly touches on what looks like the most grotesque part of the episode:

Sullivan and his attorney claim that paying the $125 fine would create a record of his being charged with possession of a controlled substance. Collings notes that whether or not Sullivan ever paid the fine, “if asked by immigration authorities, [he] would have to answer truthfully that he had been charged with a crime involving controlled substances.” So why would it matter whether or not Sullivan just pays the $125? Because if he doesn’t pay it, it makes it easier for him to answer untruthfully.

In other words, the State decided that it was in the interest of justice to help Andrew Sullivan lie to another agency of the State.

Look, if Sullivan’s able to beat a minor charge, good for him. (Though can you imagine what he would say if the defendant was a guy named “Bush”?) There’s no reason he shouldn’t defend himself as zealously as possible. As always, the problem is the shame and dishonor he brings on a larger institution, in this case, the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Update: Galley Reader Z is less sublime about the implications for Sullivan. He asks:

(1) Given that there is strong evidence that Sullivan violated federal law, doesn’t the rule of law require that he be prosecuted? That is (as he proudly quoted only a few days ago), “if you genuinely believe in the rule of law, you can’t invoke political expediency as a guide to whether possible crimes should be investigated and prosecuted.” Right?

(2) Given that the U.S. Department of Justice has provided Sullivan with a substantial benefit, shouldn’t he recuse himself from any and all commentary on the Department of Justice? Or do those sorts of rules apply only to journalists with allegedly pro-Palin conflicts of interest?

From Galley Friend A.W.: (The link, not the story!)

Dear Prudence,

I consider myself a moral person. I’m lucky to be married to someone caring and attractive, whom I love and who loves me back. We just had our first child. My wife has a sister who’s been married for several years, has kids, and seems happy. She’s also extremely sexy. My wife is beautiful to me, but she doesn’t have the confidence to pull off “sexy” like her sister. A while back, my sister-in-law came over and we shared a bottle of vodka—my wife was pregnant so couldn’t drink. Ever since, I catch glances from my sister-in-law that get my mind racing. She’s paraded her body in front of me in bikinis all summer long. I’m not a cheating person, but I’ve also never been tempted before. I’ve tried to talk about it with my wife since we share everything. Now she feels I don’t want her. She also doesn’t think her sister would ever “want” me (not sure how to take that one). Hanging out with my sister-in-law and her husband is one of my favorite aspects of being a part of my wife’s family. I don’t want to disrupt anything, but I don’t know how to carry this around with me. Would it be wrong to confront my sister-in-law about this and try to clear the air?

—Conflicted

Emphasis added, without comment.

This might be a dumb question, but has anyone ever done the math on whether or not a tennis player would be better off hitting nothing but first serves, rather than hitting a lesser second serve?

Just as an example, let’s take a player who hits 68% of his first serves in and wins 85% of those points. (My guess is that this is somewhere near the average.) Let’s also (charitably) suppose that he hits 100% of his second serves in, winning 50% of those points. Over the course of 100 points, that player will win 73.8 of the 100 points on his serve.

If he hits nothing but first serves, sure, he’ll have a lot of double faults (10.24 of them), but he’ll wind up winning 76.3 points, giving him a 2.5 point advantage.

Has some Bill James of tennis already gamed this all out?