Most of us Packer fans have kept an eye on Brett over these opening games of this NFL season. We hated that he left the way he did. We felt bad about it and were not very happy with what appeared to be his presumptuousness.
How would a prime athlete hold up with little or no active conditioning program during the off-season?
How would a declining talent be rejuvenated?
How would the drag of all the in-season preparations feel once the newness of being with a new team wears off?
How would the cold weather affect those older joints in his hands and knees?
By the end of October, the answer to those questions should begin to be defined.
With Aaron, the questions are also still not fully answered.
While he has proved he can play with great pain, has he proved he can hold up for a whole season?
As some of the better teams prepare for the Packers, will they now have enough of a body of Rodger's work to be better prepared for him and thus be able to make him look like the first year QB he is?
Will his smaller hands make it harder for him to function in the colder weather he will encounter after the bye?
Let's hope both do well during the rest of the season. It will be interesting to watch.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
The Last Debate: A Fantasy
As I heard replayed several times, Sen. McCain finally has come to his senses and realized his campaign has been so negative that it may be approaching being dangerous to the life and health of his colleague, Sen. Obama, as well as to the destruction of his own ambition to be President.
His running mate will now be seen as just another politician scraping by after unethical behaviors of her own, which added to his makes his election unlikely.
Should he withdraw from the race and concede? Probably, but what would the Republicans do then? They'd figure out something because, after all, Sen. McCain at his age is vulnerable to a demise of more natural sorts. There is probably a contingency plan in place should the unthinkable happen.
But what does a man bound by duty and honor do, especially in the coming debate next Wednesday, short of leaving his party in the lurch?
Here's my fantasy:
After sitting at the table with Sen. Obama and Bob Schieffer, Sen. McCain says, "It's time to put down the boxing gloves and the campaign hats and try something that might be worth everyone's time. I propose that we spend as much of the hour and a half that we have conducting the bipartisan discussion that needs to be going on now. Our Congressional colleagues are doing it in Washington. We should show to the world what we mean by 'reaching across the aisle.' Besides, we need to be doing this after Inauguratiuon Day whichever of us wins."
Having broached the idea with the other two men and gotten their assent before coming out on stage, Bob Schieffer should announce they had agreed before the debate to do just that and then turn to Sen. Obama and ask, "What do your advisors say are the critical problems in this economic crisis? Then we'll turn to Sen. McCain to tell us what his are saying. Then we'll see how far we can go toward identifying the problem and go from there with your respective solutions. Sen. Obama?"
Imagine, if you will, two strong thoughtful people trying to make sense of a complex issue and seeking to understand it so they can begin considering how their own best ideas would contribute toward a solution both could live with.
Would an hour and a half be enough time to come up with a clear direction? Of course not. But just think of how Wall Street and the American people and those folks struggling in Congress to be bi-partisan would feel to see the example the two Presidential candidates were setting.
There is enough time for the two candidates to discuss this fantasy.
What is your best fantasy in this situation?
His running mate will now be seen as just another politician scraping by after unethical behaviors of her own, which added to his makes his election unlikely.
Should he withdraw from the race and concede? Probably, but what would the Republicans do then? They'd figure out something because, after all, Sen. McCain at his age is vulnerable to a demise of more natural sorts. There is probably a contingency plan in place should the unthinkable happen.
But what does a man bound by duty and honor do, especially in the coming debate next Wednesday, short of leaving his party in the lurch?
Here's my fantasy:
After sitting at the table with Sen. Obama and Bob Schieffer, Sen. McCain says, "It's time to put down the boxing gloves and the campaign hats and try something that might be worth everyone's time. I propose that we spend as much of the hour and a half that we have conducting the bipartisan discussion that needs to be going on now. Our Congressional colleagues are doing it in Washington. We should show to the world what we mean by 'reaching across the aisle.' Besides, we need to be doing this after Inauguratiuon Day whichever of us wins."
Having broached the idea with the other two men and gotten their assent before coming out on stage, Bob Schieffer should announce they had agreed before the debate to do just that and then turn to Sen. Obama and ask, "What do your advisors say are the critical problems in this economic crisis? Then we'll turn to Sen. McCain to tell us what his are saying. Then we'll see how far we can go toward identifying the problem and go from there with your respective solutions. Sen. Obama?"
Imagine, if you will, two strong thoughtful people trying to make sense of a complex issue and seeking to understand it so they can begin considering how their own best ideas would contribute toward a solution both could live with.
Would an hour and a half be enough time to come up with a clear direction? Of course not. But just think of how Wall Street and the American people and those folks struggling in Congress to be bi-partisan would feel to see the example the two Presidential candidates were setting.
There is enough time for the two candidates to discuss this fantasy.
What is your best fantasy in this situation?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The MOMENT
In many of the Presidential races through which I've lived, there is a moment when you realize one side or the other has lost. It is usually an obscure moment. And many may miss it or not agree.
One obvious one for me was the moment when Jimmy Carter failed in his effort to show how serious nuclear proliferation was by quoting his daughter, whereupon Ronald Reagan jumped all over him for turning to a family member for nuclear policy advice.
Another obvious moment was Howard Dean's excited scream after winning in New Hampshire's primary.
Less obvious was George H. W. Bush's curiosity at a supermarket scanner. How out of touch could he be?
When George W. Bush used the ad where he hugged the 13 year old girl who had lost a parent in 9/11, I knew he'd win. And that was on top of the "I voted for it before I voted against it" problem John Kerry never was able to answer.
I think Al Gore lost the moment he gave in on the issue of tax cuts as a way of dealing with the budget surpluses from the Clinton Administration. I always thought they should have gone to cut the national debt.
But maybe the strangest moment happened the day after the Palin-Biden debate. John McCain was so proud of the job she did. "Heh?" He repeated his statement of pride and followed with another "Heh?" Then a third, "Heh?" It was as grating a sound as has ever been recorded. As one commentator suggested, "How would you like to listen to that for four years?"
There are many other major factors in any candidate's winning or losing the Presidency, but I still think there is a moment when a candidate does something innocuous and everyone finally knows it's over.
One obvious one for me was the moment when Jimmy Carter failed in his effort to show how serious nuclear proliferation was by quoting his daughter, whereupon Ronald Reagan jumped all over him for turning to a family member for nuclear policy advice.
Another obvious moment was Howard Dean's excited scream after winning in New Hampshire's primary.
Less obvious was George H. W. Bush's curiosity at a supermarket scanner. How out of touch could he be?
When George W. Bush used the ad where he hugged the 13 year old girl who had lost a parent in 9/11, I knew he'd win. And that was on top of the "I voted for it before I voted against it" problem John Kerry never was able to answer.
I think Al Gore lost the moment he gave in on the issue of tax cuts as a way of dealing with the budget surpluses from the Clinton Administration. I always thought they should have gone to cut the national debt.
But maybe the strangest moment happened the day after the Palin-Biden debate. John McCain was so proud of the job she did. "Heh?" He repeated his statement of pride and followed with another "Heh?" Then a third, "Heh?" It was as grating a sound as has ever been recorded. As one commentator suggested, "How would you like to listen to that for four years?"
There are many other major factors in any candidate's winning or losing the Presidency, but I still think there is a moment when a candidate does something innocuous and everyone finally knows it's over.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
The Presidential Debates
When Senator McCain and Senator Obama meet to debate this week, it looks like they will have to set the rules and enforce them themselves.
Most of us expected to see Gwen Ifill stand up to Governor Palin when she announced she was going to say what she wanted no matter what the moderator or media expected.
Who is supposed to enforce the rules of the debate, if not the moderator?
Based on what she said in response to Tom Brokaw this morning on “Meet the Press,” she figured neither was going to answer the questions but say what they wanted.
I agree that Sen. Biden pointed out when he could the ties between Sen. McCain and President Bush but he at least responded to the questions. But Governor Palin made hardly any such efforts, especially after she “blew off” Ms. Ifill.
Now that the debates are back where there can be no challenges about “victimizing” Gov. Palin, it looks like Sen. Obama is going to have to be sure what the rules are, who if anyone is to enforce them, and then carry on whatever the style of “discourse” has been defined.
That may be harder on the “town hall” format which is supposed to happen Tuesday night, and may be a little easier to get defined when Bob Schieffer moderates the discussion while sitting at the same table with the two candidates next week.
Sen. Obama may have to do that at the outset of each broadcast while on the air in public view so those of us watching will know the rules too.
PS If I remember this correctly from seminary, those from any university should answer the questions asked, those from Yale should then discuss what lay behind those questions. Those from Harvard must then also answer the questions that should have been asked!
Most of us expected to see Gwen Ifill stand up to Governor Palin when she announced she was going to say what she wanted no matter what the moderator or media expected.
Who is supposed to enforce the rules of the debate, if not the moderator?
Based on what she said in response to Tom Brokaw this morning on “Meet the Press,” she figured neither was going to answer the questions but say what they wanted.
I agree that Sen. Biden pointed out when he could the ties between Sen. McCain and President Bush but he at least responded to the questions. But Governor Palin made hardly any such efforts, especially after she “blew off” Ms. Ifill.
Now that the debates are back where there can be no challenges about “victimizing” Gov. Palin, it looks like Sen. Obama is going to have to be sure what the rules are, who if anyone is to enforce them, and then carry on whatever the style of “discourse” has been defined.
That may be harder on the “town hall” format which is supposed to happen Tuesday night, and may be a little easier to get defined when Bob Schieffer moderates the discussion while sitting at the same table with the two candidates next week.
Sen. Obama may have to do that at the outset of each broadcast while on the air in public view so those of us watching will know the rules too.
PS If I remember this correctly from seminary, those from any university should answer the questions asked, those from Yale should then discuss what lay behind those questions. Those from Harvard must then also answer the questions that should have been asked!
Conviction of OJ Simpson
He didn’t do it.
I’m not sure what the facts are in the current conviction of OJ Simpson over the memorabilia. My guess is that he was probably caught in the middle of a situation where a friend brought the gun and the DA would ordinarily have charged him with a misdemeanor . . . if it had been anyone but OJ.
For some reason (my opinion is that it is deep-seated racial prejudice), sane, intelligent people want to punish OJ for his ex-wife’s death even though a jury (mixed racial) found him innocent. They (including some dear friends and relatives) were glad when the civil trial (with an all white jury) awarded millions of dollars to the Browns and the Goldmans. And when he was able to protect enough of his wealth to be able to support his family (another civil court going on at the same time as the suit by the Browns and Goldmans awarded OJ custody of his kids, which a lot of folks do not pay attention to), the public seems to delight in scrapes he has gotten into and hope the judge in this memorabilia case put him into jail for life.
I read more on the original case than I wanted. But the most convincing pieces of evidence are the autopsies of the two victims.
There were two major factors which people seem to want to disregard.
One, there were bruises on the bodies, mainly on Ms. Simpson’s head and Mr. Goldman’s hands which show they both inflicted damage on the attacker(s). The hand bruises show significant injury was inflicted and the head bruise is where it would be if she had head-butted an assailant who was behind her holding her, possibly breaking his nose.
Both victims were athletic and had training in karate.
Careful examination of OJ at the time he voluntarily went in to talk with the police showed no bruises or injuries. If he had been the attacker, there is no way in those close quarters of the murder scene that he would have come out with only two small breaks in his skin of one finger.
Two, the autopsies indicated stab wounds from FOUR different knives from multiple angles which could only have been inflicted by multiple attackers.
The autopsies are printed in more than one book on the case and can probably be found on the internet. I saw them in the book KILLING TIME by David Freed and John Briggs.
I also wrote a novel which goes into the timeline and the blood evidence and hypothesizes who the real murderers were. If you are interested, I can send you a copy electronically.
OJ did not commit those murders most of America want to believe he did. And now we wait to see if the judge puts him away for life or is willing to face the howling masses if he does anything less.
I’m not sure what the facts are in the current conviction of OJ Simpson over the memorabilia. My guess is that he was probably caught in the middle of a situation where a friend brought the gun and the DA would ordinarily have charged him with a misdemeanor . . . if it had been anyone but OJ.
For some reason (my opinion is that it is deep-seated racial prejudice), sane, intelligent people want to punish OJ for his ex-wife’s death even though a jury (mixed racial) found him innocent. They (including some dear friends and relatives) were glad when the civil trial (with an all white jury) awarded millions of dollars to the Browns and the Goldmans. And when he was able to protect enough of his wealth to be able to support his family (another civil court going on at the same time as the suit by the Browns and Goldmans awarded OJ custody of his kids, which a lot of folks do not pay attention to), the public seems to delight in scrapes he has gotten into and hope the judge in this memorabilia case put him into jail for life.
I read more on the original case than I wanted. But the most convincing pieces of evidence are the autopsies of the two victims.
There were two major factors which people seem to want to disregard.
One, there were bruises on the bodies, mainly on Ms. Simpson’s head and Mr. Goldman’s hands which show they both inflicted damage on the attacker(s). The hand bruises show significant injury was inflicted and the head bruise is where it would be if she had head-butted an assailant who was behind her holding her, possibly breaking his nose.
Both victims were athletic and had training in karate.
Careful examination of OJ at the time he voluntarily went in to talk with the police showed no bruises or injuries. If he had been the attacker, there is no way in those close quarters of the murder scene that he would have come out with only two small breaks in his skin of one finger.
Two, the autopsies indicated stab wounds from FOUR different knives from multiple angles which could only have been inflicted by multiple attackers.
The autopsies are printed in more than one book on the case and can probably be found on the internet. I saw them in the book KILLING TIME by David Freed and John Briggs.
I also wrote a novel which goes into the timeline and the blood evidence and hypothesizes who the real murderers were. If you are interested, I can send you a copy electronically.
OJ did not commit those murders most of America want to believe he did. And now we wait to see if the judge puts him away for life or is willing to face the howling masses if he does anything less.
Friday, September 26, 2008
It was a trap
Rovian? Machiavellian? Bushist?
Politics at its worst . . . .
The goal: Make the Democrats look like the bad guys so that the Republicans could pull out a win in November and win even better in 2010.
The tactic: get the Dems to pass the bail out only to have it structured to fail.
The strategy: Set up the bill to look bi-partisan by sending it from the White House and encouraging the moderate Republicans in Congress to work with the Democrats.
The sting: leave two poison pills in the bill (no oversite and putting the Secretary of the Treasury in charge). Then leave the key Republican leadership out of the discussions so they could claim no responsibility for the bill.
The set up: with some deft trades by wealthy Republicans, encourage market swings on Wall Street so that the Dow becomes the bellwether of the backdrop which appears to show the positive and negative responses to various news about work on the bill.
Serendipity: Disrupting the first presidential nominee debate can become an excuse to change the subject of the latest news pattern. It could make it appear that the President wanted to listen to "both sides" with Sens. McCain and Obama at his photo-op table with a handful of Congressional leaders but give cover to Sen. McCain's distance from the Senate of the past two years. And if the Democrats pass the bill, it could be voted against by Sen. McCain who could claim to have tried to save the country from a legislative failure. And the disruption to the debates could mean the dropping of the vice-presidential debate or even one or more of the presidential debates.
Results: If the President's bill is passed, the Dems take the fall for its failure.
If the Dems change the bill, the Dems take the fall for being "partisan."
If it takes awhile for the bill to be shaped, the Dems are held up from campaigning which helps the Repubs who are facing defeat but would now have something to use against the Dems.
If the Dems stop work on the bill because of having insufficient time to do it right, they can then be castigated for not staying in Washington to finish the job. And McCain might gain points in a close race by running against a "do-nothing Congress." Congress does, after all, have a rating lower in the eyes of the public than President Bush!
If the market does collapse (free market Repubs would call it a "market correction" even if it was a Depression!), that would also be laid at the Dems feet.
IT'S A TRAP, BABY!
Is there a way out?
If Congressional Democrats work to prepare a bill that strengthens the credit markets based on models that have worked in the past in Sweden, Japan, and the US, and sell it to the people through Sen. Obama and Sen. Chris Dodd as well as other leadership, and don't panic (the President used some "panic" terms in his statement to the country the other night), they will do better no matter how it is framed by the Republicans.
It will help if Former President Bill Clinton is campaigning all over the country and giving the Congressional Dems a chance to finish the bill, along with ads saying where the Democratic Party Congressmen and women are (the Repubs will tend to feel, as a minority anyway, that they aren't needed in Washington so they can go campaign).
Senators Obama, Dodd, et al, CALL THE BLUFF!
Take your time and do it right.
Including doing all the debates, with or without the Repubs.
Politics at its worst . . . .
The goal: Make the Democrats look like the bad guys so that the Republicans could pull out a win in November and win even better in 2010.
The tactic: get the Dems to pass the bail out only to have it structured to fail.
The strategy: Set up the bill to look bi-partisan by sending it from the White House and encouraging the moderate Republicans in Congress to work with the Democrats.
The sting: leave two poison pills in the bill (no oversite and putting the Secretary of the Treasury in charge). Then leave the key Republican leadership out of the discussions so they could claim no responsibility for the bill.
The set up: with some deft trades by wealthy Republicans, encourage market swings on Wall Street so that the Dow becomes the bellwether of the backdrop which appears to show the positive and negative responses to various news about work on the bill.
Serendipity: Disrupting the first presidential nominee debate can become an excuse to change the subject of the latest news pattern. It could make it appear that the President wanted to listen to "both sides" with Sens. McCain and Obama at his photo-op table with a handful of Congressional leaders but give cover to Sen. McCain's distance from the Senate of the past two years. And if the Democrats pass the bill, it could be voted against by Sen. McCain who could claim to have tried to save the country from a legislative failure. And the disruption to the debates could mean the dropping of the vice-presidential debate or even one or more of the presidential debates.
Results: If the President's bill is passed, the Dems take the fall for its failure.
If the Dems change the bill, the Dems take the fall for being "partisan."
If it takes awhile for the bill to be shaped, the Dems are held up from campaigning which helps the Repubs who are facing defeat but would now have something to use against the Dems.
If the Dems stop work on the bill because of having insufficient time to do it right, they can then be castigated for not staying in Washington to finish the job. And McCain might gain points in a close race by running against a "do-nothing Congress." Congress does, after all, have a rating lower in the eyes of the public than President Bush!
If the market does collapse (free market Repubs would call it a "market correction" even if it was a Depression!), that would also be laid at the Dems feet.
IT'S A TRAP, BABY!
Is there a way out?
If Congressional Democrats work to prepare a bill that strengthens the credit markets based on models that have worked in the past in Sweden, Japan, and the US, and sell it to the people through Sen. Obama and Sen. Chris Dodd as well as other leadership, and don't panic (the President used some "panic" terms in his statement to the country the other night), they will do better no matter how it is framed by the Republicans.
It will help if Former President Bill Clinton is campaigning all over the country and giving the Congressional Dems a chance to finish the bill, along with ads saying where the Democratic Party Congressmen and women are (the Repubs will tend to feel, as a minority anyway, that they aren't needed in Washington so they can go campaign).
Senators Obama, Dodd, et al, CALL THE BLUFF!
Take your time and do it right.
Including doing all the debates, with or without the Repubs.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Bail Out
On my way to the Y, I saw a bumper sticker which said, "Friends do not let friends vote Republican."
On Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show Tuesday night, she reported that a Bush spokesperson said that the bail out bill the President brought out last week-end had been prepared and was sitting on his desk for a couple months. The spokesperson said they were waiting for a propitious time . . . like right before Congress would adjourn for the elections. When asked if that wasn't cutting it a little too close, the spokesperson said, "They can get it done in a few days."
That is one very good reason not to vote Republican! They pulled the same stunt to get the Congressional support for the Iraq war out of which the President not only took authority to pre-emptively strike Iraq but also trashed the Constitution with the first Patriot Act, which was also trotted out in a similar time-limited manner.
One Congressman was infuriated at the two and a half page bill from the President which gives the Secretary of the Treasury unchecked authority to spend $700 billion dollars. "That is one of the biggest power grabs I've ever seen!" he said.
Past interventions by governments to help a credit crisis in their banking system usually included an independent board with checks and balances to play that role. The acquisitions of bad assets in the most successful interventions included ownership, as we did with the AIG bail out where the taxpayers have an 80% stake in that company now. That way, if the assets ever return to value, the profits are shared with the taxpayers. Some interventions paid off with a profit for the tax payers as happened in Sweden some years ago.
The S & L crisis which involved Neil Bush and the Keating five (including Sen. McCain) was resolved with a board which was not fully supervised, resulting in an $85 million dollar loss to tax payers.
When a country goes into credit crisis as we have, people hang on to their money, if they have any. That goes for the rich as well and corporations and banks . . . .
So money is being hoarded and not let out for credit. However, because banks and financial institutions and other businesses end up in bankruptcy, someone with money can buy the valuable portions of those businesses for bargain basement prices. Bear Stearns became part of a growing J. P. Morgan financial empire that way. Merrill-Lynch was bought out by Bank of America. So there are very wealthy individual and companies that are making out like bandits accumulating assets.
This bail out lets the American people become the "white knight" that can step in and help companies survive the credit crunch and avoid bankruptcy. . . if it is structured correctly.
The President's proposal gives all the power to Secretary Paulson. Secretary Paulson was head of Goldman Sachs which has somehow stayed out of the limelight. I'm sure Sec. Paulson had opinions of his competitors on Wall Street. Is there a chance he didn't like Lehmann Brothers for some reason? That's the one corporation that didn't get help so far. When one individual has so much power, personal motives can come into play.
I can see him and his Wall Street friends having a great time if he ends up in charge of this bailout even with having to report what he's done . . . after it has happened and can hardly be reversed, as of the latest I heard about accountability in variations of the bail out bill.
I hope financial historians were at the meeting today with the President and the two nominees and Congressional members. They need to slow down the drive for sticking with the President's terms. Otherwise, it looks like the President will have brought off the biggest financial coup for his real base, the corporate barons who financed his run for the White House in 2000 and 2004.
No, my friends, I must warn you not to vote Republican!
On Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show Tuesday night, she reported that a Bush spokesperson said that the bail out bill the President brought out last week-end had been prepared and was sitting on his desk for a couple months. The spokesperson said they were waiting for a propitious time . . . like right before Congress would adjourn for the elections. When asked if that wasn't cutting it a little too close, the spokesperson said, "They can get it done in a few days."
That is one very good reason not to vote Republican! They pulled the same stunt to get the Congressional support for the Iraq war out of which the President not only took authority to pre-emptively strike Iraq but also trashed the Constitution with the first Patriot Act, which was also trotted out in a similar time-limited manner.
One Congressman was infuriated at the two and a half page bill from the President which gives the Secretary of the Treasury unchecked authority to spend $700 billion dollars. "That is one of the biggest power grabs I've ever seen!" he said.
Past interventions by governments to help a credit crisis in their banking system usually included an independent board with checks and balances to play that role. The acquisitions of bad assets in the most successful interventions included ownership, as we did with the AIG bail out where the taxpayers have an 80% stake in that company now. That way, if the assets ever return to value, the profits are shared with the taxpayers. Some interventions paid off with a profit for the tax payers as happened in Sweden some years ago.
The S & L crisis which involved Neil Bush and the Keating five (including Sen. McCain) was resolved with a board which was not fully supervised, resulting in an $85 million dollar loss to tax payers.
When a country goes into credit crisis as we have, people hang on to their money, if they have any. That goes for the rich as well and corporations and banks . . . .
So money is being hoarded and not let out for credit. However, because banks and financial institutions and other businesses end up in bankruptcy, someone with money can buy the valuable portions of those businesses for bargain basement prices. Bear Stearns became part of a growing J. P. Morgan financial empire that way. Merrill-Lynch was bought out by Bank of America. So there are very wealthy individual and companies that are making out like bandits accumulating assets.
This bail out lets the American people become the "white knight" that can step in and help companies survive the credit crunch and avoid bankruptcy. . . if it is structured correctly.
The President's proposal gives all the power to Secretary Paulson. Secretary Paulson was head of Goldman Sachs which has somehow stayed out of the limelight. I'm sure Sec. Paulson had opinions of his competitors on Wall Street. Is there a chance he didn't like Lehmann Brothers for some reason? That's the one corporation that didn't get help so far. When one individual has so much power, personal motives can come into play.
I can see him and his Wall Street friends having a great time if he ends up in charge of this bailout even with having to report what he's done . . . after it has happened and can hardly be reversed, as of the latest I heard about accountability in variations of the bail out bill.
I hope financial historians were at the meeting today with the President and the two nominees and Congressional members. They need to slow down the drive for sticking with the President's terms. Otherwise, it looks like the President will have brought off the biggest financial coup for his real base, the corporate barons who financed his run for the White House in 2000 and 2004.
No, my friends, I must warn you not to vote Republican!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)