During the election season, I ended up signing petitions and writing letters to the editor and calling Congress at the behest of a number of "progressive" groups because I had opinions about the issues they were raising.
That meant that related groups found out about my involvement (along with the Bush White House, I suspect - I had a "red" file in Milwaukee in the 1970s and '80s at the police department). So every day I get at least a dozen e-mails from some of the groups asking for my attention, my action, and/or my money. It's the price I pay for trying to be an activist on the current political scene.
Among the recent communications was one where the writer spoke of having a face-to-face chat with President Obama. The President thanked him for his support and the work of his organization to get some legislation passed. The writer then challenged President Obama for some decisions with which he disagreed.
The President smiled and said, "I agree with you on that but let me just say, you are going to have to fight for it."
Back during the two weeks while the Stimulus Package was before Congress and the President was trying to get Republicans to vote for the bill, one of the progressive groups sent out an SOS, saying that the rightwingers had mobilized their forces so that Congress was receiving 100 letters against the Stimulus to every letter for it!
So if you have opinions about any of the issues and legislation coming along these days, then you better do something. Positive things will not happen in Washington without our input! Even on policies that are now coming out of this Administration related to continuing to hide Bush administration e-mails and keeping Bagram prison in Afghanistan open, we need to put in our two cents worth (preferably after checking the facts).
President Obama does not mind being pushed. How great to have an adult in that office!
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Rush Rules
The media, especially the liberal/progressive folks, have been aware that so many folks listen to Rush Limbaugh every day that Rush himself is really the leader of the Republican Party, no matter who the GOP leaders chose (Michael Steele).
What I'm not hearing is that Rush's voice pounding away at the stimulus bill for weeks has led to undermining public and congressional support. At one point, a progressive group sent out a note asking their supporters to write to Congress immediately because the conservatives were were sending letters at a rate of 100 to 1 over progressives.
The President went out into the country this week to counter the impression that the opposition to his bill is the majority.
And President Obama was successful.
But will he have to do that every time he needs to get people behind his program?
The reality is that conservative talk radio covers so many people in the U. S. and is not countered with facts by the rest of the media. Even normally moderate to liberal folks have him on their radios because there isn't that much else to listen to. Most radio stations are owned by wealthy conservatives who want their point of view to dominate.
But now we have a new problem. Analogue TV ends and the little boxes to translate digital TV signals won't work in many (most?) places in the U. S.
That means the only voices heard by a lot of folks will be that of Rush and his like. Even the main stream media won't reach them any more.
President Obama mentioned concern about extending analogue broadcasting until mid-June. By then the severity of the problems with the small black boxes will be much more widely known. Meanwhile, AM radio will be alive and well.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
What I'm not hearing is that Rush's voice pounding away at the stimulus bill for weeks has led to undermining public and congressional support. At one point, a progressive group sent out a note asking their supporters to write to Congress immediately because the conservatives were were sending letters at a rate of 100 to 1 over progressives.
The President went out into the country this week to counter the impression that the opposition to his bill is the majority.
And President Obama was successful.
But will he have to do that every time he needs to get people behind his program?
The reality is that conservative talk radio covers so many people in the U. S. and is not countered with facts by the rest of the media. Even normally moderate to liberal folks have him on their radios because there isn't that much else to listen to. Most radio stations are owned by wealthy conservatives who want their point of view to dominate.
But now we have a new problem. Analogue TV ends and the little boxes to translate digital TV signals won't work in many (most?) places in the U. S.
That means the only voices heard by a lot of folks will be that of Rush and his like. Even the main stream media won't reach them any more.
President Obama mentioned concern about extending analogue broadcasting until mid-June. By then the severity of the problems with the small black boxes will be much more widely known. Meanwhile, AM radio will be alive and well.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Senator Judd Gregg
A friend claims he's quoting Mark Twain when he says, "I'm having a hard time hearing what you are saying because your actions are so loud."
Whoever said it, it applies to Senator Judd Gregg's warm and thoughtful statement explaining his withdrawing his name from consideration as Commerce Secretary.
There are two actions which are part of the backstory to his accepting the nomination that lead to a third thing that I hope someone can check out.
1. I understand Sen. Gregg was concerned about having something to do in 2010 when he was pretty sure he would be retiring from the Senate. (He has since confirmed he does not plan to run then.) I can see that as a crucial motive for Gregg's earnest petitioning of the Obama administration for the Commerce job.
2. He obtained a promise from the Democratic governor that the appointee to the Senate to replace Gregg would be a Republican or Gregg would not accept the Commerce position. Word came out that the appointee would be Gregg's chief of staff.
What I want to know is, has someone come forward with a position for Sen. Gregg when he retires from the Senate that is more to his liking than working for the President?
Others have already compared Gregg's politicking around this nomination to that of Illinois Governor Blogojevich. That's why it is particularly important to find out if Gregg did get another job offer. We may not find out until he retires in two years. But I will watch, if only out of curiosity.
I can easily imagine the whole scene was a ploy to get a better job for his retirement, what with the grief his Republican colleagues put him through, something he knew would happen. It is easy to imagine that he was waiting for the one Republican who would offer him a job he would not refuse. And he would not have any guilt about it, any more than ex-Gov. Blogojevich had.
Update: Daily Kos has quite an extensive article connecting Sen. Gregg to Jack Abramoff. See it at
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/13/32013/1373/707/696949
I hope future vetting, particularly of Republican nominees for Cabinet posts, for connections with Mr. Corruption. Oh yes, and also Democrats . . . .
And I am still hoping someone can find out if he now has a job to which he will go in 2010.
Whoever said it, it applies to Senator Judd Gregg's warm and thoughtful statement explaining his withdrawing his name from consideration as Commerce Secretary.
There are two actions which are part of the backstory to his accepting the nomination that lead to a third thing that I hope someone can check out.
1. I understand Sen. Gregg was concerned about having something to do in 2010 when he was pretty sure he would be retiring from the Senate. (He has since confirmed he does not plan to run then.) I can see that as a crucial motive for Gregg's earnest petitioning of the Obama administration for the Commerce job.
2. He obtained a promise from the Democratic governor that the appointee to the Senate to replace Gregg would be a Republican or Gregg would not accept the Commerce position. Word came out that the appointee would be Gregg's chief of staff.
What I want to know is, has someone come forward with a position for Sen. Gregg when he retires from the Senate that is more to his liking than working for the President?
Others have already compared Gregg's politicking around this nomination to that of Illinois Governor Blogojevich. That's why it is particularly important to find out if Gregg did get another job offer. We may not find out until he retires in two years. But I will watch, if only out of curiosity.
I can easily imagine the whole scene was a ploy to get a better job for his retirement, what with the grief his Republican colleagues put him through, something he knew would happen. It is easy to imagine that he was waiting for the one Republican who would offer him a job he would not refuse. And he would not have any guilt about it, any more than ex-Gov. Blogojevich had.
Update: Daily Kos has quite an extensive article connecting Sen. Gregg to Jack Abramoff. See it at
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/13/32013/1373/707/696949
I hope future vetting, particularly of Republican nominees for Cabinet posts, for connections with Mr. Corruption. Oh yes, and also Democrats . . . .
And I am still hoping someone can find out if he now has a job to which he will go in 2010.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Turning Point?
Up till now, the Obama administration team has acted as though no matter what Israel did, it was okay. Nary a word except to say the Israelis have a right to defend themselves after the home made rockets of Palestinians landed in the fields a little way in from the border. (Yes, some rockets are more sophisticated and have caused four deaths and two dozen injuries. But that is a far cry from the two ton bomb dropped on a Hamas leader . . . and his family . . . and his neighbors.)
With SoS designate Clinton entering a non-elected position, she may now be free to look more objectively and pragmatically at Gaza and Israel and go back to a view she held when she became First Lady, that Palestinians had rights that needed Israel's attention and respect.
PE Obama has obligated himself to AIPAC but may be able to step back, remember his promise to speak to all parties (Hamas in cluded), and challenge a terrible policy that will be no more successful than the attack on Hezbollah in 2006.
Maybe not this year! But I can fantasize. . . .
But what may prove to be the turning point is that the politics of this Gaza invasion may bolster the Israeli peace movement instead of bolstering the Israeli hawks. It appears that the reason Olmert is pushing this invasion of Gaza is to take votes away from the super hawks of Likud. Initial polls support that strategy. Olmert's supportive legislators are up in the polls.
But as the truth about this invasion continues to get out, Israeli dissidents will gain in popularity. Unlike in the US when we read the papers about Israel, Israeli press is very open to conflicting viewpoints and challenges of government spin. By putting Israeli sons and daughter on the ground to fight in Gaza where the Palestinians live and know the landscape, Olmert has lost the world's support and will lose Israeli popular support.
Can PE Obama read this seed change? Of course. Can AIPAC? Not likely. PE Obama and SoS designate Clinton may have more negotiating to do with AIPAC than with Hamas! The success of that diplomacy is what may finally change our policy toward Israel and Palestine.
With SoS designate Clinton entering a non-elected position, she may now be free to look more objectively and pragmatically at Gaza and Israel and go back to a view she held when she became First Lady, that Palestinians had rights that needed Israel's attention and respect.
PE Obama has obligated himself to AIPAC but may be able to step back, remember his promise to speak to all parties (Hamas in cluded), and challenge a terrible policy that will be no more successful than the attack on Hezbollah in 2006.
Maybe not this year! But I can fantasize. . . .
But what may prove to be the turning point is that the politics of this Gaza invasion may bolster the Israeli peace movement instead of bolstering the Israeli hawks. It appears that the reason Olmert is pushing this invasion of Gaza is to take votes away from the super hawks of Likud. Initial polls support that strategy. Olmert's supportive legislators are up in the polls.
But as the truth about this invasion continues to get out, Israeli dissidents will gain in popularity. Unlike in the US when we read the papers about Israel, Israeli press is very open to conflicting viewpoints and challenges of government spin. By putting Israeli sons and daughter on the ground to fight in Gaza where the Palestinians live and know the landscape, Olmert has lost the world's support and will lose Israeli popular support.
Can PE Obama read this seed change? Of course. Can AIPAC? Not likely. PE Obama and SoS designate Clinton may have more negotiating to do with AIPAC than with Hamas! The success of that diplomacy is what may finally change our policy toward Israel and Palestine.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Rev. Rick Warren's Invocation
When I first heard that President-elect Obama invited Rev. Warren to give the invocation for the Inauguration, I was saddened. There are so many other pastors to whom he could have turned, Rev. Jim Wallis, Rev. Jesse Jackson, a Catholic bishop, or a Rabbi. Why the pastor who rigged the debate between the two nominees for President? Why the pastor who supported California Prop 8 and verbally beats up on some folks he disagrees with? At least, the pastor giving the benediction, Rev. Joseph Lowrey, is going to get the last word.
Then I saw an article about Rev. Warren which explains some good things about the man. I was much impressed with how he gives 90% of his income to help the poor. Somehow he looks like he is doing very well on the 10% that's left but, still, he has few peers in the generosity department.
I sent the article to my liberal friends and got a response which reflected how I originally felt but quite a bit more angry.
So I tried to figure out why the choice of Rev. Warren might make sense.
The main reason, of course, is what the President-elect said, that Rev. Warren had invited him to speak at Saddleback Church early in his campaign, knowing they disagreed. Sen. Obama reaches out . . . . And he is willing to take the heat from constituents who disagree with him.
My friend said he really shot himself in the foot. Of course, the promises Sen. Obama has made about changing law and policy in ways supportive of the GLBT community are yet to be actualized, but we will be surprised if he does not follow through.
Then I realized that by giving the invocation on Jan, 20, Rev. Warren may not be as effective in furthering the anti-GLBT agenda he has led. Further, even all this negative publicity and controversy puts the subject on the front pages. As they say in the entertainment business, even negative publicity is better than no publicity.
But more moving to me is that Sen. Obama may be forgiving Rev. Warren for the stunts related to the Saddleback debate.
So how will the modern day Billy Graham respond? Will he even look at the forgiveness angle? Will he presume he deserves the attention? Will he actually begin listening to those he has condemned?
Cynics don't like to take a chance on giving an inch to their enemies, certain they will take a mile. Jesus was willing . . . and got crucified. But He changed things.
Who knows? Sen. Obama, a "sermon-soaked pew squatter" for twenty years, may actually be trying to do the Word, and not just be a hearer only.
Then I saw an article about Rev. Warren which explains some good things about the man. I was much impressed with how he gives 90% of his income to help the poor. Somehow he looks like he is doing very well on the 10% that's left but, still, he has few peers in the generosity department.
I sent the article to my liberal friends and got a response which reflected how I originally felt but quite a bit more angry.
So I tried to figure out why the choice of Rev. Warren might make sense.
The main reason, of course, is what the President-elect said, that Rev. Warren had invited him to speak at Saddleback Church early in his campaign, knowing they disagreed. Sen. Obama reaches out . . . . And he is willing to take the heat from constituents who disagree with him.
My friend said he really shot himself in the foot. Of course, the promises Sen. Obama has made about changing law and policy in ways supportive of the GLBT community are yet to be actualized, but we will be surprised if he does not follow through.
Then I realized that by giving the invocation on Jan, 20, Rev. Warren may not be as effective in furthering the anti-GLBT agenda he has led. Further, even all this negative publicity and controversy puts the subject on the front pages. As they say in the entertainment business, even negative publicity is better than no publicity.
But more moving to me is that Sen. Obama may be forgiving Rev. Warren for the stunts related to the Saddleback debate.
So how will the modern day Billy Graham respond? Will he even look at the forgiveness angle? Will he presume he deserves the attention? Will he actually begin listening to those he has condemned?
Cynics don't like to take a chance on giving an inch to their enemies, certain they will take a mile. Jesus was willing . . . and got crucified. But He changed things.
Who knows? Sen. Obama, a "sermon-soaked pew squatter" for twenty years, may actually be trying to do the Word, and not just be a hearer only.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
The "War" on Christmas
The American version of Christmas is pretty complex. While it centers on the birth of Jesus, and while many of the icons and much of the music refers to Him, other figures like Santa Claus, Christmas trees, and presents have become very important.
As early as mid-summer, stores have sales based on the Christmas theme. Around Labor Day, sections in some stores are decked out in reds and greens in anticipation of Christmas, usually containing toys and home decorations for the holidays. Gradually, over the weeks between Hallowe’en and Thanksgiving, nearly all the stores get serious about displays and setting up their holiday merchandising. The day after Thanksgiving has traditionally been the biggest shopping day of the year.
That same day is often when lights and decorations put up between Hallowe’en and Thanksgiving in the business sections of town or on private homes are lit at night. In addition, some radio stations begin to play Christmas music 24/7.
Most churches join in with the pre-holiday festivities. Many add a life-size scene on their grounds including a barn-like setting, a feed trough for cattle, a mother and father, a baby, some farm animals, sometimes some shepherds, and sometimes some oriental wisemen, They may be plastic statues or they may be live.
Therefore, during the late fall and early winter, America prepares for the celebration of Christmas. For more than a month, folks have around them the sights and symbols and sounds of the season.
In the late 1950s, a movement started to counter the commercialism surrounding the holiday. The first thing challenged was the use of X in an abbreviated form of the word Christmas (Xmas). The X is the Greek Letter “Chi,” and was used in ancient manuscripts as shorthand for the word “Christ.” But since most people do not know that, the movement succeeded in eliminating that usage.
Now it is common this time of year to see “Put Christ back into Christmas.” The intent is to refocus people to be sure that “Jesus is the reason for the season.”
In the 1960s, satirists also took a shot at the practice of businesses using the music and icons of Christmas in advertising. Some of the more gross ads showing Santa smoking cigarettes have not appeared in magazines or on TV since then, though Americans tolerate nearly everything else.
The wedding of commerce and the celebration of the birth of Christ has not ended in divorce like it did in the Puritan eras in Massachusetts Bay Colony or in Cromwell’s England during the 1600s.
However, that does not mean that there haven’t been controversies related to the holidays in recent years.
With cable news channels running all day every day, some commentators have become famous for raising the specter that atheists are trying to eliminate the celebration of Christmas altogether. They point to situations where public schools are challenged for changing their annual seasonal music programs to drop direct references to Jesus. They are also angered when atheists are allowed to put up displays on public property along side Christian displays.
The personalities making the biggest fuss call such events “battlegrounds of the war on Christmas.”
And once in awhile it does appear that some of the decisions to change Christmas into a more generic “holiday” do not make sense. Removing absolutely everything related to the Christian religion from public buildings and schools seems like a little over much.
The problem public officials face is that America is not just Christian but is also Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and any number of other faiths. America has always had diverse religious groups. Many times, because the major religious tradition has been Christian, its celebration has been enforced to the extent that failure to participate in the Christmas music programs in school affected the grades of those who for reasons of religious conscience could not participate.
The Constitution of the United States calls for the free expression of religion with the state not being allowed to support any one faith. That was made fundamental law for America to prevent forcing non-Christians into performing Christian acts. The early leaders in America had seen how such disrespect for other traditions actually violated Christianity’s own teachings of “doing unto others what we would have them do unto us.”
But the struggle against disrespect of non-Christian traditions and people has been on-going and unevenly applied. Human beings have the tendency to want to think their own way is superior to others. So Americans will probably always have this problem.
But this is not a “war” against Christmas. It is the attempt of Christians to live respectfully with their neighbors.
There is at least one neat thing about Christmas as we celebrate it with all its secular commercialism and saturation of our life during the fall and early winter. No matter who fusses, big name radio or TV or political person, he or she is pretty much drowned out in the joy and excitement the color and light bring during these long nights and often dreary days.
As early as mid-summer, stores have sales based on the Christmas theme. Around Labor Day, sections in some stores are decked out in reds and greens in anticipation of Christmas, usually containing toys and home decorations for the holidays. Gradually, over the weeks between Hallowe’en and Thanksgiving, nearly all the stores get serious about displays and setting up their holiday merchandising. The day after Thanksgiving has traditionally been the biggest shopping day of the year.
That same day is often when lights and decorations put up between Hallowe’en and Thanksgiving in the business sections of town or on private homes are lit at night. In addition, some radio stations begin to play Christmas music 24/7.
Most churches join in with the pre-holiday festivities. Many add a life-size scene on their grounds including a barn-like setting, a feed trough for cattle, a mother and father, a baby, some farm animals, sometimes some shepherds, and sometimes some oriental wisemen, They may be plastic statues or they may be live.
Therefore, during the late fall and early winter, America prepares for the celebration of Christmas. For more than a month, folks have around them the sights and symbols and sounds of the season.
In the late 1950s, a movement started to counter the commercialism surrounding the holiday. The first thing challenged was the use of X in an abbreviated form of the word Christmas (Xmas). The X is the Greek Letter “Chi,” and was used in ancient manuscripts as shorthand for the word “Christ.” But since most people do not know that, the movement succeeded in eliminating that usage.
Now it is common this time of year to see “Put Christ back into Christmas.” The intent is to refocus people to be sure that “Jesus is the reason for the season.”
In the 1960s, satirists also took a shot at the practice of businesses using the music and icons of Christmas in advertising. Some of the more gross ads showing Santa smoking cigarettes have not appeared in magazines or on TV since then, though Americans tolerate nearly everything else.
The wedding of commerce and the celebration of the birth of Christ has not ended in divorce like it did in the Puritan eras in Massachusetts Bay Colony or in Cromwell’s England during the 1600s.
However, that does not mean that there haven’t been controversies related to the holidays in recent years.
With cable news channels running all day every day, some commentators have become famous for raising the specter that atheists are trying to eliminate the celebration of Christmas altogether. They point to situations where public schools are challenged for changing their annual seasonal music programs to drop direct references to Jesus. They are also angered when atheists are allowed to put up displays on public property along side Christian displays.
The personalities making the biggest fuss call such events “battlegrounds of the war on Christmas.”
And once in awhile it does appear that some of the decisions to change Christmas into a more generic “holiday” do not make sense. Removing absolutely everything related to the Christian religion from public buildings and schools seems like a little over much.
The problem public officials face is that America is not just Christian but is also Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and any number of other faiths. America has always had diverse religious groups. Many times, because the major religious tradition has been Christian, its celebration has been enforced to the extent that failure to participate in the Christmas music programs in school affected the grades of those who for reasons of religious conscience could not participate.
The Constitution of the United States calls for the free expression of religion with the state not being allowed to support any one faith. That was made fundamental law for America to prevent forcing non-Christians into performing Christian acts. The early leaders in America had seen how such disrespect for other traditions actually violated Christianity’s own teachings of “doing unto others what we would have them do unto us.”
But the struggle against disrespect of non-Christian traditions and people has been on-going and unevenly applied. Human beings have the tendency to want to think their own way is superior to others. So Americans will probably always have this problem.
But this is not a “war” against Christmas. It is the attempt of Christians to live respectfully with their neighbors.
There is at least one neat thing about Christmas as we celebrate it with all its secular commercialism and saturation of our life during the fall and early winter. No matter who fusses, big name radio or TV or political person, he or she is pretty much drowned out in the joy and excitement the color and light bring during these long nights and often dreary days.
Monday, December 8, 2008
The Green Bay Packers
When the Houston Texan field goal kicker, who had been terrible all day, kicked that 40 yard field goal in the closing seconds to beat the Packers, I felt awful.
Like many Packer backers who live out of state, away from the likelihood of getting to see our team on TV this year, following the scruffy play-by-play on NFL.com, I still was caught up in the ebb and flow of the game.
Collins injured? Oh no, that guy's a walking ambulance passenger. Tausch is out with a wrecked knee? There goes the right side of the offensive line. Hawk hasn't made a tackle all game? That groin injury really messed him up. Bigby can hardly move? No big hits from him for months.
And middle linebacker Barnett and DT Cullen Jenkins are on IR? Who's left to play defense?
But somehow, the Packers were still in it till the very end. . . for the fifth time to lose by less than four points.
There are many (including some of my favorite sportswriters) who are saying the Packers have lost it and aren't going anywhere because of this coach or that misplay or the general manager or even the club president.
But let's remind ourselves of a few things.
One, the Packers had one of the easiest schedules last year because they were playing teams with terrible records from the year before.
Two, they knew they lucked out in some of their games because they played some of the better teams when those teams were down because of injuries.
Three, they got some calls and breaks that helped keep them in the game.
Four, they won several games by less than four points.
Five, Brett Favre and Rob Davis's mature years were still not enough to keep the Pack from being one of the very youngest (and least experienced) teams in the league.
It was an incredible season topped off by playing even up into overtime with the team which went on the win the Super Bowl. That feat, though a losing effort, really validated their right to their record, even though it was obtained with no small amount of luck.
That the general manager and head coach were able to provide what the team needed in that sterling season cannot be overlooked.
Major league sports are games of inches and seconds, of speed and power, of injuries and luck.
This year, playing against a much tougher schedule which included many teams on the rise like Tennessee and Carolina who pulled out tight wins against this still immature team, it is amazing to realize that with a little bit of luck, maybe this bunch could have been 10 and 3 instead of 5 and 8.
We fans live and die emotionally with our team. We put a lot of ourselves into hoping and, well, physically pushing and squirming in our chairs as we watch.
Calling forth that kind of involvement from us takes its toll when our guys lose. It is a little harder to watch in that circumstance. But we come back next time and hope and squirm some more on the chance that we will see a victory.
That's entertainment!
As Jim Irwin, longtime sportscaster at WTMJ Milwaukee who called many Packer seasons, used to remind everyone: Hey, it's a game.
We get to watch grown men play a boy's game for entertainment. If we were not in it for the entertainment value, there would be no explanation for how come there are still Cub fans!
I look forward to Packer games. Win or lose, they give me a few hours of distraction. Having been a fan for over 65 years, I understand how sports franchises often survive recessions because they are so successful at giving us something else to think about.
I'm really feeling good about this year's team and its coaches and management. The games are entertaining, keeping me on edge and hopeful for a good result, right down to the end. Even the blow-out in New Orleans was a treat because I did get to see one of the finest exhibitions of passing I've ever seen, even if it was against my favorite team.
This is a good year, despite the losing record, for my Green Bay Packers. So, despite the negative press and comments from disgruntled fans, next Sunday can't come soon enough. I know the team will give its best effort. Maybe the breaks, the calls, the luck will go for us this time. And maybe all the rookie mistakes will be behind us. And maybe we'll finally get off the snide and our guys will come home with a victory.
Even if that doesn't happen this time, there are still two more games to anticipate.
Like many Packer backers who live out of state, away from the likelihood of getting to see our team on TV this year, following the scruffy play-by-play on NFL.com, I still was caught up in the ebb and flow of the game.
Collins injured? Oh no, that guy's a walking ambulance passenger. Tausch is out with a wrecked knee? There goes the right side of the offensive line. Hawk hasn't made a tackle all game? That groin injury really messed him up. Bigby can hardly move? No big hits from him for months.
And middle linebacker Barnett and DT Cullen Jenkins are on IR? Who's left to play defense?
But somehow, the Packers were still in it till the very end. . . for the fifth time to lose by less than four points.
There are many (including some of my favorite sportswriters) who are saying the Packers have lost it and aren't going anywhere because of this coach or that misplay or the general manager or even the club president.
But let's remind ourselves of a few things.
One, the Packers had one of the easiest schedules last year because they were playing teams with terrible records from the year before.
Two, they knew they lucked out in some of their games because they played some of the better teams when those teams were down because of injuries.
Three, they got some calls and breaks that helped keep them in the game.
Four, they won several games by less than four points.
Five, Brett Favre and Rob Davis's mature years were still not enough to keep the Pack from being one of the very youngest (and least experienced) teams in the league.
It was an incredible season topped off by playing even up into overtime with the team which went on the win the Super Bowl. That feat, though a losing effort, really validated their right to their record, even though it was obtained with no small amount of luck.
That the general manager and head coach were able to provide what the team needed in that sterling season cannot be overlooked.
Major league sports are games of inches and seconds, of speed and power, of injuries and luck.
This year, playing against a much tougher schedule which included many teams on the rise like Tennessee and Carolina who pulled out tight wins against this still immature team, it is amazing to realize that with a little bit of luck, maybe this bunch could have been 10 and 3 instead of 5 and 8.
We fans live and die emotionally with our team. We put a lot of ourselves into hoping and, well, physically pushing and squirming in our chairs as we watch.
Calling forth that kind of involvement from us takes its toll when our guys lose. It is a little harder to watch in that circumstance. But we come back next time and hope and squirm some more on the chance that we will see a victory.
That's entertainment!
As Jim Irwin, longtime sportscaster at WTMJ Milwaukee who called many Packer seasons, used to remind everyone: Hey, it's a game.
We get to watch grown men play a boy's game for entertainment. If we were not in it for the entertainment value, there would be no explanation for how come there are still Cub fans!
I look forward to Packer games. Win or lose, they give me a few hours of distraction. Having been a fan for over 65 years, I understand how sports franchises often survive recessions because they are so successful at giving us something else to think about.
I'm really feeling good about this year's team and its coaches and management. The games are entertaining, keeping me on edge and hopeful for a good result, right down to the end. Even the blow-out in New Orleans was a treat because I did get to see one of the finest exhibitions of passing I've ever seen, even if it was against my favorite team.
This is a good year, despite the losing record, for my Green Bay Packers. So, despite the negative press and comments from disgruntled fans, next Sunday can't come soon enough. I know the team will give its best effort. Maybe the breaks, the calls, the luck will go for us this time. And maybe all the rookie mistakes will be behind us. And maybe we'll finally get off the snide and our guys will come home with a victory.
Even if that doesn't happen this time, there are still two more games to anticipate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)