Today in 1968, Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, John Paul Jones and John Bonham played together for the first time when they rehearsed at a London studio. You know them as Led Zeppelin:
Today in 1968, Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, John Paul Jones and John Bonham played together for the first time when they rehearsed at a London studio. You know them as Led Zeppelin:
We begin with a non-musical anniversary, though we can certainly add music:
On Aug. 11, 1919, Green Bay Press–Gazette sports editor George Calhoun and Indian Packing Co. employee Earl “Curly” Lambeau, a former Notre Dame football player, organized a pro football team that would be called the Green Bay Packers:

(Clearly the photo was not taken on this day in 1919. Measurable snow has never fallen in Wisconsin in August … so far.)
Today in 1964, the Beatles movie “A Hard Day’s Night” opened in New York:
Two years later, the Beatles opened their last American concert tour on the same day that John Lennon apologized for saying that the Beatles were “more popular than Jesus. … Look, I wasn’t saying The Beatles are better than God or Jesus, I said ‘Beatles’ because it’s easy for me to talk about The Beatles. I could have said ‘TV’ or ‘Cinema’, ‘Motorcars’ or anything popular and would have got away with it…”
This week’s Sports Illustrated features …

… Wisconsin Badgers starting offensive linemen eating at a Red Robin restaurant, along with …
If center Tyler Biadasz had to endure an initiation when he became the youngest member of the Red Robin High Council, his fellow Wisconsin offensive linemen aren’t revealing any details. “The first rule of Fight Club,” left guard Michael Deiter says, “is don’t talk about Fight Club.”
That might be one of the most accessible, decipherable statements from a group that communicates frequently in quotes from movies (The Big Lebowski), TV shows (It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, The Office, Trailer Park Boys) and YouTube videos featuring random Canadian bumpkins fixing cars. The more obscure the reference, the better. “Nobody knows what they’re talking about except for them,” Badgers quarterback Alex Hornibrook says.
That’s why one of the linemen drops a “Those are good burgers, Walter” (Steve Buscemi says it to John Goodman in Lebowski) as the group devours an array of burgers, shakes and french fries. This outpost of the Red Robin chain in a Madison suburb has become holy ground for the 300-pounders who protect Hornibrook and open holes for Heisman hopeful Jonathan Taylor. Deiter, Biadasz, left tackle Jon Dietzen and right tackle David Edwards populate the High Council, which meets weekly. Right guard Beau Benzschawel has yet to be admitted to the Council because of his insistence on ordering fish and chips or chicken fingers instead of a burger*. Yet all five agree on the restorative powers of Campfire Sauce, the barbecue sauce/mayonnaise mix into which they dunk dozens of fries on each visit. “Just get a light coating,” Edwards advises. “Not a huge glob.”
*Don’t feel bad for Benzschawel. He owns a boat, which makes him the most popular lineman on the mornings when the weather is nice and the walleye are biting.
These five began playing together in spring 2017, when Biadasz won the center job as a redshirt freshman. That allowed Deiter, who had been playing center, to move to left tackle. (Deiter has since flipped spots with Dietzen and starts preseason camp at left guard, where he began his career.) Last year, the Badgers averaged five yards a carry and allowed only 21 sacks. In the process, Wisconsin reached double-digit wins for the fourth consecutive season and won the Big Ten’s West division for the second consecutive season. Deiter, Edwards and Benzschawel explored the possibility of entering the NFL draft, but they quickly decided they wanted to play one more season together on the Wisconsin team that might finally be talented enough to break through, win the Big Ten and reach the College Football Playoff.
Indeed, SI ranks the Badgers third in the preseason rankings, and predicts a trip to the playoff.
The group also could pave the way for a Taylor assault on Melvin Gordon’s school record of 2,587 rushing yards, which could put the back in striking distance of the Division I mark held by Barry Sanders (2,628). Taylor ran for 1,977 yards as a freshman, but at first, he didn’t realize how dominant his offensive line was. At early practices, he would watch the line plow open a hole and wait. “I was hesitant to go through it,” Taylor says. “I didn’t think a hole was supposed to be that big.” Taylor assumed a safety or linebacker was hiding behind the mass of bodies waiting to clobber him. He quickly learned there is no trick. “Oh, that’s normal,” Taylor says. “Those guys have got that thing sealed off.”
They also regulate the mood of the offense. When players bicker in the huddle, Deiter bellows and quiets them so Hornibrook can call the next play. When a Tyler Childers song called “Charleston Girl” flows from the speakers at practice, Deiter screams the lyrics. This causes a chain reaction down the line that occasionally ends with five 300-pounders singing and dancing and Wisconsin linebacker T.J. Edwards yelling, “Why do we play this song?”
This apparent hivemind comforts Hornibrook, whose safety depends on the giants who gather to fish, to sing, to eat burgers and, ultimately, to move other large humans. “They’re never alone,” Hornibrook says. “They’re together all the time.” Deiter offers the ultimate explanation why. It’s not the Campfire Sauce. It’s the company.
“We’re forced to lift together. We’re forced to practice together. We’re forced to meet together,” he says. “That’s about it. All this stuff? We just like to do it. It’s pretty much an excuse for friends to hang out and eat their favorite food. We make this big thing about it, but it’s just us eating Red Robin. But when you know guys like that and you step on the field, nothing ever feels off. You’re playing Ohio State and it’s super loud. Frickin’ Nick Bosa is standing there. There’s a lot of stuff that can psyche you out. But then you look at Beau and he’s doing something stupid or Deitz is saying something stupid or it’s me saying something just so stupid. If you weren’t good friends, it would be so much different.”
Offensive line is, of course, the most important position group on offense. A quarterback has time to find receivers behind a good offensive line. A good running back has holes to run through behind a good offensive line. Behind a bad offensive line, neither happens.
This made me think of the 1980s Washington Redskins teams under coach Joe Gibbs. One reason why Gibbs should be mentioned as an answer to the question of the best coaches in the Super Bowl era is that he won three Super Bowls with three different quarterbacks and three different featured running backs. The reason was what were called the Hogs, the Redskins’ offensive line (including tight ends because Gibbs ran a two-tight-end one-running-back offense.) Gibbs won one Super Bowl with quarterback Joe Theismann and running back John Riggins. He won a second Super Bowl with quarterback Doug Williams (who had been beaten nearly to death by defenses at Tampa Bay and in the United States Football League) and previously-unheard-of running back Timmy Smith. He won a third Super Bowl with quarterback Mark Rypien and running back George Rodgers, who had been nearly beaten to death behind porous New Orleans (S)Aints offensive lines.
That’s basically how college football works. No player ever starts for more than four seasons, and that’s only if, like Hornibrook and before him Joel Stave, you start quarterbacks as freshmen. Coach Paul Chryst therefore has to change everybody every year or two, and yet he’s made it work every season.
Rev. Mike Donahue of Speed Memorial Church in Sellersburg, Ind.:
Recently I had a Facebook discussion about the Bible … well at least my interpretation of it. Now before I go further, however you believe is fine with me as long as it gets you to Christ. My discussion began after a relative posted Bible verses from the Old Testament. I came back with be careful because there are passages in the Old Testament we can not follow, because if we did we would be in jail.
Now I will give you my concern over what is happening in some churches concerning the Bible. Joel Osteen (televangelist) after every broadcast says, “get into a Bible believing church.” I have no problem with him saying that, but I believe to many churches are elevating the Bible above Christ. That concerns me on so many levels. First and foremost, the Bible is our guide to Christ … it is a love story from beginning to the end. I am familiar with people who can quote the Bible like a machine gun, but (you can tell) do not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
As most of you know we can not follow everything in the Bible. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 talks about taking your stubborn and rebellious son to the elders of the city and “All the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die; so shall thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear”
Well, I don’t know about you, but there would be a lot of “men” going to jail if we did that today. Now does that invalidate the Bible … of course not. In seminary we did what is called exegesis a passage. What that means is when you read the passage you determine who wrote it, the time it was written and who his audience was we he wrote it. We can see that it was a specific audience the author was writing to.
The good thing is that it is easier to follow the New Testament then the Old Testament. I always tell anyone who wants to read the Bible for the first time start with the New Testament. If you read the Old Testament first you are going to be saying, “God really!”
Let us not forget John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” and John 1:14, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” To me this means that we need to concentrate on what became the flesh … Jesus Christ.
Yes, we need to read the Bible; just don’t stay in the “Word,” but rather have that relationship with Jesus Christ. Remember none of Jesus’ disciples were seminary educated or Torah (Bible of Jesus’ time) scholars.He said, “follow me and I will make you fishers of men.” And they did!
Here’s my point: I would rather have a church say they were “Christ centered” then “Bible centered.” If you are always in the Word, then how do you have a relationship with a risen savior … who is a live and well in each one of us. So let’s be careful and not use the Bible as a club (to new Christians or anyone else), but rather a hug to get people to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Every day I am thankful that the Jesus Christ of the New Testament believed in me enough to call me into the ministry (for 30 years). I pray to Him everyday and read the Bible to make sure I am understanding the man, the son of God, named Jesus.
Rev. Donahue married us in 1992, by the way. His belief is that with one exception, a Bible verse requires a repeat reference somewhere else in the Bible to be valid for the purpose of Bible study. My favorite Bible verse, Psalm 146:3 — “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help” — is repeated in four other Psalms, as well as in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel.
The exception is John 3:16 — “For God gave the world his only begotten son, that those who believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting live.”
Today, this would be the sort of thing to embellish a band’s image, not to mention provide material for an entire segment of VH1’s “Behind the Music.” Not so in 1959, when four members of The Platters were arrested on drug and prostitution charges following a concert in Cincinnati when they were discovered with four women (three of them white) in what was reported as “various stages of undress.” Despite the fact that none of the Platters were convicted of anything, the Platters (who were all black) were removed from several radio stations’ playlists.
Speaking of odd music anniversaries: Today in 1985, Michael Jackson purchased the entire Beatles music library for more than $45 million.
Even if they are not “fake news” or “the enemy of the people”, it is clear that the reputation of the news media is under siege. According to the General Social Survey, the number of Americans with some or a great deal of trust in the press has dropped 30 percentage points since the late 1970s. Ipsos recently conducted a survey with the American public to better understand how Americans currently view the press and public support for efforts to restrict journalism. While we found that the large majority of Americans support the concept of the 1st Amendment, there are worrying signs that freedom of the press might be conditional to many people.
First off, the good news. The large majority of Americans, 85%, agree that the “Freedom of the press is essential for American democracy.” Additionally, two-thirds (68%) say that “reporters should be protected from pressure from government or big business interests.” Majorities of both Democrats and Republicans agree with these two statements signaling deep support for the concept of freedom of the press.
Some of the limits of public support for freedom of the press are made stark with a quarter of Americans (26%) saying they agree “the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior,” including a plurality of Republicans (43%). Likewise, most Americans (72%) think “it should be easier to sue reporters who knowingly publish false information.”
Unanimity starts to break down as we more grounded questions. While a plurality — 46% — agree “most news outlets try their best to produce honest reporting”, there are very stark splits by the partisan identification of the respondent with most Democrats (68%) generally believing in the good intent of journalists, but comparatively few Republicans (29%). And when we ask questions with specific partisan cues, the political split is very wide. For instance, 80% of Republicans but only 23% of Democrats agree that “most news outlets have a liberal bias,” and 79% of Republicans but only 11% of Democrats agree, “the mainstream media treats President Trump unfairly. Returning to President Trump’s views on the press, almost a third of the American people (29%) agree with the idea that “the news media is the enemy of the American people,” including a plurality of Republicans (48%).
A final statistic is somewhat reassuring, only 13% of Americans agree that “President Trump should close down mainstream news outlets, like CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times.” Here less than a quarter of Republicans (23%) agree along with fewer than one in ten Democrats (8%).
Jeff Jacoby:
Pope Francis announced [Aug. 3] that the Catholic Church will henceforth teach that the death penalty is always wrong, and will “work with determination towards its abolition worldwide.” The announcement made news — it was reported on the front page of The New York Times and The Washington Post — but it hardly came as a surprise.
Just last fall the pope had declared capital punishment to be “contrary to the Gospel” and “inhumane . . . regardless of how it is carried out.” A year and a half before that, he had called on Catholic politicians to make the “courageous and exemplary gesture” of opposing all executions.
Yet if the pontiff’s views on the death penalty were well known, last week’s proclamation nonetheless marked a dramatic change in church doctrine, which for nearly two millennia had always upheld the legitimacy of the death penalty in appropriate cases. The death penalty is supported in the Bible — both Old and New Testaments. It has been firmly defended by many of the most eminent figures in church history, from St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in ancient times to popes, cardinals, and scholars in the modern era.
“The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church,” the Catholic Encyclopedia, published in 1911, stated categorically . The Catechism of the Catholic Church, originally promulgated by the Council of Trent in 1566, emphasized that the execution of murderers is lawful precisely because it upholds the Biblical commandment — “Thou shalt not murder” — that prohibits unlawful homicide. In the words of the catechism:
“Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to the Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life.”
To be sure, popes in recent decades have been much more wary about the death penalty. Pope John Paul II expressed his skepticism in a passage of his 1995 encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” (The Gospel of Life). All the same, when the catechism was revised on his watch, it continued to make clear that the execution of murderers was not, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, always wrong. In the section on the Commandment against murder, it upheld the lawfulness of the death penalty in certain cases:
2267. Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.Even as many Catholic leaders moved firmly into the anti-capital punishment camp, that position was never binding on the faithful — unlike the church’s stand on other sanctity-of-life issues. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who before becoming Pope Benedict XVI headed the Vatican department in charge of clarifying and teaching Catholic doctrine, made that point explicitly in 2004:
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. . . . There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty.”
Now that Francis has ordered the church to make its opposition to capital punishment absolute, will that tolerance for “legitimate diversity of opinion” on the subject vanish?
I doubt it. If the College of Cardinals backs him up, the pope may be able to unilaterally change a formerly authoritative — indeed a formerly uncontroversial — doctrine of Catholic belief. But it is unlikely that he will change what Catholics actually believe. According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center , most American Catholics, 53%, favor the death penalty as an option in murder cases. That tracks closely with US public opinion generally: 54% of Americans favor capital punishment, while 39% are opposed. Though the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has been lobbying against the death penalty for years, it has never managed to persuade a majority of its flock to follow suit.
Nor is the pope’s pronouncement likely to make any measurable difference in the behavior of public officials who are Catholic.In its story reporting Francis’s decision last Thursday, The New York Times speculated that “the pope’s move could put Catholic politicians in a new and difficult position, especially Catholic governors like Greg Abbott of Texas and Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, who have presided over executions.”
There was no comment from Abbott, but Ricketts wasted no time dumping cold water on the notion that a shift in Catholic doctrine will keep him from upholding his duty to his state.
“While I respect the pope’s perspective, capital punishment remains the will of the people and the law of the state of Nebraska,” the governor said in a statement following the announcement from the Vatican. “It is an important tool to protect our corrections officers and public safety. The state continues to carry out the sentences ordered by the court.” Catechism or no catechism, the execution of Carey Dean Moore, who murdered two Omaha cabbies in 1979, will take place as scheduled next week.
Meanwhile, another Catholic governor was quick to embrace the pope’s announcement. “In solidarity with Pope Francis,” declared New York’s Andrew Cuomo, he plans to introduce “legislation to remove the death penalty — and its ugly stain in our history — from state law once and for all.” Cuomo hailed the pope for “ushering in a more righteous world” and for teaching that the execution of murderers has no place in the 21st century.”
Obviously this was mere posturing, not least because the death penalty was abolished in New York 11 years ago. Cuomo’s opposition to capital punishment is no more determined by Catholic doctrine than his support for gay marriage and abortion rights. Cuomo is “in solidarity” with the pope only when the pope endorses Cuomo’s preexisting view. When the governor and the church are on opposite sides of an issue, solidarity disappears.
As it should.
When it comes to the death penalty — when it comes to any contentious issue — neither New York’s liberal Catholic governor nor Nebraska’s conservative Catholic governor should be taking direction from the pope or any other clerical leader. In the workings of American law and politics, religious leaders are respected, sometimes very deeply respected. They do not give orders, however. American culture is deeply informed by Judeo-Christian values, but when politicians hammer out public policy, the only “scripture” they are bound to uphold are the constitutions of the nation and their state.
As a candidate for president in 1960, John F. Kennedy faced considerable opposition from Protestants who feared that if he were elected, he would take orders from the Vatican. In a landmark speech before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, he addressed those fears head on:
“I believe in an America,” said JFK, “that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
And should the time ever come, he added, that religious conviction forced him to choose between violating his conscience or violating the national interest, “then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.”
To my mind, the pope’s blanket opposition to the death penalty is morally indefensible. The death penalty is grim and unpleasant, but it is a tool of justice that no decent society should unequivocally renounce. When murderers know that they face no greater risk than prison, more innocent victims die.
Conversely, the pope’s blanket opposition to assisted suicide is, in my opinion, quite correct. It is the opposite of true compassion to encourage people to end their lives, or to make it easier for them to do so. Life does not cease to be precious when it fills with pain or depression, and the law should not authorize doctors to snuff it out.
Americans have long debated such issues, and those debates will go on, regardless of any papal proclamations. Politicians may play up the pope’s views when it matches their own, but that’s just for show. Religious leaders don’t make the rules in this country. We the People do, thank God.
As an ex-Catholic, I find it hypocritical at least for Catholics to be pro-abortion rights and anti-death penalty, the standard Democratic position outside of Bill Clinton, or to be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, the standard Republican position. Of course, neither God nor Jesus Christ belongs to an American political party. Catholics can say their church is wrong, but they need to remember that the Catholic Church is their church, not any one Catholic’s church. The Catholic Church is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, a democracy, regardless of how the church makes its decisions. Those who don’t like that fact should leave. (See the first four words of this paragraph.)
Today should be a national holiday. That is because this group first entered the music charts today in 1969, getting three or four chart spots lower than its title:
That was the same day the number one single predicted life 556 years in the future:
Today in 1975, the Bee Gees hit number one, even though they were just just just …
WBAY-TV in Green Bay reports:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has asked state lawmakers to pass a bill naming a new interchange after a late state senator from Neenah.
The newly constructed 1-41/US 10/WIS 441 Interchange would be named in honor of Michael G. Ellis.
“Mike Ellis was a larger-than-life personality who loved Wisconsin and passionately served the people for more than 45 years,” Governor Walker said. “Today, as we gather in Neenah to celebrate Mike’s life, I am announcing that I will include in our budget, or will sign a bill drafted by the Legislature, naming the brand new I-41/U.S. 10/WIS 441 Interchange in his honor—whichever comes first. It would be a fitting tribute for a man who contributed so much to his community and his state.”
Ellis passed away July 20 at the age of 77. Flags in Wisconsin are flying half-staff Tuesday in his honor.
Ellis made a name for himself on the Neenah Common Council in the late 1960s and 1970s. He was elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly in 1970.
Ellis was elected to the State Senate in 1982. He was named President of the State Senate in 2011. He’d serve in that role until his final days in office in 2015.
Ellis told us he was most proud of his work to get Wisconsin public schools more than $400 million in funding, and the transformation of Highway 41 in the Fox Cities. He called it the “Main Street” of the Valley.
That was what Ellis and former U.S Rep. Tom Petri (R–Fond du Lac) were doing while Wisconsin’s two Democratic U.S. senators of the time, Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, were accomplishing nothing for the state.
There is, however, an irony to this. When that interchange opened in it’s original design, it was known locally as the Polish Connection, ostensibly because of all the Polish people who lived in Menasha, but more likely because of the interchange’s original design, which included an off-ramp and an on-ramp using the same pavement, one part of the interchange leading to a dead end since U.S. 10 wasn’t extended west of 41 (10 used to be Wisconsin Avenue in Appleton), and even after 10 opened west of 41, drivers could not go from northbound 41 to westbound 10 from that interchange.
The other thing is that, as far as I know, Ellis wasn’t Polish. “Michal” is “Michael” in Polish, for those who care.
Two anniversaries today demonstrate the fickle nature of the pop charts. This is the number one song today in 1960:
Three years later, the Kingsmen released “Louie Louie.” Some radio stations refused to play it because they claimed it was obscene. Which is ridiculous, because the lyrics were not obscene, merely incomprehensible:
Today in 1969, while the Beatles were wrapping up work on “Abbey Road,” they shot the album cover:
