Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog

Our long three-day national nightmare is over, or something

January 24, 2018

US politics
Jonathan Allen leaves no doubt as to which party won Shutdown I:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell doesn’t smile much.

But as the Kentucky Republican sat in his chair on the Senate floor Monday, listening to Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., announce that Democrats would vote to reopen the federal government, his lips spread into a nearly ear-to-ear grin.

He looked like the cat that had just swallowed the Democratic Party.

What McConnell knew — and what infuriated Democratic activists across the country were just finding out — was that Schumer’s strategy of shutting down the government to force President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans into locking in an immigration deal had failed in epic fashion.

Not only did Schumer come up short of getting a deal to prevent the deportation of “Dreamers” — people brought to this country illegally when they were children — but he divided a Democratic Party that had previously been unified. And he let Trump and McConnell walk away from it all as the clear winners on politics, policy and strategy.

The move immediately drew the wrath of immigrant-rights activists and the party’s left wing.

“It’s official: Chuck Schumer is the worst negotiator in Washington — even worse than Trump,” said Murshed Zaheed, political director of the liberal group CREDO. “In getting outmaneuvered by Sen. McConnell today, Chuck Schumer has failed dreamers and let the entire Democratic Party down.”

After a two-and-a-half day shutdown, all Democrats got was an olive branch that more closely resembled a fig leaf: McConnell agreed to extend government funding for only three weeks, not four, and said it is his intention to bring an immigration bill to the floor if a deal can’t be struck before then.

While centrist Democrats were thrilled to end what they saw as an ill-conceived confrontation, liberal Democratic activists’ reactions spanned the spectrum from deflated to furious as the bill moved through Congress Monday afternoon.

“It’s a debacle,” said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., one of the leading immigrant-rights advocates, when informed of the Senate’s 81-18 vote to move ahead on a stopgap bill to extend government funding without an agreement on Dreamers. “I’m just saddened by it all.”

Charles Chamberlain, executive director of the liberal group Democracy for America, said Democrats can’t expect to win elections if they back down from a fight every time they take a punch.

“Today’s cave by some Senate Democrats was not only a stunning display of moral and political cowardice, it was a strategically incoherent move that demonstrates precisely why so many believe the Democratic Party doesn’t stand for anything,” Chamberlain said. “If you want to know why we lost in 2016 and why a Democratic wave in 2018 is far from guaranteed, despite the deep level of disgust for Donald Trump, look no further than this weak and profoundly disappointing cave from Senate Democrats.”

And many Democrats said they couldn’t trust McConnell’s vague promise to bring up a fix for the Dreamers before a March deadline.

“He did not make a commitment,” said Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., one of several prospective Democratic presidential candidates who voted against re-opening the government.

For some Democrats and most Republicans, a denouement of Democratic defeat was predictable. Still, few leaders have executed the rare double-buckle as quickly or fully as Schumer.

First, the activist wing of the party pushed Schumer to hold government funding hostage to an immigration deal. He bowed to their demands, leading most Democrats to vote against a stopgap spending bill on Friday night.

But once they’d gone over the cliff — voting to shut down the government — many members of his own caucus, including Democrats who are running for re-election this year in states Trump won, started pushing Schumer to back down. They worried about the backlash from voters who care more about their government operating than the fate of the Dreamers. Under duress from that set of senators, Schumer folded again.

“It was pretty evident by Saturday that a bunch of his members were getting nervous, and that as much as he tried to keep them together, they were looking for an out,” said Jim Manley, a former Democratic leadership aide. “The 2018 elections are still going to be a referendum on Trump — and none of this shutdown stuff is going to change that. Democrats live to fight another day.”

And if there’s no deal for the Dreamers and McConnell isn’t ready to bring up an immigration bill in the Senate by Feb. 8, Democrats could reprise their shutdown strategy at that time.

But former McConnell chief of staff Josh Holmes said Schumer, the rookie Democratic leader, miscalculated against his veteran GOP counterpart.

“They were dealing with someone who has seen this movie before and knew how it was going to play out,” he said.

Some Democratic strategists said Schumer got enough to justify re-opening the government.

“The best strategy was and is to resolve [the Dreamer issue] without the added jumble of other nonimmigration political and policy issues,” said Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis. “Getting a commitment from McConnell to do that is a victory for Schumer. Now, the question is, what happens if the Republicans and Trump don’t live up to that bargain and it all breaks down again?”

But Rebecca Katz, a former Senate Democratic leadership aide, saw weakness from her party’s leaders.

“Imagine what Democrats could accomplish if they had a backbone,” she said.

It should be obvious that Schumer’s cave-in was the result of Democrats’ figuring out that they weren’t the winners of the shutdown.

American Consequences is less than impressed:

The government is back to work after three days of Senate partisan bickering.

Of course, late last night the Senate passed a measure to pay federal workers for the time they were furloughed… and for any additional 2018 government shutdowns.

Mark your calendar.

The next government shutdown fight is two and a half weeks away – February 8.

After that, we suspect we’ll have a made-up, full-on handwringing crisis over the debt ceiling in March from folks who care far more about scoring political points than they do about the more than $20 trillion debt our nation is in.

And we can’t wait to see what April brings.

But think about your weekend… Did you notice the absence of government? Did the power shut off or the water quit running? Did TV news shows grow quieter or Facebook rants less shrill?

We suspect both parties will eventually come together and spend, spend, spend. They can’t help it. It’s what they do…

Investors don’t seem to care. Government dysfunction is “normal” now. And the S&P 500 index has rallied nearly 6%… one of the best January performances in recent history.

In fact, the market has risen so quickly, that the S&P 500 has already beaten many of Wall Street analyst estimates for the entire year.

Obviously a lot can happen before November. But at this point Democrats’ best hope probably is that voters won’t remember and therefore care about government shutdowns.
Share this on …
X
Facebook
LinkedIn
Email
Print
Like Loading…
No comments on Our long three-day national nightmare is over, or something
Presty the DJ for Jan. 24

January 24, 2018

Music
The number one British single today in 1958 was the first in British chart history to start at the top:

Today in 1969, New Jersey authorities told record stores they would be charged with pornography if they sold the John Lennon and Yoko Ono album “Two Virgins,” whose cover showed all you could possibly see of John and Yoko.

The number one album today in 1976 was Bob Dylan’s “Desire”:

The number one single today in 1976:

(more…)
Share this on …
X
Facebook
LinkedIn
Email
Print
Like Loading…
No comments on Presty the DJ for Jan. 24
Another reason people hate the media

January 23, 2018

Culture, media
An observation from Conor Friedersdorf:

My first introduction to Jordan B. Peterson, a University of Toronto clinical psychologist, came by way of an interview that began trending on social media last week. Peterson was pressed by the British journalist Cathy Newman to explain several of his controversial views. But what struck me, far more than any position he took, was the method his interviewer employed. It was the most prominent, striking example I’ve seen yet of an unfortunate trend in modern communication.

First, a person says something. Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd.

Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and various Fox News hosts all feature and reward this rhetorical technique. And the Peterson interview has so many moments of this kind that each successive example calls attention to itself until the attentive viewer can’t help but wonder what drives the interviewer to keep inflating the nature of Peterson’s claims, instead of addressing what he actually said.

This isn’t meant as a global condemnation of this interviewer’s quality or past work. As with her subject, I haven’t seen enough of it to render any overall judgment—and it is sometimes useful to respond to an evasive subject with an unusually blunt restatement of their views to draw them out or to force them to clarify their ideas.

Perhaps she has used that tactic to good effect elsewhere. (And the online attacks to which she’s been subjected are abhorrent assaults on decency by people who are perpetrating misbehavior orders of magnitude worse than hers.)

But in the interview, Newman relies on this technique to a remarkable extent, making it a useful illustration of a much broader pernicious trend. Peterson was not evasive or unwilling to be clear about his meaning. And Newman’s exaggerated restatements of his views mostly led viewers astray, not closer to the truth.

Peterson begins the interview by explaining why he tells young men to grow up and take responsibility for getting their lives together and becoming good partners. He notes he isn’t talking exclusively to men, and that he has lots of female fans.“What’s in it for the women, though?” Newman asks.“Well, what sort of partner do you want?” Peterson says. “Do you want an overgrown child? Or do you want someone to contend with who is going to help you?”

“So you’re saying,” Newman retorts, “that women have some sort of duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity.” But that’s not what he said. He posited a vested interest, not a duty.

“Women deeply want men who are competent and powerful,” Peterson goes on to assert. “And I don’t mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. That’s not power. That’s just corruption. Power is competence. And why in the world would you not want a competent partner? Well, I know why, actually, you can’t dominate a competent partner. So if you want domination—”

The interviewer interrupts, “So you’re saying women want to dominate, is that what you’re saying?”

The next section of the interview concerns the pay gap between men and women, and whether it is rooted in gender itself or other nondiscriminatory factors:

Newman: … that 9 percent pay gap, that’s a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. That exists.

Peterson: Yes. But there’s multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but that’s not the only reason. If you’re a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. You say women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay. Well then we break its down by age; we break it down by occupation; we break it down by interest; we break it down by personality.

Newman: But you’re saying, basically, it doesn’t matter if women aren’t getting to the top, because that’s what is skewing that gender pay gap, isn’t it? You’re saying that’s just a fact of life, women aren’t necessarily going to get to the top.

Peterson: No, I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, either. I’m saying there are multiple reasons for it.

Newman: Yeah, but why should women put up with those reasons?

Peterson: I’m not saying that they should put up with it! I’m saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong. And it is wrong. There’s no doubt about that. The multivariate analysis have been done. So let me give you an example––

The interviewer seemed eager to impute to Peterson a belief that a large, extant wage gap between men and women is a “fact of life” that women should just “put up with,” though all those assertions are contrary to his real positions on the matter.

Throughout this next section, the interviewer repeatedly tries to oversimplify Peterson’s view, as if he believes one factor he discusses is all-important, and then she seems to assume that because Peterson believes that given factor helps to explain a pay gap between men and women, he doesn’t support any actions that would bring about a more equal outcome.Her surprised question near the end suggests earnest confusion:

Peterson: There’s a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. And agreeable people get paid less than disagreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men.

Newman: Again, a vast generalization. Some women are not more agreeable than men.

Peterson: That’s true. And some women get paid more than men.

Newman: So you’re saying by and large women are too agreeable to get the pay raises that they deserve.

Peterson: No, I’m saying that is one component of a multivariate equation that predicts salary. It accounts for maybe 5 percent of the variance. So you need another 18 factors, one of which is gender. And there is prejudice. There’s no doubt about that. But it accounts for a much smaller portion of the variance in the pay gap than the radical feminists claim.

Newman: Okay, so rather than denying that the pay gap exists, which is what you did at the beginning of this conversation, shouldn’t you say to women, rather than being agreeable and not asking for a pay raise, go ask for a pay raise. Make yourself disagreeable with your boss.

Peterson: But I didn’t deny it existed, I denied that it existed because of gender. See, because I’m very, very, very careful with my words.

Newman: So the pay gap exists. You accept that. I mean the pay gap between men and women exists—but you’re saying it’s not because of gender, it’s because women are too agreeable to ask for pay raises.

Peterson: That’s one of the reasons.

Newman: Okay, so why not get them to ask for a pay raise? Wouldn’t that be fairer?

Peterson: I’ve done that many, many, many times in my career. So one of the things you do as a clinical psychologist is assertiveness training. So you might say––often you treat people for anxiety, you treat them for depression, and maybe the next most common category after that would be assertiveness training. So I’ve had many, many women, extraordinarily competent women, in my clinical and consulting practice, and we’ve put together strategies for their career development that involved continual pushing, competing, for higher wages. And often tripled their wages within a five-year period.

Newman: And you celebrate that?

Peterson: Of course! Of course!

Another passage on gender equality proceeded thusly:

Newman: Is gender equality a myth?

Peterson: I don’t know what you mean by the question. Men and women aren’t the same. And they won’t be the same. That doesn’t mean that they can’t be treated fairly.

Newman: Is gender equality desirable?

Peterson: If it means equality of outcome then it is almost certainly undesirable. That’s already been demonstrated in Scandinavia. Men and women won’t sort themselves into the same categories if you leave them to do it of their own accord. It’s 20 to 1 female nurses to male, something like that. And approximately the same male engineers to female engineers. That’s a consequence of the free choice of men and women in the societies that have gone farther than any other societies to make gender equality the purpose of the law. Those are ineradicable differences––you can eradicate them with tremendous social pressure, and tyranny, but if you leave men and women to make their own choices you will not get equal outcomes.

Newman: So you’re saying that anyone who believes in equality, whether you call them feminists or whatever you want to call them, should basically give up because it ain’t going to happen.

Peterson: Only if they’re aiming at equality of outcome.

Newman: So you’re saying give people equality of opportunity, that’s fine.

Peterson: It’s not only fine, it’s eminently desirable for everyone, for individuals as well as societies.

Newman: But still women aren’t going to make it. That’s what you’re really saying.

That is not “what he’s really saying”!

In this next passage Peterson shows more explicit frustration than at any other time in the program with being interviewed by someone who refuses to relay his actual beliefs:

Newman: So you don’t believe in equal pay.

Peterson: No, I’m not saying that at all.

Newman: Because a lot of people listening to you will say, are we going back to the dark ages?

Peterson: That’s because you’re not listening, you’re just projecting.

Newman: I’m listening very carefully, and I’m hearing you basically saying that women need to just accept that they’re never going to make it on equal terms—equal outcomes is how you defined it.

Peterson: No, I didn’t say that.

Newman: If I was a young woman watching that, I would go, well, I might as well go play with my Cindy dolls and give up trying to go school, because I’m not going to get the top job I want, because there’s someone sitting there saying, it’s not possible, it’s going to make you miserable.

Peterson: I said that equal outcomes aren’t desirable. That’s what I said. It’s a bad social goal. I didn’t say that women shouldn’t be striving for the top, or anything like that. Because I don’t believe that for a second.

Newman: Striving for the top, but you’re going to put all those hurdles in their way, as have been in their way for centuries. And that’s fine, you’re saying. That’s fine. The patriarchal system is just fine.

Peterson: No! I really think that’s silly! I do, I think that’s silly.

He thinks it is silly because he never said that “the patriarchal system is just fine” or that he planned to put lots of hurdles in the way of women, or that women shouldn’t strive for the top, or that they might as well drop out of school, because achieving their goals or happiness is simply not going to be possible.

The interviewer put all those words in his mouth.The conversation moves on to other topics, but the pattern continues. Peterson makes a statement. And then the interviewer interjects, “So you’re saying …” and fills in the rest with something that is less defensible, or less carefully qualified, or more extreme, or just totally unrelated to his point. I think my favorite example comes when they begin to talk about lobsters. Here’s the excerpt:

Peterson: There’s this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western patriarchy. And that is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters evolutionarily history about 350 million years ago. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin just like ours. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural construction, which it doesn’t.

Newman: Let me get this straight. You’re saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?

Yes, he proposes that we all live on the sea floor, save some, who shall go to the seafood tanks at restaurants. It’s laughable. But Peterson tries to keep plodding along.

Peterson: I’m saying it is inevitable that there will be continuities in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures. It’s absolutely inevitable, and there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that … It’s a long time. You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin that’s similar to the lobster mechanism that tracks your status—and the higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated. So as your serotonin levels increase you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion.

Newman: So you’re saying like the lobsters, we’re hard-wired as men and women to do certain things, to sort of run along tram lines, and there’s nothing we can do about it.

Where did she get that extreme “and there’s nothing we can do about it”? Peterson has already said that he’s a clinical psychologist who coaches people to change how they related to institutions and to one another within the constraints of human biology. Of course he believes that there is something that can be done about it.

He brought up the lobsters only in an attempt to argue that “one thing we can’t do is say that hierarchical organization is a consequence of the capitalist patriarchy.”At this point, we’re near the end of the interview. And given all that preceded it, Newman’s response killed me. Again, she takes an accusatory tack with her guest:

Newman: Aren’t you just whipping people up into a state of anger?

Peterson: Not at all.

Newman: Divisions between men and women. You’re stirring things up.

Actually, one of the most important things this interview illustrates—one reason it is worth noting at length—is how Newman repeatedly poses as if she is holding a controversialist accountable, when in fact, for the duration of the interview, it is she that is “stirring things up” and “whipping people into a state of anger.”

At every turn, she is the one who takes her subject’s words and makes them seem more extreme, or more hostile to women, or more shocking in their implications than Peterson’s remarks themselves support. Almost all of the most inflammatory views that were aired in the interview are ascribed by Newman to Peterson, who then disputes that she has accurately characterized his words.

There are moments when Newman seems earnestly confused, and perhaps is. And yet, if it were merely confusion, would she consistently misinterpret him in the more scandalous, less politically correct, more umbrage-stoking direction?

To conclude, this is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of Peterson’s views. It is an argument that the effects of the approach used in this interview are pernicious.

For one, those who credulously accept the interviewer’s characterizations will emerge with the impression that a prominent academic holds troubling views that, in fact, he does not actually believe or advocate. Some will feel needlessly troubled. And distorted impressions of what figures like Peterson mean by the words that they speak can only exacerbate overall polarization between their followers and others, and sap their critics of credibility to push back where they are wrong.

Lots of culture-war fights are unavoidable––that is, they are rooted in earnest, strongly felt disagreements over the best values or way forward or method of prioritizing goods. The best we can do is have those fights, with rules against eye-gouging.

But there is a way to reduce needless division over the countless disagreements that are inevitable in a pluralistic democracy: get better at accurately characterizing the views of folks with differing opinions, rather than egging them on to offer more extreme statements in interviews; or even worse, distorting their words so that existing divisions seem more intractable or impossible to tolerate than they are. That sort of exaggeration or hyperbolic misrepresentation is epidemic—and addressing it for everyone’s sake is long overdue.

Neo-Neocon notices something else:

I’m a pretty good arguer myself. But I sure wouldn’t want to be on the other side of a Peterson debate (or maybe I would like it—just to get close, because I admit to a bit of a crush on the guy). But I think that most people are simplifying what happened in the Newman interview. I believe that what Peterson did vis a vis Newman was much more than just win the argument or make his points or embarrass or “crush” or demolish her, or whatever destructive verb you want to use to describe it. …

What Peterson does in that interview isn’t just on the order of what someone like Thomas Sowell (whom I also admire greatly) habitually does in argument, which is to counter the adversary on the cognitive and logical points, and to apply the results of research to the discussion. Peterson certainly does do that, and that’s what most people see when they watch that interview. But he adds certain techniques of the therapist and particularly of the family therapist (although I really don’t know if he’s done any family therapy; Peterson’s a psychologist and used to have a private practice as a therapist, however).

If you’re mostly familiar with the supportive touchy-feely type of therapy, that’s not what I’m talking about here. I can’t give you a crash course in therapeutic techniques or in particular in the way family therapists work, but I can tell you that it’s complicated, thoughtful, and strategic.

At least, that’s the way it’s supposed to be. Whether most therapists live up to that description is a very different question, and I suspect the answer is “no.” But we’re talking about an ideal here.

Note that quite early on Peterson says to Newman, “I’m very very very careful with my words.” During training to be a family therapist (or an individual therapist, for that matter), students learn to be ultra-careful with words—so careful that it can lead to a headache every session, which is what I often experienced when I was in training and worked in a clinical program. Every word has meaning and every word can affect clients, because therapists often have a great deal of power over clients whether they (therapists or clients) want it or not.

In the Newman interview, Peterson is highly aware that each word shapes the argument and that a misstep on his part can and will give grist to the mill of his opponents. He’s also interested in communicating clearly so that his thoughts can be more easily understood. So you can feel the intensity of his effort to be 100% careful with his words, and I think he succeeds in that endeavor to an extraordinary extent.

He also listens hyper-intently, another hallmark of a good therapist. His interviewer Newman is not only inferior to him in that regard, she barely listens at all but just barrels ahead with questions that for the most part are hostile (and perhaps prepared in advance rather than made up on the spot). So this ability to listen gives him an enormous advantage—one that the best therapists generally have, as well.

Peterson is highly aware of the problem Newman has with listening. In fact, it would be hard for him not to be aware, because her failure to listen is so blatant. He must correct her again and again and again on her misinterpretation of what he’s said. But another thing he does in response to her is very therapist-like (although it may not sound that way to most people)—he calls her on it by saying at one point, “That’s because you’re actually not listening.” This is a case of going from content to process, another favorite technique of the therapist. And it’s done in an observational manner rather than a purely combative one.

The interview also reveals Peterson’s extreme patience. He must be annoyed with Newman—wouldn’t anyone in his position be? But he remains polite and explains himself to her time and again.

I’m not familiar with Newman’s previous work, but she’s a very experienced journalist, so we’re not talking about a tyro here. My guess is that, until now, Newman has displayed the trappings of being articulate and hard-hitting and relentless despite the fact that she’s approaching the topic (this one, anyway) with an appeal to emotion. That doesn’t mean she’s dumb (even if she may seem so here); it means that the appeal to emotion usually works. It’s probably usually rattled her subjects, if she’s trying to rattle them.

She’s certainly trying to rattle Peterson. But she’s chosen the wrong guy, because Peterson is not a person who gets rattled (in public, anyway, which is all we see of him). He can get firm, assertive, and/or almost angry, but only when he decides for strategic reasons to display those particular emotions. And yet he also seems—and I believe actually is—sincere even in anger. It’s an interesting and unusual juggling act. Like Peterson or hate him (and I like him very much), there’s no mistaking the fact that he comes across as speaking from the heart and the mind combined, and weighing his words about as carefully as words can be weighed.

Peterson has the ability to do two highly unusual things simultaneously: continue mostly unruffled in the face of a verbal onslaught, while intently tracking the conversation and hacking through the weeds of the back-and-forth exchange in order to remember and to clearly restate what he actually said (and what the other person said) rather than what the other person claims either of them said. These two things are exactly what therapists are trained to do, and something good therapists are able to do. Peterson is astoundingly good at both.

But that’s not all. Yes, Peterson is trying to state the factual and cognitive case in a clear manner. Yes, he’s also trying to remain calm and yet show appropriate assertiveness. Yes, he’s trying to track the conversation and not get caught in the interviewer’s misstatements about his statements. But he’s also trying (I believe) to encourage a transformation within his interviewer, and not just a cognitive transformation, either.

Again, that’s what good therapists do. And I believe a lot of people missed that part of it when watching this interview.

Peterson does this in a number of ways, but one of them is by surprising Newman and behaving in a way that runs counter to her expectations, not just about what he’s saying and what he stands for (basically, liberty and responsible adulthood are what he stands for), but about who he is as a human being. Peterson’s sincerity and brilliance are part of this—no ideology-spouting boilerplate demagogue is he—and so is his calmness. But he just might be at his most effective when he disarms Newman with statements such as, “I suspect you’re not very agreeable”—which on paper might look like an angry insult, but in person is said not in hostile criticism but as amiable praise for her assertiveness in her climb to the top and for her tenaciousness in the interview.

These are traits about which Peterson is pretty sure Newman takes pride: her assertiveness and tenaciousness as a reporter and interviewer. These are also traits some of her interviewees (and other people) might have found off-putting, or even unfeminine. So Peterson has accomplished a kind of verbal jujutsu. He has turned what starts out sounding like criticism into praise for qualities in herself that Newman values. And it’s a type of criticism she is likely to have heard before and thinks is a sexist sort of criticism. But here, Peterson (someone she’s thought might be an anti-woman troglodyte) is saying she’s to be praised for it!

That accomplishes two things. The first is that it probably creates a bit of doubt in her mind about the idea that Peterson has a disempowering attitude towards women. The second is that praising her for something she values is an example of something that has a name in the therapy business: it’s called joining. Joining helps to get a previously hostile person on your side, if only for a moment and hopefully even longer.

But the more striking turning point is Peterson’s response when Newman asks him what gives him the right to be offensive to a transgender person (I’m doing this from memory and my original notes on first listening, because the video is so long I haven’t taken the time to listen to it again). He turns the tables on her and observes that she has been offending himduring the interview—but with the goal of getting at the truth. Again we have the same method of saying something that initially sounds like it will be an insult, but then praising and joining her for it. Both exchanges are also examples of something known in therapy as a reframe, in this case reframing “offensive speech” as “truth-seeking speech.”

It’s another powerful moment. Peterson’s observation is completely unexpected and takes Newman by surprise. Newman is so taken aback that she becomes virtually speechless for a while. She now knows (on both the cognitive and the emotional level) several things she didn’t know before—about herself and about liberty and about Peterson. It’s a lot for her to take in. In response, at one point I thought I could see a fleeting little smile of respect and enjoyment on her face.

And then to top it all off, Paterson says “Ha! Gotcha!” in the most playful way. It’s another table-turning moment, because it’s done with good humor and charm rather than nastiness. “Gotcha” can be said in a hostile and nasty tone, but here Peterson’s tone is anything but. This in effect becomes another process observation on Peterson’s part, drawing attention to the game-playing aspect of the entire interview. It’s an element of interviews that’s usually ignored and not talked about during the interview itself, in which both people usually stick to content rather than process.

Peterson’s also correct with that playful “Gotcha!”—he has stumped her, and she knows it. And although she must feel somewhat humiliated, I think Newman also perceives the spirit in which Peterson said it. We’re in this game together, he seems to be saying. We’re sometimes willing to offend and not always be greeable, but we’re truth-seekers, playing for high stakes in the world of ideas but bobbing and weaving in a gamelike fashion as we spar about them.

I don’t know for sure whether that’s what she sees, but that’s what I see happening there.

It’s a tour de force on Peterson’s part. I don’t know whether I’m interpreting Newman’s reaction correctly, and I’m certainly not saying that even if she had that reaction that it would last very long. But man, he’s impressive—as thinker, debater, therapist, and human being. Newman got to experience all four of those things during that interview.
Share this on …
X
Facebook
LinkedIn
Email
Print
Like Loading…
No comments on Another reason people hate the media
Presty the DJ for Jan. 23

January 23, 2018

Music
Today’s first item comes from the Stupid Laws File: Today in 1956, Ohio youths younger than 18 were banned from dancing in public unless accompanied by an adult, the result of enforcing a law that dated back to 1931.

The number one single today in 1965:

The number one British single today in 1971 was the first number one by a singer from his previous group:

Today in 1977, Patti Smith broke a vertebra after falling off the stage at her concert in Tampa, Fla.

(more…)
Share this on …
X
Facebook
LinkedIn
Email
Print
Like Loading…
No comments on Presty the DJ for Jan. 23
Postgame schadenfreude, Skål Vikings edition

January 22, 2018

media, Sports
In the 1970s, the Minnesota Vikings were known for getting to Super Bowls (IV, VII, VIII and XI) and losing them.

For the past 20 years, the Vikings are now getting a reputation for losing the worst game to lose of a season, either in excruciating fashion …

… or playing so poorly that people question whether you should have gotten to the NFC title game in the first place.

(By the way: “Skål” is the Norwegian, Swedish and Danish spelling of “Skol,” as in “Skol Vikings.”)

And so we have Sunday’s NFC championship game, reported upon by the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s Ben Goessling:

The Vikings marched into Philadelphia as three-point favorites, with the NFL’s top-ranked defense against a backup quarterback who hadn’t thrown for more than 300 yards in a game since 2014. One game away from becoming the first team in NFL history to play a Super Bowl in its home stadium, Minnesota had given its fans reason to believe the payoff was finally here, that Charlie Brown’s right foot would finally meet the pigskin squarely and send it soaring.

But in the end, with a crowd of Eagles fans jeering as they stood witness, Lucy pulled away the ball again.

It’s difficult, so soon after the Vikings’ 38-7 loss to the Philadelphia Eagles, to rank their most recent defeat among their most crushing NFC Championship Game losses. But this one had to sting, both because of the opportunity lost and the manner in which it disappeared, in a game where most of what the Vikings had come to count on evaded them.

“If we would have gone out and they would have beat us at our game, you tip your hat to them and tell them good job,” tight end Kyle Rudolph said. “But we really dug ourselves in a hole, and that’s what’s going to make it most difficult. I felt like our fans deserve to watch us play in the Super Bowl in our stadium, and we let them down.”

A defense that had only allowed one quarterback to throw for more than 300 yards this season was filleted by Nick Foles, the Eagles quarterback who had taken over for the injured Carson Wentz just over a month ago. Foles threw strikes past just about everybody in the Vikings’ decorated secondary: past All-Pro safety Harrison Smith, past venerable corner Terence Newman, past former 11th overall pick Trae Waynes.

“We would love to play a Super Bowl if it was in China, to be honest with you,” Vikings coach Mike Zimmer said. “Some of our strengths, they attacked. They got after us tonight. We weren’t used to those kinds of things.”

Case Keenum, the improbable Vikings starter who’d led them to this point after Sam Bradford’s knee injury in Week 1, had an interception returned for a touchdown for the first time this season. It would be the first of his three turnovers, followed by a fumble that set up Philadelphia’s third touchdown and a late interception after the Eagles had put the game out of reach. …

“There’s a lot of things that went wrong today, obviously,” Keenum said. “Opening up the game, with how electric that crowd was, and going down and scoring, we felt good. The turnover was a mistake that I definitely want back. These ends are so good, this front is so good, I’ve got to step up and get away from the pass rush and be smarter.”

Assuming Keenum ever has the chance again. Keenum was in the running, had the Vikings won, to be a potential answer to the trivia category of Worst Quarterbacks to Play in a Super Bowl, along with Miami’s David Woodley, New England’s Tony Eason, the Giants’ Jeff Hostetler and Kerry Collins, and the Ravens’ Trent Dilfer. My guess is Keenum will resume his role as clipboard-holder next season, whereas Foles now has a good chance to join that list.

After they built a 17-0 lead at halftime last week, the Vikings were outscored 62-19 in their final six quarters of playoff action. They will end the season with the typical round of questions prompted by these kinds of playoff defeats — about what they could have done differently, about what they will do next with Shurmur likely becoming the New York Giants’ next head coach and three quarterbacks set to hit free agency. …

But before the questions start, they will have to contend with the revulsion over what they lost.

There will be no home Super Bowl for the Vikings, in a market that is set to host the game for the first time since 1992 and might not see it again for years. Instead, a heartbroken metropolis will be asked to put on its happy face and dole out Northern hospitality for two boisterous fan bases: Patriots fans coming to watch their team play its eighth Super Bowl in 16 years and Eagles fans who spent much of the second half mocking the Vikings’ “Skol” chant, repurposing it as “Foles.”

Rana L. Cash ponders …

Is it better to have won then lost, than never to have won at all? Vikings fans must be wrestling with this notion. Had the Vikings not pulled off the Minneapolis Miracle, a moment that will be seared in sports history and Vikings lore, they never would have made it to the NFC Championship Game in the first place. So, there was sweetness in battle. But did that leave them more bitter after Sunday’s 38-7 loss to the Eagles? Perhaps. But nothing will exasperate the franchise and fanbase more than the cumulative misery of the last six NFC title game exits.

Jan. 21, 2018: They all hurt, but this one is raw, the Vikings falling 38-7 in humiliating fashion to the Eagles at Lincoln Financial Field. Two first-half turnovers put the Vikings behind 24-7 at halftime and from there, it only got worse.

Jan. 24, 2010: Saints 31, Vikings 28 (OT): If having 12 men in the huddle wasn’t enough of a drive-killer, the Vikings’ were undone by Brett Favre’s interception with 19 seconds left. Five of the Vikings’ final seven drives ended with a turnover.

Jan. 14, 2001: Giants 41, Vikings 0: The box score looks like something out of a horror movie: Daunte Culpepper passed for 78 yards, threw three interceptions and was sacked four times. The Vikings drives ended with two fumbles, three picks and six punts. It was over from the moment the coin flipped.

Jan. 17, 1999: Falcons 30, Vikings 27 (OT): Widely regarded as the best Vikings team to have not won the Super Bowl, Minnesota’s hopes were doused when Gary Anderson, who’d not missed a field goal all season, sailed one in wide left to give the Falcons a shot to push the game into overtime. Atlanta took full advantage of that, then put Minnesota away with Morten Andersen’s field goal in the extra period.

Jan. 17, 1988: Redskins 17, Vikings 10: Only six yards separated the Vikings from the Washington end zone and it appeared a fourth-down pass to Darrin Nelson with 1:06 left would be good enough to tie the game and send it into overtime. Quarterback Wade Wilson found Nelson, but Washington cornerback Darrell Green immediately knocked the ball loose, securing the win for the Redskins.

Jan. 1, 1978: Cowboys 23, Vikings 6: NFC Championship Games had been good to the Vikings up until this point. Entering the contest without an injured Fran Tarkenton (broken leg, thumb injury), Minnesota’s offense sputtered with Bob Lee and committed four turnovers. Their only scores came on two first-half field goals.

The ugly truth is that teams that have miracle playoff finishes (the Immaculate Reception, Sea of Hands, the Epic in Miami, The Catch II, Matt Hasselbeck-to-Al-Harris and now the so-called Minneapolis Miracle, which was really execrable pass defense) usually lose the next week.

Bob Sansevere of the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

Sunday night, the Liberty Bell wasn’t the only thing in Philadelphia with a massive crack in it.

There was the Vikings’ defense, too.

The Philadelphia Eagles split it wide open, finding flaws and openings in a unit that carried the Vikings to a 13-3 regular-season record and a renewed hope that this season would be different than so many others.

It wasn’t.

This season ended like so many others. With failure. With hopes, dreams and expectations stomped out.

It was ugly what happened to that defense, which was top-ranked in the league in the regular season and just plain rank in a 38-7 loss to the Eagles in the NFC championship game. …

All NFC championship game losses hurt, but this one had a pain all its own. …

There will be no bringing it home. No making history as the first team to host a Super Bowl in its stadium. None of that fun stuff. Just misery in the playoffs, like always.

Of all the soul-crushing postseason losses the Vikings have suffered, and there have been plenty, this was the soul-crushingest of them all.

Just look at what the Eagles did to that defense, strafing it for 452 yards and making a mockery of the Vikings’ league-best ability to shut down offenses on third down. And on offense, the Vikings had three turnovers and, other than the first few minutes, never were a threat to dent the Eagles’ defense.

“We didn’t play like ourselves,” defensive end Everson Griffen said. “We couldn’t get it going. They were the better team. They put their foot on the gas.”

In the space of one week, the Vikings went from their most impressive playoff win to their worst playoff loss. It was as if the coaches forgot how to coach and the players forgot how to play.

And now this team takes its place along other Viking fails.

The four Super Bowl losses. The end-zone pass to Anthony Carter in ‘87 that didn’t have a chance because Darrin Nelson thought it was for him. The missed field goals against Atlanta in ’98 and two years ago against Seattle. The 41-0 rout by the New York Giants in ’01. The 12 men on the field and the fumbles and Brett Favre’s interception in ’09 in New Orleans.

In none of those games did the Vikings come right out, march down the field with ease for a lead, and collapse like an anvil was dropped on their head.

Yep, soul-crushing.

The Eagles made big play after big play in the first half when they constructed a 24-7 lead. And then there were more big plays in the second half.

“We know we’re better than that,” Rudolph said. “We did exactly what we said we couldn’t do.”

Well, the Vikings did have a 7-0 lead after the opening drive.

Everything flipped on them when Case Keenum got hit under his throwing arm by defensive end Chris Long and his pass fluttered to Patrick Robinson, who returned it 50 yards for a touchdown.

The Eagles didn’t just hijack momentum from the Vikings. It was like they ripped out the Vikings’ heart, aorta and everything else that gave them life this season.

And remember, the Eagles did this without quarterback Carson Wentz, the guy who likely would have been the NFL’s Most Valuable Player if he hadn’t suffered a season-ending knee injury in Week 14.

They did it with a journeyman backup, Nick Foles, who threw for more than 350 yards and three touchdowns and helped set up a Feb. 4 date at U.S. Bank Stadium against Tom Brady and the New England Patriots in Super Bowl LII.

Of course, it helped that the Vikings picked the absolutely worst game to reveal every wart and deficiency they had.

“We were very uncharacteristic tonight,” Rudolph said.

They showed impressive mental toughness in the way they beat the New Orleans Saints in the final second last week. Maybe they used it all up. Maybe they still had a miracle hangover and couldn’t get in the proper mind-set for this game.

Whatever the reason, they did what, ultimately, they always do in the postseason. Fail.

The Pioneer Press’ John Shipley puts it all into perspective:

And so the darkness of another long winter settles over Minnesota. It has taken longer than usual, but now the Vikings are done, and reality has swept in like a bracing slap to the face.

So close, again. As the broken bard of Minnesota once sang, “I can live without your touch, but I’ll die within your reach.”

Such has been the fate of two generations of Vikings fans now, many of whom don’t remember the last time the Vikings were in a Super Bowl. They will always remember losing the rare opportunity to play one in their own stadium. Instead, it will be the Philadelphia Eagles playing the New England Patriots at U.S. Bank Stadium on Feb. 4.

It’s going to be a long couple of weeks.

It is now six times and counting that the Vikings have come within a victory of returning to their first Super Bowl since 1977, now six times and counting that they have failed to rise to the occasion.

Last weekend’s “Minnesota Miracle” proved that good things can, in fact, happen for the Vikings. Sunday’s 38-7 loss to the Eagles at Lincoln Financial Field proved that a divisional-round playoff victory, no matter how memorably stirring — cathartic, even — is only part of what will alter the narrative of the perpetually disappointing Vikings.

If the Vikings were finally on the right side of a miracle in a 29-24 victory over the New Orleans Saints on Jan. 14, they quickly, and somewhat unfathomably, stumbled back into their old roles on Sunday. Like their forebears of 1998 and 2009, this year’s Vikings appeared to be Super Bowl-ready, road favorites against the NFC’s top playoff seed.

But the 15-game winners of Randall Cunningham and Randy Moss in 1998, and the first of two Brett Favre-led squads in 2009, lost tight overtime games, losses traced easily to self-inflicted wounds — Gary Anderson’s missed field goal at the Metrodome, a couple of red zone fumbles and a late interception at the Superdome 11 years later. …

The interminable nature of Sunday’s loss served to blunt the horror. There was no twist ending this time, no shocking mistake to steal defeat from the jaws of victory, just the numb realization that it has happened again.

Many of us thought this team was ready for a Super Bowl; that years of disappointment would be mollified by the unprecedented reward of watching the Vikings play one in their own stadium.

“I felt like our fans deserved to watch us play a Super Bowl in our stadium,” Rudolph said. “We let ’em down.”

A.J. Mansour of the Vikings’ flagship station, KFAN in Minneapolis, employer of the bipolar play-by-play guy who announced the meltdown in New Orleans:

Still riding the high from the Minneapolis Miracle one week ago today, the Minnesota Vikings showed up at Lincoln Financial Field on Sunday and forgot to bring a game plan with them. Or at the very least, the one they had didn’t work…at all. …

The backup quarterback that nobody was afraid of took the opportunity to shred the league’s best defense to utter shreds all night long. Torrey Smith showed up, Alshon Jeffery showed up, Nick Foles showed up and the Minnesota Vikings defense did not.

The Vikings were out of character across the board. The all-pros were making mistakes, the rookies were screwing up, and the game plan on both offense and defense just wasn’t working…not one bit.

It appeared to be a dream too good to be true, a host city welcoming their team to play in the Super Bowl at their home stadium…when the final whistles blew, it was too good to be true.

The fact is that the concept of the Super Bowl host playing in the Super Bowl is somewhat of a canard. Super Bowl teams get 17.5 percent of the tickets each, with the host team getting 6.2 percent, one-third of the tickets going to the other 29 teams, and the NFL getting one-fourth of the seats. Had the Vikings won, they would have gotten more tickets, but not more than the Patriots, the same as Super Bowl XIV in Pasadena with the Rams and Super Bowl XIX at Stanford with the 49ers. Twin Cities-area businesses actually make out better with the Vikings not in the Super Bowl, since Patriots and Eagles fans will be descending on the Twin Cities next week.

Finally, Facebook Friend Mike Maynard blames …

I think it’s the Wisconsin-based Viqueens fans that are keeping them down. The Football Gods look at them and think, “we give them our most glorious and cherished team with the most titles, the Green Bay Packers, but no, they would rather cheer for a team that plays across state lines with no titles? For that, we •curse• the Minnesota Viqueens forever and they shall never win any titles.”

Look, I don’t blame the Viqueens fans for being Viqueens fans if they are actually from Minnesota, but the Wisconsin-based Viqueens fans are disloyal dipshits of Lombardian proportions.
Share this on …
X
Facebook
LinkedIn
Email
Print
Like Loading…
No comments on Postgame schadenfreude, Skål Vikings edition
As likely as pigs flying

January 22, 2018

Wisconsin politics
A news release from Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce says:

An event that aims to bring together both sides of the political aisle was announced on Thursday. The Wisconsin Statesmanship Reception will be hosted by law firm, Godfrey & Kahn. Organizations participating in the reception include both the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC).

The public event is meant to bridge the growing political divide that is all too common in Wisconsin and nationally. Research shows that people with opposing political views tend not to interact the way they once did, and the participating organizations thought this would be one small step forward to change that.

“We have far too few statesmen in politics these days,” said Jay Smith, Chairman & CEO of Teel Plastics in Baraboo and Incoming WMC Chairman of the Board. “This reception will give individuals from every political viewpoint a chance to connect. To move Wisconsin forward, we must all continue to work together and encourage a more stately discourse in our debates.”

The Wisconsin Statesmanship Reception will be held on Tuesday, Jan. 30 in the Terrace Room at the Madison Club. The event is free and open to the public, but registration is required.

“Education is not a partisan issue, great schools benefit everyone,” said Ron Martin, a teacher and WEAC president. “Unfortunately, deep divisions have left their mark on Wisconsin Public Schools. Teachers are eager to advance solutions that put students first and keep schools strong for the next generation.”

Those interested in attending may click here to RSVP.

“We share as Wisconsin residents a proud history, numerous and interconnected non-political relationships and many shared principles on what a civil society should be based,” said Mike Wittenwyler, Godfrey & Kahn Shareholder and Attorney. “At all times, even when we disagree on certain policy items in our day-to-day work, conversation among us should never stop. A continuing dialogue and varied relationships will help us find common ground. This inaugural Statesmanship Reception creates an opportunity for such conversation and to connect with all of those who are part of the Wisconsin political community.”

There is one quote out of here that doesn’t really fit the tone of the other two, and that is …

“Unfortunately, deep divisions have left their mark on Wisconsin Public Schools. Teachers are eager to advance solutions that put students first and keep schools strong for the next generation.”

Because divisions are bad, according to Miller, which means, of course, votes that don’t go their way. And to “put students first” means to put the people paying for schools — you know, taxpayers — somewhere less than first, generally last. (“Put students first” is a misnomer anyway, because that implies students having decision-making power instead of teachers.)

Teacher unions, as you know, are the scum of the earth. Unless WEAC’s mouthpieces are planning to disavow everything they did during Recallarama — let alone this list of teacher misconduct — I will find nothing they say remotely persuasive.
Share this on …
X
Facebook
LinkedIn
Email
Print
Like Loading…
No comments on As likely as pigs flying
Presty the DJ for Jan. 22

January 22, 2018

Music
The number one album today in 1977 was “Wings over America”:

(more…)
Share this on …
X
Facebook
LinkedIn
Email
Print
Like Loading…
No comments on Presty the DJ for Jan. 22
Presty the DJ for Jan. 21

January 21, 2018

Music
Today in 1968, Jimi Hendrix recorded “All Along the Watchtower,” musically assisted by Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones and Dave Mason of Traffic:

The number one album today in 1978 was the best selling movie soundtrack of all time:

(more…)
Share this on …
X
Facebook
LinkedIn
Email
Print
Like Loading…
No comments on Presty the DJ for Jan. 21
Presty the DJ for Jan. 20

January 20, 2018

Music
The number one British single today in 1966:

The number one single today in 1968:

The number one single today in 1975:

(more…)
Share this on …
X
Facebook
LinkedIn
Email
Print
Like Loading…
No comments on Presty the DJ for Jan. 20
At the last second

January 19, 2018

media, Sports
Awful Announcing has an interesting topic:

Following Sunday’s incredible last-second finish between the Saints and Vikings, the internet exploded with discussions of where this play ranked among the greatest finishes in sports history. The calls from Fox’s Joe Buck and the Vikings’ radio crew of Paul Allen and Pete Bercich will be remembered for years upon years by Vikings fans.

We wanted to know what calls of last-second finishes our staff liked the most, and they didn’t disappoint, going all over the board to multiple sports. Even our resident Saints fan, still smarting from the loss on Sunday, chimed in. Needless to say, he didn’t choose Stefon Diggs’ touchdown catch.

Andrew Bucholtz: I’m going with the CFL here, as it’s produced so many amazing last-second calls over the years. Many of them have come from TSN’s lead CFL play-by-play commentator Chris Cuthbert, including this year’s Grey Cup winner, the 2009 13th man, and Milt Stegall’s 2006 100-yard touchdown, and I’d pick him as my favorite individual announcer.

But my selection for this roundtable is actually from Cuthbert’s colleagues Rod Black and Duane Forde, for their commentary and analysis of the most bizarre ending I’ve ever seen in football at any level, the 2010 Toronto Argonauts-Montreal Alouettes kickabout:

To me, this is an excellent example of announcers being on top of a potentially confusing situation and explaining it to the audience (or at least, those parts of the audience familiar enough with the CFL’s unusual rules for single-point kicks, or rouges). Pre-play, Black initially notes the Argonauts sending punter Noel Prefontaine and two other players to the back of the end zone, Forde explains they’re planning to kick a missed field goal out if they can’t run it out, then Black further emphasizes the value of a single here if the field goal misses.

It does, and that leads to Black making a great call of the play, from Mike Bradwell knocking the ball down and kicking it out to prevent the single, Alouettes’ kicker Damon Duval kicking it back in (Forde appropriately notes that Toronto has to give him five yards as he catches it to avoid a no yards penalty, and then notes that Toronto’s Grant Shaw has to try and kick it out again), and Black giving the final play-by-play “They will kick it out, but they don’t get it out! Who has the football? It’s a touchdown, Montreal, on a bizarre way to end the football game.”

Forde then explains the no yards huddle from the officials and goes over the replay to prove that the no yards rule was followed with each received kick. This isn’t a situation that’s seen regularly, or almost ever for that matter, but the announcers nailed it, and provided a terrific game-ending call in the process.

Phillip Bupp: This may not be as recognized as one of the greatest calls of a last second finish as other calls but once you know the story behind it, you’ll know why it’s my favorite.

As the 1979 Daytona 500 was ending, Donnie Allison and Cale Yarborough were battling for the win while Richard Petty, Darrell Waltrip and AJ Foyt were a mile or so behind. This was the first live flag-to-flag broadcast of a 500-mile race so needless to say, this was a huge deal for NASCAR and CBS.

When Allison and Yarborough crashed on the final lap, CBS cameras were so worried about following the leaders that they had no clue where third place was and were frantically trying to find them before they crossed the line for the win and risk missing the finish. Ken Squier did a masterful job not only describing what was going on for the viewers’ benefit but also help the production truck locate the leaders and get a camera on them before it was too late. Cameras caught the three new leaders as they were exiting Turn 4 and Squier helped turn a potential disaster into a classic moment in NASCAR history as well as help vault NASCAR into more of a national, mainstream sport.

This is also a great example for networks to have commentators work on location and not off of a monitor in a studio. If a similar situation happened today and the commentators are working off a monitor, they’re at the mercy of the monitor and can’t do their job. When they’re at the event, they can go off monitors as well as see the action right in front of them and be able to call the game without skipping a beat if things technically go wrong.

Ian Casselberry: As a Detroit Tigers fan, I have deep affection for Dan Dickerson’s radio call of Magglio Ordonez’s walk-off home run to win the 2006 ALCS. I was driving home at that point and pulled into my driveway as Ordonez’s drive left the park. I should’ve run into the house to watch the aftermath on TV, but was just enjoying visualizing the scene in my mind too much. Dickerson captured the emotion of the moment for Tigers fans perfectly.

But my all-time favorite last-second or walk-off call is Jack Buck calling Kirby Puckett’s home run to win Game 6 of the 1991 World Series. The homer sent the series to a Game 7, prompting Buck to say “We’ll see you tomorrow night” before letting the moment and the noise inside the Metrodome take over.

It was a spectacular ending, but there was one more game to be played. The Twins kept the series alive and had a chance to win a championship the following night. Buck just perfectly captured the sentiment of the moment and, with one sentence, also framed the situation of that World Series. You feel the excitement in Buck’s voice, but there was no shouting. His delivery was almost matter-of-fact. Right there, Buck demonstrated how a professional broadcaster should work in a big moment.

Matt Clapp: I’ll go with one that shows off a crazy finish — and announcing call — more than any I can remember, in the Trinity football “Lateralpalooza” against Millsaps. The final play featured 15 laterals, and took 60+ seconds to complete (it’s considered probably the longest play in college football history, and it’s hard to imagine it not being so).

Trinity had the ball at their own 39-yard line, needing a touchdown on the final play of the game (these are D-III teams we’re talking about, so it’s unlikely the QB is able to get a throw far downfield). So for about the first 40 seconds of the play, the Trinity announcers (Jonny Wiener on play-by-play, Justin Thompson as the analyst) are just casually explaining what is going on: basically, here’s a lateral and there’s a lateral, etc.

But then the announcers start to see that Trinity actually, somehow has something brewing with this lateral-filled play. The play-by-play voice picks up as he’s explaining the unbelievable sequence, and then the analyst comes in, “GO! GO! RUN!”

After a few more laterals, somehow the field is wide open for Trinity’s Riley Curry, and the announcers lose their minds. This is just a great example of genuine, confused, stunned reaction and jubilation from two random announcers. It’s beautiful chaos, and you probably shouldn’t watch/listen to it with headphones on:

Joe Lucia: My choice (Sergio Aguero scoring the title-winning goal for Manchester City with the last kick of the season, and everyone proceeding to go absolutely mental) was chosen by someone else, so I deferred to something from my younger years – Skip Caray’s call of Francisco Cabrera’s walk-off, NLCS-winning single against the Pirates in 1992.

This at bat must have been sheer hell for Caray. The Braves’ season came down to a third-string catcher. If Cabrera popped up, or hit a weak fly ball, or grounded the ball to short, Atlanta’s season would be over, the Pirates would be National League champions, and who in the hell knows if the Braves’ dynasty even continues. But Cabrera didn’t pop up, fly out, or ground out. He also didn’t smash one into the gap, as Caray had just mentioned before the final pitch of the Pirates’ 1992 season. He lined a single to left field, Barry Bonds delivered a terrible throw home, Sid Bream somehow chugged his way around third and scored, and Caray abandoned all sense of neutrality after the safe call.

Cabrera’s single wasn’t just a season-changing play, it was a franchise-changing play. And while Caray didn’t know that at the time, what happened in the months and years following Game 7 of the 1992 NLCS elevated this call to another level.

Alex Putterman: Even though I’m far from a soccer guy, I’m going to pick Ian Darke’s call of Landon Donovan’s game-winner against Algeria in the 2010 World Cup. The call doesn’t have any sort of canned one-liner, just a frantic rush of words that mirrored the chaos of the play and the moment.

Darke built the excitement slowly (“There are things on here for the USA”) before exploding upon Clint Dempsey’s initial shot and Donovan’s heroic follow-up. Typically the best calls feature some level of restraint, but this moment didn’t need it. As Americans everywhere jumped and screamed, Darke provided appropriate energy, shouting “Go, go USA.” Then, like any good broadcaster, he knew when to take a step back, eventually letting us enjoy the most thrilling moment in U.S. Soccer history.

Jay Rigdon: This is a category with so many contenders. Last-second finishes produce iconic broadcasting moments, both historic (“The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant!”) and from the more recent past (“Do you believe in miracles?”) It’s also difficult to separate fan allegiances; your favorite call is probably your favorite team’s biggest moment, as celebrated by your local broadcaster. And that’s how it should be! (Here’s one that will always have a special place for me, even though it wasn’t a championship moment.)

There aren’t really any wrong answers here, so I’ll highlight one that’s always stuck with me as the moment I started to come around on Joe Buck. Long criticized as the beneficiary of nepotism, and as a play-by-play man incapable of acknowledging the importance of a big play, Buck managed to send off one of the most memorable World Series games in recent memory in perfect fashion:

“We will see you… tomorrow night!”

It was a nod to his father Jack’s legendary call from the World Series 20 years prior, when Kirby Puckett sent the Twins to a seventh game via an 11th inning walk-off. Buck helped link what was happening to history, lending the moment an instant classic status, and he did so by acknowledging his dad, who spent his career calling St. Louis Cardinals games in addition to national assignments. It didn’t feel forced, it didn’t feel cheap. It felt perfect.

Matt Yoder: Sticking the knife in with this one!!!

AAGGGGUUUEEERROOO!!!!

That’s all you really need to say for this call by Martin Tyler. It’s just perfect. There may be calls that are more meaningful to American soccer fans (and this could easily be Ian Darke’s call of Landon Donovan’s famous strike against Algeria). There are probably calls I can think about from my own sports fandom that are more meaningful.

But when it comes to an announcing call being 100% perfect for a match or championship winning moment, this is the one that comes to mind for me. It captured everything — the craziness of the game, the stunning goal, the late drama, what it meant to Manchester City, and what a memorable moment it truly was. It’s why Tyler is one of the best.

The key to the successful last-second call is to take the advice of Rudyard Kipling’s If — if you, the announcer, can keep your head while all around you are losing theirs. Even if your team is the winner at the end, all the fundamentals, particularly setting up the situation — score, time, who’s got the ball, etc. — still apply. And as you see, letting the scene show itself, even the sound of the crowd on radio, says volumes.

As a fan, I have my own list of favorites …

… including one I got to announce:
Share this on …
X
Facebook
LinkedIn
Email
Print
Like Loading…
No comments on At the last second