• Postgame schadenfreude, home team edition

    January 11, 2016
    Packers

    I wrote here Saturday that the Packers, as badly as they had played since the bye week, had a decent chance to win their first-round playoff game at Washington because the Redskins aren’t very good, NFC (L)East title notwithstanding.

    It turned out that spotting the Redskins an 11-0 lead was just what the Packers apparently needed. Green Bay’s 35-18 win was the best the Packers have played in months against, well, a playoff team. The Redskins didn’t beat a playoff team all season, including in the playoffs.

    The Washington Post’s Mike Jones reports:

    With the third-quarter clock ticking down and the heat coming on second and long, Aaron Rodgers fired a rope of a pass 15 yards to wide receiver Randall Cobb at the 50-yard line — two yards beyond the first-down markers. A smile crept across Rodgers’s face as the quarter ended.

    As of late, smiles have been infrequent for the Green Bay Packers. They entered Sunday’s first-round playoff game against the Washington Redskins at FedEx Field having lost two straight, and opponents had exploited an injury-riddled offensive line and battered Rodgers, robbing him of his usual magic.

    But on Sunday evening, order had been restored. The 2014 NFL MVP proved too masterful for the Redskins’ defense. Meanwhile, Green Bay’s defense found ways to cool off Kirk Cousins and his offense after impressive displays early in the game and to start the second half. And so, with a 35-18 defeat to Rodgers & Co., the Redskins’ turnaround season came to an end.

    Rodgers and his teammates used that 10-play, 76-yard, 5-minute 39-second drive that spanned the end of the third quarter and start of the fourth — which was capped by a two-yard Eddie Lacy touchdown run — to take the wind out of the Redskins’ sails. That score put the Packers out of reach at 32-18.

    A season-best crowd of 81,367 packed into the Redskins’ stadium to witness the team’s first playoff game in three seasons. They hoped to witness Washington’s first playoff victory since the 2005 season and the first at home since 2000.

    But after the home team treated them to promising displays at various points of the game, from the middle of the third quarter on, Green Bay had its way with Washington. And by the 4:39 mark, when Mason Crosby’s 29-yard field goal put the Packers up 35-18, the bulk of the fans headed for the exits.

    Rodgers, whose Packers will play at Arizona in the second round of the playoffs, led his team by completing 21 of 36 passes for 210 yards and two touchdowns. Cousins, meanwhile, completed 29 of 46 passes for 329 yards and a touchdown. The quarterback also rushed for a touchdown — the only other one of the day for the Redskins. …

    Through the first quarter, Rodgers completed just 1 of 8 pass attempts. But he found a rhythm in the second quarter, completing 5 of 7 passes while marching his team downfield on a nine-play, 80-yard scoring drive capped by a 12-yard pass to Cobb.

    The savvy Rodgers twice kept the Redskins off-balance by quickly getting his team to the line as Washington was trying to substitute players.

    The Rodgers-to-Cobb touchdown, and the successful kick, cut the score to 11-10 with 2:59 left in the quarter. Washington held the ball for just 32 seconds on the following possession, and that left Rodgers with plenty of time. Completing 7 of 8 passes, Rodgers directed a nine-play, 60-yard drive capped by a 10-yard toss to Davante Adams. Thus completed a 17-0 scoring run by Green Bay, who went into the locker room up by six. …

    Green Bay’s rushing attack continued to click down the stretch. Rodgers ended the third quarter with a 15-yard strike to Cobb, and the Packers rushed for 49 yards on eight carries, ending with Lacy’s two-yard jaunt and a two-touchdown lead.

    The home teams last weekend either lost (the Redskins and Houston, wiped out 30-0 by Kansas City) or suffered daggers to the heart. Earlier Sunday, the Vikings blew a 9-0 lead, but were in position to kick the game-winning 27-yard field goal. And then … click here for what happened next.

    https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/93EE2BB9981298076436489703424_43595982665.5.1.12551865228283520222.mp4?versionId=dr77UOGuegt1eqaBuRjtG9i48jK7xH6A

    The egregious miss made the Washington Post’s Des Bieler ask if that was the worst missed field goal in NFL postseason history:

    Well, probably not, given that it came in a first-round game. In fact, most Vikings fans, once they regain their composure, would probably say that it wasn’t even the worst in the team’s star-crossed postseason history.

    That dubious honor likely goes to Gary Anderson, who missed a 38-yarder — indoors, at the team’s old home in the Metrodome, after having been perfect all season — that would have given Minnesota a 10-point lead late in the 1999 NFC championship game. Instead, the Atlanta Falcons scored a game-tying touchdown, then shocked the heavily favored Vikings in overtime and moved on to the Super Bowl.

    Of course, there’s missing a field goal in the first playoff round, there’s missing one in a conference title game, and then there’s missing one that would have won a Super Bowl. Yes, it’s time once again to invoke the name of Scott Norwood.

    The Buffalo Bills kicker missed a 47-yarder with eight seconds left in Super Bowl XXV, allowing the Giants to escape with a 20-19 victory. That distance certainly made the attempt anything but a gimme, as opposed to Walsh’s chip-shot effort, but the highest of NFL stakes probably keeps Norwood atop this unfortunate list.

    The Star Tribune’s Patrick Reusse places this loss on top of the Vikings’ unfortunate list, perhaps because …

    I sent out this Tweet during the 2-minute warning of the fourth quarter, when the Seahawks were leading 10-9 and facing third down out of the break: “12-10, Vikes, mark it down.’’

    This was done out of a genuine feeling that the Seahawks would be stopped and the Vikings would move into field-goal range for Blair Walsh – already 3-for-3 on an afternoon when Seattle coach Pete Carroll was reluctant to allow his guy to try them.

    That is what occurred. The Seahawks were stopped and the Vikings moved into a field-goal range. And soon I was offering this Tweet:

    “Gary Anderson falls into 2nd place on list of worst missed FGs in history of Minnesota Vikings Football, LLC.’’

    Actually, I spelled it Andersen, because I always get our Gary mixed up with Atlanta’s Morten, who made the overtime field goal to beat the Vikings in the NFC title game in January 1999.

    The responses in Tweetland were almost unanimous in disagreement with my contention that Walsh’s miss in a first-round playoff game could surpass as worst-ever Anderson’s miss in a game that could have sent the Vikings to a Super Bowl.

    No matter.

    I’m sticking with my contention that Walsh’s on Sunday is now No. 1 and here are the reasons:

    1-Anderson’s field goal from 38 yards came with 2:18 to play and with the Vikings leading 27-20. It would have put the lead at 30-20 and made it roughly 90 percent that the Vikings would win.

    Yet, Atlanta did score its tying touchdown with 57 seconds remaining. If that had been a touchdown to cut the lead to 30-27, there was always the onside kick and the possibility of a recovery for the trailing team.

    Ask the 2014 Green Bay Packers about that one.

    Thus, Anderson’s field goal attempt did not come with a guarantee of victory, only an extreme likelihood.

    2-Walsh’s field goal would have put the Vikings ahead 12-10 with under 30 seconds to play. He would have flopped a kickoff down near the goal line, and Seattle would have had a couple of desperation plays with no timeouts remaining.

    Walsh’s field goal would have won the game … 100 percent.

    3-Walsh’s field goal was 11 yards closer. That matters. It’s more improbable to miss a 27-yarder in frozen conditions than it is to miss a 38-yarder, even when it’s being kicked indoors.

    4-The fact Anderson hadn’t missed a kick all season was merely a quirk, not a factor in whether it should be rated as a worse miss than Walsh’s on Sunday.

    5-The 1998 Vikings deserved what they got against Atlanta. Yes, the Falcons were 14-2, but it wasn’t a “this team is fantastic’’ 14-2 … more a tribute to an Atlanta team with resiliency.

    The Vikings were 15-1 and they were a fantastic football machine on offense.

    The Vikings played well but not great on that Sunday in the Metrodome. They allowed a team that was their inferior – the Falcons – to hang tough and it cost them.

    6-The 2015 Vikings did not get what they deserved on Sunday. It was so miserably cold that it had to take fortitude for the 22 athletes on both sides to involve themselves in every play.

    The Vikings were taking on a Seattle team with a ferocious defense and with an offense that had been tearing up most opponents through the second half of the schedule. This included the Vikings, 38-7, in early December in the same TCF Bank Stadium.

    Mike Zimmer’s defense held the Seahawks scoreless into the fourth quarter. It took Russell Wilson scooping up a ball like the baseball player he was to create a long, busted play and give life to Seattle’s offense.

    And then after it fell behind 10-9, the Purple defense still held the Seahawks and gave the offense a chance. All the Vikings needed was one little drive to pull the upset, and they got it with a pass interference call and then Kyle Rudolph’s rumble down the sideline.

    I know the Seahawks were 10-6 and the Falcons of 17 years earlier were 14-2, but in my judgment, this was a more-complete team the Vikings were playing in sub-zero freezing on Sunday than in January 1999.

    And the Vikings had ‘em beat, and then Walsh missed a 27-yard field goal. It didn’t cost the Vikings a Super Bowl trip, but it cost them a chance to stay alive.

    Considering odds faced, effort expended and victory guarantee provided, it puts Walsh’s missed 27-yarder ahead of Anderson’s 38-yarder for worst-ever missed field goal for the Vikings.

    The Star Tribune’s Jim Souhan might as well be cast in the old “Hee Haw” segment “Gloom, Despair and Agony on Me”:

    There is always another generation to disappoint. The Minnesota Vikings have been losing games like this for 50 years, but they had not choked in a playoff game in six years, and they had not lost a home playoff game with an improbably missed field goal in 16, not until Sunday afternoon, when Blair Walsh smother-hooked a kick that missed its intended target and squarely struck millions of frostbitten and jangled nerves.

    The Vikings’ playoff game against Seattle began with an homage to Vikings tradition and Minnesota weather, as Bud Grant braved subzero temperatures in a golf shirt at midfield for the coin flip, and it became the ultimate homage to the dark side of Vikings lore, the shadows that haunt the franchise like a child’s closeted ghosts.

    If you had never seen the Vikings game or visited Minnesota before, sitting in the stands on Sunday would have explained everything: The natives’ imperviousness to cold, the fans’ whistling-through-the-graveyard passion, and the despair of a frigid walk to an icy car in weak, winter sunlight in the wake of another inexplicable loss. This was Frozen remade as tragedy.

    When the Norse gods of disappointment demanded their periodic sacrifice of an innocent psyche on Sunday, it was Walsh’s turn to fail. He powered three field goals through the uprights and heavy air to give the Vikings a 9-0 lead, had done as much as a kicker can do to be a football hero, until the fourth quarter arrived and the Vikings’ demons joined the huddle.

    Mike Zimmer’s defense had intelligently contained Russell Wilson all game but on the first drive of the fourth, Wilson turned mistakes by both teams into the first of four game-turning plays.

    A shotgun snap flew over his head. Wilson turned, inserted his mouthguard, made a sliding recovery, began looking downfield as he rose to his feet, skated around overeager cornerback Captain Munnerlyn and found Tyler Lockett for 35 yards to the Vikings’ 4. Two plays later, Seattle scored to make it 9-7.

    Two plays from scrimmage later, Adrian Peterson fumbled. Inexcusable Play No. 2 led to a Seattle field goal. It was 10-9.

    Inexcusable play No. 3 arrived with less than five minutes remaining. Wilson lofted a pass to the left. Vikings safety Andrew Sendejo dove, got both arms on the ball, and dropped it as he hit the turf. Had he caught it the Vikings would have been near midfield.

    Despite their mistakes, the Vikings would not implode. Their historical failures are not rooted so much in collapse as in excellence betrayed. They would have their chance.

    Another defensive stand gave the offense the ball at the Vikings’ 39 with 1:42 remaining. Seven plays later, Walsh jogged onto the field to attempt a 27-yard field goal. Walsh planted his foot strangely close to the ball and yanked the kick to the left, like a bad golfer trying to overcompensate for a slice.

    Teammates bowed their heads. Zimmer bent over, hands on knees. Thousands of fans who had sat in the cold for four hours recoiled. The Vikings’ failures are stunning yet predictable. “It’s shocking,’’ defensive end Everson Griffen said. “It’s very disappointing that we lost and the only thing we can do now is … I really don’t know.’’

    “It’s a chip shot,’’ Zimmer, the pragmatist, said. “He’s got to make it.’’

    By missing, Walsh joins the 12th man in the huddle, the Favre interception, Gary Anderson’s miss, Darrin Nelson’s drop and four Super Bowl losses in the franchise’s virtual museum of malaise.

    Well, Cincinnati has as many Super Bowl rings as Minnesota. The Bengals squandered a comeback and lost to archrival Pittsburgh 18-16.

    The Cincinnati Enquirer’s Paul Daughterty:

    A game that descended into brutal, chaotic farce was won by the Pittsburgh Steelers on Saturday night.

    The cool every Bengals player promised during the week was nothing but hot air. When the Bengals needed to play with poise, they committed two personal fouls on the same play. And that was the ballgame.

    Seven is worse than six was worse than five. Every Bengals playoff loss is a stab in the same eye. Resurrecting reasons to believe gets harder each year. The Bengals aren’t the Cubs. We don’t find their losing lovable. We’d need another 100 years for that.

    But make no mistake: Playoff L No. 7 of the Marvin Lewis Era was the worst. Given the sadness, skepticism and cynicism provoked by the previous six, that’s saying something.

    It could also be the most telling.

    Mike Brown is Mike Brown, so there very likely will be no change at the top. But if any game would force that, it would be this one. Too many players were out of control. That’s on the head coach. Too many stupid things happened. Passion has its place in football. Reckless stupidity does not.

    I won’t go into detail about the game, its frantic finish yet another eye-stab. You saw it. You don’t need to read about it.

    It’s mindless to blame a few plays or a few players for a loss that had more twists than a medieval thumb screw. It might have been easier had the Bengals lost 15-0. Chalk it up to another playoff fade. Only, they didn’t fade. They took the lead, 16-15, and with a first down at the Steelers’ 26 with 1:36 left, had the game won.

    Only this is January and these are the Bengals so Jeremy Hill, bless him, fumbled. Then Ben Roethlisberger, whose right shoulder was ground meat, took Pittsburgh 74 yards in nine plays. Chris Boswell kicked a 35-yard field goal with 14 seconds left to send Cincinnati to its most crushing loss in … forever.

    You saw that.

    So here’s the thing, and it is indisputable: You cannot launch yourself at a defenseless receiver’s head, after a pass sails uncatchably high. You can’t be pushing and shoving after the referees tell you to stop. This has nothing to do with curses or bad luck or “choking’’ or any of the millions of other reasons we’ve used to rationalize the postseason carnage.

    It has everything to do with playing smart, poised, selfless football.

    “We fought, then unraveled when it counted the most,’’ Michael Johnson said. “Roethlisberger didn’t hurt us on that last drive. We hurt us on that last drive.’’

    Vontaze Burfict and Adam Jones are terrific football players, whose games feed off emotion. Emotion without control is dangerous. The Steelers had 22 seconds left in their season when Roethlisberger threw incomplete across the middle to Antonio Brown. It would have been 2nd-and-10 from the Bengals’ 47, a bad place for Pittsburgh to be with no timeouts and needing 15 yards at least for a chance to kick a wet ball in the pouring rain through the uprights.

    Instead, Burfict drilled Brown with a vicious headshot: Fifteen yards. Jones went ballistic at the call, wouldn’t stop: Fifteen yards. The ball ended up at the Bengals’ 15, where Boswell chip-shotted the game-winner.

    Afterward, Burfict said little. Jones said less, except to stage an expletive-fest on Instagram, against the referees. He doesn’t get it and, at age 32, he likely never will.

    No one is a bigger stickler for decorum on the field than Marvin Lewis. And yet he enjoys players who live on the edge of control. Always has, since the days of Odell Thurman. That’s fine: Every team would like to have players with the talent and fury of Burfict and Jones.

    But when the fury escapes from the leash and costs you games, the coach is going to be the one held accountable. The irony is, Lewis likely saved Jones’ career, and gave life to Burfict’s. Now, he’s open to criticism because he can’t control their behavior on the field.

    The Packers return to Arizona Saturday night. If they win, they will either go to Carolina again or host Seattle again. Two of the four remaining AFC teams are Kansas City and Denver, which were also on the Packers schedule.

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Postgame schadenfreude, home team edition
  • Because you can’t spell “wrong” without an O

    January 11, 2016
    US politics, Wisconsin politics

     

    Barack Obama is working hard in his apparent role as the U.S.’ top salesman of guns and ammunition.

    Obama’s new gun control measures, announced last week, not surprisingly begin from false premises, as U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (R–Iowa) lists:

    Myth No. 1: Firearm purchases at gun shows do not require a background check due to the “gun show loophole.”

    Facts:

    • When the president and others refer to the “gun show loophole,” they imply that there are no background checks being done at gun shows. As a result, much of the public has been misinformed and are led to believe that individuals who purchase firearms at gun shows are not subject to a background check.
    • In reality, there is no “gun show loophole.” If an individual wants to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearms retailer, which typically makes up the majority of vendors at gun shows, the individual must fill out the requisite federal firearms paperwork and undergo a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check.
    • The only firearms that are being purchased at gun shows without a background check are those being bought and sold between individuals, peer-to-peer, as opposed to buying a firearm from a gun dealer. These private sales are not at all different from selling a personal hunting rifle to the owner’s niece or nephew down the road. It is a private sale, and no background paperwork is required. The gun is private property, and the sale is made like a sale of the family’s good silver. The one difference is that the locus of a gun show is being used to make the private sale.
    • Under current law, an individual is permitted to occasionally sell part, or all, of his personal firearms collection. These private sellers, however, cannot be “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. “Engaged in the business” means they can’t repeatedly sell firearms with the principal objective of earning funds to support themselves. Some of the individuals who wish to sell a portion, or all, of their personal firearms collection do so at the show and might display their wares on a table. These “private table sales,” however, are private, peer-to-peer sales and, therefore, do not require a background check. The president cannot change criminal statutes governing requirements for which sellers must conduct background checks. His new actions don’t do so and don’t claim to do so.
    • In a peer-to-peer, private firearms transaction, it is already illegal to sell a firearm to another individual if the seller “knows or has reasonable cause to believe” that the buyer meets any of the prohibited categories for possession of a firearm (felon, fugitive, illegal alien, etc.).

    Myth No. 2: Gun shows lack any law enforcement presence and are a free-for-all for felons and other prohibited individuals to obtain firearms.

    Fact:
    • Local, state, and federal law enforcement are often present both in uniform and/or covertly in plain clothes to monitor and intervene in suspected unlawful firearms sales such as straw purchasing; purchases made by prohibited individuals, including non-residents; and the attempted sale of any illegal firearms.

    Myth No. 3: Individuals who purchase firearms on the Internet are not subject to background checks.

    Facts:

    • An individual cannot purchase a firearm directly from a firearms retailer over the Internet and have that firearm shipped to him directly. An individual can pay for the firearm over the Internet at websites and online sporting goods retailers. The firearm, however, must be picked up from a federal firearms licensee, such as a gun store. In many cases, this is the brick-and-mortar store associated with the website where the gun purchase was made. Once at the retail store, the Internet purchaser must then fill out the requisite forms, including ATF Form 4473, which initiates the NICS background check process. Thus, an Internet purchase of a firearm from a firearms retailer requires a background check.
    • Individuals from the same state are able to advertise and purchase firearms from one another and use the Internet to facilitate the transaction. It is unlawful, under current law, to sell or transfer a firearm to an individual who is out of state. Any Internet sale, even between individuals, that crosses state lines would have to utilize a federal firearms licensee, such as a gun store, and the purchaser would be required to fill out the requisite state and federal paperwork and would undergo a background check.

    Myth No. 4: The president’s Jan. 5 executive action on gun control represents landmark change regarding gun control.

    Facts:

    • With few exceptions, Obama’s executive action on firearms is nothing more than rhetoric regarding the status quo. Many senators have long argued for better and more robust enforcement of existing laws that prohibit criminals from owning guns.
    • It is the current law of the land that anyone engaged in the business of selling firearms must have a federal firearms license. The president’s action does not change current law, but merely restates existing court rulings on the meaning of “engaged in the business.”

    Myth No. 5: The Obama administration has made firearms enforcement a priority.

    Facts:

    • The Obama administration has used its limited criminal enforcement resources to focus on clemency for convicted and imprisoned felons, the investigation of police departments, and civil rights cases. The latter two categories represent important work, but the Department of Justice lost track of one of its core missions of enforcing criminal law: prosecuting violent criminals, including gun criminals.
    • The Obama administration is only now making firearms enforcement a priority. Clearly, enforcing the gun laws is a new initiative, or one of the president’s actions would not have been informing all of the 93 U.S. attorneys about it.
    • Proof of this lack of enforcement is revealed in the decline of weapons-related prosecutions during the Obama administration. As data obtained from the Executive Office of United States Attorneys, through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal, firearms prosecutions are down approximately 25 percent under the Obama administration versus the last year of the Bush administration.

    Myth No. 6: Mental health has nothing to do with gun control.

    Facts:

    • People with certain levels of mental illness are not permitted to own guns. Many of the recent mass killings were committed by mentally ill individuals. One of the keys to preventing further mass shootings and violence committed with firearms is addressing the issue of mental health.
    • Background checks to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining guns can work only if states provide mental health records to the NICS system. Too many states have failed to do so. Many of the worst offenders are states with the most stringent gun control laws. For multiple years now, many members of Congress have repeatedly called for and introduced legislation that would provide incentives for states to submit their mental health records for inclusion in the NICS database.

    Myth No. 7: Obama’s executive action on gun control will thwart criminals’ ability to obtain firearms.

    Facts:

    • The president’s executive action regarding firearms is focused primarily on individuals who attempt to purchase firearms through the background check process.
    • Criminals, however, obtain firearms in myriad illegal ways, including home invasion robbery; trading narcotics for firearms; burglary of homes, vehicles, and businesses; and straw purchasing.
    • My legislation, Senate Amendment 725, was specifically designed to combat the straw purchasing of firearms as well as firearms traffickers who transfer firearms to prohibited individuals and out-of-state residents.

    Myth No. 8: There is a general consensus in America that greater gun control is needed to prevent mass shootings in the United States.

    Facts:

    • Despite the president’s statement to the contrary, polls have shown that the majority of Americans do not believe that stricter gun control would reduce the number of mass shootings in the United States.
    • The American public does not believe that making it harder for law-abiding Americans to obtain guns makes America safer. In fact, polls have shown that a majority of Americans thinks the United States would be safer if there were more individuals licensed and trained to carry concealed weapons. A majority opposes re-imposition of the “assault weapons” ban.

    Myth No. 9: The terrorist “no-fly” list is a proper mechanism to bar Americans from purchasing firearms. —Obama, Jan. 5

    Fact:

    • The no-fly list is actually multiple lists, which are generated in secret and controlled by executive branch bureaucrats. The Second Amendment right to bear arms has been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a fundamental right. This puts the right to bear arms in our most closely guarded rights, similar to the rights to free speech and freedom of religion. It is unconstitutional to deprive an American citizen of his Second Amendment right without notice and an opportunity to be heard.

    Myth No. 10: Gun retailers need to step up and refuse to sell semi-automatic weapons. —Obama, Jan. 5

    Fact:

    • There is nothing unlawful about a semi-automatic firearm. A semi-automatic firearm simply means that a round is discharged with each pull of the trigger. These include most shotguns used for waterfowl hunting and rifles commonly used for target shooting.

    This doesn’t mean, according to Charles W. Cooke, that Obama misunderstands the Second Amendment:

    … Amherst’s Austin Sarat griped heartily about President Obama for what Sarat considers to be Obama’s insufficient hostility toward the prevailing understanding of the Second Amendment. “Despite explicit language of the Amendment,” Sarat contends, the Supreme Court has “found that it protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with any service in an organized and sanctioned militia.” Unfortunately, he laments, Obama has “embraced” this interpretation, and, rather than using his pedestal to “educate the public about the other way to read” the right, he has elected to side “with the NRA.” Such, evidently, is the contemporary progressive instinct: “Hardly anyone seems to talk about the [Heller] decision,” Sarat contends. “None of our prominent progressive politicians attack it the way they go after the Court’s infamous campaign finance decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.”

    In a narrow sense, Sarat is correct. The Left writ large does not go after Heller in the way it goes after other rulings, and neither does President Obama. Nevertheless, Sarat’s diagnosis as to why this is the case falls self-servingly short. In Sarat’s view, politicians who want stricter gun control are cowards who are being held back by the rash tide of public opinion. Were they free to say what they really want to say, Sarat proposes, America’s progressive leaders would be able to come out against the Court with impunity. And then — and only then — would the gun-controllers start to make progress. Suffice it to say that I disagree strongly with this assessment. It

    Suffice it to say that I disagree strongly with this assessment. It is without doubt the case that many on the Left are unable to reveal their true preferences for fear of losing their next election. But this does not explain why the self-evidently absurd “individual militia” interpretation has gained so little traction in the Democratic party and beyond. What explains why the “individual militia” argument has been mostly left alone is this: It’s absolute nonsense.

    As one might expect, I put little stock in the idea that Barack Obama “believes” in the Second Amendment in any meaningful philosophical way. Nevertheless, the president is by no means a stupid man, and, regardless of his personal ideological preferences, he probably has at least a working grasp of the relevant history in this area. That being so, he has presumably made the same calculation that many other gun-control advocates have made: that it is far more profitable to argue that Heller leaves ample room for his coveted reforms than it is to pretend that Heller was incorrectly decided. Evidently, President Obama and I have dramatically different impressions of what Justice Antonin Scalia meant when he determined that the Second Amendment is not infinite in scope and that some regulations are, in consequence, permissible. But, whatever our differences, we both accept that that argument is a reasonable one to have. The debate that Sarat wants us to have, by contrast, is not reasonable at all, his idea being that we eschew the hard work of discovering the contours and edges of the right-as-written in favor of the pretense that it doesn’t exist at all. Were I a betting man, I’d wager that Obama has refused to follow this course because he rightly believed that he has a much better shot of defining what “shall not be infringed” means than he does at convincing a critical mass of Americans that “right of the people” in fact means “right of the state.”

    Which is to say that, both legally and politically, Obama is proceeding far more sensibly than is Sarat, whose stated view of the Second Amendment is utterly farcical. How farcical? Consider: In order to argue with a straight face that the right to keep and bear arms is inextricably linked with “service in an organized and sanctioned militia,” you would have to believe the following unbelievable things: 1) that the Founders’ intent in codifying the Second Amendment was to protect the right of individuals to join an organization over which the federal government has constitutionally granted plenary power; 2) that unlike every other provision in the Bill of Rights — and every other constitutional measure that is wrapped in the “right of the people” formulation — the Second Amendment denotes something other than an individual right that can be asserted against the state; and 3) that every major judicial figure of the era was mistaken as to its meaning — among them, Joseph Story, William Rawle, St. George Tucker, Timothy Farrar, and Tench Coxe, all of whom explained the Second Amendment perfectly clearly — whereas a few judges and politicians in the 20th century have been bang on in their comprehension.

    Furthermore, one has to grapple with the theory’s obvious consequences. If it is indeed the case that “a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state” — and if this supposition is binding rather than explanatory — then one has no choice but to conclude that America is both insecure and unfree, and no choice but to wonder aloud whether the government has abdicated its enumerated constitutional responsibilities to the point at which its legitimate authority must not only be called into question but supplanted by volunteers.

    CNN held a “town hall meeting” with Obama on guns. The National Rifle Association apparently was invited to participate, but declined. The NRA got some online criticism for that, but Second Amendment fans need not have worried, because the correct side was represented by some interesting people.

    The Blaze reports:

    A rape survivor and mother of two confronted President Barack Obama during a Thursday town hall, asking the president why his administration favors measures that “make it harder for me to own a gun” and in turn “less safe.”

    Kimberly Corban, who survived a 2006 rape while studying at a Colorado college, presented her question to Obama at CNN’s “Guns in America” town hall event.

    “As a survivor of rape and now a mother to two small children, you know it seems like being able to purchase a firearm of my choosing and being able to carry that where me and my family are — it seems like my basic responsibility as a parent at this point,” Corban told Obama. “I have been unspeakably victimized once already and I refuse to let that happen again to myself or my kids.”

    “So why can’t your administration see that these restrictions that you’re putting to make it harder for me to own a gun or harder for me to take that where I need to be is actually just making my kids and I less safe?” she asked.

    Obama replied, “Kimberly, first of all, your story is horrific. The strength you’ve shown in telling your story and being here tonight is remarkable and so I am really proud of you for that.”

    The president then said that “there is nothing that we have proposed that would make it harder for you to purchase a firearm.”

    “Now you may be referring to issues like concealed carry, but those are state-by-state decisions. And we are not making any proposals with respect to what states are doing … so there really is nothing that we are proposing that makes it harder for you to purchase a firearm if you need one,” he said.

    Obama also contended that having a gun might not increase an individual’s safety.

    “There are always questions as to whether or not having a firearm in the home protects you from that kind of violence,” the president said. “And I’m not sure we can resolve that — people argue it both sides. What is true is that you have to be pretty well-trained in order to fire a weapon against someone who is assaulting you and catches you by surprise. What is also true is always that possibility that firearm in the home leads to a tragic accident.”

    Earlier at the town hall, Obama conceded that he has never owned a firearm.

    That last sentence is certainly revealing, isn’t it?

    Also appearing, according to The Blaze:

    An Arizona sheriff running for Congress challenged President Barack Obama during a town hall on guns Thursday, asking the president to identify exactly what shooting his recent executive actions would have prevented.

    “Mr. President, you’ve said you have been frustrated by Congress. As a sheriff, I often times get frustrated. But I don’t make the laws. And I’ve sworn an oath to enforce the law, to uphold the Constitution — same oath you’ve taken,” Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu said. ”The talk, why we’re here, is all these mass shootings. And yet you’ve said in your executive actions, it wouldn’t have solved even one of these or even the terrorist attack.”

    “No, I didn’t say that,” Obama interjected.

    “Well, looking at the information, what would it have solved?” Babeu asked.

    Babeu continued, “The executive actions that you mentioned earlier … they are not written about in the Constitution. I want to know and I think all of us really want to get to the solution: What would you have done to prevent these mass shootings and the terrorist attack? And how do we get those with mental illness and criminals — that’s the real problem here — to follow the laws?”

    Obama responded saying that he thinks “it’s really important for us not to suggest that if we can’t solve every crime we shouldn’t try to solve any crimes.”

    “The problem when we talk about that guns kill people, people kill people. Or it’s primarily a mental health problem. Or it’s a criminal and evil problem. And that’s what we have to get at. All of us are interested in fighting crime. … That’s a huge priority to us,” the president told Babeu.

    “The challenge we have is that in many instances you don’t know ahead of time who is going to be the criminal. It’s not as if criminals walk around with a label that says, ‘I’m a criminal,’” Obama added. “And by the way, the young man who killed those kids in Newtown — he didn’t have a criminal record. … But he was able to have access to an arsenal that allowed him in very short order to kill a classroom of small children.”

    The president concluded, “And so the question then becomes, are there ways for us, since we can’t identify that person all the time, are there ways for us to make it less lethal when something like that happens?”

    So because of a few evil people, all of us who are neither evil nor lawbreakers have to suffer by having our own constitutional rights violated to prevent, well, nothing that is preventable. That’s Obama’s logic here.

    Also appearing, according to Fox News:

    Taya Kyle, the widow of “American Sniper” Chris Kyle, asked President Barack Obama his first question on live national television Thursday night during the President’s “Gun’s in America” town hall on CNN.

    Chris Kyle’s wife told President Obama that gun control won’t make us safer – as she penned earlier Thursday in an op-ed.

    Mrs. Kyle focused on Obama’s theme of hope.

    “I think that your message of hope is something I agree with. I think it’s great. And I think that by creating new laws you do give people hope,” Kyle told Obama.

    “The thing is that the laws we create don’t stop these horrific things from happening, right? And that’s a very tough pill to swallow,” Kyle added.

    “I want the hope that I have the right to protect myself,” Kyle said in response to the rise in gun sales under Obama.

    Mrs. Kyle further cast doubt on Obama’s notion that background checks would prevent mass murders.

    “I know background checks wouldn’t stop me from getting a gun, but I also know that it wouldn’t stop any of the people in this room from killing…it’s a false sense of hope,” she said.

    “Why not celebrate that we’re good people and that 99.9% of us are not going to kill anyone?” Kyle concluded.

     

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Because you can’t spell “wrong” without an O
  • Presty the DJ for Jan. 11

    January 11, 2016
    Music

    The number one album today in 1964 was “Ring of Fire: The Best of Johnny Cash,” the first country album to reach the top of the album chart:

    The number one single today in 1964, whatever the words were:

    (more…)

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for Jan. 11
  • Presty the DJ for Jan. 10

    January 10, 2016
    Music

    The number one British single today in 1957 was the same single as the previous week, though performed by a different act:

    The number one British single today in 1958:

    The number one album for the fifth consecutive week today in 1976 was “Chicago IX,” which was actually “Chicago’s Greatest Hits”:

    (more…)

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for Jan. 10
  • The resistible force vs. the movable object

    January 9, 2016
    Packers

    You may have noticed a marked lack of enthusiasm for the Packers’ chances for a Super Bowl trip, even given their seventh straight postseason appearance.

    The obvious reason is that the Packers have recently been playing more like a team that doesn’t deserve a playoff berth, 10 wins notwithstanding. They play the final first-round playoff game Sunday at 9–7 Washington, the champion of the NFC (L)East, while Minnesota, having won the NFC North title by beating the Packers Sunday night, gets to host Seattle, which should be favored in every sense except for Sunday’s predicted Arctic weather. (Former Vikings coach Bud Grant is smiling.)

    The Redskins won the NFC (L)East because, well, someone had to. None of the Redskins’ nine wins this season are over playoff teams. They got into the playoffs by winning their last four games, over Chicago, Buffalo, Philadelphia and Dallas — interestingly, all but Buffalo on the road.

    Sunday’s game features the 10th best scoring offense, the Redskins, against the 12th best scoring defense, the Packers, and the 23rd best scoring offense, the Packers, against the 17th best scoring defense, the Redskins. The Packers’ rankings don’t really make sense based on past seasons, though they do based on this season.

    If you give up 18 points at home to Detroit, 17 at home to Da Bears, and 20 at home (seven of which were scored by the defense) to the Vikings, those should be wins, not losses. The Packers are three touchdowns away from being 13–3 instead of 10–6.

    Pete Prisco points at the other side of the ball:

    The Rodgers-led Packers offense we’ve come to expect — the explosive, entertaining and, most importantly, winning offense — hasn’t shown up much in 2015.

    This version is a clunky, ugly, laborious offense that isn’t rolling up big numbers and didn’t win a division title for the first time since 2010. This offense can’t run it. The line can’t protect. The receivers don’t win. And Rodgers is a shell of himself — or a shell-shocked version of himself.

    Rodgers has been sacked 46 times, the second-highest total for any passer, five behind league-leader Blake Bortles. This is stunning for a team that had five returning offensive linemen back from 2014, and have a quarterback in Rodgers who is great escaping the rush and seeing the field.

    Rodgers can still move away from pressure, but he’s held the ball longer this season in large part because the receivers can’t get open. When Rodgers hits the top of his drop, the ball has to be ready get out in the Green Bay system. Most of the time, when he’s ready to load, the receivers are plastered. That leads to his dropping his head to take a look at the pressure in front of him, and sometimes it leads to missed chances and him leaving clean pockets.

    It’s hard to blame him when he’s taken a beating like he’s taken this season. The line has had its share of injuries, and veteran left tackle David Bakhtiari, who missed the past two weeks, wasn’t playing great when he was in the lineup. Right tackle Bryan Bulaga missed four games, and his play is down. And don’t even mention backup Don Barclay. The guy is like a turnstile when he plays.

    In the past two games, against playoff teams in the Arizona Cardinals and Minnesota Vikings, Rodgers was sacked 13 times, lost three fumbles, two for touchdowns, and was picked off twice.

    The Packers have four touchdowns in the past three games. That used to be a game’s worth when the offense was rolling. …

    All year I’ve been waiting for him to turn it on and get back to being the Rodgers we’ve come to expect. It just hasn’t happened. Even when coach Mike McCarthy took back play-calling duties from Tom Clements, little changed. Sure, there have been moments where they’ve moved the football, but it just doesn’t look right.

    Rodgers’ completion percentage is 60.7, which is the lowest since he became a starter in 2008. It’s nearly three percentage points lower than his number from his first season as a full-time starter. His completion percentage this season ranks him 26th in the league.

    His per-attempt number is down to 6.7 yards per throw, which ranks 30th in the league. Since 2009, he’s been over 8.0 yards per attempt in every season and was at 9.2 in 2011 and 8.4 last season.

    With Rodgers struggling, the offense finished 15th in scoring and 25th overall. Rodgers was 17th in the league in third-down passing. Seventeenth? This guy has been a third-down assassin in his career. In his career, Rodgers had a passer rating of over 100 in five seasons on third down. This season, it was 85.3 with a completion percentage of 51.9 percent.

    As a team, the Packers converted 33.65 percent of their third downs this season, ranking 27th in the league, and 24.4 percent the past three weeks. They were at 46.67 percent in 2014.

    The biggest issue is that the receivers aren’t fast and there is little creativity to help them get open. When Jordy Nelson went down, the Packers lost their best receiver and that led to teams playing a lot of man coverage against the Green Bay receivers and daring them to win.

    They’ve loaded the box to stop the run, which slowed that part of the offense, and nobody can win outside. The Packers have a system that uses mostly isolation routes, which means the receivers have to beat their man coverage with their speed and their ability to run routes, rather than help from a pick or a rub or a bunch formation.

    That’s all well and good when the line is good and Nelson is on the field, but it hasn’t worked this year. …

    I went back and watched some of the Green Bay tape from 2014. One of the games I watched was their victory over the eventual Super Bowl-champion Patriots. What I saw was creativity that hasn’t been used much this season, but needs to be used in the postseason.

    They used [wide receiver Randall] Cobb in a variety of ways, including lining him up a bunch in the backfield. That helped create matchup problems for the New England secondary and linebackers. The Packers did it some late last week against the Vikings when they were playing catch up, and it seemed to work as well. …

    The Packers need to do more of that. I know it’s not a big part of what McCarthy wants to do, but it’s time to make changes. Get creative. Try and get receivers who can’t win on their own open some other way. …

    Is it fixable? The way the offense is being run now, it’s not with the personnel they have. The Packers lack outside speed with receivers who can win consistently, and opposing defenses know it.

    The Packers came out in “22” personnel last week and tried to play power football with [running back Eddie] Lacy. He did some good things, but they still didn’t score points. There were no chunk plays. This is an offense that needs chunk plays.

    My solution: Let Rodgers play more from the no-huddle and use picks and rubs and bunch formations to help compensate for the lack of quality receiving threats. Then as you play fast, get teams off-balance, and then come back to Lacy out of the spread, not the “22” personnel.

    If they do that, we just might see the Aaron Rodgers we’ve come to expect, the NFL’s best passer.

    If they don’t, the reigning MVP might be one-and-done in the playoffs and the heat will be on in Green Bay.

    The good news is that the Redskins have no one’s definition of even a good defense. Washington ranked 28th in the NFL in defensive yardage, though the Redskins are 17th in scoring defense, perhaps because they’re 14th, plus-4, in takeaway/giveaway ratio. (The Packers are plus-5, tied for 10th.)

    The bad news is that, while the Packers have not been playing well of late, the Redskins have, though that may have to do as much with their weak schedule as with their actual play. The Packers are a Hail Mary away from having gone 3–7 since their bye week, with just one of their four post-bye wins over a playoff team, the Vikings.

    The intangible thought is that maybe the pressure will be off the Packers with a number-five NFC seed playing all their games on the road. (The Packers have the same road record as home record this year, with, bizarrely, a perfect NFC North road record and a winless NFC North home record.) Whether that’s true or not, it is not debatable that unless the Packers start playing much better on the offensive line, the Packers won’t be in the playoffs very long.

     

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on The resistible force vs. the movable object
  • Presty the DJ for Jan. 9

    January 9, 2016
    Music

    The number one single today in 1955 was banned by ABC Radio stations because it was allegedly in bad taste:

    The number one album today in 1961 wasn’t a music album — Bob Newhart’s “The Button Down Mind Strikes Back!”

    The number one album today in 1965 was “Beatles ’65”:

    (more…)

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for Jan. 9
  • On non-religious religious music

    January 8, 2016
    Culture, Music

    My high school political science teacher posted this, from Ray Ortlund:

    Now and then a commenter asks why I post music videos that are not devoted to God. Most inquiries are courteous. A few are not. In any case, here is my answer.

    I  believe in common grace. John Calvin taught me that it is God who lavishes giftedness on his human race. We may therefore enjoy it wherever we encounter it, with gratitude to God (Institutes 2.2.15).

    That gives me three categories of music — since music is what we’re talking about here. First, music devoted to God.  Hopefully, this is great music everyone will fall in love with. Second, music opposing God. Hopefully, this will be rotten music people cannot stand. Third, music neither devoted to God nor opposing God. If it happens to be good music, by God’s common grace, I for one will enjoy it. Good music does not have to be devoted to God for me to be okay with it — though, if it were devoted to God, I’d be thrilled.

    One thing I love about the gospel is its promise of the new heaven and new earth. In eternity, God will not delete all the culture-creating we’ve done throughout human history; he will redeem it. The Bible says that, in the New Jerusalem above, “the kings of the earth will bring their glory into [the holy city]. … They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations.  But nothing unclean will ever enter it” (Revelation 21:24-27).

    The glory and honor of human cultures — the music, the clothing, the literature, the dance, the languages, the customs, the humor, the traditions, and so forth — it will be cleansed and brought in forever. So Eric Clapton’s blues guitar, for example, is a preview of coming attractions. The blues will be brought into heaven. But there it will be even better, and fully devoted to God. It will finally be perfect.

    I hope and pray Eric himself will be there too.

    The aforementioned Clapton writes in his excellent autobiography that when “Clapton Is God” signs started appearing in Britain it made him feel very uncomfortable. For being on the short list of greatest rock guitarists of all time, Clapton doesn’t appear to have been overwhelmed by his own ego.

    But don’t believe me, read Teilhard de Chardin:

    I knew a little bit about his professional career but I knew nothing about his personal life. However, when I started researching for the readings for this week I came across a fascinating homily by Fr. Ron Rolheiser that is available from St. Louis University.  The homily is a summary of Eric Clapton’s autobiography (Eric Clapton, The Autobiography, N.Y., Random House, 2007) and his journey from fame, self-destructive behavior using drugs, alcohol and casual sex to hide inner pain and then a surrender of the ego to have a relationship with God.  I encourage you to read the entire homily here, but set forth below is an extended summary:

    “Clapton tells his story with a wonderful intelligence and disarming self-effacement. This isn’t a cheap celebrity, ego-trumpeting book, but a story of art, youth, restlessness, search, falling, near-disaster, and life-saving conversion. And its real interest lies exactly in that latter element since, as Heather King puts it, sin isn’t interesting but conversion is.

    Clapton fans won’t be disappointed either at how seriously he takes his art. Throughout his whole career, however fuzzy his head may have been about other things, he was always clear and single-minded about his art, the blues, willingly sacrificing popularity and money for the sake of his craft. For him, art is pure, something near to God, and is meant always to remain pure. His words: “For me, the most trustworthy vehicle for spirituality had always proven to be music. It cannot be manipulated, or politicized, and when it is, that becomes immediately obvious.”

    Those are the words of a good artist, but his real struggle was never with art but with his obsessions, addictions, ego, and sobriety.

    Success came to him early and the world of rock-and-roll bathed him in a culture of alcohol, drugs, and irresponsibility. He was soon an addict, with everything in his life other than his music spinning out of control. Eventually grace intervened and, during a second trip to an alcoholic clinic, he found grace and sobriety. Here are his own words:

    Nevertheless, I stumbled through my month in treatment much as I had done the first time, just ticking off the days, hoping that something would change in me without me having to do much about it. Then one day, as my visit was drawing to an end, a panic hit me, and I realized that in fact nothing had changed in me, and that I was going back out into the world again completely unprotected. The noise in my head was deafening, and drinking was in my thoughts all the time. It shocked me to realize that here I was in a treatment center, a supposedly safe environment, and I was in serious danger. I was absolutely terrified, in complete despair.

    At that moment, almost of their own accord, my legs gave way and I fell to my knees. In the privacy of my room, I begged for help. I had no idea who I thought I was talking to, I just knew that I had come to the end of my tether, I had nothing left to fight with. Then I remembered what I had heard about surrender, something I thought I could never do, my pride just wouldn’t allow it, but I knew that on my own I wasn’t going to make it, so I asked for help, and getting down on my knees, I surrendered.

    Within a few days I realized that something had happened for me. An atheist would probably say it was just a change of attitude, and to a certain extent that’s true, but there was much more to it than that. I had found a place to turn to, a place I’d always known was there but never really wanted, or needed, to believe in. From that day until this, I have never failed to pray in the morning, on my knees, asking for help, and at night to express my gratitude for my life and, most of all, for my sobriety. I choose to kneel because I feel I need to humble myself when I pray and with my ego, this is the most I can do.

    If you are asking me why I do all of this, I will tell you … because it works, as simple as that. In all this time that I have been sober, I have never once seriously thought of taking a drink or a drug. …. In some way, in some form, my God was always there, but now I have learned to talk to him.

    It is interesting to note how popular artists have managed over the years to insert religious messages into their music in varying degrees of subtlety. The most common current example is U2, but there are others. Elvis Presley and Johnny Cash are two artists who managed to chart on pop, country and religious music charts.

     

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on On non-religious religious music
  • Presty the DJ for Jan. 8

    January 8, 2016
    Music

    The Beatles had the number one album, “Rubber Soul” …

    … and the number one single today in 1966:

    (more…)

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for Jan. 8
  • Obama vs. reality, gun control dept.

    January 7, 2016
    US politics

    Caleb Howe deconstructs Barack Obama’s gun control plan and finds …

    Every day I see people ask what the “gun show loophole” is, why we don’t have “universal” background checks, and many other questions. Those questions are amplified in light of the President’s executive action. So we are going to break it down for you here at RedState. This way you know exactly what is happening and why.

    To that end, I’ve borrowed a format often used by the left to put information into bite-sized bits that are easy to remember and share. You will not only understand, but be able to explain. Let’s begin, shall we?

    1. The Gun Show Loophole
    Obama: “Anybody in the business of selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks or be subject to criminal prosecutions.”
    Truth: There is no gun show loophole. What people mean is that you have to sell a certain amount of guns before you cross over from private citizen to a dealer requiring a license. A private sale is when a person who owns a gun sells that gun to another person. Some private sales take place at gun shows. But people who are dealers that go to gun shows and sell lots of guns have to be licensed. The sales are legal, and there is a background check on the buyer. This is already the law. There’s no loophole.

    2. The Online Loophole
    Obama: “A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the internet with no background check, no questions asked.”
    Truth: There is no online loophole. Exactly as with the gun show, what happens is that a person might privately sell something. Let’s say you own a gun. You have a friend on Facebook who wants to buy a gun. You sell your friend the gun. Because you are not a retailer, you do not have to be licensed as a dealer, and are not required to conduct a background check. That’s it. Otherwise, online sales are already covered. Retailers that sell guns and have an online presence where you can buy them are licensed and therefore, the sales are legal and there is a background check on the buyer. And you simply can’t sell a gun over the internet and ship it over state liunes without restriction or background check even if it is a private sale. That’s right. Even private online sales cannot transfer the weapon without a check. There’s no loophole.

    3. Universal Background Checks
    Obama: “We know that background checks make a difference.”
    Truth: There are already background checks. So this statement is a straw man. What the controllers are pitching is who is required to conduct them and under what circumstances. This idea is sold in the press as simple common sense. The idea is that every time a person becomes the owner of a gun, they are vetted by the government. This would even mean temporary transfers of ownership, like say you give your gun to your mother while you are on deployment. Some states, like recently-in-the-news Oregon, have passed laws that are versions of this. That is, a criminal and mental health background check for all gun sales. (In Oregon’s case, even the new law still allows transfers of ownership among family members without a check.) But the requirement for a background check on all private sales of guns is one of the objectives of the gun control lobby and their media allies. So now you know what they mean by this. They mean that you can’t sell your rifle to your Facebook hunting buddy unless a criminal and mental health background check is conducted.

    4. Obama’s Executive Action
    Despite the wishes of the gun-grabbers, Obama’s executive action does not address points one through three above. Instead, it simply “requires” that the ATF should enforce the existing laws about licensing people who sell weapons. To that end they are giving more money to the ATF for people who conduct the background checks that already are conducted and are already required by law. There will also be more federal oversight and enforcement on reporting of lost or stolen guns. As a result of Obama’s action, it ispossible that more people will be defined as sellers based on volume as a result of there being more ATF agents, but in reality private sales won’t be changed in any meaningful way, and gun shows and online sales will continue as they do, with only a very few exceptions.

    5. Precedent
    Although the practical effect of the President’s action is relatively minor, it is a message nevertheless. The President is establishing his authority to simply take action curtailing the constitutionally guaranteed right of Americans to own guns, without the legislature, based on his own decisions about what that action should consist of. As a precedent for gun-grabbing, it may not be strong, but it is absolutely applicable. If you value your freedom to purchase and possess guns, this action is an affront.

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Obama vs. reality, gun control dept.
  • Not a fan

    January 7, 2016
    media, US business, US politics

     

    I have referred here to Donald Trump’s blaming Ronald Reagan’s 1987 tax reform for the first of Trump’s four business bankruptcies, and how very un-Republican that is.

    That comment came in a Playboy magazine interview. Trump’s first big Playboy Interview was in 1990, when he made this interesting statement:

    Sometimes you sound like a Presidential candidate stirring up the voters.

    I don’t want the Presidency. I’m going to help a lot of people with my foundation-and for me, the grass isn’t always greener.

    But if the grass ever did look greener, which political party do you think you’d be more comfortable with?

    Well, if I ever ran for office, I’d do better as a Democrat than as a Republican-and that’s not because I’d be more Republican-and that’s not because I’d be more liberal, because I’m conservative. But the working guy would elect me. He likes me. When I walk down the street, those cabbies start yelling out their windows. …

    Wait. If you believe that the public shares these views, and that you could do the job, whynot consider running for President?

    I’d do the job as well as or better than anyone else. It’s my hope that George Bush can do a great job.

    You categorically don’t want to be President?

    I don’t want to be President. I’m one hundred percent sure. I’d change my mind only if I saw this country continue to go down the tubes.

    Later in the 1990s, Trump again got the Playboy Interview treatment, written by Mark Bowden, who has resurfaced nearly two decades later to say …

    He was like one of those characters in an 18th-century comedy meant to embody a particular flavor of human folly. Trump struck me as adolescent, hilariously ostentatious, arbitrary, unkind, profane, dishonest, loudly opinionated, and consistently wrong. He remains the most vain man I have ever met. And he was trying to make a good impression. Who could have predicted that those very traits, now on prominent daily display, would turn him into the leading G.O.P. candidate for president of the United States?

    His latest outrageous edict on banning all Muslims from entering the country comes as no surprise to me based on the man I met nearly 20 years ago. He has no coherent political philosophy, so comparisons with Fascist leaders miss the mark. He just reacts. Trump lives in a fantasy of perfection, with himself as its animating force.

    Before I met him back in 1996, I felt bad for him. He’d had a rough 10 years. He had just turned 50 and wasn’t happy about it. He looked soft, from his growing jowls to the way his belt bit deeply into the spreading roll of his belly. As a businessman he had crashed and burned, rescued only by creditors who had to bail him out lest they be dragged down with him. His enterprises were being run by court-appointed managers, who had put him back on his financial feet mostly by investing heavily in Atlantic City, which was then on the rise.

    He had insulated himself from failure with bluster. In public he was still The Donald—still rich, still working hard at being a symbol of excess. I was working on a profile of him for Playboy, which was his kind of magazine. He considered himself the magazine’s beau ideal, and was inordinately proud of having been featured on the magazine’s cover some years before. His then wife, Marla Maples, told him, sardonically, that he ought to buy the magazine: “You bought the Miss Universe Pageant; it’s right up your alley.” He must have figured it was a safe bet to agree to cooperate for my story. But well before I left him, we both knew he probably wouldn’t like the final product.

    I was prepared to like him as I boarded his black 727 at La Guardia for the flight to Mar-a-Lago, his Florida home—prepared to discover that his over-the-top public persona was a clever pose. That underneath was an ironic wit, an ordinary but clever guy. But no. With Trump, what you see is what you get. His behavior was cringe-worthy. He showed off the gilded interior of his plane—calling me over to inspect a Renoir on its walls, beckoning me to lean in closely to see . . . what? The luminosity of the brush strokes? The masterly use of color? No. The signature. “Worth $10 million,” he told me. Time after time the stories he told me didn’t check out, from Michael Jackson’s romantic weekend at Mar-a-Lago with his then wife Lisa Marie Presley (they stayed at opposite ends of the estate) to the rug in one bedroom he said was designed by Walt Disney when he was 18 (it wasn’t) to the strength of his marriage to Maples (they would split months later).

    It was hard to watch the way he treated those around him, issuing peremptory orders—“Polish this, Tony. Today.” He met with the lady who selected his drapery for the Florida estate—“The best! The best! She’s a genius!”—who had selected a sampling of fabrics for him to choose from, all different shades of gold. He left the choice to her, saying only, “I want it really rich. Rich, rich, elegant, incredible.” Then, “Don’t disappoint me.” It was a pattern. Trump did not make decisions. He surrounded himself with “geniuses” and delegated. So long as you did not “disappoint” him—and it was never clear how to avoid doing so—you were gold.

    What was clear was how fast and far one could fall from favor. The trip from “genius” to “idiot” was a flash. The former pilots who flew his plane were geniuses, until they made one too many bumpy landings and became “fucking idiots.” The gold carpeting selected in his absence for the locker rooms in the spa at Mar-a-Lago? “What kind of fucking idiot . . . ?” I watched as Trump strutted around the beautifully groomed clay tennis courts on his estate, managed by noted tennis pro Anthony Boulle. The courts had been prepped meticulously for a full day of scheduled matches. Trump took exception to the design of the spaces between courts. In particular, he didn’t like a small metal box—a pump and cooler for the water fountain alongside—which he thought looked ugly. He first questioned its placement, then crudely disparaged it, then kicked the box, which didn’t budge, and then stooped—red-faced and fuming—to tear it loose from its moorings, rupturing a water line and sending a geyser to soak the courts. Boulle looked horrified, a weekend of tennis abruptly drowned. Catching a glimpse of me watching, Trump grimaced.

    “I guess that’ll have to be in your story,” he said.

    “Pretty much,” I told him.

    This apparently worried him, because on the flight home a day later he had a proposition.

    “I’m looking for somebody to write my next book,” he told me.

    I told him that I would not be interested.

    “Why not?” he asked. “All my books become best-sellers.”

    The import was clear. There was money in it for me. Trump remains the only person I have ever written about who tried to bribe me.

    As I’ve watched his improbable political rise, it is clear that he hasn’t changed. The very things that made him so unappealing apparently now translate into wide popular support. Apart from the comical ego, the errors, and the self-serving bluster, what you get from Trump are commonplace ideas pronounced as received wisdom. Begin registering all Muslims in America? Round up the families of suspected terrorists? Ban all Muslims from entering the country? Carpet-bomb ISIS-held territories in Iraq (killing the 98-plus percent of civilians who are, in effect, being held hostage there by the terror group and turning a war against a tiny fraction of the world’s Muslims into a global religious crusade)? Using nuclear weapons? The ideas that pop into his head are the same ones that occur to any teenager angry about terror attacks. They appeal to anyone who can’t be bothered to think them through—can’t be bothered to ask not just the moral questions but the all-important practical one: Will doing this makes things better or worse? When you believe in your own genius, you don’t question your own flashes of inspiration.

    I got a call from his office some days after my profile of him appeared in the May 1997 issue of Playboy. I had already heard how he’d blown his stack to Christie Hefner. I was traveling at the tim>, working on my book Black Hawk Down. The call came to me in a motel room in Colorado, from his trusty assistant, the late Norma Foerderer.

    “Mr. Trump would like to talk to you,” she said.

    I waited, sitting on the edge of the bed, bracing myself.

    Foerderer came back on the line. She said:

    “He’s too livid to speak.”

    Be that as it may, Trump’s supporters should be more concerned about what RedState reports:

    In July, Donald Trump made a statementabout the 2008 financial crisis that left many conservatives perplexed:

    “I identify with some things as a Democrat…I was never a Bush fan. [When] the economy crashed so horribly under George Bush, because of mistakes they made having to do with banking and lots of other things, I don’t think the Democrats would have done that.”

    Now to be sure, there is plenty of blame to be spread around. Both parties in Congress, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, and even the American public all contributed to the crisis.

    But if Trump thinks that the Democrats were not to blame, well, I will refer him to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

    Trump’s statement prompted me to research what he thought about the economy-and proposals to fix it-during the end of Bush’s term and the beginning of Obama’s term (of which he had high hopes):

    We have a young, vibrant, smart president who, I think, is going to do a really good job.

    And, honestly, he has to do a really good job or this country maybe will never be the same. We had eight years of a horrendous president, a terrible president. You cannot get worse than Bush. And I really believe that Obama will be a great president, and I hope he is.

    Anyway, I found out that Donald Trump supported the bank bailouts.

    “Now, I did not know about a $700 billion bailout, in all fairness. And I think probably, it is something — it’s sad, but, probably, it’s something that has to get done, because your financial system is most likely going to come to a halt if it does not. So, it is a pretty sad day for this country.”

    And the auto bailouts:

    “I think the government should stand behind them 100 percent. You cannot lose the auto companies. They’re great. They make wonderful products.”

    He really liked the stimulus package:

    “I thought he did a terrific job,” Trump told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren. “This is a strong guy knows what he wants, and this is what we need.”

    “First of all, I thought he did a great job tonight,” said Trump. “I thought he was strong and smart, and it looks like we have somebody that knows what he is doing finally in office, and he did inherit a tremendous problem. He really stepped into a mess, Greta.”

    Van Susteren then asked Trump if a simple payroll tax holiday might be a better way to stimulate the flagging economy. Trump, however, held firm in his support for Obama’s plan, which he praised for the wide breadth of approaches it took to combatting the crisis.

    “Well, I think taxes are very good. I think it goes quickly. It is easily done, and etc., etc.,” Trump told Van Susteren, “but building infrastructure, building great projects, putting people to work in that sense is also very good, so I think you have a combination of both plus he is doing a rebate system and I think that is good also.”

    Despite concerns with the cost, he liked Obama’s healthcare plan:

    VAN SUSTEREN: What is your thought about the health care reform that is being at least proposed, at this point?

    TRUMP: Well, I think it’s noble, except I just don’t know how a country that’s in such debt — we are really a debtor nation right now, and I just don’t know how a country in this kind of trouble can afford it. It’s very — I love the idea, but can this country afford it? Will it destroy the country? Will it destroy other people that have been paying into health care for years? I mean, will that destroy other people? It’s a very, very tough situation. I love it from many standpoints, but can this country afford it? And maybe this isn’t the right time.

    (By the way, Trump IS and HAS been a fan of Obama’s ideal healthcare system: single payer)

    How about Obama’s longstanding obsession with progressive taxation? Trump agrees:

    “The one problem I have with the flat tax is that rich people are paying the same as people that are making very little money,” he said. “And I think there should be a graduation of some kind. Because as you make a certain amount of money, I think you should have to graduate upward.”

    How about “protecting ” Social Security and Medicare from financially responsible and necessary reform? Trump won’t touch them either:

    “Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we can’t do that. And it’s not fair to the people that have been paying in for years and now all of the sudden they want to be cut.”

    Throw in his misunderstanding of the economic effects of immigration and free trade, and the current GOP front-runner is one confused man when it comes to the economy.

    Of course Trump understands the real estate and entertainment businesses. But his skill in those areas clearly has not translated to a broader understanding of free market principles.

    If Republican voters care about those principles, more than say, bluster, it will only be a matter of time before Trump fades. Otherwise, and it is a very real possibility, the GOP just may nominate another candidate who represents more of the same economic failures of the past.

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Not a fan
Previous Page
1 … 653 654 655 656 657 … 1,035
Next Page

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog

The thoughts of a journalist/libertarian–conservative/Christian husband, father, Eagle Scout and aficionado of obscure rock music. Thoughts herein are only the author’s and not necessarily the opinions of his family, friends, neighbors, church members or past, present or future employers.

  • Steve
    • About, or, Who is this man?
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Adventures in ruralu0026nbsp;inkBack in June 2009, I was driving somewhere through a rural area. And for some reason, I had a flashback to two experiences in my career about that time of year many years ago. In 1988, eight days after graduating from the University of Wisconsin, I started work at the Grant County Herald Independent in Lancaster as a — well, the — reporter. Four years after that, on my 27th birthday, I purchased, with a business partner, the Tri-County Press in Cuba City, my first business venture. Both were experiences about which Wisconsin author Michael Perry might write. I thought about all this after reading a novel, The Deadline, written by a former newspaper editor and publisher. (Now who would write a novel about a weekly newspaper?) As a former newspaper owner, I picked at some of it — why finance a newspaper purchase through the bank if the seller is willing to finance it? Because the mean bank lender is a plot point! — and it is much more interesting than reality, but it is very well written, with a nicely twisting plot, and quite entertaining, again more so than reality. There is something about that first job out of college that makes you remember it perhaps more…
    • Adventures in radioI’ve been in the full-time work world half my life. For that same amount of time I’ve been broadcasting sports as a side interest, something I had wanted to since I started listening to games on radio and watching on TV, and then actually attending games. If you ask someone who’s worked in radio for some time about the late ’70s TV series “WKRP in Cincinnati,” most of them will tell you that, if anything, the series understated how wacky working in radio can be. Perhaps the funniest episode in the history of TV is the “WKRP” episode, based on a true story, about the fictional radio station’s Thanksgiving promotion — throwing live turkeys out of a helicopter under the mistaken belief that, in the words of WKRP owner Arthur Carlson, “As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.” [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST01bZJPuE0] I’ve never been involved in anything like that. I have announced games from the roofs of press boxes (once on a nice day, and once in 50-mph winds), from a Mississippi River bluff (more on that later), and from the front row of the second balcony of the University of Wisconsin Fieldhouse (great view, but not a place to go if…
    • “Good morning/afternoon/evening, ________ fans …”
    • My biggest storyEarlier this week, while looking for something else, I came upon some of my own work. (I’m going to write a blog someday called “Things I Found While Looking for Something Else.” This is not that blog.) The Grant County Sheriff’s Department, in the county where I used to live, has a tribute page to the two officers in county history who died in the line of duty. One is William Loud, a deputy marshal in Cassville, shot to death by two bank robbers in 1912. The other is Tom Reuter, a Grant County deputy sheriff who was shot to death at the end of his 4 p.m.-to-midnight shift March 18, 1990. Gregory Coulthard, then a 19-year-old farmhand, was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide and is serving a life sentence, with his first eligibility for parole on March 18, 2015, just 3½ years from now. I’ve written a lot over the years. I think this, from my first two years in the full-time journalism world, will go down as the story I remember the most. For journalists, big stories contain a paradox, which was pointed out in CBS-TV’s interview of Andy Rooney on his last “60 Minutes” Sunday. Morley Safer said something along the line…
  • Food and drink
    • The Roesch/Prestegard familyu0026nbsp;cookbookFrom the family cookbook(s) All the families I’m associated with love to eat, so it’s a good thing we enjoy cooking. The first out-of-my-house food memory I have is of my grandmother’s cooking for Christmas or other family occasions. According to my mother, my grandmother had a baked beans recipe that she would make for my mother. Unfortunately, the recipe seems to have  disappeared. Also unfortunately, my early days as a picky, though voluminous, eater meant I missed a lot of those recipes made from such wholesome ingredients as lard and meat fat. I particularly remember a couple of meals that involve my family. The day of Super Bowl XXXI, my parents, my brother, my aunt and uncle and a group of their friends got together to share lots of food and cheer on the Packers to their first NFL title in 29 years. (After which Jannan and I drove to Lambeau Field in the snow,  but that’s another story.) Then, on Dec. 31, 1999, my parents, my brother, my aunt and uncle and Jannan and I (along with Michael in utero) had a one-course-per-hour meal to appropriately end years beginning with the number 1. Unfortunately I can’t remember what we…
    • SkålI was the editor of Marketplace Magazine for 10 years. If I had to point to one thing that demonstrates improved quality of life since I came to Northeast Wisconsin in 1994, it would be … … the growth of breweries and  wineries in Northeast Wisconsin. The former of those two facts makes sense, given our heritage as a brewing state. The latter is less self-evident, since no one thinks of Wisconsin as having a good grape-growing climate. Some snobs claim that apple or cherry wines aren’t really wines at all. But one of the great facets of free enterprise is the opportunity to make your own choice of what food and drink to drink. (At least for now, though some wish to restrict our food and drink choices.) Wisconsin’s historically predominant ethnic group (and our family’s) is German. Our German ancestors did unfortunately bring large government and high taxes with them, but they also brought beer. Europeans brought wine with them, since they came from countries with poor-quality drinking water. Within 50 years of a wave of mid-19th-century German immigration, brewing had become the fifth largest industry in the U.S., according to Maureen Ogle, author of Ambitious Brew: The Story of American Beer. Beer and wine have…
  • Wheels
    • America’s sports carMy birthday in June dawned without a Chevrolet Corvette in front of my house. (The Corvette at the top of the page was featured at the 2007 Greater Milwaukee Auto Show. The copilot is my oldest son, Michael.) Which isn’t surprising. I have three young children, and I have a house with a one-car garage. (Then again, this would be more practical, though a blatant pluck-your-eyes-out violation of the Corvette ethos. Of course, so was this.) The reality is that I’m likely to be able to own a Corvette only if I get a visit from the Corvette Fairy, whose office is next door to the Easter Bunny. (I hope this isn’t foreshadowing: When I interviewed Dave Richter of Valley Corvette for a car enthusiast story in the late great Marketplace Magazine, he said that the most popular Corvette in most fans’ minds was a Corvette built during their days in high school. This would be a problem for me in that I graduated from high school in 1983, when no Corvette was built.) The Corvette is one of those cars whose existence may be difficult to understand within General Motors Corp. The Corvette is what is known as a “halo car,” a car that drives people into showrooms, even if…
    • Barges on fouru0026nbsp;wheelsI originally wrote this in September 2008.  At the Fox Cities Business Expo Tuesday, a Smart car was displayed at the United Way Fox Cities booth. I reported that I once owned a car into which trunk, I believe, the Smart could be placed, with the trunk lid shut. This is said car — a 1975 Chevrolet Caprice coupe (ours was dark red), whose doors are, I believe, longer than the entire Smart. The Caprice, built down Interstate 90 from us Madisonians in Janesville (a neighbor of ours who worked at the plant probably helped put it together) was the flagship of Chevy’s full-size fleet (which included the stripper Bel Air and middle-of-the-road Impala), featuring popular-for-the-time vinyl roofs, better sound insulation, an upgraded cloth interior, rear fender skirts and fancy Caprice badges. The Caprice was 18 feet 1 inch long and weighed 4,300 pounds. For comparison: The midsize Chevrolet of the ear was the Malibu, which was the same approximate size as the Caprice after its 1977 downsizing. The compact Chevrolet of the era was the Nova, which was 200 inches long — four inches longer than a current Cadillac STS. Wikipedia’s entry on the Caprice has this amusing sentence: “As fuel economy became a bigger priority among Americans…
    • Behind the wheel
    • Collecting only dust or rust
    • Coooooooooooupe!
    • Corvettes on the screen
    • The garage of misfit cars
    • 100 years (and one day) of our Chevrolets
    • They built Excitement, sort of, once in a while
    • A wagon by any otheru0026nbsp;nameFirst written in 2008. You will see more don’t-call-them-station-wagons as you drive today. Readers around my age have probably had some experience with a vehicle increasingly rare on the road — the station wagon. If you were a Boy Scout or Girl Scout, or were a member of some kind of youth athletic team, or had a large dog, or had relatives approximately your age, or had friends who needed to be transported somewhere, or had parents who occasionally had to haul (either in the back or in a trailer) more than what could be fit inside a car trunk, you (or, actually, your parents) were the target demographic for the station wagon. “Station wagons came to be like covered wagons — so much family activity happened in those cars,” said Tim Cleary, president of the American Station Wagon Owners Association, in Country Living magazine. Wagons “were used for everything from daily runs to the grocery store to long summer driving trips, and while many men and women might have wanted a fancier or sportier car, a station wagon was something they knew they needed for the family.” The “station wagon” originally was a vehicle with a covered seating area to take people between train stations…
    • Wheels on theu0026nbsp;screenBetween my former and current blogs, I wrote a lot about automobiles and TV and movies. Think of this post as killing two birds (Thunderbirds? Firebirds? Skylarks?) with one stone. Most movies and TV series view cars the same way most people view cars — as A-to-B transportation. (That’s not counting the movies or series where the car is the plot, like the haunted “Christine” or “Knight Rider” or the “Back to the Future” movies.) The philosophy here, of course, is that cars are not merely A-to-B transportation. Which disqualifies most police shows from what you’re about to read, even though I’ve watched more police video than anything else, because police cars are plain Jane vehicles. The highlight in a sense is in the beginning: The car chase in my favorite movie, “Bullitt,” featuring Steve McQueen’s 1968 Ford Mustang against the bad guys’ 1968 Dodge Charger: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMc2RdFuOxIu0026amp;fmt=18] One year before that (but I didn’t see this until we got Telemundo on cable a couple of years ago) was a movie called “Operación 67,” featuring (I kid you not) a masked professional wrestler, his unmasked sidekick, and some sort of secret agent plot. (Since I don’t know Spanish and it’s not…
    • While riding in my Cadillac …
  • Entertainments
    • Brass rocksThose who read my former blog last year at this time, or have read this blog over the past months, know that I am a big fan of the rock group Chicago. (Back when they were a rock group and not a singer of sappy ballads, that is.) Since rock music began from elements of country music, jazz and the blues, brass rock would seem a natural subgenre of rock music. A lot of ’50s musical acts had saxophone players, and some played with full orchestras … [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CPS-WuUKUE] … but it wasn’t until the more-or-less simultaneous appearances of Chicago and Blood Sweat u0026amp; Tears on the musical scene (both groups formed in 1967, both had their first charting singles in 1969, and they had the same producer) that the usual guitar/bass/keyboard/drum grouping was augmented by one or more trumpets, a sax player and a trombone player. While Chicago is my favorite group (but you knew that already), the first brass rock song I remember hearing was BSu0026amp;T’s “Spinning Wheel” — not in its original form, but on “Sesame Street,” accompanied by, yes, a giant spinning wheel. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi9sLkyhhlE] [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxWSOuNsN20] [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9U34uPjz-g] I remember liking Chicago’s “Just You ‘n Me” when it was released as a single, and…
    • Drive and Eat au0026nbsp;RockThe first UW home football game of each season also is the opener for the University of Wisconsin Marching Band, the world’s finest college marching band. (How the UW Band has not gotten the Sudler Trophy, which is to honor the country’s premier college marching bands, is beyond my comprehension.) I know this because I am an alumnus of the UW Band. I played five years (in the last rank of the band, Rank 25, motto: “Where Men Are Tall and Run-On Is Short”), marching in 39 football games at Camp Randall Stadium, the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome in Minneapolis, Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor, Memorial Stadium at the University of Illinois (worst artificial turf I had ever seen), the University of Nevada–Las Vegas’ Sam Boyd Silver Bowl, the former Dyche Stadium at Northwestern University, five high school fields and, in my one bowl game, Legion Field in Birmingham, Ala., site of the 1984 Hall of Fame Bowl. The UW Band was, without question, the most memorable experience of my college days, and one of the most meaningful experiences of my lifetime. It was the most physical experience of my lifetime, to be sure. Fifteen minutes into my first Registration…
    • Keep on rockin’ in the freeu0026nbsp;worldOne of my first ambitions in communications was to be a radio disc jockey, and to possibly reach the level of the greats I used to listen to from WLS radio in Chicago, which used to be one of the great 50,000-watt AM rock stations of the country, back when they still existed. (Those who are aficionados of that time in music and radio history enjoyed a trip to that wayback machine when WLS a Memorial Day Big 89 Rewind, excerpts of which can be found on their Web site.) My vision was to be WLS’ afternoon DJ, playing the best in rock music between 2 and 6, which meant I wouldn’t have to get up before the crack of dawn to do the morning show, yet have my nights free to do whatever glamorous things big-city DJs did. Then I learned about the realities of radio — low pay, long hours, zero job security — and though I have dabbled in radio sports, I’ve pretty much cured myself of the idea of working in radio, even if, to quote WAPL’s Len Nelson, “You come to work every day just like everybody else does, but we’re playing rock ’n’ roll songs, we’re cuttin’ up.…
    • Monday on the flight line, not Saturday in the park
    • Music to drive by
    • The rock ofu0026nbsp;WisconsinWikipedia begins its item “Music of Wisconsin” thusly: Wisconsin was settled largely by European immigrants in the late 19th century. This immigration led to the popularization of galops, schottisches, waltzes, and, especially, polkas. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl7wCczgNUc] So when I first sought to write a blog piece about rock musicians from Wisconsin, that seemed like a forlorn venture. Turned out it wasn’t, because when I first wrote about rock musicians from Wisconsin, so many of them that I hadn’t mentioned came up in the first few days that I had to write a second blog entry fixing the omissions of the first. This list is about rock music, so it will not include, for instance, Milwaukee native and Ripon College graduate Al Jarreau, who in addition to having recorded a boatload of music for the jazz and adult contemporary/easy listening fan, also recorded the theme music for the ’80s TV series “Moonlighting.” Nor will it include Milwaukee native Eric Benet, who was for a while known more for his former wife, Halle Berry, than for his music, which includes four number one singles on the Ru0026amp;B charts, “Spend My Life with You” with Tamia, “Hurricane,” “Pretty Baby” and “You’re the Only One.” Nor will it include Wisconsin’s sizable contributions to big…
    • Steve TV: All Steve, All the Time
    • “Super Steve, Man of Action!”
    • Too much TV
    • The worst music of allu0026nbsp;timeThe rock group Jefferson Airplane titled its first greatest-hits compilation “The Worst of Jefferson Airplane.” Rolling Stone magazine was not being ironic when it polled its readers to decide the 10 worst songs of the 1990s. I’m not sure I agree with all of Rolling Stone’s list, but that shouldn’t be surprising; such lists are meant for debate, after all. To determine the “worst,” songs appropriate for the “Vinyl from Hell” segment that used to be on a Madison FM rock station, requires some criteria, which does not include mere overexposure (for instance, “Macarena,” the video of which I find amusing since it looks like two bankers are singing it). Before we go on: Blog posts like this one require multimedia, so if you find a song you hate on this blog, I apologize. These are also songs that I almost never listen to because my sound system has a zero-tolerance policy — if I’m listening to the radio or a CD and I hear a song I don’t like, it’s, to quote Bad Company, gone gone gone. My blonde wife won’t be happy to read that one of her favorite ’90s songs, 4 Non Blondes’ “What’s Up,” starts the list. (However,…
    • “You have the right to remain silent …”
  • Madison
    • Blasts from the Madison media past
    • Blasts from my Madison past
    • Blasts from our Madison past
    • What’s the matter with Madison?
    • Wisconsin – Madison = ?
  • Sports
    • Athletic aesthetics, or “cardinal” vs. “Big Red”
    • Choose your own announcer
    • La Follette state 1982 (u0022It was 30 years ago todayu0022)
    • The North Dakota–Wisconsin Hockey Fight of 1982
    • Packers vs. Brewers
  • Hall of Fame
    • The case(s) against teacher unions
    • The Class of 1983
    • A hairy subject, or face the face
    • It’s worse than you think
    • It’s worse than you think, 2010–11 edition
    • My favorite interview subject of all time
    • Oh look! Rural people!
    • Prestegard for president!
    • Unions vs. the facts, or Hiding in plain sight
    • When rhetoric goes too far
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog
    • Join 198 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d