Rodgers Out, Love In: We Turn the Page

John Hadl. Jim Del Gaizo. Jerry Tagge. David Whitehurst.

Remember those names? You have to be a well-versed Packer fan if you do. Those guys played quarterback for Green Bay in the 70s, featuring deserts separating successes in a post-Lombardi era that people would just as soon forget, with one playoff appearance that was quickly snuffed out.

That was followed by an era of decent mediocrity under Lynn Dickey, who could sure throw but couldn't run worth a hoot. You always knew where to find him. He had none other than Bart Starr as his head coach. Another downturn began the 1990s with one decent season under Lindy Infante and our second significant Polish quarterback (Zeke Bratkowski being the other, but he too was connected with the Lombardi dynasty), Don Majkowski.

Loyalty was hard to maintain. But Majkowski got hurt in 1992, bringing on an untested, swaggering gunslinger named Brett Favre and a head coach, Mike Holmgren, who saw the potential and stuck with him. And so Packer fans embarked on a 30-year--30 years--run of not only stability at quarterback, but more than occasional brilliance. One Hall of Famer to be named later had been succeeded by yet another right on his tail with no pause in-between.

Name me another pro football team with such talent and success at that position since that time. Here's saying you can't. We have been lucky, damn lucky, for such a skein.

That may have ended the other day when the trade that sent Aaron Rodgers to the New York Jets was finally concluded. Will Rodgers surge to ultimate success that he has only realized once, like Tom Brady in his ultimate revenge for the New England Patriots concluding that he was washed up enough not to keep? Or will he end up like Favre, who took another team, the Minnesota Vikings, to within an inch of the Super Bowl, much like he did with the Packers, but once again fell prey to his own penchant for taking too many chances?

No way to know right now, of course. But for Packer fans, it's probably been easier to accept the drawn out method by which Rodgers has made his transition, since Favre put them through comparable angst. Ours will be easier and quicker, largely because the general consensus is that Jordan Love isn't too bad, and that after waiting interminably for his chance, he deserves one.

Love has a couple of young receivers who could become staples of the squad should they remain healthy: Christian Watson, who has already demonstrated his blazing speed; and Romeo Daubs, who if not quite as fast, has shown promise. Rodgers is understandably too impatient, now in the twilight of his career, to wait for them to develop to their greatest talents. Love and those two, though, might be fun to watch grow together. The franchise just might not bottom out this year, necessarily. Productivity might be surprisingly good. To ensure that, the Packers drafted three receivers in the second round.

At any rate, it's time to stop the Rodgers anxiety, time to come out from the cave of uncertainty and "dance with the girl you brung." That the Packers spent their first round pick on a defensive lineman shows that a stouter defense is now called for, so it can stop opponents more often and give this new offense more opportunities to score. Maybe it can give the draft picks more room to breathe. They don't always pan out, though. Remember Tony Mandarich?

Whether Love continues the string of outstanding quarterbacks in Green Bay is a matter of conjecture, too. He has shown decent talent. We know he has a good arm, and his young legs can get much farther than an old Rodgers could. But does he have the moxie and coldbloodedness that separates clutch players from the also-rans? If I were Love, I'd be itching to show people their investment paid off.

If so, we sail on, playoff threats still. If not, it may be back to the '70s for a while. Packer fans got through that, too. Wasn't fun, though. You have to admit: Despite the lack of ultimate success, these 30 years have been fun. And isn't that the point of entertainment?

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Democracy Works in Sister Bay, the Way It's Supposed To

Democracy works if you give it a chance. The people of Sister Bay discovered--or perhaps, rediscovered--that the other day.

It held a race for village president. The position doesn't have anywhere near the power of a mayor, for instance; a mayor can veto legislation; a village president can't though he has a vote. But someone has to be in charge of carrying out what the village board passes. Call the position that of chief administrator.

The incumbent, Rob Zoschke, ran for re-election against Nate Bell. They tied, 256-256. The winner would have to be decided "by drawing lots," or so said Wisconsin statutes.

But that phrase could be interpreted broadly. In actuality, the village gave the candidates five ways they could break the tie: by putting names into a bowl; by drawing straws; by cutting cards; by a coin flip; or by rolling dice. The article that ran in the Peninsula Pulse, one of two free newspapers in Door County, said that they both agreed to roll dice. 

No arguments. No name-calling. They just got on with it.

Did they roll two dice or one? The paper's editor told me in an e-mail: just one each. I suppose a tie would be followed by subsequent rolls.

Zoschke rolled a two. Bell a six. That was that.

Were voices raised? Were there pickets with clever put-downs? Did Sister Bay erupt in a cacophony of protest? Were vote counters threatened? Did an angry mob rush the government offices and demand justice for poor Rob? Were windows broken? Were extra police called in to stem the mob? Were any plates of spaghetti thrown against the wall?

Nope. None of that happened. Zoschke didn't even ask for a recount, which was his right. He accepted the result. In fact, he even said what an honor it had been to serve the public. The job was Bell's now, for the next two years. The article didn't say whether the two shook hands, but I'm guessing they did.

This wasn't the first time that had ever happened in any municipality, not in Wisconsin nor elsewhere. Elections, thousands of them, are held constantly, and especially in small places like Sister Bay, the odds are better that a tie will result.

The editor of the Peninsula Press, Debra Fitzgerald, said that national media had gotten hold of the story. They noted the peaceful process and conclusion for comparison with a different, far more awful day not that long ago in which emotionally stricken, severely misguided fools violated our national capitol building in a futile, murderous frenzy.

They gained only frustration because the elections, individually and collectively, that they were protesting were perhaps the most secure that we have ever had. Presidents have been elected with far less precise monitoring, such as what happened in 2000, when Miami mobs really did hold up the count and probably awarded the election to George W. Bush.

Even then, though, the loser, Al Gore, who I believe was robbed by a Republican-controlled Supreme Court, respected the Court's finding, as painful as I'm sure he found it. There were protesters on both sides in various states; I participated in one of the protests in Washington, DC, as a member of the National Education Association Board of Directors. We were depicted as sore losers, just another example of Republicans who take what they are themselves and project it on their opponents before they can print up signs.

But it was 200 years before that, in 1800, that the first, true test of democracy took place. John Adams, successor to the presidency from the late George Washington, lost in his re-election campaign to Thomas Jefferson in a bitter battle, one that changed the Constitution because of the development of political parties and the effect upon the Electoral College. Jefferson and his vice-presidential running mate, Aaron Burr, tied with the same number of electoral votes because it hadn't been foreseen that presidential and vice-presidential candidates, running on a ticket, could receive the same number of votes.

To break the tie, the Constitution, just 13 years old, prescribed a remedy. The election would have to be thrown into the House of Representatives, in which a majority of the state delegations would have to determine the winner, each state having one vote. But the House was split between Jefferson, Adams and Burr. Adams couldn't possibly win, but Burr, being on the winning side, could. Alexander Hamilton, who had been Washington's Secretary of the Treasury and who might have won the position himself if not for the revelation of a sex scandal, threw his political support to Jefferson, who he disliked, but not as much as Burr (and yes, this set the stage for the eventual duel in which Burr killed Hamilton). Hamilton's prestige carried considerable weight. When news of that hit the floor, the game shifted and Jefferson won.

The Federalist Party, then, had lost its hold on power by an eyelash. But it would have to give way willingly, or the hope of democracy in America would be doomed. The actual acquiescence of one group of policymakers actually had to take place. The passage of power had never happened before. More than one person held their breath. The Federalists and Adams conceded.

Just because things happened in a certain way doesn't mean it had to happen that way. Fortunately, there was no attempted coup d'etat. There was no resistance on or before March 4, 1801, when Jefferson took the oath of office. The issue lingered, though, because Aaron Burr, who was capable of going over the edge in his need for power, appeared to try to get some western territories to secede from the Union. Put on trial for treason in 1805, he escaped conviction.

Until January 6, 2021, regardless of the closeness and controversy of presidential elections--and there have been some doozies, 2000 being just one of them--that tradition and its guardrails held. The winners don't make the Constitution work. The losers do by keeping their powders dry and waiting for another scheduled chance.

Even though the ex-president knew he lost, he has never conceded. The transfer of power, legal and well-documented, supported by vote counts that have been repeated more than once, has never been approved by him. That's all we need to know as he gears up for another divisive, narcissistic run at the top office. He's an enemy of democracy, plain and simple. He urged the demonstrators to actually rush the Capitol, find Congressional leaders, and if they were lynched, so be it. He's more than an awful person. He's a danger to our society.

But the government and people of Sister Bay, Wisconsin, in April 2023, have gotten beyond that. They gave democracy a chance. The greater interests of stability and successful civilization won. Quietly, almost imperceptibly, they put the guardrails back up. Here's hoping that when they and the rest of us go to the polls in November, 2024, we will remember that we nearly lost it all two years ago, that we still can, and that is exactly, once again, what's at stake.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Let's Not Forget What the Lawsuit Says about Fox News

We awoke this morning, Monday, with news that the defamation trial by Dominion Systems against Fox News was delayed for a day (at least) while the sides discussed a settlement.

This is the 'playing chicken' portion of litigation that comes naturally; one side believes the other is bluffing and won't really want to carry out its attempts at trial when all the information (finally, because it takes time) comes in. Just being mad doesn't mean you'll win.

Besides, Dominion must prove that Fox News committed libelousness to an extent that matches that standard put into motion by the 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan--that is, that Fox not only published (broadcast) information that it knew was false, it never apologized or later corrected itself--an act of negligence defined as journalistic 'malice.' Fox would put out there that its discussions of the 2020 presidential campaign were well within the public interest; that yes, many of its commentaries may not have been based on fact; but the Sullivan standard allows that to take place and guarantees the widest possible range of analysis, especially since this is about the number one political figure we elect ro represent us. 

Because of the nature of the coverage and the subject, libel suits are and ought to be tough to win. But Dominion has lots of e-mails and text messages to back its charges up, as we have learned in past weeks. It can readily prove that major players in the Fox realm, including its owner, Rupert Murdoch, wanted to put the Big Lie of the stolen election out there anyhow, since it feared it would lose viewers who clung onto hopes of an ex- victory, and some in fact still do.

To do that, someone had to add fuel to ex-'s false scenario in which he actually won but was gypped out of it. Fox gladly did so. It tried to say that Dominion's voting machines had either erred in its count (only in some states, not in others), or there was the sneaking possibility that someone had rigged its ability to make an accurate count--what amounted to intentional sabotage. That is election fraud, a punishable crime. Fox didn't blame anybody else in traceable ways; it blamed only Dominion (based on several looney-tune lawyers' bogus claims). But it knew from the start that those claims were wrong. Yet, it went on broadcasting them without adjustment or apology.

Fox lied. It lied over and over again. It knew it was lying. It didn't care that it was lying. All it knew is that it would lose viewers, and thus advertisers, and plenty of revenue, if it admitted the truth. So it kept on lying. It completely abrogated its responsibility to the public. It did the American people a thorough disservice.

There may not be a trial to show this. At the (expectedly; thus the game of 'chicken') last minute, Fox now wants to sit down with Dominion and discuss terms. Of course, there would be non-disclosure issues. So we may never know the extent of Fox's utter lack of due diligence. We don't know who called who to get this ball rolling. But unless news reports about this are entirely misleading (like Fox's attempt to smear Dominion), it had to be Fox that's waving the white flag of parlay.

Fox will pay heavily, and it knows that. It's being sued for $1.6 billion. Even if it settles for less, that's not pocket change. The interesting details will come from any statement that emanates from the discussions and settlement. Fox might be coerced, upon pain of public trial, to admit it had lied. We'll see.

Whether all this goes to trial or not, it's now our job to do what must be done: Smear Fox back. Call it out.

That means: Don't wait for it to come up in a conversation over drinks or dinner or watching the news. Bring it up yourself. Keep saying that Fox can't be trusted about anything. Spread doubt about its integrity now and forever. There will be those who still won't listen, who are stubborn for its own sake. Dare them to refute the facts which have been revealed. Dare them to show you another news outlet that got something wrong but refused to apologize. They won't do it because they can't.

Fox's gold-plated arrogance must be recalled in any and all conversations about journalistic integrity.  News outlets get things wrong every so often; it comes with the territory of aggressive coverage. But when they do--except for Fox--they apologize and make corrections when and where appropriate. That was the standard that the Sullivan case forwarded, and that's been the standard by which all have operated. Until now. Until Fox.

There have been articles written that warn that the Dominion v. Fox case will cause more lawsuits against media. I'm not sure if they will catch fire, though. Fox had to act egregiously in order for things to get this far. Not long ago, Sarah Palin tried to advance a suit against the New York Times for an error it made that made her look quite bad several years ago. Despite the backing of huge funding by ultra-conservative groups with a long-standing grudge against the Times, she got nowhere because the Times had apologized, and sincerely so. 

And that's the difference. Fox had plenty of opportunity to correct itself. It preferred not to, branding Dominion as dishonest by implication.

Nobody likes being called that, especially if it isn't true. Fox can now be called dishonest with absolute verification. This might actually be fun. Let's not forget it.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Trans? I Hope So

I knew I had to get it to the dumpster. It had been laying there far too long.

My broken lounge chair, that is. It had been sitting in the hallway inside my front door--which I rarely use--for weeks. I had bought a new one, too. But the deliverers weren't required to get rid of the old one, and so it had sat there, unbothered, unused, dysfunctional.

The weather turned unexpectedly warm the other day, and finally, there would be several days without rain or snow, a potential problem still in Wisconsin's April. I had to make it happen.

The upper portion, which I had managed to lift off, wasn't too heavy. In fact, it had a bar across it that allowed me to carry it not unlike a sack of groceries. Part I was a cruise.

Not Part II. The bottom half had the footrest mechanism, the primary infrastructure, and springs. Lifting it proved both awkward and too challenging. Now what?

I decided to turn the thing side-over-side, thus gaining ground toward the outside dumpster a couple of feet at a time. There was no one around to ask for help, but I wasn't in a hurry.

I managed to commandeer it down the short flight of steps that led to the back parking lot with the dumpster at the far end. It didn't look real far to get the top part there. It looked like the bottom part would have to traverse the Sahara Desert, though. 

My back began to complain. By the time I had gotten halfway across the parking lot, with some forty or fifty yards left, I had had to stop twice already.

I had no idea that someone was watching. The rear part of some of the apartments in my complex have back porches. Apparently, as I struggled, two young women must have seen me and taken pity. They came down to assist me.

One was a blond and another a brunette. One was fairly tall, the other very tall and thin. "We can handle this," the blond said, and she and her accomplice grabbed the skirt of the lower half. Within maybe a minute, they had dragged it to a reasonably noticeable place near the dumpster, next to the upper half.

I felt less than manly, but enormously grateful. I walked over and told them my name. It was the least I could do.

They told me theirs: April and Petra (they have been changed). I shook their hands and thanked them profusely.

I couldn't help but notice, though, that the very tall, brunette young woman had a far huskier voice and long, bony fingers. Of course I didn't ask, since it was really none of my business, but--was this a transwoman who had helped me with my difficult task?

I have not met one for some years now. My experience with NEA committees inevitably brought me into contact. I tried to disguise my initial surprise back then.

Once you come into contact, though, the notoriety falls off. It's just another human being, and this one was very compassionate, in fact. Fear fades. As far as I was concerned, it just led to another question: So what?

It makes you wonder what all the fuss is about, the ersatz threats, the presumed blasphemy of religious tenets. It's almost as if people are trying to frighten others into believing that as a few people go, so will the majority of humanity, that there is more to dread in coming into contact with gender transition than there is in Covid. I have no numbers to tell you how ridiculous this is, but I'd be surprised if the distribution of transgender individuals within our population is more than one-half of one percent.

But I was driving through southeast Missouri late last month--remember, this is the state that's voted to defund its public libraries in paranoia about gay and trans- literature--and I decided to turn on talk radio, which in that area is decidedly hyperreactionary. The commentator was prattling on about the recent murder in the school in Nashville, ostensibly committed by a trans-woman.

That, apparently, had led to rumors which, of course, he felt duty-bound to repeat: Namely, that on April 1, about four days away then, trans- people would be loading up their weapons and descending upon the rest of us 'normal' people in a surreptitious attack. What had caused him to factually conclude such ballyhoo was, of course, lacking from his spewing, as was the source of the rumors--which would spoil things for him and everyone. It wasn't unlike Fox News' assertions that the investigations of the so-called rigging of the Election of 2020 had genuinely solid ground--for which it is now being sued because of its assertions that Dominion Voting Systems had somehow diverted some Republican votes and turned them Democratic.

First Amendment, right? Preying on people's prejudices? Why not? Already embarrassed, Fox News is about to be outed as a primarily entertainment entity, not that it'll make much difference to its adherents.

But I doubt if the southeast Missouri radio station will be brought up for violations of propriety. It'll stand as another silly effort at fear-mongering. I wonder if any of those announcers have ever met a trans-person. I wonder how they would react if they ever did. Nevertheless, you'll note that there were no spate of domestic terror attacks on April 1. Maybe it was all done to gin-up the purchase of yet more guns, as if we would finally be convinced of their necessity.

I have no idea. I listened for about twenty minutes because I can't stomach any more than that. All I know is that a person taller than six feet, and friendly with a female name, lent me a hand that saved my back from being even sorer than it became in the aftermath. He/she did so without promise of recompense--a genuine act of kindness. I have no surety that he/she is a trans-person. In a way, though, I hope so.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark