Staying positive while the world keeps turning

Happy reading: It's 738 pages

       So after a 2 1/2-week blogging break, we're back because I know you eagerly -- anxiously? -- have been waiting.
       The blogs are supposed to make a point, but sometimes I'm just writing to be writing, just to say hello and catch you up on our lives.
       We have a big day -- anniversary -- coming up in 11 days. Wait for it; watch this space. 
       There were several reasons for the break, most notably the change in the political atmosphere. I'm not going to go into politics again -- much -- since we all have our minds made up anyway.
       What I will say is that, no matter what, the intention here is to remain positive. Heck, no, I don't like a lot of what is happening; I think it's a bizarre world -- you must remember that from previous blogs -- but the only control I have is over my own thoughts.
       So I take the positives out of each day, and I keep my gratitude journal, and I always find something for which to be grateful.
       Hope you do, too.
       Life has its challenges, though. Let's see:
       • My cellphone died two weeks ago on a trip to  Shreveport; there was no bringing it back.  Hello, new cellphone. Still trying to figure out how to use it.
       • Yesterday afternoon the water heater in the apartment went cold. Not good. Work order turned in; repairs made. Looking forward to a hot shower after my daily walk in a few minutes.
       • Facebook changed its Messenger page; I don't like it. Technology wins out again. Quit messing with me.
       • Then there was this: A two-week battle with bronchitis. A first for me -- cough, cough. It only took nine days for my caring, overly concerned wife to convince me to go to an urgent care clinic. A few meds -- and a thousand more coughs later -- and I'm (almost) well. 
       You know when, for 13 days, I don't go to the Downtown YMCA for yoga/stretching and when I get in only one daily walk in the same time frame that I'm off-course.
       Please hold the sympathy notes. I am not often sick and I don't do it well, but I have a friend who injured herself in a fall while running, one who is paralyzed and mostly bed-ridden, a couple dealing with cancer (and treatment), and one who had open-heart surgery Thursday. So bronchitis is nothin'.
       The time away from blogging left me with other goals, and a lot on which to comment: 
       • Still promoting my book, Survivors: 62511, 70726. Uh, sales are down a bit from November and December. So check Amazon or CreateSpace, and tell your friends.
       • Spent much time researching professional baseball history in Shreveport, a project that might lead to a publication. It is a daunting task. If anyone reading this has stories or photos to share from the Shreveport Sports/Captains/Swamp Dragons days, let me know.
       • Lots of time to watch sports ... but it has its limits.  Friends can hardly believe this when I tell them: I seldom enjoy watching games, in person or on TV, these days. I find much hypocrisy in athletics, college and/or pro. Just where I am in life; it's probably a blog piece in itself.
       • I did record a number of the college bowl games and College Football Playoffs and watched them later. (Bea is so anti-football that I don't subject her to the sport, and I'm less of a football fan every day.)
       Did not even watch LSU-Louisville live. Had other things to do that day, and did not begin watching the game until a couple of hours it was over (stayed off social media, so I did not know the score). Great effort by the Tigers. 
       • Did not watch any of the NFL playoffs live; no, not even the Cowboys. Sure I rooted for the Cowboys -- I always have -- and it's easy to root for QB Dak Prescott (from Haughton, La.), but it's hard to feel sorry for Jerry Jones and the Jones family.
       • I won't watch the Super Bowl, haven't watched it live for several years. Will record it; might or might not watch. Bottom line: I just don't care much about the NFL.
       I will root for the Atlanta Falcons, although I think the New England Patriots -- again -- will win the Super Bowl. As a New York Yankees fan, I should appreciate a "dynasty" franchise. But I am not a Patriots' fan, never have been, never will be.
       Believe, strongly, that Tom Brady is the best quarterback ever -- that's for my old late 1980s friends from  the Florida Times-Union sports staff who argued about that status every day for months -- and that Bill Belichick is arguably the best NFL coach ever. But Belichick (my opinion) is a boor, or a bore, whatever. Takes the fun out of the game, although some people thinking winning is fun.
       And speaking of boor/bore/no-fun-except-winning, how about Belichick's close friend, Nick Saban?
       No question the Clemson-Alabama national championship game was tremendous, and to me it proved how great an effort it takes to (barely) beat Alabama (and Saban). You have to know that nationally the only fans not rooting for Clemson were Alabama fans.
       • Also in my "don't care" category: the NFL's Pro Bowl; the NHL All-Star Game; the NBA All-Star Game; tennis (Australian Open). OK, I'm more cynical than ever.
       • Which takes me to college football recruiting, as it nears National Signing Day. I've written this previously, and I repeat: This is so overblown, so overdone, so unhealthy -- I believe -- for the kids' egos (and the fans' egos). I advise again: Don't put so much stock in the "verbal commitments" by these 17- and 18-year-olds. Waiting until they sign the scholarship papers and, beyond that, they actually qualify academically and enroll in school.
       • I wish I could care more about college basketball, but with the way LSU's men are playing -- 30-point losses are mounting -- it is discouraging. The less I say, the better. March Madness can't come soon enough.
       • We're going to miss Mary Tyler Moore. She was one of America's Sweethearts -- Laura Petrie of the 1960s, Mary Richards of the 1970s. Like many of us, she had her issues, but didn't you love her smiling face? 
       • No more "you're looking live" at Brent Musburger, thank you. Sorry, not going to miss him. It's about time he left TV sports play-by-play to others. I liked that he was a newspaper sports columnist decades ago, but once he went to television -- and we saw him so often -- I got the feeling that Brent's biggest fan was/is ... Brent.
       So I mostly used the "mute" button for his games on TV, and I occasionally would turn on the sound to hear him proclaim something stupid. He never failed.
---
       And speaking of "mute" -- fair warning -- I now turn to a bit of politics. You can stop reading here. 
       • We won't be listening on our TV to President Barnum's omnipresent "spokespeople," known here as Wicked Woman and Press Attack Dog. They have no voice here.

       • Here is the coolest thing I did in these 2 1/2 weeks; I fulfilled a promise to Bea, and myself, to (1) finish reading Hamilton The Revolution, the book on the genesis, writing, production and organization of the play and (2) kept reading Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton (I am through 106 pages; only 632 to go).  
       You know Hamilton, the "overrated" Broadway play that won only 11 Tony Awards.
       It reminds me that a couple of months ago when you-know-who was critical in two tweets of the Hamilton cast's "statement" to the Vice-President-elect and I posted how outrageous that was, I was told -- repeatedly -- that the statement was ill-timed and out-of-place. 
       And my reply was: If you think this was a protest, you haven't seen anything yet.
       Now you're seeing the protests, in all forms ... day after day after day, from shore to shore and beyond. And it's not going to stop for four years. 
       Hamilton, of course, reminds us how divided our political world always has been, since the beginning of this great country. It did not start with the previous President.
       George Washington had his critics, but Hamilton had enemies, among them Thomas Jefferson and -- yes -- Aaron Burr. And Burr, the then-Vice President,  shot the former Secretary of the Treasury to death in a duel.   
       Build that wall. Attack the "dishonest, lying" media. Send federal troops to protect the Alamo from the Mexican army. Watch the bizarre world turn every day.
       Take heart: No duels are scheduled ... yet.
       Here's what I repeat: Stay positive. Deal with it.   
                           

One more time: the media and politics

       So here is my challenge for the readers today: When you say "mainstream media" or "liberal media," be specific. Tell me -- by name -- who you are talking about.
       Not by network (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, whoever else you consider the main ones), not by just a newspaper name (The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, etc.).
       Give me the TV reporters/analysts/and, well, entertainers you watch -- or don't watch. Give me the newspaper reporters/columnists you like -- and don't like.
       In other words, where do you get your news? Where do you get the information to confirm your opinions?    
       Don't just say the "liberal media" or the "conservative media." That's too easy. That's too general.
       I am not promoting any cause here, or criticizing one. I'm just curious to know what you think.
       I welcome the feedback to my blogs -- positive, negative. Whatever. I will post the comments ... if I think they're decent. If they cross the line into name-calling or if they're ugly, most often I will not post them. I might leave them on Facebook for a while, but not forever.
       The lack of civility in this campaign the past year and a half was the most galling aspect to me. Not only from the politicians, but all over social media. Disgusting. Enough already.
       So no bashing Mr. Trump, or President Obama, or Hillary.
--- 
       Before I return to the media scene, we interrupt our beginning message for a few thoughts:
       I keep seeing the Hate Hillary comments; I received a couple. Here is my view: She lost. She is no longer relevant. She is history. You don't have to keep beating a beaten candidate. It's piling on.
       On the other side, stop whining about the popular vote and 2.5 million. It doesn't matter; it's not what really counts. The Electoral College counts, and there's no reversing that. It wouldn't be right. And can you imagine the chaos in the streets if it was reversed?
       And when I see "sore losers," count me out.
       I was involved in athletics long enough to know that it's a competition; one side wins, one side loses. If you win, don't gloat too long. There is another game coming. If you lose, don't let it linger. Life goes on.
       An inside joke with some of my friends is that I am "a bitter man." I'm only bitter for a few moments, believe me. But if you want a list of the most painful sports losses, I did a blog on that.
       There are a thousand, ten thousand, games I wish would have come out differently. That doesn't happen.
       So this election is done, and as I wrote four years ago after President Obama's re-election, "get over it and move on." We have a President-elect, and we should wait and see what happens.
       Even if you're a Trump supporter, you might not  particularly like him, you might even admit that he is  unpredictable. You don't know what's coming next, what he's tweeting about at any moment. But you probably also believe his administration can fix what needs fixing.
       I was told by one friend that I must be a "Trump Hater." Nope. I try not to hate anybody; it's a waste of time.
       Didn't support Candidate Trump, but now that he's President-elect Trump, I wish him well. The Presidency should be respected, and if he and the Congress improve health care and immigration and veterans' needs, schools/education, inner-city issues, violence in the streets,  rising terrorism and its threats, etc., etc., we're all for it.
 ---
       Back to our regularly scheduled message ... 
       I believe that many people lose sight that many media people are paid to offer their opinions, whether in print or on television and radio. So you should not expect them to be unbiased. 
       You might expect reporters to be more straight-laced, factual. But they are human; they slant their stories through their own filters. And journalism/the media has changed over the years. It is more analysis-based now.
       This hit home with us as we listened to our latest audio book Tuesday. Early in This Town by Mark Leibovich (of The New York Times), published in 2013 and based on life and politics in Washington, D.C., he writes, "Punditry has replaced reporting as journalism's highest calling. ... " 
       After my most recent blog about Mr. Trump and his "war" with the media, one comment in particular triggered the idea for this blog.

Chuck Todd photo from nbcdfw.com

    John Dittrich, a baseball lover like me and a former Fort Worth resident, wrote: "Like you, I watch the Sunday morning political talk shows religiously (no church-related wisecrack intended). Although I continue to record and watch Meet The Press, it seems to me that [host] Chuck Todd is not very objective. He takes a very obvious hostile approach to the conservatives, particularly to anyone affiliated with Mr. Trump.
       "While I do not like President-elect Trump and consider myself left-leaning, I do feel that Todd gives credence to those in the right who accuse the media of being too liberal. He is so obviously argumentative toward certain guests that it actually makes me uncomfortable. This approach is exactly what damages the credibility of the mainstream media."
       We want to like Chuck, but I must add that I agree with John.
       I will stick with my contention that PBS has the best-balanced newscasts. I'd like to think that Meet The Press is also balanced, that Chuck Todd can be as tough with questions directed at Democrats, or left-leaning people -- as he was last Sunday with U.S. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi -- and that the panel discussions always have both sides represented.
       Same for Face The Nation, where host John Dickerson also asks the hard questions of both sides, but is more congenial than Todd.
       We do miss the late beloved, respected Tim Russert.
       We still see the old anchors from time to time. From left to center to right -- Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Fort Worth's Bob Schieffer. They are venerable.
       I think today's network news anchors -- Lester Holt (NBC), David Muir (ABC), Scott Pelley (CBS), Wolf Blitzer (CNN), Judy Woodruff (PBS) and, say, Brian Williams (MSNBC) --  play it pretty straight down the middle, they don't take positions. You might not agree. They ask tough enough questions to people from both ends of the political spectrum.

Katy Tur photo from mediamatters.org

      But it's different for reporters. We mostly watch NBC, so Andrea Mitchell, Hallie Jackson and Katy Tur were following the Clinton and Trump campaigns. My view was that they were demanding of the candidates they covered, but I had to feel for Katy, only 33, when Mr. Trump named her  specifically in a rally or two, and she needed security at events and afterward after receiving threats.
       We like the CBS 60 Minutes regulars, especially the venerable Lesley Stahl. Anderson Cooper (also on CNN) is clearly slanted toward more liberal position.
       Maybe so are Jake Tapper (CNN) and fast-talking, loud Chris Matthews (MSNBC). They can be tough and argumentative interviewers. Matthews is a small-dose guy, but I loved his reverent commentary when Pope Francis visited his hometown, Philadelphia.
       If you want to go right, go FOX. We don't watch it often, but Chris Wallace seemed like a fair moderator in the first Republican debate and even better in the third Presidential debate, and I wasn't familiar with Megyn Kelly until she squabbled with Mr. Trump in that debate, and he helped make her famous.
       Then there's Bill O'Reilly. Read a couple of his books we liked. Funny guy, at least when he banters with Stephen Colbert on The Late Show. His politics? Not for me, but he's entertaining. 
       You really want to go right, here's some names: Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, George Will, Thomas Sewell. We think Mr. Will is an outstanding columnist (Washington Post), and I loved his baseball book Men at Work, but seldom agree with his viewpoint. He also did not back Trump or Clinton. 
       Step to the right with FOX anchor Sean Hannity and to the left with Keith Olbermann wherever he is. Neither one appears on my TV; they are too much. Didn't like Olbermann in the sports arena, either.
       And then there is -- spare me -- Rush Limbaugh ... ultra-right. Is he "media" or "entertainment" or "human?" 
       (Of course, in the sports world, I feel the same about Skip Bayless and Mark May, and a hundred others. You could not pay me enough to watch them. Rarely watch or listen to any TV/radio talkfests. I've blogged on this, too.)
       Two conservative "pundits" who we did not pay attention to before, but impressed us in this campaign with their reason and their calm: Hugh Hewitt and -- surprisingly -- Glenn Beck. Hewitt wasn't enthused about Mr. Trump; Beck flat-out rejected the idea.
       Columnists to the left: No one more left, more critical of the right, than Paul Krugman (New York Times). Leonard Pitts (Miami). We like the very smart Thomas Friedman and the acerbic, rip-'em-all Maureen Dowd (both NYT).
       Also far left: MSNBC's nightly hour shows -- Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell. We watch regularly because they give us perspectives (yes, liberal) that we think are well-researched.
       And even farther left: Jon Stewart. Master of satire and The Daily Show on Comedy Central for all those years. Outspoken liberal. Generous benefactor of so many comedians/show hosts/commentator.
       Stewart, of course, is more entertainer than politician. So is Bill Maher. If you are a conservative, either Stewart or Maher might be Public Enemy No. 1 (outside of politics). Think we know who No. 1 and 1A are in politics.
       We don't watch the morning TV shows; too early. So we're strangers to Morning Joe, but it must have balance with Mika Brzezinski (Democrat) and Joe Scarborough (Republican). Do they have verbal battles?
       But have there been better verbal battles than those between Whoopi Goldberg and Elizabeth Hasselbeck -- political/social opposites -- on The View a couple of years ago? Sorry, I missed those (sounds good, but not really).
       Our favorite "pundit" is David Brooks, a New York Times columnist. He and syndicated columnist Mark Shields are regulars for us on the PBS NewsHour each Friday and for big political events.
       Brooks is conservative, but not overly so, and his columns are complex. On television his analysis is usually spot-on, but this campaign, he kept admitting that he was so wrong so often (as were the polls and so many other "experts). David consistently was not happy with either Presidential candidate.

Amy Walter, PBS photo

       Shields has been around forever and he's a liberal who seldom comes out of a left lean.
       Here is who I think provided the best, most balanced analysis of this Presidential race: Amy Walter, national editor of The Cook Political Report. She was a PBS regular, a political-panel regular who seemed to be on 25 hours a day. She is knowledgeable and insightful -- and cautioned to the very end that the Presidential race was wide-open. She was as correct as anyone we heard.
       Our favorite reporters/TV pundits are the Washington Post's veteran Dan Balz and young star Robert Costa (who covered the Trump campaign). They were often on talk/news shows. Two words for them: factual and fair.
       Away from politics: Mitch Albom, a sports columnist who ventures off into books and movies and plays on the real world, is always a good read. Dave Barry is the funniest read.
---
       My feeling is that all the honest/dishonest, fair/unfair, lying/truthful perceptions about media just depends on each individual and how they perceive it. There's no right or wrong.
       I don't like the attacks on the media -- especially from politicians. Media positions are jobs, and there are different ways to do the job.
       It is just people's opinions, and you know what they say about opinions.
       If you are right-leaning, you likely think the media is mostly liberal. If you are left-leaning, you think the conservatives are off-base. If you're independent -- and I have friends who are -- you don't agree with the media, period.
       So I've given you a lot of names, and there are many more. If you've read this far, you're tired. And so am I.
       Here's a rule I try to live by: Don't let politics spoil friendships. Friends -- true friends -- are valuable.
       I welcome responses and your favorites/least favorites. Tell me who influences your thoughts. Just be civil about it. 

        

A war that's "rigged": Mr. Trump and the media

     A few days ago, I "shared" a post on Facebook and sent out the following message with a link to a speech by Washington Post editor Marty Baron.

Marty Baron, in the Washington Post newsroom, 2013
(photo by Steven Voss/Redux)

     I am converting this to a blog format, and adding a few thoughts about the media and the President-elect who has spent much time badgering it.
     OK, I am a former media person -- or still am, if certain blog pieces qualify for that.
     So honestly, I can't agree with Mr. Trump when he rails about the "dishonest, lying media."
     In my career, I never had anyone accuse me of that -- at least to my face. Had some people express their displeasure to me, directly or on the phone or in a letter or note, but it was rarely ugly. There was one shouting match I remember (no details necessary), and there was one well-known man who yelled at me (I've written about it).
     Look, I made some mistakes in judgement and had my share of fact errors. But if I had heard someone call me "dishonest" or "lying," I don't think I would have been so cool.
     Above all, my goal was to be as fair as I could.
     I was not unbiased when it was a school or team from my newspaper's coverage area playing a team from another area; you are trying to present the story from your area's viewpoint.
     I knew I was doing OK in the "fairness" department when in the early 1970s, a couple of people associated with Woodlawn High School in Shreveport -- my alma mater -- told me, based on what they'd read, how I "hated Woodlawn." True story.
---
     Here is the note I posted earlier ...
         I have had several friends tell me they thought that the media played a huge role in Mr. Trump's rise to President-elect, that they were not tough enough on him early on, that he was given too much "free" time by the media, or, if they were Trump supporters, he was exactly correct in his portrayal of the "crooked" or "rigged" media.

     You have to judge that for yourself.

     My opinion is -- whether you supported him or not -- Mr. Trump used the media brilliantly. He knew from the start that they could not afford to not cover him. So if he said or did something outrageous, it was going to play.

     I know a lot of media people -- some who are liberal-leaning; I know a lot that are conservative-leaning. I have friends both ways.

     (We regularly watch PBS NewsHour, Face The Nation and Meet The Press, and I think the balance between "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints on those shows is very fair.) 

      But from years in newspapers, the media people I know (or knew) were very conscientious and tried to be objective, and they worked hard. And they were simply doing their jobs, with the intent of being fair.

      Sure there are some "self-promoters" in the business, but I would say those people are in the great minority.

      We all take stances that might not be popular, and we receive criticism. That's part of the job. Not many people like to be criticized, but you deal with it best you can.

      Here is the link to the speech by Baron, who was editor of the Boston Globe featured in the movie Spotlight when its investigative team uncovered the Catholic Church's coverup of children being sexually abused by priests.

      Read this speech. Maybe it will give you a different view of the media's role. Maybe not.

      It is, as Coach Adams used to say, "all in the way you hold your mouth."

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/washington-post-editor-marty-baron-message-to-journalists

--- 
      OK, suppose I concede that most of the "mainstream media" -- say The New York Times and Washington Post columnists and reporters, and the major, traditional television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) -- are left-leaning.
      I would say that's because those people are smarter, more studied than the rest of us. Maybe they can figure this out better. So there.
      Think about this, though: Mr. Trump received, what, a total of four newspaper endorsements across the country and the TV media mostly was critical of him. And he won. So much for media influence making a difference.
      The public decided the election. The public decided they wanted change from eight years of the Obama administration, and they didn't want Hillary.
      Change is, my opinion, the major reason Mr. Trump was elected. The desire for change is why JFK was elected in 1960, and Nixon in 1968, Carter in 1976, Reagan in 1980, Clinton in 1992, G.W. Bush in 2000, Obama in 2008.
      Only one of those Presidents had a consistent "war" with the media. Care to guess? He had to resign because the media investigated and found he really was a crook.           
---
      Also, I am adding a link to another Washington Post piece regarding the media and Mr. Trump: 
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/28/trump-has-already-defeated-the-news-media-and-its-unclear-what-we-can-do-about-it/?utm_term=.1e09c6c0ace6
      It is an analysis of the Trump movement in total and his use of the media in particular. Fair warning: If you are a Trump supporter, you probably won't like it.
      It is not right when -- with Mr. Trump's anti-media rhetoric stirring up people -- reporters on his campaign, trying to do their jobs, are threatened by crowds. Read another story on that this morning.
      Don't believe everything The Man tells you.
      I post these articles, not as sour grapes -- the election is done; Mr. Trump won it, and no recount or Electoral College flip-flop should change that. I post them because I think they're interesting reads.
       But, please, don't think that all or most people are "dishonest" and/or "liars." That's not right. That is a dishonest appraisal.   

          

 

It's Election Day, bring on the pizza

    I give credit to Scott Ferrell, longtime sports editor of The Shreveport Times and now digital editor there, for his post on Twitter this morning:
    "Or as they say in every newspaper sports department across the country, every day is Election Day in sports."
    Oh, so true.
    Guarantee you that all those survivors of newspaper sports desk around the country are thinking, and saying, exactly what Scott expressed. And laughing about the pizza party they'll be having in the newsroom tonight while the election results -- and the stories -- roll in.
    The newsside reporters and desk personnel will be in mild states of panic -- mild early, severe panic late near deadlines. It happens five, six, seven nights a week in sports.
    Yes, elections are difficult to cover and there seemingly are thousands of angles and stories and photo ops to cover. Just like any Friday or Saturday night in sports during football season or in March during basketball season or in the middle of summer in an Olympics year.
    If the people who run newspapers gave us -- the sports department -- pizza for every difficult night that we had, we'd have owned a pizza franchise.
    You think I miss those nights? No way.
    I don't miss 50 to 100 or so high school football games -- depending on how big the market you're in -- being phoned in, and stories or roundups needing to be written, while you're also dealing with the 10 to 25 games from which you have reporters sending in stories (which need to be edited and which need headlines written, and possibly with photo cutlines/captions added).
    Plus, there are -- depending on which month -- major-league baseball roundups to be one, and a Texas Rangers game story/sidebar/notes to be dealt with, and/or a Dallas Mavericks story and notes, and a Dallas Stars' game and notes, and maybe some breaking news on the Dallas Cowboys because they're always making news (some of it even good news), and -- hold up the sports front -- here's a late-breaking Rangers' trade.
    There are Tuesday and Friday nights in basketball season when every high school team is playing all over the area, and there are college games going on at all levels, and there's an NBA roundup to be done.
    And even on "slow" days in summer, when there are no high school sports going, there is almost always a full schedule of MLB games and there's news about the Cowboys and there's the shocking latest development of wrongdoing in the sports world.
    It's been the same in every market I've worked in -- perhaps not as busy in Shreveport or Honolulu or Knoxville as in Fort Worth-Dallas or Jacksonville. It's a circus act more nights than not, believe me.
    Meanwhile on news side, the "excitement" level might hit that kind of warp speed once every two or three weeks ... if that much.
    Don't mean to say that newsside jobs aren't as difficult; they can be. Newsside does have a lot more life-and-death stories, and I would not trade places with the reporters and editors who had to handle those.
    I am saying that night sports departments are much more accustomed to the frenzy most nights.
    My wife, who has had an interesting and varied array of jobs, worked at the Knoxville News Sentinel for five-plus years -- mostly in the editorial department -- and saw the frenzied atmosphere (and the pizza rewards brought in) on newsside for Election Day coverage. She would remind the people in the newsroom that the sports department went through this almost nightly. (We've been married a long time, so she knew.)
    She said the newsroom reply was: Yeah, but if we make mistakes (on election coverage), they are not forgotten. What we do is much more important.
    OK, I'll concede that point. It is a little more important who is elected the governor of Texas and which party is in charge of the U.S. Senate than whether or not Tony Romo plays Sunday for the Dallas Cowboys.
      What I am saying? No, it's not. What chance do you think the Cowboys have without Romo in the lineup?
      And, really, does it actually matter when the Democrats or the Republicans have the majority in the Senate? They're not going to get much of anything done in the next two years either way. Plus, Greg Abbott as governor instead of Rick Goodhair (thank you, Molly Ivins)? Makes no difference ... well, no difference to me, anyway.

David Brooks, left, and Mark Shields: The political analysts on PBS are the
guys we watch to make sense of what is going on ... if it makes sense at all?

      Of course, I voted. I rarely miss any chance to vote. And I love reading about politics, and following politics on television, and I will watch the election results with interest.
      If you must know, I think David Brooks -- The New York Times' political columnist and perhaps as well-known for his political analysis on PBS -- should be our next President. He knows more, and is more sensible, than any of the politicians I see.
      But back to the original subject -- Election Night at the newspaper. I once volunteered to help out on newsside; I think it was the 2004 Presidential election, and my job that night at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram was to do a roundup of the biggest election stories in each of the 50 states.
       As I remember it -- and actually I'm trying to forget -- I did briefs item on each state and then updated as the election results came in. When we got to deadline time, I think I had updated some 30 of the 50 states (couldn't get to the Western time zone states).
        Of course, I panicked near deadline time. You'd think with all the nightly sports desk experience I'd had, I could have handled it with ease.
         But I got in on the pizza party. That's what was really important.
         So I'll miss the pizza tonight, but I won't miss the frenzy on newsside. I won't miss the action.
         Besides, here's the benefit of retirement. There's a pizza seller set up just across from our apartment complex, a monthly occurrence here. I'm going over and buy a pizza now, and we'll eat it as we watch the election results on television. Happy Election Day.