Who?
At work tonight, I was able to catch the Super Bowl in bits and pieces. Pulling hard for the Saints, I was impressed with the way they overcame an early 10-0 deficit to earn the win and wrap up a storybook season if there ever was one. I was even more impressed with the cajones of New Orleans coach Sean Payton, whose huge onside-kick gamble to start the second half paid off with a touchdown that had eluded the Saints thus far AND kept Payton Manning from establishing himself right away. (The Colts did quickly answer the TD with one of their own, but I'd argue the Saints' score was still huge considering their inability to get in the end zone in the first 30 minutes).
I would have loved to watch more of the game, but I did make sure to take a break from work at halftime. Instead of, say, Michael or Janet Jackson, or some red-hot pop sensation of the moment, there was The Who, ready to rock. And rock they did.
It was the early '80s, if memory serves, that the Who toured behind their "It's Hard" album, with the Clash opening in support of "Combat Rock." Actually, the Clash's record was probably the more successful of two; "Should I Stay or Go" was on that album, as well as "Rock the Casbah." Almost any other band, though, had - and still certainly would have - to play second fiddle to Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend. (Original drummer Keith Moon has been dead for nearly 32 years; bassist John Entwhistle passed away in 2002.)
My uncle Larry saw the Who/Clash show in Shea Stadium; it was kind of a "shock and awe" thing for me. I was shock that he went, and awed, too. The word was that it was going to be the last Who tour. Here was a classic rock band I'd never have the opportunity to see again, I thought.
Well, I still haven't seen them, and I couldn't help thinking the brief string of rock anthems they played in Miami tonight was probably as close as I'll get (although I did briefly imagine taking my daughter, as a teenager much later in this new decade, to see some really old rock 'n' rollers make their joyful noise). Still, roughly 15 minutes of the Who on TV was enormously satisfying. "Won't Get Fooled Again." "Baba O'Reilly." "Who are You?" "Tommy." But where was "Pinball Wizard"? And maybe it was a conscious decision to skip "My Generation," with the lyric, "Hope I die before I get old."
Just about 20 years ago, I remember being lucky enough to come into tickets for a Rolling Stones show, also at Shea Stadium. I was only semi-excited to go, though; we had to drive about four hours to get to New York from my college town of Binghamton, and even though the talented Living Colour (anyone remember them?) was opening, the Stones were - well - old. Could these guys actually put on a decent rock show?
Well, that concert remains one of the most memorable of my life. Mick Jagger's performance, his incredible energy, floored me. And he's still incredible; witness the '08 Martin Scorcese concert film, "Shine a Light," in which Jagger - who will be 67 this year - was prancing around and reveling in his performance ... and the rest of the band smoked through tune after tune.
Come to think of it, maybe my daughter and I will be catching a Stones show someday. Hey, you never know.
Posted by: rmcgaughey on 2/07/2010 at 8:48 PM | Comments (0) | Permalink
Tags: who rock music super bowl rolling stones living colour
Social media
The Daily Globe has officially entered the Facebook and Twitter realms. That means anyone out there using either Facebook - which I understand now has more users than the entire U.S. population - or Twitter can receive news this way.
This decision didn't come without a little thought. This newspaper first established a Facebook presence months ago, and for a while news updates were posted to the Daily Globe's page - which had built a small yet growing fan base. But after a while, we made what may or may not have been a rash decision - we blocked all company employees from Facebook. Unsurprisingly, there were people who had begun to abuse the privilege of having access to it at work ... and were taking the time to upgrade their status, check out friends' new photo posts or even play FarmVille instead of doing what they were getting paid to do.
Last week, I had the pleasure of serving on a panel about newspapers' use of social media during the Minnesota Newspaper Association's annual convention. Also on the panel with me were Sarah Bauer, executive director of the Minnesota News Council; Cy Cords, the "Webmaster" for the St. Cloud Times, and Sam Gett, publisher of the Northfield News. Our moderator was Howie Burke, who is employed by ECM Publishers in the IT department.
The well-attended discussion was informative and ultimately convinced me of something I was already feeling in my gut; we had to be back on Facebook. Sure, maybe some of our employees don't have a real work-related use for it, but so many people are communicating this way that, for our editorial staff, it's a must. And one of our advertising reps told me at the MNA event that Facebook is a means in which at least one of her accounts is now communicating, too.
As a newsroom manager, it will be my job to make sure my staff is using Facebook - as well as other social media - in a productive and professional manner. To me, it's merely a matter of common sense; if you're at work you should not be updating a status, texting friends on a cell phone, taking personal calls off and on throughout the day, etc.
At the same time, we hope that social media users out there will appreciate our efforts to not only deliver the news in this way, but to interact with our readers and - as a result - better serve them.
Posted by: rmcgaughey on 2/05/2010 at 8:24 PM | Comments (0) | Permalink
Tags: facebook twitter social media
Speaking with Shar Knutson
The Minnesota Legislature got back to work today, with the focal point being the erasure of an estimated $1.2 billion deficit.
At the same time, the Minnesota AFL-CIO is asking legislators to help get Minnesotans back to work. Shar Knutson, the organization’s president, visited the Daily Globe Tuesday, and pleaded with the Legislature and Gov. Tim Pawlenty to formulate policies that would increase employment rolls throughout the state.
“Part of that is up to the governor; we’re not sure what he’s going to do,” Knutson said. “We’re urging the governor, Republicans and Democrats to really be strong and bold because this is a tough time and people need to get back to work.”
Knutson and the Minnesota AFL-CIO are hopeful the Legislature will pass a bonding bill of at least $1 billion, and also support the construction coalition jobs bill that “leverages and stimulates private investment in commercial, industrial, energy-efficient retrofit and residential projects across the state,” she explained.
“When you look at 40 to 50 percent unemployment in the construction trade, you can see how much we need a bill like this,” Knutson added. “We’re hoping for the billion dollars and we’re thinking there will be a dance with the governor, but when you’re talking so many people with jobs lost ... it’s tough out there. Most of those jobs are shovel-ready and the few that aren’t, they'll put the architects to work, too, because they’re not seeing much work, either.”
Knutson she expects the House to having a bonding bill vote soon, perhaps as early as Feb 15. She didn’t expect an early vote being a problem in the Senate, either — the governor’s assent, however, is probably another matter entirely, as Pawlenty’s bonding bill proposal checks in at less than $700 million.
Another Minnesota AFL-CIO goal is the enacting of a wage subsidy in Minnesota of up to $12 an hour. The program would create jobs, she described, by paying a part of the wages of new hires.
“It’s a low-cost way to help employers and workers out,” Knutson said. “Part of the wages will be paid, and that makes for a little less strain on the employers. What happens oftentimes is that worker ends up staying on even after the subsidy goes away. … Right now, when you look at the jobs currently being created, 41 percent are part-time, less than half provide health care, one out of four is less than $8 an hour, and if you look at the median wage at all those jobs, it’s $10 per hour.”
Tax fairness would help make a wage subsidy possible. Knutson said “it isn’t right” that working families who earn anywhere between $35,000 and $94,000 pay 12.4 percent in state and local taxes, versus a 9 percent figure for people making more than $194,000 annually.
The Minnesota AFL-CIO is made up of more than 1,000 affiliates representing more than 300,000 working men and women throughout the state. Knutson toured Worthington’s JBS facility Monday and met with UFCW leaders. Less than a week earlier, she was able to attend President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address in Washington.
She said her organization’s jobs proposals are in the best interests of its affiliates as well as their communities.
“There’s really not much left to cut,” Knutson noted. “I don’t think anyone really believes you can cut your way out of this. We know cuts will be on the table, but … everything has to be on it.
“What we want to make sure we’re very serious about is holding our representatives accountable. These are very difficult times for many people, and difficult times require difficult solutions. We have to be strong and bold and decisive and get people back to work.”
Posted by: rmcgaughey on 2/04/2010 at 2:23 PM | Comments (0) | Permalink
Tags: minnesota afl-cio shar knutson labor budget political bonding bill bonding
Debate
Each year, I enjoy the privilege of attending the Minnesota Newspaper Association convention, which allows for great networking opportunities and always-informational sessions on various facets of the newspaper industry.
This year, for the first time in my memory, the MNA, along with the Minnesota News Council and League of Women Voters Minnesota, hosted a pre-caucus gubernatorial debate. And this wasn't just any debate - the number of candidates from the DFL, Republican and Independence parties numbered in the range of 20 - and there were still some (most notably, Worthington High School alum Matt Entenza) who were absent. As a small-scale "political junkie" (a small nod toward Wednesday afternoon's segment on Minnesota Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation"), I was eager to see so many candidates in one place discussing their views on any number of issues.
While I enjoyed being able to hear first-hand the opinions of so many gubernatorial hopefuls, I couldn't help but come away with one predominant impression. A forum with such a large number of participants just isn't the same as a one-on-one visit with any politician, whether he or she is running for governor or city council.
Sure, there were some candidates who separated themselves from the pack a little bit last night, but those who did so - in my view, anyway - were the ones who made the most negative impressions. Phil Herwig, a GOP candidate (albeit one who faces long odds in getting his party's nomination) came across as too angry, and at one point took many of his opponents to task by denouncing them as "out of their minds." Another GOP candidate, Leslie Davis, consistently spoke about something about the "Davis Money Plan," which I still don't know much about or understand. DFLer Tom Bakk, with whom I enjoyed a fine visit several weeks ago at the Globe, was well-spoken but seemed to come across as a little gruff; in person and one-on-one, he displayed a much more amiable and personal side that I compared in a blog post to that of Tim Walz. And then there was Ole Savior, the so-called "perennial candidate," who was clad in Vikings gear and a black leather jacket while wearing what appeared to be some kind of rouge on his cheekbones. His suggestion that the Minnesota State Fair run year-round was, let's just say, the topic of considerable rest-room conversation during the brief intermission.
Most surprising to me during the debate was the tone struck toward the end by DFLer R.J. Rybak, the current mayor of Minneapolis. I've read that Rybak has won several kudos for his management of the city in the wake of its bridge collapse tragedy, and I was eager to see just how viable a candidate he might be. But Rybak's most notable moment was when he did much more than decline to answer a yes-or-no question about whether Tim Pawlenty's Q-COMP program would be renewed under his leadership. Instead, he hailed the question as "stupid" and in essence attacked the debate event itself. In a way, Rybak was right - it's extremely difficult to answer most issue-oriented questions with straight yes or no answers; it's the amount of nuance, and the accompanying level of articulation, that separates candidates. Yet I felt Rybak's "stupid" comment was wrong and ill-placed, and I thought it hurt any positive opinions of him that may have already been formulated.
There was one candidate, Rahn Workcuff of the Independence Party, who had someone (a daughter, perhaps?) verbally articulate a majority of his answers to questions due to a disability. But when it came to the rapid-fire, yes-or-no-answer portion of the debate, Workcuff spoke memorably. His "no" answers weren't simply nos; they were "Hell, no"s.
Mr. Workcuff, and all the other gubernatorial candidates out there, please come visit Worthington. I look forward to meeting you and having a conversation about the issues that allows the opportunity to go beyond time restrictions and penchants for sound bites.
Posted by: rmcgaughey on 1/28/2010 at 2:08 PM | Comments (0) | Permalink
Tags: debate, governor, gubernatorial, minnesota, minnesota news council, minnesota newspaper association, politics
Purple Power
To say the Vikings looked good on both sides of the ball in their matchup against the Cowboys last week is an overtly obvious understatement. While the result of Sunday's game wasn't too surprising to me - Dallas, despite coming into the game red-hot, has been unspectacular in the postseason for years, particularly with Tony Romo at quarterback, and the game was in the Metrodome - I was stunned by the 34-3 score.
Can the Purple now come out Sunday and topple New Orleans? This is the showdown many have been anticipating for few weeks now, as Minny and the Saints had established themselves as the clear class of the NFC by not even midway through the season. In a "Chief" post on Nov. 22, I said Minnesota was "the better team overall," and this was prior to New Orleans dropping its last three games of the regular season. (Granted, the last one shouldn't count because so many regulars were rested for the playoffs.) I also - at the risk of putting some kind of Sports Illustrated jinx on Brett Favre and Co. - said the Vikings were Super Bowl-bound.
I'm not backing off that call at this stage of the game. Sure, the Saints have the homefield advantage, and the Vikings played mediocre football away from home over the final few weeks of the year. But there are a couple of reasons why I don't see Minnesota going home with a loss.
For starters, I think Minnesota's defense, overall, is capable of playing at a higher level than the Saints. Minnesota did a great job last week in pressuring Romo, forcing him into three first-half fumbles. and the Vikings are famously stingy against the run. If the Vikes can keep the New Orleans offense off the field early in the game - and subsequently move the ball themselves - the result will be taking the Superdome crowd out of the game, negating home-field advantage to some extent.
I also think the Vikes have a slight edge on offense, despite the presence of stud Saints QB Drew Brees. Besides Favre, who I feel easily had his best year as a pro - and perhaps, more importantly, seemed to limit his penchant for dangerous risk-taking - there are plenty of guys who can do damage. Adrian Peterson is due for a breakout game, and if that happens it will make the passing attack that much more dangerous.
Reggie Bush had an amazing game last week for New Orleans and he, Brees and receiver Marques Colston are probably that team's most dangerous weapons. The Vikings, I feel, have just a bit more versatility, however. And this game is exactly whay Favre came back for - a shot at the Super Bowl.
The game will be a shootout, but I see the Vikings emerging - probably by a margin the range of 3-6 points. Whatever the result, I'll write a follow-up next week - and hopefully, won't be eating crow.
Speaking of eating crow ... some of you may recall that I picked Arizona to beat New Orleans in their game this past weekend. Considering the Cards lost by 31 points, I'd say that was a pretty poor prognostication. I must admit I was ignorant of the fact that Arizona was missing a good number of defensive players, but either way there is little doubt the better team won. (Maybe the Saints posted my blog on their locker-room chalkboard beforehand.)
I nailed the Colts-Ravens game, though, and though I did pick the Chargers to get past the Jets, I probably did gave Gang Green a little more credit than many others. "The J-E-T-S Jets Jets Jets could give the Bolts a heck of a scare," I wrote. "If San Diego starts quickly, I think the game's over, but if Gang Green hangs around and control the pace of things, it's another matter." That's pretty much what happened.
I would love to pick the Jets against the Colts Sunday, and considering New York has the top defense in the NFL, they can't be overlooked. But I just don't see Indy losing Sunday, and I say they win by double digits.
Posted by: rmcgaughey on 1/21/2010 at 10:28 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
