You learn a great deal about people when things are at their worst. Folks can surprise you, in ways both good and bad, and that is the parting lesson from my mother's death. Many of the people who have known me seemingly forever, I am almost ashamed to say "my" people, were virtually non-existent if not outright dismissive or hostile. Others were exactly as I remember them as a kid - warm, friendly people who would do anything for you. And a group of former co-workers who had known me for all of 3 1/2 years were far more comforting than I could rightly expect, with e-mails and calls of condolence, even a couple of cards. It is almost funny; the ones from whom you expect the most do the least, and those with the least connection wind up doing the most.
As services go, I think we gave Mary a nice sendoff. We did not waller in misery and maudlin overwraught emotion, though my brother broke down a time or two. Then again, I was there when mom died and he was not, so I had already had the opportunity to get the immediate grief out of my system. We chose to focus on the happy times, and my bride and step-daughter put together a wonderful collage of a smiling mom that dated back nearly 50 years. It was nice to see her visibly enjoying the moments captured in those pictures.
It was also nice to see a couple of neighbors from way back, including my first little league coach, a very nice man whose son and I spent a lot of afternoons riding bikes and doing kid stuff. And, a couple that used to live right next to us came in from Montgomery, great folks whose son was my brother's best friend back in the day. I think mom would have been happy to see people like that come to remember her. There were some of dad's faculty friends, people whose kids both of us went to school with and one gentleman who was one of dad's students. He came in part for himself as his wife is now in year 12 of Alzheimer's; I can honestly say I know how he feels and hope a guardian angel looks out for his and his wife.
The disappointing aspect came from a few fellow Greeks, not all of them, but some who saw fit to say nasty things about me, my brother, and my wife for the past several months, as though we had conspired to make my mom ill. My brother's eulogy made mention of us doing the best we could under trying circumstances; I am confident we did that and anyone who disagrees, well, they can kiss our asses. They have become people I never again have to speak to.
I hope mom is now at peace, that what my brother and I had to say let her know that we loved her and gave her comfort in knowing she raised two pretty decent men. I appreciate the old neighbors and friends who came to pay their respects, and the one old friend who called with condolences but was unable to attend due to her husband's failing health. I hope someone watches over the two of them, too. I probably shouldn't be surprised, but I was to hear from my old co-workers, a solid group of people whose company I miss and whose reaching out reminds one what friends are all about. And now we move on, for there is no other option. It has been the longest of years and now comes a new chapter. We'll see what it holds.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
The end of the Mary tales
Sometimes, death is a shock and, sometimes, it is a relief. When my father died about a year ago, there was a suddenness to it that was not expected. We knew he was going to die; no one escapes cancer forever, but the degree of the downward slope was more severe than anyone thought it would be. Then came my mother.
There is a huge gulf between physical deterioration and the non-physical kind. The latter is especially nasty business, watching a loved one gradually lose the ability to do just about everything independently while slowly fading away from the world they knew. The only variable is how long the fade process takes. By the time the end comes, the person you knew has long since left this earth and when their final breath is let out, there is a bit of sadness but, bad as it may sound, there is mostly relief. Relief certainly for the individual, who not too long ago, was also aware of what was happening and not too happy about it. And relief for everyone else.
When that loved one no longer remembers who you are, who your siblings are, who your children are, who her husband was, and has reverted to early childhood remembering only her own immediate family, it is fair to say the individual is no longer with you. And so it is. And that is the end of the maudlin portion of this.
In looking back at old pictures, I am going to remember a woman who enjoyed life, enjoyed her kids and friends, enjoyed going back to the old country and rekindling old relationships, and enjoyed her husband. I will remember a woman who not only had an opinion on just about everything but also believed that you were entitled to it. If mom's life were a book, it would have to be called "The Last Word" because no matter the discussion, she was going to get it. I like to say that at least one my kids has inherited that and that this trait skips a generation; my wife is not so sure.
It is a bit odd to look up and suddenly realize you are an orphan, which sounds a bit ridiculous for a 50-year old man. Orphans are little ragamuffins from 1930s movies where Andy Rooney plays a character wise beyond his years, street smart urchins schooled in the unpleasantries of life. In reality, most of us wind up wearing that title at some point and it is part of the natural order. Never being an orphan only means one thing, dying before your parents which is about the worst thing I can imagine.
I am going to believe that mom is at peace, bending dad's ear again. Of course, he had more than a year to rest up so he should be okay. A lifetime of pictures and memories will erase the difficulty of the past several months, and I'll leave it with this - if you or an elderly person that you know has even an inkling of "senior moments" going on, make a doctor's apppointment immediately if not sooner. The last thing you want is for your kids to find out after-the-fact that mom or dad or grandma is mentally fading away. I've read too many stories of families being ripped apart over how to care for the person who can no longer care for him/herself. Get the check up and make a plan; it will be the thing you can do for the ones left behind.
There is a huge gulf between physical deterioration and the non-physical kind. The latter is especially nasty business, watching a loved one gradually lose the ability to do just about everything independently while slowly fading away from the world they knew. The only variable is how long the fade process takes. By the time the end comes, the person you knew has long since left this earth and when their final breath is let out, there is a bit of sadness but, bad as it may sound, there is mostly relief. Relief certainly for the individual, who not too long ago, was also aware of what was happening and not too happy about it. And relief for everyone else.
When that loved one no longer remembers who you are, who your siblings are, who your children are, who her husband was, and has reverted to early childhood remembering only her own immediate family, it is fair to say the individual is no longer with you. And so it is. And that is the end of the maudlin portion of this.
In looking back at old pictures, I am going to remember a woman who enjoyed life, enjoyed her kids and friends, enjoyed going back to the old country and rekindling old relationships, and enjoyed her husband. I will remember a woman who not only had an opinion on just about everything but also believed that you were entitled to it. If mom's life were a book, it would have to be called "The Last Word" because no matter the discussion, she was going to get it. I like to say that at least one my kids has inherited that and that this trait skips a generation; my wife is not so sure.
It is a bit odd to look up and suddenly realize you are an orphan, which sounds a bit ridiculous for a 50-year old man. Orphans are little ragamuffins from 1930s movies where Andy Rooney plays a character wise beyond his years, street smart urchins schooled in the unpleasantries of life. In reality, most of us wind up wearing that title at some point and it is part of the natural order. Never being an orphan only means one thing, dying before your parents which is about the worst thing I can imagine.
I am going to believe that mom is at peace, bending dad's ear again. Of course, he had more than a year to rest up so he should be okay. A lifetime of pictures and memories will erase the difficulty of the past several months, and I'll leave it with this - if you or an elderly person that you know has even an inkling of "senior moments" going on, make a doctor's apppointment immediately if not sooner. The last thing you want is for your kids to find out after-the-fact that mom or dad or grandma is mentally fading away. I've read too many stories of families being ripped apart over how to care for the person who can no longer care for him/herself. Get the check up and make a plan; it will be the thing you can do for the ones left behind.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
The Mary Tales
When your mother struggles to recognize you, as in she knows that she should know you but is not exactly sure why, that is a tough day. Even knowing the day would come does not make it much easier. Since this part of the story last appeared, Mary has moved to a nursing home. Nice place, ridiculously clean, perpetually cheerful. If you have to put a parent into such a facility, this one is as good as it gets. She is well-fed (it may sound bad but any time a group of Southern black women are in a kitchen, good things are coming out), clean, and never allowed to wallow in bed. But.....
Dementia is a nasty condition. Some want to see it as an alternate form of Alzheimer's, but it is far more insidious. It not only robs memory, it robs cognitive ability in general along with motor skills. And, there is not a damn thing that modern medicine can do about it. In a sense, it is like watching a cancer patient slowly waste away, with one cruel difference - the cancer patient remains mentally aware, able to converse and reminisce, recognize hunger and thirst, and to a limited degree, participate in life. The dementia patient does not really even observe life; more likely, he or she endures it. Or, at least, the rest of the family does.
My wife and I have been through numerous books, websites, and blogs dealing with dementia. None tells a pretty tale - no patient ever recovers, no family gets through it without some scars, no one really cries when the end finally comes. It is something one must see and experience to understand, yet it is not a fate I would wish on anyone. The confounding thing is that there is no trace of anything like this that I can find in either side of the family. Two grandmothers lived into their 90s, one grandfather to near 90, the other past 70. The first three died of the obvious, being 90+ or near it, and the fourth I am not sure of, though no mention of anything like mental deterioration was ever made. Seems doubtful something like that could be kept secret.
We visit a couple of times a week; some trips are better than before. On occasion, there is a moment of lucidity but invariably, it serves to raise the question of, why. Why is this going on? How long will it last? When your mom, out of the blue, breaks from a string of incoherence and in perfect English says "this isn't very good for anyone", there is little mistaking what she is talking about. And so we go on, visiting, trying to make the best of it, occasionally asking dad why he never clued us in about this. Probably didn't want us to worry, through it would have made some decision-making after his death a lot easier and much less traumatic. We'll see what Tuesday holds.
Dementia is a nasty condition. Some want to see it as an alternate form of Alzheimer's, but it is far more insidious. It not only robs memory, it robs cognitive ability in general along with motor skills. And, there is not a damn thing that modern medicine can do about it. In a sense, it is like watching a cancer patient slowly waste away, with one cruel difference - the cancer patient remains mentally aware, able to converse and reminisce, recognize hunger and thirst, and to a limited degree, participate in life. The dementia patient does not really even observe life; more likely, he or she endures it. Or, at least, the rest of the family does.
My wife and I have been through numerous books, websites, and blogs dealing with dementia. None tells a pretty tale - no patient ever recovers, no family gets through it without some scars, no one really cries when the end finally comes. It is something one must see and experience to understand, yet it is not a fate I would wish on anyone. The confounding thing is that there is no trace of anything like this that I can find in either side of the family. Two grandmothers lived into their 90s, one grandfather to near 90, the other past 70. The first three died of the obvious, being 90+ or near it, and the fourth I am not sure of, though no mention of anything like mental deterioration was ever made. Seems doubtful something like that could be kept secret.
We visit a couple of times a week; some trips are better than before. On occasion, there is a moment of lucidity but invariably, it serves to raise the question of, why. Why is this going on? How long will it last? When your mom, out of the blue, breaks from a string of incoherence and in perfect English says "this isn't very good for anyone", there is little mistaking what she is talking about. And so we go on, visiting, trying to make the best of it, occasionally asking dad why he never clued us in about this. Probably didn't want us to worry, through it would have made some decision-making after his death a lot easier and much less traumatic. We'll see what Tuesday holds.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Obama must be Roman
Leaders in the Roman Empire used bread and circuses to distract the populace from more pressing issues. Likewise, President Obama is becoming increasingly adept at misdirection to avoid discussing topics he either cannot answer or does not want to confront. Consider the past three weeks: the federal budget is a mess, states are in similar bad straits, the Middle East is on the verge of either revolution or implosion, gas prices are spiking, and unemployment remains high.
The White House response? Two weeks ago, it was an announcement that the Defense of Marriage Act would no longer be defended in court. Last week, the Oval used its clout to speak out against bullying in schools. And this week, POTUS vowed to defend gender equality. Can you say "the re-election campaign is underway." How else to explain the highlighting of three issues that fly below the public's current-day radar? And to compound matters, they are directed at three constituencies - the gay community, teachers unions, and feminists - who are as reliably pro-Obama as the labor unions. Curiously, the unions actually are involved in a discussion of national significance, but the president has not had much to say on that. At least publicly. Given the frequency with which the head of the AFL-CIO visits the White House, however, there could be plenty of discussion afoot.
I realize being president is a tough job but I keep hoping that, at some point, Mr. Obama will understand that has actually won the job. Two years ago. When a corner of the world is in a state of multi-national upheaval, people everywhere expect to hear the President of the United States say something, even if it as benign as declaring America's unwavering support of individual liberty and freedom. We do not need to take up arms in Libya, Yemen, or any other Arab country; people there should plot their own destiny. But we should at least give voice to the notion of self-determination in a part of the globe that has never seen it. If people give the impression of trying to escape oppression, that has historically be the sort of thing the Oval Office supported, even if the support was only rhetorical.
Meanwhile, the budget debate (if it can be called such) continues in Congress with Dems and Repubs debating whether $60-billion or $6-billion is a more suitable reduction, from a budget of nearly 4-trillion dollars. Put a calculator to either set of proposed cuts. It is like debating what type of floor mat to put in your Bentley. If neither side is serious about actually cutting spending, and there is no reason to believe that either is, then say so and be done with it. Tell Americans they can expect continually-expanding government until far more than the 35% of US paychecks are made up of taxpayer dollars. Tell us the whole country will be one giant nanny state, where our minders will dictate the light bulbs we use, foods we eat, cars we drive, and eventually, thoughts we think.
Rome's ignoring of genuine issues led to the fall of the empire. Already, America is in a state of decline whether it wants to admit it or not. One reason is the unwillingness of elected leaders to face the problems they were elected to solve. The elephant in the living room does not disappear simply because one pretends it does not exist. The world is changing around us and the Senate Majority Leader worries about the demise of a cowboy poetry festival, the House Speaker and some of his deputies are consumed with abortion, and the President apparently stays up nights worrying about schoolkids being bullied. And, all three wonder why some of us take none of them seriously.
The White House response? Two weeks ago, it was an announcement that the Defense of Marriage Act would no longer be defended in court. Last week, the Oval used its clout to speak out against bullying in schools. And this week, POTUS vowed to defend gender equality. Can you say "the re-election campaign is underway." How else to explain the highlighting of three issues that fly below the public's current-day radar? And to compound matters, they are directed at three constituencies - the gay community, teachers unions, and feminists - who are as reliably pro-Obama as the labor unions. Curiously, the unions actually are involved in a discussion of national significance, but the president has not had much to say on that. At least publicly. Given the frequency with which the head of the AFL-CIO visits the White House, however, there could be plenty of discussion afoot.
I realize being president is a tough job but I keep hoping that, at some point, Mr. Obama will understand that has actually won the job. Two years ago. When a corner of the world is in a state of multi-national upheaval, people everywhere expect to hear the President of the United States say something, even if it as benign as declaring America's unwavering support of individual liberty and freedom. We do not need to take up arms in Libya, Yemen, or any other Arab country; people there should plot their own destiny. But we should at least give voice to the notion of self-determination in a part of the globe that has never seen it. If people give the impression of trying to escape oppression, that has historically be the sort of thing the Oval Office supported, even if the support was only rhetorical.
Meanwhile, the budget debate (if it can be called such) continues in Congress with Dems and Repubs debating whether $60-billion or $6-billion is a more suitable reduction, from a budget of nearly 4-trillion dollars. Put a calculator to either set of proposed cuts. It is like debating what type of floor mat to put in your Bentley. If neither side is serious about actually cutting spending, and there is no reason to believe that either is, then say so and be done with it. Tell Americans they can expect continually-expanding government until far more than the 35% of US paychecks are made up of taxpayer dollars. Tell us the whole country will be one giant nanny state, where our minders will dictate the light bulbs we use, foods we eat, cars we drive, and eventually, thoughts we think.
Rome's ignoring of genuine issues led to the fall of the empire. Already, America is in a state of decline whether it wants to admit it or not. One reason is the unwillingness of elected leaders to face the problems they were elected to solve. The elephant in the living room does not disappear simply because one pretends it does not exist. The world is changing around us and the Senate Majority Leader worries about the demise of a cowboy poetry festival, the House Speaker and some of his deputies are consumed with abortion, and the President apparently stays up nights worrying about schoolkids being bullied. And, all three wonder why some of us take none of them seriously.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Wanted: Leaders, Not Politicians
We are living the Chinese proverb of being in interesting times and it is a golden era of sorts for America's chattering class. It is also a missed opportunity for the leadership class, which continues its sorry habit of trying to make things appear to be everything but what they really are. No one disputes that the nation's spending addiction is a dead-end road; yet, few people are willing to do anything that even remotely resembles a fiscal intervention.
The president proposed a budget of nearly 4-trillion dollars that, once again, ignored the elephant in the living room. Despite his own rhetoric, during the '08 campaign and even during his presidency, of the need to get the country's finances in order, he put forth a spending proposal that includes hiring 5,000 more IRS agents and continuing the boondoggle of high speed rail. In Congress, the idea of trimming less than 100-million dollars - from a budget of ALMOST FOUR TRILLION - has caused convulsions among some who consider every taxpayer dollar that is earned to be government money awaiting confiscation.
Looming is a vote on raising the nation's debt ceiling, falsely portrayed as something that could cause the nation to default on its obligations. Fresh, grade-A BS. Let me ask you this - when you max out your credit card, does that free you from paying the balance that is due? Of course, not; and the country would similarly have to pay its bills. Not raising the debt ceiling means the government cannot simply borrow even more money. Put another way - when you hit your credit card max, can you call the company and ask for your limit to be raised? Doubtful. Raising the debt ceiling is akin to borrowing from Peter to pay Paul; the downside is that you wind up owing Peter more than he lent you because of interest. When the amounts being discussed are in the billions and trillions of dollars, interest is a hefty sum.
Then, there is the issue of public sector unions in several states. Curiously, the states enduring the most crushing problems are the ones with the largest obligations to public employees. There is likely a correlation there but I could be wrong. Regardless, here is my question: why should membership in a union be a requirement for working in the public sector? And does it seem curious that the consistently pro-choice Democrat Party has an issue with people making choices on the most personal of things? Second, does it seem fair to you that, along with compulsory membership, union dues are automatically deducted from an employee's paycheck, whether the employee is okay with that or not? Third, this process reeks of conflict of interest and here's how: the union dues are typically used to fund electoral campaigns of Democrat officials, though it would be just as wrong if the money went toward Republican candidates. In essence, unions siphon off taxpayer dollars in order to give to the campaigns of politicians whom they will lobby later for even more taxpayer dollars. That's not the democratic process, that is a Mafia-style protection racket.
Voters spoke loudly and clearly in November, screaming "no" to more government spending. Whether you agree or disagree with that is immaterial. Elections have consequences; we spent two years hearing that from a Congressional majority that rammed through as many things as possible, public opinion be damned. With the shoe firmly on the other foot, the same folks are now squawking about bipartisanship, compromise, and negotiation. Here's a clue: how about the lot of you stop acting like children, stop treating the federal treasury and state budgets as your personal slush funds, and do what even elementary school kids know has to be done.
It's called leadership and I realize that it is a scarce commodity among the political class. Today's soundbite culture makes it easy to vilify anyone who proposes anything that smacks of responsible government. And, responsible government can happen; I have seen it done by honorable men and women who realized that compromise is not a dirty word. It just means no one gets everything they want; at the same time, action that benefits the masses winds up being taken. Stop with talk of government shutdowns, stop running away to other states to avoid your constitutional responsibility, and stop whining and talking past each other. In short, do your damn jobs. No one made you run for office; politics is a choice. So is being responsible.
The president proposed a budget of nearly 4-trillion dollars that, once again, ignored the elephant in the living room. Despite his own rhetoric, during the '08 campaign and even during his presidency, of the need to get the country's finances in order, he put forth a spending proposal that includes hiring 5,000 more IRS agents and continuing the boondoggle of high speed rail. In Congress, the idea of trimming less than 100-million dollars - from a budget of ALMOST FOUR TRILLION - has caused convulsions among some who consider every taxpayer dollar that is earned to be government money awaiting confiscation.
Looming is a vote on raising the nation's debt ceiling, falsely portrayed as something that could cause the nation to default on its obligations. Fresh, grade-A BS. Let me ask you this - when you max out your credit card, does that free you from paying the balance that is due? Of course, not; and the country would similarly have to pay its bills. Not raising the debt ceiling means the government cannot simply borrow even more money. Put another way - when you hit your credit card max, can you call the company and ask for your limit to be raised? Doubtful. Raising the debt ceiling is akin to borrowing from Peter to pay Paul; the downside is that you wind up owing Peter more than he lent you because of interest. When the amounts being discussed are in the billions and trillions of dollars, interest is a hefty sum.
Then, there is the issue of public sector unions in several states. Curiously, the states enduring the most crushing problems are the ones with the largest obligations to public employees. There is likely a correlation there but I could be wrong. Regardless, here is my question: why should membership in a union be a requirement for working in the public sector? And does it seem curious that the consistently pro-choice Democrat Party has an issue with people making choices on the most personal of things? Second, does it seem fair to you that, along with compulsory membership, union dues are automatically deducted from an employee's paycheck, whether the employee is okay with that or not? Third, this process reeks of conflict of interest and here's how: the union dues are typically used to fund electoral campaigns of Democrat officials, though it would be just as wrong if the money went toward Republican candidates. In essence, unions siphon off taxpayer dollars in order to give to the campaigns of politicians whom they will lobby later for even more taxpayer dollars. That's not the democratic process, that is a Mafia-style protection racket.
Voters spoke loudly and clearly in November, screaming "no" to more government spending. Whether you agree or disagree with that is immaterial. Elections have consequences; we spent two years hearing that from a Congressional majority that rammed through as many things as possible, public opinion be damned. With the shoe firmly on the other foot, the same folks are now squawking about bipartisanship, compromise, and negotiation. Here's a clue: how about the lot of you stop acting like children, stop treating the federal treasury and state budgets as your personal slush funds, and do what even elementary school kids know has to be done.
It's called leadership and I realize that it is a scarce commodity among the political class. Today's soundbite culture makes it easy to vilify anyone who proposes anything that smacks of responsible government. And, responsible government can happen; I have seen it done by honorable men and women who realized that compromise is not a dirty word. It just means no one gets everything they want; at the same time, action that benefits the masses winds up being taken. Stop with talk of government shutdowns, stop running away to other states to avoid your constitutional responsibility, and stop whining and talking past each other. In short, do your damn jobs. No one made you run for office; politics is a choice. So is being responsible.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Dad would have enjoyed it
My father would have enjoyed watching Auburn raise that crystal trophy this week. He had seats at Jordan-Hare when it was still Cliff Hare Stadium with one end zone still open. My earliest memory of watching the Tigers was when the defense intercepted Florida's John Reaves 9 times in an upset win back in '69. In those days, fans could walk down onto the field and exit underneath the stands in the corners of the end where the dressing room sits. No dogs, no yellow-coated security guards, and no people acting stupid. It was mostly a treat for the kids to be on the grass their Saturday heroes had just trampled.
Auburn never won a national title during that time. There were the undefeated years of '93 and '04, several Iron Bowl wins, and some other big games, but never that one season where the combination of good play and good fortune united for the whole year. Then came 2010, perhaps the most unlikely season in which Auburn would rule college football. Dad died almost a year ago but he was curious as to what the upcoming season might hold. Honest Auburn fans will tell you they approached this season with optimism but not overconfidence and, for many, 9 - 10 wins seemed a reasonable expectation between the advantage of the schedule and the anticipation of a couple of breaks going our way. Perhaps I should have known it would be different on opening night.
Our seats were the second and third from the aisle; the aisle seat had one of those pre-installed chairbacks some ticket holders pay for, but whoever arranged that didn't show that night. Or at the next home game. Or the one after that. My bride and I took turns using the seat and it is nice to be able to lean back from time to time. It was her idea that the empty seat was more than a seating chart mistake, that it was a purposeful act. It was dad's seat and he would take the ride with us, week in and week out, win or lose. Obviously, lose never came, with an overtime thriller followed by turnover-filled victory as Auburn became the unlikely South Carolina state champion setting up the year's two decisive home games.
The scores you already know, but my brother, who came in for the LSU game, walked away with the same feeling my wife had - there was something about that seat that had been paid for and equipped with a seatback, yet no one claiming it. It had to be dad's spot and surely he was enjoying not just the team winning but the excitement the Tigers and their big kid of a quarterback were generating. How could any long-time fan not get swept up in the excitement of a player seemingly having the time of his life and wanting an entire stadium to know about it.
Perhaps the real key that the seat belonged to dad was the Auburn seemed to master the football question he always asked - how come teams don't have a special play for short yardage that is a virtual lock? Sending a back into a pile or running a sneak is never guaranteed to be successful and, time and again, he would ask how it was that a team could fail to pick up 6 inches or two feet. This year provided the answer - you put a 6-foot-6, 250 pound quarterback in the shotgun, after the snap he takes two steps forward, and dives over the pile. First down. Or touchdown. Worked every time. Without fail. Of course, the challenge becomes finding a player to replicate that feat game after game, year after year. But, for one season at least, that nagging question was answered. And for one season at least, the Tigers won the last game of the year. I hope dad enjoyed the season as much as the rest of us did.
Auburn never won a national title during that time. There were the undefeated years of '93 and '04, several Iron Bowl wins, and some other big games, but never that one season where the combination of good play and good fortune united for the whole year. Then came 2010, perhaps the most unlikely season in which Auburn would rule college football. Dad died almost a year ago but he was curious as to what the upcoming season might hold. Honest Auburn fans will tell you they approached this season with optimism but not overconfidence and, for many, 9 - 10 wins seemed a reasonable expectation between the advantage of the schedule and the anticipation of a couple of breaks going our way. Perhaps I should have known it would be different on opening night.
Our seats were the second and third from the aisle; the aisle seat had one of those pre-installed chairbacks some ticket holders pay for, but whoever arranged that didn't show that night. Or at the next home game. Or the one after that. My bride and I took turns using the seat and it is nice to be able to lean back from time to time. It was her idea that the empty seat was more than a seating chart mistake, that it was a purposeful act. It was dad's seat and he would take the ride with us, week in and week out, win or lose. Obviously, lose never came, with an overtime thriller followed by turnover-filled victory as Auburn became the unlikely South Carolina state champion setting up the year's two decisive home games.
The scores you already know, but my brother, who came in for the LSU game, walked away with the same feeling my wife had - there was something about that seat that had been paid for and equipped with a seatback, yet no one claiming it. It had to be dad's spot and surely he was enjoying not just the team winning but the excitement the Tigers and their big kid of a quarterback were generating. How could any long-time fan not get swept up in the excitement of a player seemingly having the time of his life and wanting an entire stadium to know about it.
Perhaps the real key that the seat belonged to dad was the Auburn seemed to master the football question he always asked - how come teams don't have a special play for short yardage that is a virtual lock? Sending a back into a pile or running a sneak is never guaranteed to be successful and, time and again, he would ask how it was that a team could fail to pick up 6 inches or two feet. This year provided the answer - you put a 6-foot-6, 250 pound quarterback in the shotgun, after the snap he takes two steps forward, and dives over the pile. First down. Or touchdown. Worked every time. Without fail. Of course, the challenge becomes finding a player to replicate that feat game after game, year after year. But, for one season at least, that nagging question was answered. And for one season at least, the Tigers won the last game of the year. I hope dad enjoyed the season as much as the rest of us did.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Things I hope to never hear again
Sometimes it is painful being a sports fan. So many cliches, so many attempts at humor that fall flat, so many announcers hoping to be clever and carve out a signature phrase that will live forever. Perhaps the play by play guys could simply focus on describing the action and the analysts could, well, analyze. In so doing, this is a starter list of words and phrases to NEVER say again:
--'the next level' in describing the NFL. Players are not going to the next level of football; they are going to the pros, to playing for a living, even to playing on Sundays, but NOT the next level. Levels are things people encounter in video games. No one ever says the shortstop in Double-A is going to the next level; he's going to The Show. The NFL lacks its equivalent of baseball's The Show, though a couple of guys have used The League, which is a lot better than the next level.
--'elevate.' No, basketball players and some football receivers do not elevate, they jump. Just like guys run fast, not accelerate. Cars accelerate and hydraulic lifts elevate; people run and jump.
--"a buck (fill in the blank)" when referring to a player gaining more than a hundred yards, or instances of a minute and some number of seconds left to play, or an anemic batting average during a slump. The buck analogy has been done, overdone, cooked, fileted, baked, fricasseed, and grilled to a point that is the opposite of original. A buck-something means money and while some players are certainly money, they're long past the point of worrying about a buck-anything.
--the tendency to turn football into rocket surgery, and football announcers are by far the worst offenders. For all the schemes coaches devise, it remains a basic game - blocking and tackling. The team that does those two things better invariably wins. Much like baseball is about catch the ball, throw the ball, hit the ball. There are no scientific formulas being used, no atoms being split, no petrie dishes employed, not even for Gus Malzhan's offense. However, you will hear an endless cacophony of teams "disguising" pass coverages or something similar that conjures up notions of Houdini ball.
With so many games and so many announcers, everyone wants to be the next Madden or Vitale or Berman. Unfortunately, the mix tends to include too many folks who can barely speak English. Pat Summerall was as understated as could be and for good reason - he worked on television and realized it. The power of the medium is visuals; sometimes, it's best to simply be quiet and let them tell the story. Of course, expecting change is barking at the moon. But, it would be nice.
--'the next level' in describing the NFL. Players are not going to the next level of football; they are going to the pros, to playing for a living, even to playing on Sundays, but NOT the next level. Levels are things people encounter in video games. No one ever says the shortstop in Double-A is going to the next level; he's going to The Show. The NFL lacks its equivalent of baseball's The Show, though a couple of guys have used The League, which is a lot better than the next level.
--'elevate.' No, basketball players and some football receivers do not elevate, they jump. Just like guys run fast, not accelerate. Cars accelerate and hydraulic lifts elevate; people run and jump.
--"a buck (fill in the blank)" when referring to a player gaining more than a hundred yards, or instances of a minute and some number of seconds left to play, or an anemic batting average during a slump. The buck analogy has been done, overdone, cooked, fileted, baked, fricasseed, and grilled to a point that is the opposite of original. A buck-something means money and while some players are certainly money, they're long past the point of worrying about a buck-anything.
--the tendency to turn football into rocket surgery, and football announcers are by far the worst offenders. For all the schemes coaches devise, it remains a basic game - blocking and tackling. The team that does those two things better invariably wins. Much like baseball is about catch the ball, throw the ball, hit the ball. There are no scientific formulas being used, no atoms being split, no petrie dishes employed, not even for Gus Malzhan's offense. However, you will hear an endless cacophony of teams "disguising" pass coverages or something similar that conjures up notions of Houdini ball.
With so many games and so many announcers, everyone wants to be the next Madden or Vitale or Berman. Unfortunately, the mix tends to include too many folks who can barely speak English. Pat Summerall was as understated as could be and for good reason - he worked on television and realized it. The power of the medium is visuals; sometimes, it's best to simply be quiet and let them tell the story. Of course, expecting change is barking at the moon. But, it would be nice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)