All right, so I'm a fuckin' sheep. But Dean's "Iowa yell" did nothing to help his campaign. He may bounce back in New Hampshire now, but he's gonna get buried in the south. Ever since Clark entered the race a while back, I've been slowly realizing in my subconscious what Iowa (dispite its history of not producing winners) has confirmed: Dean's not gonna make it south of the Mason-Dixon line. I guess the only way non Republicans are gonna have a chance is if a southerner has broad appeal NORTH of the Mason-Dixon. Therefore, I'm going to switch my support from Dean to Clark. I like Edwards, too, but I just don't think he's ready for the big leagues yet. Kerry? Forget it. As for the others? They never had a chance.

Time to eat crow. I'm out of the prediction business, because it's obvious that I don't know what I'm talking about. Dean got trounced in Iowa yesterday. It was a classic case of negative campaigning turning off the voters. Gephardt had been hammering Dean for weeks, and then, for whatever reason, some people in the news media decided to show the images of Dean when he testily brushed off or lectured a reporter, and that made him look pretty bad. Kerry and Edwards, who had been long written off by political pundits in the news media and bloggers alike, proved that actual human contact is still what truly matters in a political campaign. Those who predict that the internet can deliver a candidate should take note of what happened last night. Dean, to his credit, all along has said that the internet is merely a tool to help the campaign, but the story for months, told by everyone else, is that the internet IS the thing. I think now it's time for a reality check. Even though those images of Dean last night, where he lectured and pointed his index finger at reporters, and another where he angrily pushed away a boom mike someone had planted right in front of his face...were deliberately selected over all others, it does reveal something my wife pointed out last night: Dean has tact issues and that's going to hurt him. I guess the media wins. My allegiances for the election are now in "wait and see" mode. And I'm realizing that Bush is probably going to be reelected. It's a sad realization, but one that I have to accept.

Two days earlier, the two teams I had hoped would go to the Super Bowl both lost. And yesterday my car got towed. The week hasn't gotten off to a good start, but for some reason I'm not in a bad mood. Not sure why!

A new job for my wife begins on the 26th! Whew and "woo-hoo" are the operative words. Now if only the Packers could have won that game. You know, I can't really fault Sherman for not going for it on 4th and 1 when having done so earlier in the game and failed. And Favre's bad throw? Well, that's a tough one to swallow but you can't turn back time, right Cher? Better luck next year. I think we're poised to improve now. At the beginning of this season, the general consensus among Packer fans was that the team was in slow decline. I think bringing in Grady Jackson and the emergence of Javon Walker and Robert Ferguson helped turn that around. Nick Luchey was a good acquisition at FB and the O-line stayed healthy this year. Having backup RBs Najeh Davenport and Tony Fisher averaging 5.0 yards per carry is testimony to that, I think. We have a lot to be proud of this year, I just wish we could have taken it all the way so the emotional day when we got into the playoffs by trouncing Denver and then watching Minnesota choke it big time against Arizona would be remembered forever. Well, I have to say I probably will remember it for a very long time, regardless of the end result. Philly is obviously the better team, they have more weapons. Still, we almost beat 'em and for that we should be proud. I like our chances next year, provided everybody can stay healthy.

The first new year's resolution begins today. No drinking for a while. This past weekend was quite the bender. On Saturday, my wife and I went to my former boss's house in Alameda and proceeded into a long, 10 hour alcohol soaked and barbecue stuffed day. We watched the playoff games and played darts, and I learned a few grilling pointers along the way. Plus, it was nice to see him on an upward swing having recently found a new job. I've been in a somewhat awkward position here at work, witnessing the layoff of both people involved in hiring me in the first place.

And I still sit here, with time on my hands to write in this journal. it doesn't seem fair, but today I am happy. I am happier than I have been in a long time because my wife got the job she truly wanted. To me it justifies the year that she worked in a very part time basis for this organization, because when she lost her subsequent full time job working with the parole department just after Thanksgiving, the person she worked with for her now current organization pulled some strings and helped her get her foot in the door for an interview. It has now paid off!

As for me? Tour still approaches, though I don't know exactly when. And we have the landlord situation to contend with. Our house was bought last month and the new owners have hinted that they want to do an owner move in, but it doesn't appear that they can do that legally. We found out that they did an exchange of property, and that they are not likely residents of the property they exchanged ours with. So legally they can't force out the tenants with an owner move in unless they take a tax penalty. Just this past week my wife had the new owner come in to replace a simple washer for the faucet in the kitchen. He replaced the whole faucet. Then he said that he was only doing this out of the goodness of his heart but that we were responsible for paying for those types of repairs? Oh really? Why does it say that the tenant is only responsible for repairs if it has to do with tenants' negligence in the contract we just signed, then? My wife said to him that this is really the only benefit of renting, that when something needs to be repaired out of normal wear and tear, the tenant is not responsible. "Well, I don't live there" he said. Then came the shocker: "There are plenty of other places to rent if you don't like it." The gentleman declared war with that statement.

There was a letter they sent last week that declares that our rent is to be raised by $50 starting in February. We have since found out that this is not the proper procedure so we are filing for mediation/arbitration. These people need to know that they can't bully people and they need to learn the law. They complained to the tenant upstairs, who is in her sixties, that they were planning on "taking over the whole place." They complained about how the rents were not enough to pay for the mortgage. Well, maybe they shouldn't have bought the place then, knowing there were existing tenants. They must have figured that they could bully the tenants into giving notice. Well, they are fucking with the wrong people. This might work in some neighborhoods with some people, but not with us. We don't need them as a landlord referral, because the previous owner had a management company that was perfectly happy with us, and then they were unceremoniously dumped when the lady who owned the house passed away and her nephews took over the place. So the new owners are about to find out that fucking with us was the wrong call. I look forward to that fight because they need to know that it's not okay to fuck with tenants. Oh, and the realtor that sold the place was also shady. I look forward to justice being served.

The Raiders

For the record, I believe Callahan's side of the story about the Raiders situation this past year. I do think that maybe he deserved to be let go insofar as he couldn't control the team. But I think the real reason for the problems on the team had to do with the geezers talking out of turn. A classic case of the inmates running the asylum, which for the Raiders is traditionally a good analogy. Here is what Callahan had to say about Tim Brown's sour grapes:

"First off, the notion that I would sabotage a season is absolutely delusional,'' Callahan said during a lengthy radio interview with James Brown on Sporting News Radio. "It is insulting and unfounded, in my opinion. Do you think that I would coach for 26 years to become a head coach in the National Football League, go to a Super Bowl, so I can throw a season? I don't think so.

"I don't think that I would put in 18 hours a day and spend the entire four weeks of my vacation planning for a season, so I can throw it all away. So, those remarks that Tim accused me of are totally absurd and that is an indictment that is unwarranted, unfounded and totally off base."

Brown's anger and attitude, Callahan said, stem from the fact that he was told prior to the Oct. 20 Monday night game against Kansas City that he would be replaced in the starting lineup by fourth-year receiver Jerry Porter.

"Porter, in my opinion, is the next receiver to supplant Tim as the starting flanker in Oakland,'' Callahan said. "Tim was the go-to guy for the Raiders and I diminished his role on offense. He voiced his displeasure in the locker room. From there on, he did nothing but complain about that role.

"With due respect to his illustrious career, it is nothing personal, but that was one of the points of contention during the year."

Callahan stressed that he made personnel decisions regarding Brown and others solely and "never conferred with Al (Davis) about any of the moves I made here.''

The former Raiders coach, whose contract was not renewed last week after taking the team to a Super Bowl in 2002 and following with a 4-12 finish in 2003, went on to characterize Brown as a bitter, disruptive player who failed to address locker room divisions in his role as team captain.

Sounds about right.

Kinks' frontman Ray Davies is in the news today. Apparently he got shot in the leg in New Orleans after chasing after a mugger who snatched his girlfriend's purse. I'm not sure if that move is heroic or stupid, but if I were in his shoes I would have done the same thing.

Bradley endorses Dean. I can't wait to see the first debate between George W. and Dean. I think this will be the key to who wins, and I am confident that Dean will turn the corner at that point.

I can't say that I care about the latest Diana thing or the Britney Spears publicity stunt. That is not news. India and Pakistan holding peace talks? North Korea opening up a bit more to ending nuclear testing? Mad cow in the US? Now we're talking.

Holmgren vs. Sherman

How 'bout those Packers? People who know me well know that when I say that, it means I want to change the subject. It has become quite a parody actually, but I do it to be funny. But this time I mean it literally. Yesterday's game was about as thrilling as it gets. It was really a chess match back and forth. I'm impressed with the job Mike Sherman has done during his tenure at Green Bay. In fact, in observing the curt handshake that Mike Holmgren gave Sherman at the end of the game, I sensed a little jealousy. Holmgren, as any Packer fans reading know, left Green Bay in 1999 to become Head Coach, General Manager AND Executive VP of the Seattle Seahawks. The general consensus was that he couldn't handle all three jobs effectively, and so he was stripped of his GM title last year. As a result, the common wisdom goes, he was able to concentrate on coaching more and less on the responsibilities of GM.

Mike Sherman was Holmgren's Tight Ends' coach in 1998, Holmgren's last year with Green Bay. In 1999, Sherman left with Holmgren to become offensive coordinator at Seattle. Meanwhile, Ron Wolf, the Packer GM during Holmgren's tenure, settled on Ray Rhodes as head coach but fired him at the end of the '99 season when we went 8-8 after seven consecutive winning seasons under Holmgren.

After a long search, Wolf brought in Sherman as the head coach, and then in 2001, Wolf retired and Sherman took over the GM job at that point while retaining his head coaching job. Wouldn't Holmgren have chomped at the bit for that one? But I think both Wolf and Team President Bob Harlan knew something about Sherman and Holmgren that we don't and what has happened to both of them since 2001 bear this out. Since Sherman became the Packers' head coach, we have had winning seasons each year, and our record actually improved during the years Sherman became the GM. Not so for Holmgren in Seattle. In the first year he took over there, they went to playoffs, but had not been there since until this season, the first year where he was simply the head coach again.

So what went right for Sherman that went wrong for Holmgren? For one, Sherman retained Ron Wolf as a paid consultant to the team. Also, Sherman brought in Mark Hatley as his VP of football operations, but my thinking is that Sherman gives Hatley a lot more responsibility than Holmgren did for his VPs. I think the key to Sherman's success so far is his ability to delegate. I also think Andrew Brandt has done a spectacular job in negotiating with current players and their agents and I think his work is key to Sherman's ability at keeping our best players in the fold. One of the first things I remembered about Sherman's first year as GM was how he managed to keep keep key players from leaving the team.

Sherman has made his mistakes, most notably bringing in Joe Johnson, a defensive end that has played maybe less than ten games since signing with us and giving him a huge contract. Another bust was Terry Glenn. But for one, Johnson and Glenn are the exception and not the rule. For every Joe Johnson and Terry Glenn, there is a Grady Jackson (aquired midseason this year). Grady's acquisition turned our run defense around this year.

Who were the players that Sherman were able to keep? William Henderson, for one. He was on the '96 team. So was Gilbert Brown. And let's not forget kicker Ryan Longwell, who surpassed Don Hutson's record for most points scored for Green Bay this year.

Now, one can argue that the highest impact players of the Packers to this day are players Wolf, and not Sherman, drafted. Of course we know about Brett Favre. But Ahman Green is also one of them. Then again, Javon Walker is a rising star and he was one of Sherman's draftees. Sherman also did what Wolf should have done years ago, which was to get rid of Ty Williams. His replacement at corner? Al Harris, the man responsible for the big play that won us the game yesterday. The point? I think Sherman has done almost as well, if not better in some cases, as Wolf did.

More evidence that Holmgren was not good at delegating can be supported by the Ahman Green trade. Who did Holmgren get in return? Fred Vinson, a corner who I believe is out of the league now and a draft pick in one of the lower rounds. Holmgren gave up Green to Wolf because Green was in Holmgren's doghouse due to fumbleitis. Here is a clear case where Holmgren's emotions as a coach maybe could have used a filter for a GM, because where Holmgren gave up Green, had Wolf been there, he would have told Holmgren to be patient with him. But since Holmgren had all the power, off Green went to Green Bay and Wolf got the best of him. Maybe that explained the sour grapes he had during yesterday's "conference" and argument (where he got booed by Packer fans) over whether or not Green fumbled the ball in the fourth quarter.

I'm rambling now. My larger point is this: If Sherman can get us a Super Bowl win, he will be remembered more fondly than Holmgren in the long run because of his proven ability to do it as a coach and GM. However, until that happens, Holmgren will be #2 in the memory of most current Packer fans, behind Lombardi in terms of reverence. I do think it's a possibility this year, though the Philly game will be tough. If not, I do think we will get better next year and continue to do well for years to come, because Sherman knows how to manage the cap and the Packers have good talent evaluators to keep developing new young players. I'll bet that's why Favre changed his mind about retiring. To me, Sherman has the leadership qualities to take the Packers to the Super Bowl, and I have a lot of respect for the man.

Off we go to the new year. The usual lineup of more exercise, less beer and wine, and the hope that we won't spend too much money is in order, to be broken in a few months I suppose. I am proud of the fact that I've walked every day that I could, weather permitting, since January 7th of last year. Has it had an impact? I think so, up until this year's holidays, when the alcohol intake increased. Still, if I hadn't walked approximately two miles a day since last year, I imagine I'd be about 220 by now instead of 205.