I know I have not been active at all on here lately. Too much going on. I love to write, but seldom really have the time.
Lessons are learned the hard way sometime. Christmas is a good example. We over-commercialize it. We stress out over it. We spend too much. We hate that others spent so much on us but did not necessarily get us what WE would have wanted. We worry if we got others what THEY would have wanted. We lose the real meaning in all of this.
This year was particularly hard in the Philosopher's home. The day I bought my first gift for my lovely Bride (of 20 + years) I learned that I was going to be laid off for at least six weeks. We were already tight.
Already, I could not get Philosopher, Jr., and my two unbeleivable daughters what I would like or what they would like.
Times are hard, money's tight.
However, maybe more than at any time in memory, I feel blessed. We had a wonderful Christmas. Our gifts, though in total costing far less money than usual, were all very nice. Both the ones I gave, and the ones I got. Maybe it is because of the love that is represented in those gifts.
I see Philospher. Jr. growing to be a mature, caring, thoughtful, wonderful, intelligent young man in whom I am very proud.
My girls are beautiful, loving, thoughtful, caring, thankful.
I love Mrs. Philosopher more than I ahve words to say.
Life is hard.
But
Life is good.
God refines us in the fire...
but
God loves us and provides all we need.
I have friends...family....church...freedom....SALVATION.
Merry Christmas
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Iron Bowl Prediction (well, sort of)
Last year after three games, Auburn looked very bad and Alabama looked pretty good. At that point I made the prediction that Auburn would actually beat Alabama in the Iron Bowl (you can find that prediction on this Blog). Turned out, I was a prophet, or at least lucky anyway!
This year we have now played eleven games and I have not made a prediction. Seems pretty clear. AU is 5-6, and Bama is 11-0 and ranked number one. The obvious prediction is that Alabama will win and possibly by a large margin. It's not just the records, there are other things to consider.....
1) Alabama has dominated most games this year at the line of scrimmagr on both sides of the ball. This has been evident from the first game of the year. The thing I kept thinking as I watched them this year is that their skill players are not really any better than anyone elses (although Julio Jones certainly has potential to be one of the best ever) but that their linemen just dominate the other side. And, as they say, games are won in the trenches.
2) Auburn's interior, on the other hand, has had innumerable problems all year long. Their offensive line, especially Ziemba, has had a problem with holding and false start penalties all year. More often than not, when the QB performs a deep handoff, the defensive linemen are already in the runners face. On the defensive side, AU has looked great at times, but has suffered so many injuiries that they have looked hideous at times (esp vs West Va in the second half)
3) While AU is 5-6, they have even looked unimpressive for that record. As noted earlier they only scored 20 offensive points against La Monroe. They nearly let Southern Miss back into a game that had dominated. The 3-2 win against Miss St is what I have referred to as the most embarrasing victory in the history of Auburn Football. They held on to beat the worst UTenn team in my memory, scoring one offensive and one defensive TD. They were tied 20-20 in the third quarter to a 1-AA team (UT Martin) In two games they missed PAT's which very well may have cost them the game. Their field goal kicker has choked all year.
4) Bama has six years of pent up frustration and are just aching to take revenge.
5) I think Nick Saban is probably the least likely coach to overlook AU and look ahead to Florida. I absolutely believe he will have them ready.
6) AU's coaching staff has been a fiasco this year, with the hiring of Tony Franklin, the failure of that venture (and I still do not know where the fault lies in that mess) and his subsequent firing. Since then Steve Ensminger has run the show. If we were expecting Franklin to be Baskin Robbins 31 flavors, Ensminger is, always has been and always will be just plain vanilla.
7) Bama will have home field advantage.
With all that said, and more that could be, it seems the only question is not will Bama win, but by how much.
However, perhaps I am just being an overly optimistic Tiger fan, but I do not rule out the possiblity that they will make a game of it, and even have at least some reasonable chance to win. I am not predicting they will win, but I am saying that if they do, I will not be totally stunned. Admittedly, some of this may come from the Orange and Blue colored glasses I seem to wear, but some of it comes from actual reasoning. Hear me out.
1) At times this year, AUs defense has been supurb, even suffocating. The defense is what has won the games they've won. During the middle stretch of the year, most notably at the WVA game, the defense was just riddled with injuires. Now, the defense is as healthy as it has been since the beginning of the year. Their defense should be able to at least keep them in the game.
2) With all the coaching mess this year, this will now be the sixth game this year under the 'new' system - i.e. without Franklin. As vanilla as Ensminger is, I do at least believe progress is being made from where they were earlier this year.
3) Kodi Burns is coming along. He is still a true Sophomore without tons of playing time, but he occasionally makes plays that are unbelievable, and seems to be gaining confidence. If only he had played the full year......
4) Tuscaloosa is like home away from home for Auburn. Auburn has NEVER lost there. They have that streak (which I think is six games) along with their six game win streak in the series on the line.
5) As bad as AU has been (they are 5-6 and could eaisily be 2-9 or 3-8) they are on the other side just a play here and a play there away from being 8-3 or 9-2. They led the WVa game at one point 17-3. Through the WVa game, they had led all of their games at halftime. They lost on a late score to LSU. They missed an extra point and were stopped on the goal line against Vandy and lost by one point. They led Arkansa 20-10 before losing late. They stayed toe to toe with UGa for most of the game. Missed an extra point, missed one or two field goals, and were still deep in UGa territory late with a chance to win, beofe losing 17-13.
6) Every year since he has been there (except 2004) Tuberville has had one or two games where AU has looked like they were just totally unprepared and AU has gotten beaten ugly. However, every year since he has been there, AU has had at least one game where they looked like the best prepared team in the country. Check the record. At least once per year, AU looks like world beaters. This year, they have had several of the no-shows, and none of the great games. They are due up.
When all is said and done, I am not making an actual definite prediction either way. If you absolutely forced me to say who I thought would win, I would have to say Bama for the above reasons. However, for the other reasons, I think AU actually has a better chance than most are giving them. Really, the score could be anywhere from 38-7 Bama to 20-17 Auburn!
That's all right if we lose. We can start a new streak next year!
This year we have now played eleven games and I have not made a prediction. Seems pretty clear. AU is 5-6, and Bama is 11-0 and ranked number one. The obvious prediction is that Alabama will win and possibly by a large margin. It's not just the records, there are other things to consider.....
1) Alabama has dominated most games this year at the line of scrimmagr on both sides of the ball. This has been evident from the first game of the year. The thing I kept thinking as I watched them this year is that their skill players are not really any better than anyone elses (although Julio Jones certainly has potential to be one of the best ever) but that their linemen just dominate the other side. And, as they say, games are won in the trenches.
2) Auburn's interior, on the other hand, has had innumerable problems all year long. Their offensive line, especially Ziemba, has had a problem with holding and false start penalties all year. More often than not, when the QB performs a deep handoff, the defensive linemen are already in the runners face. On the defensive side, AU has looked great at times, but has suffered so many injuiries that they have looked hideous at times (esp vs West Va in the second half)
3) While AU is 5-6, they have even looked unimpressive for that record. As noted earlier they only scored 20 offensive points against La Monroe. They nearly let Southern Miss back into a game that had dominated. The 3-2 win against Miss St is what I have referred to as the most embarrasing victory in the history of Auburn Football. They held on to beat the worst UTenn team in my memory, scoring one offensive and one defensive TD. They were tied 20-20 in the third quarter to a 1-AA team (UT Martin) In two games they missed PAT's which very well may have cost them the game. Their field goal kicker has choked all year.
4) Bama has six years of pent up frustration and are just aching to take revenge.
5) I think Nick Saban is probably the least likely coach to overlook AU and look ahead to Florida. I absolutely believe he will have them ready.
6) AU's coaching staff has been a fiasco this year, with the hiring of Tony Franklin, the failure of that venture (and I still do not know where the fault lies in that mess) and his subsequent firing. Since then Steve Ensminger has run the show. If we were expecting Franklin to be Baskin Robbins 31 flavors, Ensminger is, always has been and always will be just plain vanilla.
7) Bama will have home field advantage.
With all that said, and more that could be, it seems the only question is not will Bama win, but by how much.
However, perhaps I am just being an overly optimistic Tiger fan, but I do not rule out the possiblity that they will make a game of it, and even have at least some reasonable chance to win. I am not predicting they will win, but I am saying that if they do, I will not be totally stunned. Admittedly, some of this may come from the Orange and Blue colored glasses I seem to wear, but some of it comes from actual reasoning. Hear me out.
1) At times this year, AUs defense has been supurb, even suffocating. The defense is what has won the games they've won. During the middle stretch of the year, most notably at the WVA game, the defense was just riddled with injuires. Now, the defense is as healthy as it has been since the beginning of the year. Their defense should be able to at least keep them in the game.
2) With all the coaching mess this year, this will now be the sixth game this year under the 'new' system - i.e. without Franklin. As vanilla as Ensminger is, I do at least believe progress is being made from where they were earlier this year.
3) Kodi Burns is coming along. He is still a true Sophomore without tons of playing time, but he occasionally makes plays that are unbelievable, and seems to be gaining confidence. If only he had played the full year......
4) Tuscaloosa is like home away from home for Auburn. Auburn has NEVER lost there. They have that streak (which I think is six games) along with their six game win streak in the series on the line.
5) As bad as AU has been (they are 5-6 and could eaisily be 2-9 or 3-8) they are on the other side just a play here and a play there away from being 8-3 or 9-2. They led the WVa game at one point 17-3. Through the WVa game, they had led all of their games at halftime. They lost on a late score to LSU. They missed an extra point and were stopped on the goal line against Vandy and lost by one point. They led Arkansa 20-10 before losing late. They stayed toe to toe with UGa for most of the game. Missed an extra point, missed one or two field goals, and were still deep in UGa territory late with a chance to win, beofe losing 17-13.
6) Every year since he has been there (except 2004) Tuberville has had one or two games where AU has looked like they were just totally unprepared and AU has gotten beaten ugly. However, every year since he has been there, AU has had at least one game where they looked like the best prepared team in the country. Check the record. At least once per year, AU looks like world beaters. This year, they have had several of the no-shows, and none of the great games. They are due up.
When all is said and done, I am not making an actual definite prediction either way. If you absolutely forced me to say who I thought would win, I would have to say Bama for the above reasons. However, for the other reasons, I think AU actually has a better chance than most are giving them. Really, the score could be anywhere from 38-7 Bama to 20-17 Auburn!
That's all right if we lose. We can start a new streak next year!
Thursday, November 6, 2008
A bunch of random thoughts concerning the election
In no particular order, kind of a 'stream of consiousness' thing:
1. I have read many comments from liberals about the fact that poor ole McCain supporters were not really for McCain, but just AGAINST Obama, as if that is in any ways important. If you are a liberal with this view, suppose one side was someone you really did not much care for (say George Bush) and the other side was Adolph Hitler. Would you be more voting for Bush or against Hitler? The choices are what they are and a person just has to make what he thinks is the wisest choice among what is there - even though he may not like even the wisest choice. In my case, I decided to cast a vote that I could feel good about (3rd Party vote) even knowing the guy had a zero chance of winning. Admittedly, if the race would have been close in Alabama, I would have voted for McCain.
2. I don't for the life of me understand why when there is potentially really controversial information about a candidate, it is wrong for us to wonder about it or even speak about it. There have of course been rumors that Obama was Muslim. I have heard rumors that he had been addicted to Cocaine at one point in his life. I had heard rumors that he was gay or bi. Now, admittedly these may be crazy. They may be flat made up. They may be totally baseless. My personal feeling right now is that Obama is not a Muslim (more on this later, though). I do not think he shows any characteristics of a drug addict, although I have actually seen him admit to smoking pot frequently when he was younger. I really know nothing about his sexual preferences, but have no knowledge of any deviancy on his part. So, unless someone could really produce evidence for any of these, then of course it is silly, immature, and unChristian to spread such rumors around. If there is any evidence for any of these, then I think they are legitimate concerns and are open for discussion in a campaign.
However, there are are other areas in which there have been persistent rumors that seem to have more backbone. Mr. Obama's past activities and ties with other people and organizations would say a lot about who he is. He has been associated with who knows who.
At the very least we could talk about Jeremiah Wright. 'Pastor' Wright has openly touted 'Black Liberation Theology" and the writings of James H. Cone including "A Black Theology of Racism" (you can find Wright touting this book on youtube and he has in the past at least, cited this book as a founding document for his church. ) This book and this man and this "theology" which term is used in the loosest way possible, is simply hate filled anti-American racism. The major premise of the book is that community defines theology. Therefore, the 'black' community can define a 'black theology" that suits their needs. Of course, the other premise is that historical orthodox Christian theology is "White Theology" which has been used to oppress blacks. Note here then that 'theology' which correctly would be the objective study of God with no racial connotations at all now becomes the subjective statement of our own racial prejudices clothed in the righteous garb of religion. There is 'oppresive' white theology and black 'liberation' theology. Where is God in this view?
According to Cone and Wright, they can not worship a God who is not on the side of the Black Liberation movement. If God is on the 'side' of Whiteness then they hate that God.
Here are a few excerpts from this book:
1. "[W]hiteness is the symbol of the Anti-christ."
2. "The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods."
3. "The black experience is the feeling one has when attacking the enemy of black humanity by throwing a Molotov cocktail into a white-owned building and watching it go up in flames. We know, of course, that getting rid of evil takes something more than burning down buildings, but one must start somewhere."
4. "Black theology seeks to analyze the satanic nature of whiteness and by doing so prepare all nonwhites for revolutionary action."
5. "We have reached our limit of tolerance, and if it means death with dignity or life with humiliation we will choose the former. And if that is the choice, we will take some honkies with us."
6. "To be black is to be committed to destroying everything this country loves and adores."
Now, I ask you dear reader, rearrange the black and white above and what would our media do to anyone even remotely associated with it? Anyone white who can even by the third or fourth degree be remotely associated with anyone even remotely racist can have their any hope of attaining public office destroyed. Remember Pat Buchanan in 1996? Remember Trent Lott?
But, what did we do in this case? We elected a man president who for twenty years attended a church that was self described as based on these racists writings/rantings. Then, when it briefly became a political issue, he dropped it like a hot rock and the rest of us are suppose to just shut up and never mention it?? Excuse me??? I am absolutely sure I would get labeled a racist by some for even mentioning it here.
No, I do not believe Obama is a Muslim. I believe Obama is a lifelong member of a church that falsely uses the name of Christ to buttress marxism and anti-white bigotry.
Add to this other known ties at some level or other with terrorists, Chicago mafia types, marxists, vote fraud scams and the like and there is tons of smoke, but we simply must assume that there is absolutely no fire. If we want to do a fire investigation, we are labeled as fearmongers, haters, racists, etc. It really boggles the mind.
3. Sarah Palin was absolutely unready to be President, we are told. But Barack? Oh noooo. Time as a street agitator, a while in the Illinois State House, and a hudnred some days in the Senate make him uniquely qualified for the most powerful job in the world. Wright, er. Right.
4. I didn't much care for McCain, that is for sure. I do think much that McCain would do would be much the same as Bush. I do not agree at all with the direction of the country under Bush. I think we are heading in the wrong direction. However, with politics, there is a multitude of directions we could go. It is not that we go the MCCain way or we go the Obama way (which in a lot of instances are not all that different) There are a million other directions to proceed. So it is not just that since I do not like the current direction, I must vote for the change that Obama represents.
5. As bad as I think Bush has been and McCain would have been, it would still be far easier to turn things back and right the ship had McCain been elected. If Obama get's his way, and with majorities in both houses, he might, he can do almost irreperable damage. Once you let the cat of socialized medicine out of the bag, you absolutely can not be put back in. If his policies go through, we are stuck with them short of a revolution of colonial American proportions.
6. Related to this, let's just be as clear as possible. Obama is a socialist. I know I am not suppose to say this just like we are not suppose to bring up any ties to any shady characters in his past (or present). But it is the truth. People misunderstand this in many ways. a. they do not even know what socialism is b. they think they know and they actually think it is a good thing. c. they think it is allowed in the constitution d. they think it is Christian, etc. All of these thoughts are dead wrong. Socialism not only has never really worked (though through extensive use of smoke and mirrors has been made to look like it is working for a time) but actually socialism CAN NEVER work. It is an impossibility. it inevitably leads to lower standards of living and higher government power and persecution. It is impossible for it to do otherwise.
7. Obama has given indication that he will go to great lenghts not only to not allow further restricitons on abortions but to propogate more and more abortions. He has stated that the first thing he would do as president is sign the freedom of choice legislation. Ok, we know where his prioirities lie. In Illinois, he voted against legislation that would have protected the life of a child that survived an abortion procedure. Instead, they were just throwing the child in the garbage to die. Even many other liberal pro-aborts supported this legislation, but not Mr. Obamonation. Obama would be by far the most pro-abortion President in the history of the United States. What, therefore will he do in court appointments? What legislation will he push, and sign if it passes? If you are a Christian and voted for Obama, how do you justify voting for someone who is so pro-abortion?
8. Obama has given indications that he is rabidly pro-gay agenda. Now, I do not mean to imply that a candidate for president should desire to bust into homes of homosexuals and cart them off to the Gulags. Although I find the practice disgusting, and a horrible abomination against a holy God for which there will be a price to pay, I do not think it necessarily the job of the government, esp from a presidential office, to interfere with what two consenting adults may do in private. (The church has a major job to do here, for sure, though! But that is through preaching, teaching, admonishing, ministering, etc.)
But, if Mr. Obama gets his way, it may soon be illegal to preach against homosexuality. The homosexual agenda may be ramrodded at our kids through the schools, etc.
The link below is to a blog by a Robert Gagnon. Now, he is not some sort of blinded conservative. He is actually from a theologically far more liberal tradition than I. He has written a book about the Biblical view of homosexual practice that has garnered rave reviews by both conservative and liberal reviewers, even a liberal homsexual advocate. In other words, he is not simply on some sort of conservative soapbox. However, he details his concerns here about the above items (Obama's views on abortion and homosexuality) There are tons of links on this as well.
Again, how/why would a Christian have voted for this man?
http://robgagnon.net/ObamaWarOnChristians.htm
9. I am not the least bit upset over the fact that a black man got elected. I actually can truly understand why millions of black Ameicans would be very excited at the prospect of voting for a Black man. I have not experienced what they have. While there is a lot that is perception, there is a lot of reality to the history of blacks in this nation as being in an oppressed state. This is vindication of sorts for them. I understand that.
In fact, I am all for racial reconciliation and a Black president could go a long way toward that end.
Unfortunately, this is not the case with Obama. His policies will do far more harm than good, maybe even irreparable harm. I believe at the very least he has some very bigoted associates. He is from a marxist background. He is pro-death, pro-gay agenda. He is not the person, regardless of his race or gender, to lead this nation where it needs to go. He is apparently going to lead it in precisely the opposite direction than where it needs to go.
I hope it is obvious to anyone reading this that neither I, nor millions of other, white conservatives were against Obma because he is Black. We are against him because of his issues.
10. Nontheless, I am adamant that we all, black, white, liberal, conservative, need to pray for our leaders - democrat, republican, white, black, male, female, conservative, liberal. We need to pray not that our will or their will be done, but that God's will be done to His Glory and for our good.
1. I have read many comments from liberals about the fact that poor ole McCain supporters were not really for McCain, but just AGAINST Obama, as if that is in any ways important. If you are a liberal with this view, suppose one side was someone you really did not much care for (say George Bush) and the other side was Adolph Hitler. Would you be more voting for Bush or against Hitler? The choices are what they are and a person just has to make what he thinks is the wisest choice among what is there - even though he may not like even the wisest choice. In my case, I decided to cast a vote that I could feel good about (3rd Party vote) even knowing the guy had a zero chance of winning. Admittedly, if the race would have been close in Alabama, I would have voted for McCain.
2. I don't for the life of me understand why when there is potentially really controversial information about a candidate, it is wrong for us to wonder about it or even speak about it. There have of course been rumors that Obama was Muslim. I have heard rumors that he had been addicted to Cocaine at one point in his life. I had heard rumors that he was gay or bi. Now, admittedly these may be crazy. They may be flat made up. They may be totally baseless. My personal feeling right now is that Obama is not a Muslim (more on this later, though). I do not think he shows any characteristics of a drug addict, although I have actually seen him admit to smoking pot frequently when he was younger. I really know nothing about his sexual preferences, but have no knowledge of any deviancy on his part. So, unless someone could really produce evidence for any of these, then of course it is silly, immature, and unChristian to spread such rumors around. If there is any evidence for any of these, then I think they are legitimate concerns and are open for discussion in a campaign.
However, there are are other areas in which there have been persistent rumors that seem to have more backbone. Mr. Obama's past activities and ties with other people and organizations would say a lot about who he is. He has been associated with who knows who.
At the very least we could talk about Jeremiah Wright. 'Pastor' Wright has openly touted 'Black Liberation Theology" and the writings of James H. Cone including "A Black Theology of Racism" (you can find Wright touting this book on youtube and he has in the past at least, cited this book as a founding document for his church. ) This book and this man and this "theology" which term is used in the loosest way possible, is simply hate filled anti-American racism. The major premise of the book is that community defines theology. Therefore, the 'black' community can define a 'black theology" that suits their needs. Of course, the other premise is that historical orthodox Christian theology is "White Theology" which has been used to oppress blacks. Note here then that 'theology' which correctly would be the objective study of God with no racial connotations at all now becomes the subjective statement of our own racial prejudices clothed in the righteous garb of religion. There is 'oppresive' white theology and black 'liberation' theology. Where is God in this view?
According to Cone and Wright, they can not worship a God who is not on the side of the Black Liberation movement. If God is on the 'side' of Whiteness then they hate that God.
Here are a few excerpts from this book:
1. "[W]hiteness is the symbol of the Anti-christ."
2. "The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods."
3. "The black experience is the feeling one has when attacking the enemy of black humanity by throwing a Molotov cocktail into a white-owned building and watching it go up in flames. We know, of course, that getting rid of evil takes something more than burning down buildings, but one must start somewhere."
4. "Black theology seeks to analyze the satanic nature of whiteness and by doing so prepare all nonwhites for revolutionary action."
5. "We have reached our limit of tolerance, and if it means death with dignity or life with humiliation we will choose the former. And if that is the choice, we will take some honkies with us."
6. "To be black is to be committed to destroying everything this country loves and adores."
Now, I ask you dear reader, rearrange the black and white above and what would our media do to anyone even remotely associated with it? Anyone white who can even by the third or fourth degree be remotely associated with anyone even remotely racist can have their any hope of attaining public office destroyed. Remember Pat Buchanan in 1996? Remember Trent Lott?
But, what did we do in this case? We elected a man president who for twenty years attended a church that was self described as based on these racists writings/rantings. Then, when it briefly became a political issue, he dropped it like a hot rock and the rest of us are suppose to just shut up and never mention it?? Excuse me??? I am absolutely sure I would get labeled a racist by some for even mentioning it here.
No, I do not believe Obama is a Muslim. I believe Obama is a lifelong member of a church that falsely uses the name of Christ to buttress marxism and anti-white bigotry.
Add to this other known ties at some level or other with terrorists, Chicago mafia types, marxists, vote fraud scams and the like and there is tons of smoke, but we simply must assume that there is absolutely no fire. If we want to do a fire investigation, we are labeled as fearmongers, haters, racists, etc. It really boggles the mind.
3. Sarah Palin was absolutely unready to be President, we are told. But Barack? Oh noooo. Time as a street agitator, a while in the Illinois State House, and a hudnred some days in the Senate make him uniquely qualified for the most powerful job in the world. Wright, er. Right.
4. I didn't much care for McCain, that is for sure. I do think much that McCain would do would be much the same as Bush. I do not agree at all with the direction of the country under Bush. I think we are heading in the wrong direction. However, with politics, there is a multitude of directions we could go. It is not that we go the MCCain way or we go the Obama way (which in a lot of instances are not all that different) There are a million other directions to proceed. So it is not just that since I do not like the current direction, I must vote for the change that Obama represents.
5. As bad as I think Bush has been and McCain would have been, it would still be far easier to turn things back and right the ship had McCain been elected. If Obama get's his way, and with majorities in both houses, he might, he can do almost irreperable damage. Once you let the cat of socialized medicine out of the bag, you absolutely can not be put back in. If his policies go through, we are stuck with them short of a revolution of colonial American proportions.
6. Related to this, let's just be as clear as possible. Obama is a socialist. I know I am not suppose to say this just like we are not suppose to bring up any ties to any shady characters in his past (or present). But it is the truth. People misunderstand this in many ways. a. they do not even know what socialism is b. they think they know and they actually think it is a good thing. c. they think it is allowed in the constitution d. they think it is Christian, etc. All of these thoughts are dead wrong. Socialism not only has never really worked (though through extensive use of smoke and mirrors has been made to look like it is working for a time) but actually socialism CAN NEVER work. It is an impossibility. it inevitably leads to lower standards of living and higher government power and persecution. It is impossible for it to do otherwise.
7. Obama has given indication that he will go to great lenghts not only to not allow further restricitons on abortions but to propogate more and more abortions. He has stated that the first thing he would do as president is sign the freedom of choice legislation. Ok, we know where his prioirities lie. In Illinois, he voted against legislation that would have protected the life of a child that survived an abortion procedure. Instead, they were just throwing the child in the garbage to die. Even many other liberal pro-aborts supported this legislation, but not Mr. Obamonation. Obama would be by far the most pro-abortion President in the history of the United States. What, therefore will he do in court appointments? What legislation will he push, and sign if it passes? If you are a Christian and voted for Obama, how do you justify voting for someone who is so pro-abortion?
8. Obama has given indications that he is rabidly pro-gay agenda. Now, I do not mean to imply that a candidate for president should desire to bust into homes of homosexuals and cart them off to the Gulags. Although I find the practice disgusting, and a horrible abomination against a holy God for which there will be a price to pay, I do not think it necessarily the job of the government, esp from a presidential office, to interfere with what two consenting adults may do in private. (The church has a major job to do here, for sure, though! But that is through preaching, teaching, admonishing, ministering, etc.)
But, if Mr. Obama gets his way, it may soon be illegal to preach against homosexuality. The homosexual agenda may be ramrodded at our kids through the schools, etc.
The link below is to a blog by a Robert Gagnon. Now, he is not some sort of blinded conservative. He is actually from a theologically far more liberal tradition than I. He has written a book about the Biblical view of homosexual practice that has garnered rave reviews by both conservative and liberal reviewers, even a liberal homsexual advocate. In other words, he is not simply on some sort of conservative soapbox. However, he details his concerns here about the above items (Obama's views on abortion and homosexuality) There are tons of links on this as well.
Again, how/why would a Christian have voted for this man?
http://robgagnon.net/ObamaWarOnChristians.htm
9. I am not the least bit upset over the fact that a black man got elected. I actually can truly understand why millions of black Ameicans would be very excited at the prospect of voting for a Black man. I have not experienced what they have. While there is a lot that is perception, there is a lot of reality to the history of blacks in this nation as being in an oppressed state. This is vindication of sorts for them. I understand that.
In fact, I am all for racial reconciliation and a Black president could go a long way toward that end.
Unfortunately, this is not the case with Obama. His policies will do far more harm than good, maybe even irreparable harm. I believe at the very least he has some very bigoted associates. He is from a marxist background. He is pro-death, pro-gay agenda. He is not the person, regardless of his race or gender, to lead this nation where it needs to go. He is apparently going to lead it in precisely the opposite direction than where it needs to go.
I hope it is obvious to anyone reading this that neither I, nor millions of other, white conservatives were against Obma because he is Black. We are against him because of his issues.
10. Nontheless, I am adamant that we all, black, white, liberal, conservative, need to pray for our leaders - democrat, republican, white, black, male, female, conservative, liberal. We need to pray not that our will or their will be done, but that God's will be done to His Glory and for our good.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Tuberville'w Record
I know I've turned this into a sports blog, but lately I have not had time to write about much of anything, and I can churn out this sports stuff without much thought!
I found a site where I could actually calculate Tommy Tuberville's tenure at Auburn to determine how I think he has done. Because of the 13-0 season in 2004, and because for a time he had a pretty good streak against ranked opponents, everyone just sorta figures Tubby has been highly successful and one bad season should not do him in. However, consider....
Tuberville's overall record as of today at AU is 84-38 which is a .689 winning percentage. That is not too bad, though it is certainly not legendary coach status for sure. It is roughly the same percentage that Shug Jordan maintained at Auburn for 25 years, and is lower than Pat Dye's percentage. However, consider that Jordan came into an Auburn program that had been down and out for over thirty years, (they were o-10 the year before) was beat like a step child by Bama on a regular basis, but in his 7th year he won a National title. Beginning in his 8th year he had to compete in every way imaginable with the Bear who was basically the perenial SEC champ every year, as well as frequent NC winner or at least contender. That is, Shug, over a much longer period of time and against much greater odds still maintained basically the same record as Tubby has during a ten year streak in which Bama was down and out.
Dye took over an AU team that had not beaten Bama in recent memory, and turned it all around and made it a competitive rivalry again.
Tubby did do a good job getting AU back competitive again, and has beat Bama in 7 out of 9 tries (best pct of any AU coach by far) but he has done so during the bleakest years at Bama since the 1950s and he has still not managed to take full advantage of the situation - never once beating UAT handily and now losing the recrruiting battle severely.
However, when we look at that 84-38 record, we need to also understand that Auburn is 18-0 (as they should be) against 'cupcakes' (Ball St., The Citadel, etc) and 5-1 against what I would call 'mid level' non-conference competition (Central Florida, South Florida, etc.) Against anything remotely approaching 'quality' non-conference teams, Tubby is 9-9. This includes his total records against Clemson (1-0) Georgia Tech (0-2) Kansas State (1-0) Michigan (0-1) Nebraska (1-0) North Carolina (0-1) Penn State (1-0) Southern Miss (1-0) West Va (0-1) USC (0-2) Syracuse (1-1) Va Tech (1-0) Washignton St (1-0) and Wisconsin (1-1). So, TT is 23-1 against those teams which he should be 23-1 against, and 9-9 (.500) against teams that should be about his equal level. I would say that .500 makes him 'average' wouldn't you?
What about the SEC? As stated before, the greatest thing in his coaching career is his 7-2 record against Bama (of course it looks like it is about to be 7-3). But again, this has been against a down and out Bama program. The 2002 and 2003 victories were sweet for their own reasons, and all these wins over the hated Bamers are great, but on basically every one of them, AU has struggled and just come out victorious by the skin of their teeth. The last Bama win, however, was a 31-7 thrashing (when AU was actually a better team that year) and this year looks like another thrashing. In other words, when AU is (supposedly) up and Bama is definitely down, Auburn eeks out a bunch of wins. When Bama is up and AU is down, it is a thrashing. (of course, AU could win or give them a good game this year, but from here it looks like it might be ugly).
Overall in the SEC, AU is 52-28 for a .650 pctg. That is good (if .500 is 'average' then .65 is above average) However, there are certain teams that during these ten years, AU should pretty much beat every single time. The proof of the pudding is, how do they do against 'quality' SEC opponents.
Right now, AU is 5-5 (.500) against LSU, and have lost twice in a row. They are 5-4, and surely about to be 5-5 against UGA, which would include a third loss in a row, probably by a large margin for the third year in a row. Although TT has a rep as a Gator beater, he is actually 3-4 against UF. He is 4-1 against UT, but that includes this year when UT was down and out worse than even AU. And it includes beating them twice in the 2004 13-0 run. Stepping down a slight level in quality, and this is one that really makes me mad, AU is 5-5 against Arkansas. Arkansas this year is a terrible team, yet they beat AU. Several times in these ten years, Ark has routed Auburn. Several of the 5 victories AU has over Ark have been nail biters that could have gone either way.
Auburn has also lost three times to Ole Miss, and three times to MSU. And now they have even lost to Vandy.
Against 'Quality" SEC opponents (throw out Ole Miss, MSU, KY, Vandy, SC) AU is 29-21 for a .58 winning percentage.
If you can look even deeper than the records, you will see what I have already hinted at....AU wins usually close, ugly games, but loses bad. Alabama, LSU, Florida, Arkansas, and Georgia have all routed Auburn under TT. I am not sure how many times AU has routed those opponents, though. I know they did once or twice agains UGA and LSU, but the point is, there have been many very ugly losses during these ten years, and a lot of the victories have been games that could have gone either way.
Of course, there will always be some close games that you win, and some you lose and I guess AU has won more than they lost. But here is the real point in all this....Supposedly TT has done an outstanding job at AU, and it is unfair to talk of firing him after one bad year. The truth is, AU has done average under TT, has lost some very embarassing games, has in every year except one totally failed to show up for at least one game per year, has one one SEC title in ten years, has had one really good season in ten years. AU has essentially been an 8-4 team year in and year out and usually 2-3 of those wins have been against absolute cupcakes, and 3-4 of those wins have been against teams they should beat 8/10 times. Against comparable teams, AU is basically at .500 which means they are doing average.
In ten years under Tuberville, AU has been average.
The question for the AU nation is, "Are you satisfied with average?"
I found a site where I could actually calculate Tommy Tuberville's tenure at Auburn to determine how I think he has done. Because of the 13-0 season in 2004, and because for a time he had a pretty good streak against ranked opponents, everyone just sorta figures Tubby has been highly successful and one bad season should not do him in. However, consider....
Tuberville's overall record as of today at AU is 84-38 which is a .689 winning percentage. That is not too bad, though it is certainly not legendary coach status for sure. It is roughly the same percentage that Shug Jordan maintained at Auburn for 25 years, and is lower than Pat Dye's percentage. However, consider that Jordan came into an Auburn program that had been down and out for over thirty years, (they were o-10 the year before) was beat like a step child by Bama on a regular basis, but in his 7th year he won a National title. Beginning in his 8th year he had to compete in every way imaginable with the Bear who was basically the perenial SEC champ every year, as well as frequent NC winner or at least contender. That is, Shug, over a much longer period of time and against much greater odds still maintained basically the same record as Tubby has during a ten year streak in which Bama was down and out.
Dye took over an AU team that had not beaten Bama in recent memory, and turned it all around and made it a competitive rivalry again.
Tubby did do a good job getting AU back competitive again, and has beat Bama in 7 out of 9 tries (best pct of any AU coach by far) but he has done so during the bleakest years at Bama since the 1950s and he has still not managed to take full advantage of the situation - never once beating UAT handily and now losing the recrruiting battle severely.
However, when we look at that 84-38 record, we need to also understand that Auburn is 18-0 (as they should be) against 'cupcakes' (Ball St., The Citadel, etc) and 5-1 against what I would call 'mid level' non-conference competition (Central Florida, South Florida, etc.) Against anything remotely approaching 'quality' non-conference teams, Tubby is 9-9. This includes his total records against Clemson (1-0) Georgia Tech (0-2) Kansas State (1-0) Michigan (0-1) Nebraska (1-0) North Carolina (0-1) Penn State (1-0) Southern Miss (1-0) West Va (0-1) USC (0-2) Syracuse (1-1) Va Tech (1-0) Washignton St (1-0) and Wisconsin (1-1). So, TT is 23-1 against those teams which he should be 23-1 against, and 9-9 (.500) against teams that should be about his equal level. I would say that .500 makes him 'average' wouldn't you?
What about the SEC? As stated before, the greatest thing in his coaching career is his 7-2 record against Bama (of course it looks like it is about to be 7-3). But again, this has been against a down and out Bama program. The 2002 and 2003 victories were sweet for their own reasons, and all these wins over the hated Bamers are great, but on basically every one of them, AU has struggled and just come out victorious by the skin of their teeth. The last Bama win, however, was a 31-7 thrashing (when AU was actually a better team that year) and this year looks like another thrashing. In other words, when AU is (supposedly) up and Bama is definitely down, Auburn eeks out a bunch of wins. When Bama is up and AU is down, it is a thrashing. (of course, AU could win or give them a good game this year, but from here it looks like it might be ugly).
Overall in the SEC, AU is 52-28 for a .650 pctg. That is good (if .500 is 'average' then .65 is above average) However, there are certain teams that during these ten years, AU should pretty much beat every single time. The proof of the pudding is, how do they do against 'quality' SEC opponents.
Right now, AU is 5-5 (.500) against LSU, and have lost twice in a row. They are 5-4, and surely about to be 5-5 against UGA, which would include a third loss in a row, probably by a large margin for the third year in a row. Although TT has a rep as a Gator beater, he is actually 3-4 against UF. He is 4-1 against UT, but that includes this year when UT was down and out worse than even AU. And it includes beating them twice in the 2004 13-0 run. Stepping down a slight level in quality, and this is one that really makes me mad, AU is 5-5 against Arkansas. Arkansas this year is a terrible team, yet they beat AU. Several times in these ten years, Ark has routed Auburn. Several of the 5 victories AU has over Ark have been nail biters that could have gone either way.
Auburn has also lost three times to Ole Miss, and three times to MSU. And now they have even lost to Vandy.
Against 'Quality" SEC opponents (throw out Ole Miss, MSU, KY, Vandy, SC) AU is 29-21 for a .58 winning percentage.
If you can look even deeper than the records, you will see what I have already hinted at....AU wins usually close, ugly games, but loses bad. Alabama, LSU, Florida, Arkansas, and Georgia have all routed Auburn under TT. I am not sure how many times AU has routed those opponents, though. I know they did once or twice agains UGA and LSU, but the point is, there have been many very ugly losses during these ten years, and a lot of the victories have been games that could have gone either way.
Of course, there will always be some close games that you win, and some you lose and I guess AU has won more than they lost. But here is the real point in all this....Supposedly TT has done an outstanding job at AU, and it is unfair to talk of firing him after one bad year. The truth is, AU has done average under TT, has lost some very embarassing games, has in every year except one totally failed to show up for at least one game per year, has one one SEC title in ten years, has had one really good season in ten years. AU has essentially been an 8-4 team year in and year out and usually 2-3 of those wins have been against absolute cupcakes, and 3-4 of those wins have been against teams they should beat 8/10 times. Against comparable teams, AU is basically at .500 which means they are doing average.
In ten years under Tuberville, AU has been average.
The question for the AU nation is, "Are you satisfied with average?"
Friday, October 24, 2008
Worse times on the Plains
I have to wonder where the bottom is. How much lower can this thing go. Since Franklin's firing, AU has lost two straight....and in embarrasing fashion.
They lost to what I thought was probably the worst team in the SEC - Arkansas. The scary thing was, not only did the offense continue to struggle monumentally, but the defense struggled too, allowing a pitiful Arkansas offense to actually look good.
Then, last night, Auburn blew a 17-3 first half lead, allowing 31 unanswered points to lose to a mediocre West Va. team. WVU had 17 plays of over ten yards. Their running back had 207 yards rushing. Pat White threw three touchdown passes. The defense, which looked so awesome saving victories for the anemic offense earlier in the year, has now totally tanked.
At the start of this year I was excited at the prospect of a high potency offense to go with our strong defense. Immediately I saw that the offense was going to be a drawn out process. Then the offense just became bad. Then the defense began to struggle. Now the defense is just plain bad. Add to this bad punting, bad field goal kicking, and inconsistent kickoffs and what do you have? You have a BAD TEAM. That's right, AU is a bad team. No two ways about it.
There is of course rumbling about firing the coach. That may be what we need, but I do not know for sure. I have never been totally sold on Tubberville. He bought a LOT of patience with me in '04, going 13-0. But, that patience has now worn off. The offense since that time has progressively gotten worse - spiraling down hill so fast as to make you dizzy. Now the rest of the team is following suit. I see only two possible explanations for this. Either AU just does not have the players to compete or they have the players but they are not properly coached. (Ok, a third possibility is they do not have the players AND they are not well coached) Either way, all this falls on Tubby. If they do not have the players, whose fault is that? If they are not well coached, whose fault is that?
I am hesitant to scream for his firing because things like this have happened to great coaches before. In 1969 and 1970, Bama fans were yelling for the end of the Bryant era. He basically went somewhere around 6-5 those years, and lost to AU both years. He was past his prime they said. The game had passed him by, they said. But, he stayed and won 3 National Championships in the 1970s. There is no way Bama could have been that good without him.
In a far more recent occurence, Penn State has struggled for several years. Fans were reluctant to call for Joe Pa's head because he had been there longer than most of them had been alive, but certainly people were assuming the old man was way past his prime. But now look. PSU is undefeated, ranked high, and is in my opinion one of the four or five best teams in the country.
Therefore, it is possible that Tubby's best years are to come. Perhaps this is a slump that he will get out of. Therefore, I am slow to just automatically call for his firing. However, I tend to think that he is just not into it like he should be. He seems almost nonchalant most of the time. To me, he just does not come across like he has the fire (in fact, he never has). I think at least if he stays, he needs to make some major changes.
He has had almost the same staff of coaches since his arrival, except for the revolving door at offensive and defensive coordinator. He keeps firing or otherwise loosing his coordinators, then hiring new ones and forcing them to use the existing staff. On the whole this has worked fairly well on defense (where he has lost at least two coordinators to Texas), but it has caused untold problems on offense as seen by the whole Tony Franklin fiasco. (Franklin wanted to bring his own people in, but Tubs would not let him. Franklin therefore had to teach both the players AND the other coaches his offense and apparently the coaches were not too eager to learn.)
I believe at the very least Tubby needs to evaluate where they are at right now, and make changes during this off season. Every single coach on staff needs to be evaluated. He needs to fire those who are not performing. I know it would be hard, but life is hard.
If he is not willing to do this, or if really deep down his fire is gone, he needs to just resign.
If he is unwilling to do either, then whether or not AU fires him, they need not adjust his contract any at all in a positive way until major improvement is made. I do not believe in firing him and having to pay the multi-million dollar buyout. But I certainly would not give him one minute of an extension or one penny of a raise - at least until something changes.
I wonder if Tubby is still miffed at the 2003 ordeal, though. In '03, AU was suppose to be fairly good, but they lost four games, never looked particularly good - especially on offense. In 2002 their offense was pretty good but they lost then OC Bobby Patrino to Louisville. Rather than hiring a new OC, Tubby made 'joint OCs' out of offensive line coach Hugh Nall and Steve Ensminger. The whole thing was a disaster and the offense looked inept all year. Right before the Iron Bowl, some AU officials, including then AD David Housel went on a private plane to Louiville to coax Patrino to come to AU after they fired TUbby. Word leaked out, the whole thing blew up. AU backed out. Auburn beat Alabama. The next year Tubby hired Al Borges as OC and AU went 13-0 and should have played for the National Title. AU officials looked stupid for doing what they did. But, really, at the time, I was thinking it was the right thing to do - just maybe not the right way to do it.
My how things changed after that. AUs offense has been on a downhill slide since then. After the '07 season Tubby fired Borges (still keeping his good ole boys on the staff) hired Franklin without allowing him to bring his people in and the whole thing looks like I don't know what. In what is more than a bit of irony, Tubby fired Franklin mid season leaving, you guessed it, Nall and Ensminger in charge of the offense again and the first game after that AU lost to a horrible Arkansas team coached by......Bobby Patrino.
All in all, to me Tubby has been an average at best coach who had one outstanding year (in which he had FOUR first round NFL picks on the team including the entire offensive backfield). Beyond this, he has had a couple of pretty good years, a couple of pretty bad years (the present being the worst), and a bunch of mediocre years. He is a mediocre coach, in my opinion. Doug Barfield was fired after five years in which he tried to lead a probation damaged team while the Bear was still coaching across the state. I believe that Barfield would have done at least as good as Tubby in the same situation, and Tubby would have done at least as bad as Barfield in his situation. Yet, we are suppose to love Tubby and Barfield is a forgotten joke of a coach in Auburn history.
I think the biggest problem I have is that Tubby has not taken advantage of his strong situation. Sure, he has beat Bama six in a row, but it has been a highly damaged Bama team and he has not beat them in an impressive fashion the whole time. The average margin has been about 8 points, and the largest margin has only been by 10 points. But, what is more alarming to me is that even during these years of winning consistently against Bama, and even after going 13-0, he has not capitalized with great recruiting classes. AU is a wonderful and beautiful institution with great tradition. Yet even with all that in his favor, Auburn is already way behind Bama and Nick Saban in recruiting. It will only get worse from here.
I really do not know where AU can go from here, but SOMETHING has to change.
They lost to what I thought was probably the worst team in the SEC - Arkansas. The scary thing was, not only did the offense continue to struggle monumentally, but the defense struggled too, allowing a pitiful Arkansas offense to actually look good.
Then, last night, Auburn blew a 17-3 first half lead, allowing 31 unanswered points to lose to a mediocre West Va. team. WVU had 17 plays of over ten yards. Their running back had 207 yards rushing. Pat White threw three touchdown passes. The defense, which looked so awesome saving victories for the anemic offense earlier in the year, has now totally tanked.
At the start of this year I was excited at the prospect of a high potency offense to go with our strong defense. Immediately I saw that the offense was going to be a drawn out process. Then the offense just became bad. Then the defense began to struggle. Now the defense is just plain bad. Add to this bad punting, bad field goal kicking, and inconsistent kickoffs and what do you have? You have a BAD TEAM. That's right, AU is a bad team. No two ways about it.
There is of course rumbling about firing the coach. That may be what we need, but I do not know for sure. I have never been totally sold on Tubberville. He bought a LOT of patience with me in '04, going 13-0. But, that patience has now worn off. The offense since that time has progressively gotten worse - spiraling down hill so fast as to make you dizzy. Now the rest of the team is following suit. I see only two possible explanations for this. Either AU just does not have the players to compete or they have the players but they are not properly coached. (Ok, a third possibility is they do not have the players AND they are not well coached) Either way, all this falls on Tubby. If they do not have the players, whose fault is that? If they are not well coached, whose fault is that?
I am hesitant to scream for his firing because things like this have happened to great coaches before. In 1969 and 1970, Bama fans were yelling for the end of the Bryant era. He basically went somewhere around 6-5 those years, and lost to AU both years. He was past his prime they said. The game had passed him by, they said. But, he stayed and won 3 National Championships in the 1970s. There is no way Bama could have been that good without him.
In a far more recent occurence, Penn State has struggled for several years. Fans were reluctant to call for Joe Pa's head because he had been there longer than most of them had been alive, but certainly people were assuming the old man was way past his prime. But now look. PSU is undefeated, ranked high, and is in my opinion one of the four or five best teams in the country.
Therefore, it is possible that Tubby's best years are to come. Perhaps this is a slump that he will get out of. Therefore, I am slow to just automatically call for his firing. However, I tend to think that he is just not into it like he should be. He seems almost nonchalant most of the time. To me, he just does not come across like he has the fire (in fact, he never has). I think at least if he stays, he needs to make some major changes.
He has had almost the same staff of coaches since his arrival, except for the revolving door at offensive and defensive coordinator. He keeps firing or otherwise loosing his coordinators, then hiring new ones and forcing them to use the existing staff. On the whole this has worked fairly well on defense (where he has lost at least two coordinators to Texas), but it has caused untold problems on offense as seen by the whole Tony Franklin fiasco. (Franklin wanted to bring his own people in, but Tubs would not let him. Franklin therefore had to teach both the players AND the other coaches his offense and apparently the coaches were not too eager to learn.)
I believe at the very least Tubby needs to evaluate where they are at right now, and make changes during this off season. Every single coach on staff needs to be evaluated. He needs to fire those who are not performing. I know it would be hard, but life is hard.
If he is not willing to do this, or if really deep down his fire is gone, he needs to just resign.
If he is unwilling to do either, then whether or not AU fires him, they need not adjust his contract any at all in a positive way until major improvement is made. I do not believe in firing him and having to pay the multi-million dollar buyout. But I certainly would not give him one minute of an extension or one penny of a raise - at least until something changes.
I wonder if Tubby is still miffed at the 2003 ordeal, though. In '03, AU was suppose to be fairly good, but they lost four games, never looked particularly good - especially on offense. In 2002 their offense was pretty good but they lost then OC Bobby Patrino to Louisville. Rather than hiring a new OC, Tubby made 'joint OCs' out of offensive line coach Hugh Nall and Steve Ensminger. The whole thing was a disaster and the offense looked inept all year. Right before the Iron Bowl, some AU officials, including then AD David Housel went on a private plane to Louiville to coax Patrino to come to AU after they fired TUbby. Word leaked out, the whole thing blew up. AU backed out. Auburn beat Alabama. The next year Tubby hired Al Borges as OC and AU went 13-0 and should have played for the National Title. AU officials looked stupid for doing what they did. But, really, at the time, I was thinking it was the right thing to do - just maybe not the right way to do it.
My how things changed after that. AUs offense has been on a downhill slide since then. After the '07 season Tubby fired Borges (still keeping his good ole boys on the staff) hired Franklin without allowing him to bring his people in and the whole thing looks like I don't know what. In what is more than a bit of irony, Tubby fired Franklin mid season leaving, you guessed it, Nall and Ensminger in charge of the offense again and the first game after that AU lost to a horrible Arkansas team coached by......Bobby Patrino.
All in all, to me Tubby has been an average at best coach who had one outstanding year (in which he had FOUR first round NFL picks on the team including the entire offensive backfield). Beyond this, he has had a couple of pretty good years, a couple of pretty bad years (the present being the worst), and a bunch of mediocre years. He is a mediocre coach, in my opinion. Doug Barfield was fired after five years in which he tried to lead a probation damaged team while the Bear was still coaching across the state. I believe that Barfield would have done at least as good as Tubby in the same situation, and Tubby would have done at least as bad as Barfield in his situation. Yet, we are suppose to love Tubby and Barfield is a forgotten joke of a coach in Auburn history.
I think the biggest problem I have is that Tubby has not taken advantage of his strong situation. Sure, he has beat Bama six in a row, but it has been a highly damaged Bama team and he has not beat them in an impressive fashion the whole time. The average margin has been about 8 points, and the largest margin has only been by 10 points. But, what is more alarming to me is that even during these years of winning consistently against Bama, and even after going 13-0, he has not capitalized with great recruiting classes. AU is a wonderful and beautiful institution with great tradition. Yet even with all that in his favor, Auburn is already way behind Bama and Nick Saban in recruiting. It will only get worse from here.
I really do not know where AU can go from here, but SOMETHING has to change.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Bad times on the Plains
I have been wanting to write about the sorry state of affairs at Auburn all year long, but have not gotten around to it. I'm glad I haven't because yesterday the whole thing took a major turn of events. I do not have any idea if this will be a positive move or further the slide downhill.
Tony Franklin of the much vaunted Tony Franklin System was hired last December to take Auburn's offense to new heights. After six games, they have fallen to unprecedented depths. During the middle of the week after an embarrassing loss to Vanderbilt and facing yet another conference opponent in Arkansas in three days, Coach Tommy Tuberville relieved Franklin of his duties. I really do not know what all to say about this except that I am almost one hundred percent sure there is much more than meets the eye.
Franklin coached High School Ball with apparently some level of success for several years. In the late 1990s, he became an assistant at the University of Kentucky (his home state). He was QB coach and coached such greats as Tim Couch, who set all sorts of records, as well as Jared Lorenzen, who was also quite successful. I believe both of these guys averaged well over 300 yards passing per game. Kentucky had a phenominal offense and a very average at best defense. But, Kentucky did win more than they usually have - even going to bowl games. If they only had a defense.....
However, the whole thing fell apart at KY, as Head Coach Hal Mumme was run out of town under allegations of wrongdoing. Franklin retreated out of coaching, wrote a book about his time at UK where he named names in the whole scandal. He then began developing and marketing his system mostly to high school teams all over the country.
His system drew teams from all over the place. Close to my home is Hoover High School, who had used his system to win like five out of six state championships - being so good that they got their very own MTV show called "Two a Days."
Some colleges also ran his system. Most notably of these have been Texas Tech. The Red Raiders have always been a middle of the road team. But in recent years their offense has been so good that they have begun winning. If they only had a defense......
Well, apparently, they have finally developed some defense and are now a top ten team. Last weak they scored 58 points.
I believe other teams either run the TF system or some offense similar. I believe that Oregon was running it and was undefeated and one of the best teams in the country last year until their QB got hurt. West Virginia has run some variation on the spread offense to much success. The current number one team in the country, Oklahoma, runs some variation of the spread (I do not know how related it is to the Franklin system) and they have the best offense around.
I went onto Youtube, and looked at some old Kentucky highlights with Couch and Lorenzen. VERY exciting stuff - even realizing that these were highlights and undoubtedly there were plenty of unseccuessful plays mixed in, too, that weren't shown.
So, we get this genius, this guy who makes Kentucky, Texas Tech, and Oregon to be contenders, this guy whose systems wins High School Championships, we get him to come to Auburn - a team whose offense has struggled in the past couple of years, but who has a very strong defense. We get that offense playing to the level of the defense, and we will be tough to beat. Many in AU land were excited.
I expected that they would not be lighting up the scoreboard right off the bat. I was glad we opened with a very weak team, followed by a very mediocre team, so as to help get in stride. I figured by the third game of the year, we should be showing massive improvement.
Well, the first game against La Monroe was somewhat concerning. Sure, they won 34-0, which is actually a quite modest score for a 'powerhouse' against a weak sister. However, one touchdown came on a defensive play where a fumble was recovered and returned, and another came on a beautiful punt return. Therefore, Auburn's vaunted, high octane spread offense scored a whopping 20 points against this gosh-awful team from the bayou state. On top of that, in four quarters against a warm up opponent, AU had less than 100 yards of passing, moving the ball most effectively on the ground. This is the Spread?
The next week found AU playing a fair, but not really good, Southern Miss team. The first two possessions, Auburn marched down the field beautifully, but fumbled the ball away deep in USM territory both times. They still went on to build something like a 17-0 (or something like that) halftime lead then held on to win 27-13. Not great, but at least there was promise. Without the two fumbles, it could have been 31-0 at the half, and who knows where it would have ended up. Now, this is what I am talking about!! Not great, but progress - potential greatness in the making.
However, since the first half of that game, the wheels have completely come off. Auburn beat Mississippi State, a bona finde cellar team in the SEC in probably the most embarring win in Auburn history. Their high charged offense scored five points! And two of them were for Mississippi State, winning 3-2. Oh, well, I thought. Still working some kinks out. Maybe MSU has a great defense. That was shot down for me the next week when MSU lost to Georgia Tech something like 38-7!
The next game was against LSU - the defending National Champs. Very good team. AU managed to go up 14-3 and knock their starting QB out of the game. (One of the TDs was an interception for a TD so only one offensive TD) The other QB for LSU came in and played flawlessly in the second half. Still AU managed to drive for a TD in the fourth and regain the lead at 21-20. A short punt set LSU up near midfield late, and they drove for the winning TD. Oh well. They are great. We may be making at least some progress.
Next came Tennessee - who is very sub par for a UT team. Again, we build a 14-3 lead early, in part due to a Tennessee fumble recovered in the end zone. We hang on to win 14-12 - putting constant pressure on our defense to hold UT time and again with good field position as our offense could not move the ball.
Finally, the last nail came last week against Vandy. Granted, this is the best Vandy team in a long time. They are undefeated - the deepest they have been so since WWII!! However, they have done so through just finding some way to win. Actually, coming into the game, they were rated last in the SEC in total offense and total defense. (How they could have been behind AU in offense is beyond me)
AU came out scrapping the spread and playing power ball. First three plays were sweeps to the right side by Ben Tate. All three went for over ten yards. They continued to drive down the field getting a first and goal inside the five. They then ran four straight plays up the middle and did not score. Not to worry, they stopped Vandy, got the ball back and drove down the field, mixing run and pass and scored easily.
When Vandy go the ball back again, AU intercepted a pass, then scored quickly again on a beautiful pass play. The route was on. Oh, but one minor flaw, they missed the PAT.
After one quarter, Auburn had well over one hundred yards offense, 13 points which very easily could have been 21. They were in complete control of the game.
From that point on, they scrapped what they were doing and went to the TFS spread for the rest of the game. They managed a TOTAL of 82 yards offense for the remaining three quarters. Once again, the starting QB for the opponent left the game, but the backup played beautifully. AU let Vandy hang around, until finally, Vandy won the dadgum thing 14-13.
Let's think about this. As far as offensive points produced, AU has scored 20 (out of 34), 27, 3, 14 (out of 21), 14, 13. That, my friends is an average 15 points per game, and other than LSU, this was against very subpar defenses. The worst thing is that there has been absolutely zero progression from week to week. Actually, it appears to me that there has been regression.
Tuberville insists he is sticking by Franklin and the spread. That is, until yesterday, when suddenly he fired him. I am at a loss for exactly what is going on here. I do believe there is more than meets the eye, but I have no idea precisely what it is. But, here are a few observations:
* Auburn's great offensive line has struggled constantly with procedure penatlies, holding, and just getting outmanned.
* The negative plays from the first line above have frequently happened at the most inopportune time - just as we get one or two positive plays and good field position and momentum, we have a procedure, hold, or sack.
* Watching Tim Couch highlights, I recognized right off the whole offense was not the same as AU is currently running.
----He frequently had one and sometimes two tight ends and one and sometimes two backs in the backfield. This was mixed in with an occasional no back, no tight end set. Auburn a great deal of the time runs with no backs or tight ends, placing tremendous pressure on the five linemen.
---- He would frequently line up under center - AU has stuck predominately with the shotgun play after play.
---- The UK linemen would often line up in a three point stance - AUs is almost exclusively in a two point stance.
---- UK ran a ton of quick plays - either by design, or as a safety valve drop off. Even when these only get 1-5 yards, that is better than zero or negative yardage. AU seems to run plays that take ten minutes to develop, and usually end up blowing up in their face.
---- Because of the above, UK seemed to keep pressure on the Defense. The only defense AUs offense has pressured has been their own.
I have no idea what precipitated the firing. I do not believe it came out of thin air. I believe there is something going on - whether it be chemistry among the coaches (and this could be TTs fault, or TFs - I really do not know) . there could be insurmountable frustration on the players parts. There apparently was some sort of a blow up in the last day or two - though Tuberville the Politician insists nothing of the sort led to the dismissal.
I tend to think as the season progressed, TT began pressuring TF to produce. By the time of the Vandy game, TT could well have said "Give the rest of us the first quarter to see what we can do, then I'll give it back to you." You see how that worked out. I imagine at this point, TT was calling for TF to back up and rethink what he was doing. TF probably took this as an insult. Sparks flew. TF is gone. Coaches have egos (see Nick Saban).
Tubs is actually insistent on his love for the spread and claims to keep plugging away at it. Doing so without the spread guru himself tells me there must have been major personality/philosophical issues going on behind the scenes.
One thing I do know. Auburns offense, which ranks worse than 100th in the country in virtually every stat, has been for all intents and purpose, totally non-productive. I mean totally. Yet, we have two losses each against a team that is still undefeated and highly ranked. These losses have been by a total of six points. If we can simply have an offense that can produce some time of possession, field position, and some amount of scoring, AU can end the year quite successfully. That is my hope. My fear is that this, yet another embarassing moment in AU football history, may have long term negative impacts in terms of national perception, and recruiting - as well as in terms of who in the world would now come to AU as Offensive cooridinator? TT ahs had 5 in ten years!
Oh, well, we'll just have to watch and see!
Tony Franklin of the much vaunted Tony Franklin System was hired last December to take Auburn's offense to new heights. After six games, they have fallen to unprecedented depths. During the middle of the week after an embarrassing loss to Vanderbilt and facing yet another conference opponent in Arkansas in three days, Coach Tommy Tuberville relieved Franklin of his duties. I really do not know what all to say about this except that I am almost one hundred percent sure there is much more than meets the eye.
Franklin coached High School Ball with apparently some level of success for several years. In the late 1990s, he became an assistant at the University of Kentucky (his home state). He was QB coach and coached such greats as Tim Couch, who set all sorts of records, as well as Jared Lorenzen, who was also quite successful. I believe both of these guys averaged well over 300 yards passing per game. Kentucky had a phenominal offense and a very average at best defense. But, Kentucky did win more than they usually have - even going to bowl games. If they only had a defense.....
However, the whole thing fell apart at KY, as Head Coach Hal Mumme was run out of town under allegations of wrongdoing. Franklin retreated out of coaching, wrote a book about his time at UK where he named names in the whole scandal. He then began developing and marketing his system mostly to high school teams all over the country.
His system drew teams from all over the place. Close to my home is Hoover High School, who had used his system to win like five out of six state championships - being so good that they got their very own MTV show called "Two a Days."
Some colleges also ran his system. Most notably of these have been Texas Tech. The Red Raiders have always been a middle of the road team. But in recent years their offense has been so good that they have begun winning. If they only had a defense......
Well, apparently, they have finally developed some defense and are now a top ten team. Last weak they scored 58 points.
I believe other teams either run the TF system or some offense similar. I believe that Oregon was running it and was undefeated and one of the best teams in the country last year until their QB got hurt. West Virginia has run some variation on the spread offense to much success. The current number one team in the country, Oklahoma, runs some variation of the spread (I do not know how related it is to the Franklin system) and they have the best offense around.
I went onto Youtube, and looked at some old Kentucky highlights with Couch and Lorenzen. VERY exciting stuff - even realizing that these were highlights and undoubtedly there were plenty of unseccuessful plays mixed in, too, that weren't shown.
So, we get this genius, this guy who makes Kentucky, Texas Tech, and Oregon to be contenders, this guy whose systems wins High School Championships, we get him to come to Auburn - a team whose offense has struggled in the past couple of years, but who has a very strong defense. We get that offense playing to the level of the defense, and we will be tough to beat. Many in AU land were excited.
I expected that they would not be lighting up the scoreboard right off the bat. I was glad we opened with a very weak team, followed by a very mediocre team, so as to help get in stride. I figured by the third game of the year, we should be showing massive improvement.
Well, the first game against La Monroe was somewhat concerning. Sure, they won 34-0, which is actually a quite modest score for a 'powerhouse' against a weak sister. However, one touchdown came on a defensive play where a fumble was recovered and returned, and another came on a beautiful punt return. Therefore, Auburn's vaunted, high octane spread offense scored a whopping 20 points against this gosh-awful team from the bayou state. On top of that, in four quarters against a warm up opponent, AU had less than 100 yards of passing, moving the ball most effectively on the ground. This is the Spread?
The next week found AU playing a fair, but not really good, Southern Miss team. The first two possessions, Auburn marched down the field beautifully, but fumbled the ball away deep in USM territory both times. They still went on to build something like a 17-0 (or something like that) halftime lead then held on to win 27-13. Not great, but at least there was promise. Without the two fumbles, it could have been 31-0 at the half, and who knows where it would have ended up. Now, this is what I am talking about!! Not great, but progress - potential greatness in the making.
However, since the first half of that game, the wheels have completely come off. Auburn beat Mississippi State, a bona finde cellar team in the SEC in probably the most embarring win in Auburn history. Their high charged offense scored five points! And two of them were for Mississippi State, winning 3-2. Oh, well, I thought. Still working some kinks out. Maybe MSU has a great defense. That was shot down for me the next week when MSU lost to Georgia Tech something like 38-7!
The next game was against LSU - the defending National Champs. Very good team. AU managed to go up 14-3 and knock their starting QB out of the game. (One of the TDs was an interception for a TD so only one offensive TD) The other QB for LSU came in and played flawlessly in the second half. Still AU managed to drive for a TD in the fourth and regain the lead at 21-20. A short punt set LSU up near midfield late, and they drove for the winning TD. Oh well. They are great. We may be making at least some progress.
Next came Tennessee - who is very sub par for a UT team. Again, we build a 14-3 lead early, in part due to a Tennessee fumble recovered in the end zone. We hang on to win 14-12 - putting constant pressure on our defense to hold UT time and again with good field position as our offense could not move the ball.
Finally, the last nail came last week against Vandy. Granted, this is the best Vandy team in a long time. They are undefeated - the deepest they have been so since WWII!! However, they have done so through just finding some way to win. Actually, coming into the game, they were rated last in the SEC in total offense and total defense. (How they could have been behind AU in offense is beyond me)
AU came out scrapping the spread and playing power ball. First three plays were sweeps to the right side by Ben Tate. All three went for over ten yards. They continued to drive down the field getting a first and goal inside the five. They then ran four straight plays up the middle and did not score. Not to worry, they stopped Vandy, got the ball back and drove down the field, mixing run and pass and scored easily.
When Vandy go the ball back again, AU intercepted a pass, then scored quickly again on a beautiful pass play. The route was on. Oh, but one minor flaw, they missed the PAT.
After one quarter, Auburn had well over one hundred yards offense, 13 points which very easily could have been 21. They were in complete control of the game.
From that point on, they scrapped what they were doing and went to the TFS spread for the rest of the game. They managed a TOTAL of 82 yards offense for the remaining three quarters. Once again, the starting QB for the opponent left the game, but the backup played beautifully. AU let Vandy hang around, until finally, Vandy won the dadgum thing 14-13.
Let's think about this. As far as offensive points produced, AU has scored 20 (out of 34), 27, 3, 14 (out of 21), 14, 13. That, my friends is an average 15 points per game, and other than LSU, this was against very subpar defenses. The worst thing is that there has been absolutely zero progression from week to week. Actually, it appears to me that there has been regression.
Tuberville insists he is sticking by Franklin and the spread. That is, until yesterday, when suddenly he fired him. I am at a loss for exactly what is going on here. I do believe there is more than meets the eye, but I have no idea precisely what it is. But, here are a few observations:
* Auburn's great offensive line has struggled constantly with procedure penatlies, holding, and just getting outmanned.
* The negative plays from the first line above have frequently happened at the most inopportune time - just as we get one or two positive plays and good field position and momentum, we have a procedure, hold, or sack.
* Watching Tim Couch highlights, I recognized right off the whole offense was not the same as AU is currently running.
----He frequently had one and sometimes two tight ends and one and sometimes two backs in the backfield. This was mixed in with an occasional no back, no tight end set. Auburn a great deal of the time runs with no backs or tight ends, placing tremendous pressure on the five linemen.
---- He would frequently line up under center - AU has stuck predominately with the shotgun play after play.
---- The UK linemen would often line up in a three point stance - AUs is almost exclusively in a two point stance.
---- UK ran a ton of quick plays - either by design, or as a safety valve drop off. Even when these only get 1-5 yards, that is better than zero or negative yardage. AU seems to run plays that take ten minutes to develop, and usually end up blowing up in their face.
---- Because of the above, UK seemed to keep pressure on the Defense. The only defense AUs offense has pressured has been their own.
I have no idea what precipitated the firing. I do not believe it came out of thin air. I believe there is something going on - whether it be chemistry among the coaches (and this could be TTs fault, or TFs - I really do not know) . there could be insurmountable frustration on the players parts. There apparently was some sort of a blow up in the last day or two - though Tuberville the Politician insists nothing of the sort led to the dismissal.
I tend to think as the season progressed, TT began pressuring TF to produce. By the time of the Vandy game, TT could well have said "Give the rest of us the first quarter to see what we can do, then I'll give it back to you." You see how that worked out. I imagine at this point, TT was calling for TF to back up and rethink what he was doing. TF probably took this as an insult. Sparks flew. TF is gone. Coaches have egos (see Nick Saban).
Tubs is actually insistent on his love for the spread and claims to keep plugging away at it. Doing so without the spread guru himself tells me there must have been major personality/philosophical issues going on behind the scenes.
One thing I do know. Auburns offense, which ranks worse than 100th in the country in virtually every stat, has been for all intents and purpose, totally non-productive. I mean totally. Yet, we have two losses each against a team that is still undefeated and highly ranked. These losses have been by a total of six points. If we can simply have an offense that can produce some time of possession, field position, and some amount of scoring, AU can end the year quite successfully. That is my hope. My fear is that this, yet another embarassing moment in AU football history, may have long term negative impacts in terms of national perception, and recruiting - as well as in terms of who in the world would now come to AU as Offensive cooridinator? TT ahs had 5 in ten years!
Oh, well, we'll just have to watch and see!
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Who Needs Radio?
Some time back, I read an ad for a web site called www.slacker.com. It seems you can go there, tell it artists you like, and listen to them all the time. What a concept!
I have been using this for awhile now. My computer speakers are not exactly hi-end, but they sound good enough. I have multiple Slacker stations - including one country, one soft rock, one classic rock, one r&b, one with a bit of everything, and several others. And, it is all free.! Of course there are upgrades you can buy, but even at the free level, it is great. This gives me enough exposure to the music I like, that I do not have to buy anything else!
It has also allowed me to find out there is music out there that I like and others that I don't that I would not have been able to know about before. I have found out that I like Gov't Mule, The Derek Trucks Band, Ray Wiley Hubbard, and others. I don't much care for Warren Zevon (I figure actually being able to sing would be a plus!)
I wish I could have a little bit more control. I wish I could list Chicago and only get stuff from the sixties and seventies, and leave all that eighties garbagio alone. I have listed Fleetwood Mac, and as you might expect, I get a great deal more of the Buckingham/Nicks era Mac than I do the Peter Green (which I love) or Bob Welch eras. On the plus side, when I put in Skynyrd, I get mostly the old original and not the current stuff. Another plus is that with the Allman's I get mostly pre 1975 and post 1990, and not much of the stuff in between. So, all in all it is a mixed bag but did I mention it is free? I guess if I got off the wallet I might be able to control it a little more, but for free it is great!
I have been using this for awhile now. My computer speakers are not exactly hi-end, but they sound good enough. I have multiple Slacker stations - including one country, one soft rock, one classic rock, one r&b, one with a bit of everything, and several others. And, it is all free.! Of course there are upgrades you can buy, but even at the free level, it is great. This gives me enough exposure to the music I like, that I do not have to buy anything else!
It has also allowed me to find out there is music out there that I like and others that I don't that I would not have been able to know about before. I have found out that I like Gov't Mule, The Derek Trucks Band, Ray Wiley Hubbard, and others. I don't much care for Warren Zevon (I figure actually being able to sing would be a plus!)
I wish I could have a little bit more control. I wish I could list Chicago and only get stuff from the sixties and seventies, and leave all that eighties garbagio alone. I have listed Fleetwood Mac, and as you might expect, I get a great deal more of the Buckingham/Nicks era Mac than I do the Peter Green (which I love) or Bob Welch eras. On the plus side, when I put in Skynyrd, I get mostly the old original and not the current stuff. Another plus is that with the Allman's I get mostly pre 1975 and post 1990, and not much of the stuff in between. So, all in all it is a mixed bag but did I mention it is free? I guess if I got off the wallet I might be able to control it a little more, but for free it is great!
Further Thoughts on the Upcoming Election
The closer we get to the election, the more uncertain I become of which way to go.
In brief, here is my delimma:
I absolutely do not like and can not support Obama/Biden. They clearly represent everything I am against, and are against everything I represent.
I do not care much at all for McCain. I am not real sure what it is he does represent. I don't care for his personality, such as it is. On a great variety of issues I see no huge difference between him and Obam/Biden.
I am very intrigued by Sarah Palin.
On the whole from what I know, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party would be far closer to what I would feel comfortable supporting (though he/they are not perfect). But, he has exactly zero chance of winning the election.
The struggle is this - is the addition of Palin enough to make me vote for the Republican ticket?
Palin has in her favor in my mind several things which the liberals scoff at her for:
1. She is a biblical literalist (I do not know exactly what her interpretive principles are and if they are the same as mine, but just the fact that she accepts the Bible as God's inerrant word to be taken seriously is good for me) I know a great many would question what in the world this has to do with being a national leader, but I would say it has plenty. She also has the guts (if she were a man, I would possible use another bodily reference) to state this publically and stand by it. This colors a lot of her other views in a positive light, some of which I'll mention here.
2. She is VERY pro-life. Not kinda sorta in a politically correct way when it is convenient, but solidly staunchly biblically pro-life as best I can tell. She also lives consistently with this, giving birth to a Downs Syndrome child and having her daughter carry her pregnancy through. It is not as if she says one thing then acts another way.
3. She has pursued action in Alaska consistent with not pushing the gay agenda - including wanting to rid the schools of pro-gay readings.
4. Most consistently, she has publically stated her belief in the literal reading of Genesis - meaning God created the world in six days not so very long ago. Adam and Eve were real people, etc. I recently read a liberal columnists which used this as reason enough to be scared silly of her. She must just be stoopid to believe that fairy tale, ya know!
These things makes me tend to want to have huge respect for her. Maybe even God is using this time of wimpy men to raise up another Deborah, as Douglas Wilson pointed out. (Deborah had to deal with a wimpy leader named, of all things, Barak!)
However, I do have a few reservations about making her VP, and with a certain turn of events, eventually President.
1. This may sound silly, but the fact that she is sided with John McCain makes me uncomfortable. I know Joseph had to work for the Pharoah. I know Daniel had to work with the leaders of his day. But, these great Godly leaders did not have to politically bow to the leadership direction they served under. Quite the opposite, Joseph and Daniel rose to the top by staying faithful to God even when it was unpopular, even dangerous. I have know idea what the level of faith of John McCain is, but some of his positions are not what I believe someone who understands biblical government, our constitution, and the relation between the two would be. The political reality of our day is that a VP has to be almost an exact echo of the Pres. How far is Palin willing to compromise? Or is that even a compromise for her? Is she politically comfortable with McCain?
2. A specific example was displayed to me in an interview I recently heard. I believe it was Sean Hannity who repeatedly asked her what was the problem with the economy, and what was the solution. Her consistent answer was that THE cause of our current economic woes was corruption on Wall Street and that THE solution was more government in the form of regulation. Now, I do not at all deny that there is some corruption on Wall Street. Only an imbecile, and Ayn Rand would. And I do not even deny that the government has a legitimate role to play in dealing with corruption (its job being to administer justice). However, the totality of our current economic problems is really a long and complex result of over one hundred and forty years of bad economic policy and too much government. There are so so many other things she could have more accurately stated as being major causes of our current economic woes and so many other directions she could have taken to point the way out. But, instead, she says that THE problem is Wall Street corruption and THE solution is more government. She even mocked the idea of 'self regulation' stating that it was actually 'no regulation.' My question to this is always then, who regulates the regulaters? At some point somewhere, someone is 'self regulated.' For all the dangers associated with the money of Wall Street, I feel much better with them being 'self regulated' than with the government empowered regulaters being 'self regulated.'
All this fits in nicely with McCain's own direction. He brags that while he is a Republican (presumably pro-big money interest) he has attacked Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Money Campaign Financing, etc. If McCain is a "Maverick" it is because in what little difference there is in the actual direction of the Republican and Democratic parties, there are some issues in which his rhetoric is that of Democrats instead of Republicans.
So, in the end, I am uncertain if I can swallow all of this and vote for McCain/Palin or if I should cast a protest vote.
Any help would be appreciated!
In brief, here is my delimma:
I absolutely do not like and can not support Obama/Biden. They clearly represent everything I am against, and are against everything I represent.
I do not care much at all for McCain. I am not real sure what it is he does represent. I don't care for his personality, such as it is. On a great variety of issues I see no huge difference between him and Obam/Biden.
I am very intrigued by Sarah Palin.
On the whole from what I know, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party would be far closer to what I would feel comfortable supporting (though he/they are not perfect). But, he has exactly zero chance of winning the election.
The struggle is this - is the addition of Palin enough to make me vote for the Republican ticket?
Palin has in her favor in my mind several things which the liberals scoff at her for:
1. She is a biblical literalist (I do not know exactly what her interpretive principles are and if they are the same as mine, but just the fact that she accepts the Bible as God's inerrant word to be taken seriously is good for me) I know a great many would question what in the world this has to do with being a national leader, but I would say it has plenty. She also has the guts (if she were a man, I would possible use another bodily reference) to state this publically and stand by it. This colors a lot of her other views in a positive light, some of which I'll mention here.
2. She is VERY pro-life. Not kinda sorta in a politically correct way when it is convenient, but solidly staunchly biblically pro-life as best I can tell. She also lives consistently with this, giving birth to a Downs Syndrome child and having her daughter carry her pregnancy through. It is not as if she says one thing then acts another way.
3. She has pursued action in Alaska consistent with not pushing the gay agenda - including wanting to rid the schools of pro-gay readings.
4. Most consistently, she has publically stated her belief in the literal reading of Genesis - meaning God created the world in six days not so very long ago. Adam and Eve were real people, etc. I recently read a liberal columnists which used this as reason enough to be scared silly of her. She must just be stoopid to believe that fairy tale, ya know!
These things makes me tend to want to have huge respect for her. Maybe even God is using this time of wimpy men to raise up another Deborah, as Douglas Wilson pointed out. (Deborah had to deal with a wimpy leader named, of all things, Barak!)
However, I do have a few reservations about making her VP, and with a certain turn of events, eventually President.
1. This may sound silly, but the fact that she is sided with John McCain makes me uncomfortable. I know Joseph had to work for the Pharoah. I know Daniel had to work with the leaders of his day. But, these great Godly leaders did not have to politically bow to the leadership direction they served under. Quite the opposite, Joseph and Daniel rose to the top by staying faithful to God even when it was unpopular, even dangerous. I have know idea what the level of faith of John McCain is, but some of his positions are not what I believe someone who understands biblical government, our constitution, and the relation between the two would be. The political reality of our day is that a VP has to be almost an exact echo of the Pres. How far is Palin willing to compromise? Or is that even a compromise for her? Is she politically comfortable with McCain?
2. A specific example was displayed to me in an interview I recently heard. I believe it was Sean Hannity who repeatedly asked her what was the problem with the economy, and what was the solution. Her consistent answer was that THE cause of our current economic woes was corruption on Wall Street and that THE solution was more government in the form of regulation. Now, I do not at all deny that there is some corruption on Wall Street. Only an imbecile, and Ayn Rand would. And I do not even deny that the government has a legitimate role to play in dealing with corruption (its job being to administer justice). However, the totality of our current economic problems is really a long and complex result of over one hundred and forty years of bad economic policy and too much government. There are so so many other things she could have more accurately stated as being major causes of our current economic woes and so many other directions she could have taken to point the way out. But, instead, she says that THE problem is Wall Street corruption and THE solution is more government. She even mocked the idea of 'self regulation' stating that it was actually 'no regulation.' My question to this is always then, who regulates the regulaters? At some point somewhere, someone is 'self regulated.' For all the dangers associated with the money of Wall Street, I feel much better with them being 'self regulated' than with the government empowered regulaters being 'self regulated.'
All this fits in nicely with McCain's own direction. He brags that while he is a Republican (presumably pro-big money interest) he has attacked Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Money Campaign Financing, etc. If McCain is a "Maverick" it is because in what little difference there is in the actual direction of the Republican and Democratic parties, there are some issues in which his rhetoric is that of Democrats instead of Republicans.
So, in the end, I am uncertain if I can swallow all of this and vote for McCain/Palin or if I should cast a protest vote.
Any help would be appreciated!
Is God Pleased With Our Works?
This thought hit me as we began worship this past week: "Surely God is pleased with the praises of His people."
Now, His people are sinners, and in one sense can bring nothing to Him that could or would please Him. We are in rebellion against Him, and only by His grace can we even come into His presence. Yet, we come into His presence, and He condescends to us and is actually pleased with the worship we bring Him. That is actually a good example of His grace - that he not only accepts, but delights in our praise.
I do not think very many Christians, even specifically Christians in the Reformed branch(es) of the church, would deny that sentiment - that God delights in the praises of His people. Yet, the Reformed are quick to question any idea that God could be in anyway pleased, or even delight in, the works of His people. Any time people start talking about our works, Reformed people get very uncomfortable. We are only acceptable to God because of Christ's works, and our works are, it would appear, meaningless.
It is absolutely true that without the work of Christ, we could not approach The Father. However, the work of Christ actually makes our works acceptable. Worship itself is actually a work, as should be obvious. Even the word liturgy has a meaning associated with our work. In worship we do things (which is work) We pray, sing, kneel, stand, talk, listen, eat, AND bring our other works to the Father in the form of our offerings. What are our offerings, but the results of our works?
The Father delights in all of this when it is done in the name of the Son and through the Spirit. The Triune God delights in our worship - which is but one aspect of our works. It is therefore not at all wrong to think that God could be pleased with our works - when performed in the same manner on a regular basis as our 'special' work on each Lord's Day.
Now, His people are sinners, and in one sense can bring nothing to Him that could or would please Him. We are in rebellion against Him, and only by His grace can we even come into His presence. Yet, we come into His presence, and He condescends to us and is actually pleased with the worship we bring Him. That is actually a good example of His grace - that he not only accepts, but delights in our praise.
I do not think very many Christians, even specifically Christians in the Reformed branch(es) of the church, would deny that sentiment - that God delights in the praises of His people. Yet, the Reformed are quick to question any idea that God could be in anyway pleased, or even delight in, the works of His people. Any time people start talking about our works, Reformed people get very uncomfortable. We are only acceptable to God because of Christ's works, and our works are, it would appear, meaningless.
It is absolutely true that without the work of Christ, we could not approach The Father. However, the work of Christ actually makes our works acceptable. Worship itself is actually a work, as should be obvious. Even the word liturgy has a meaning associated with our work. In worship we do things (which is work) We pray, sing, kneel, stand, talk, listen, eat, AND bring our other works to the Father in the form of our offerings. What are our offerings, but the results of our works?
The Father delights in all of this when it is done in the name of the Son and through the Spirit. The Triune God delights in our worship - which is but one aspect of our works. It is therefore not at all wrong to think that God could be pleased with our works - when performed in the same manner on a regular basis as our 'special' work on each Lord's Day.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
RIP Snowman
A small, ok maybe very small, part of my childhood/teen years has now passed. On 9/1Jerry Reed passed away at 71. He was part of my life for various reasons.
I remember seeing him as a kid on television alot, and remember some of his big hits from the early 1970s. These were mostly 'novelty' type songs such as "Amos Moses," "When You're Hot, You're Hot," and so forth.
I specifically remember my mother, who was a smoker, buying his record "Another Puff," - an excessively silly rant about his trying to quit smoking.
As the 70s wore on, Reed became something of a movie actor, most notably on the "Smokey and the Bandit" Series with Burt Reynolds and Jackie Gleason. EVERYONE of my age group saw that movie. It is one of those that a lot of people can quote from line for line. And of course, the theme song "East Bound and Down" was a big hit for Reed.
As the eighties rolled in, he continued to have a few hits, including the No. 1 hit novelty song "She Got the Goldmine, I Got the Shaft."
Another memory of mine is on weekend mornings watching outdoor shows - notably Bill Dance. That theme song from Bill Dance, "Today is Mine" - that was Reed.
Finally, in the early 1990s, Mrs. Philosopher and I took a trip to the Dallas - Ft. Worth area to visit some friends. We went to Billy Bob's one night to see the ol' Snowman in concert. We were all fairly sure that he was about the drunkest guy in Billy Bob's that night. He came on stage holding a bottle of beer. As the crowd cheered, he walked up to the mic and, looking at his bottle mumbled "What...in....the....hayull....is....."Lone....Star....Beer?"
He spent about ten minutes or more rambling before he started playing music. When he did play, he was actually pretty good, but he talked waaaaayyyy too much. We have all kidded since then that the Jerry Reed Concert was the best we've ever been to.
However, in all this what is lost, in fact unknown to many people, is that Jerry Reed was a phenominal talent. He was one of the most incredible guitarists to ever grace the stage. He was something of a protege of Chet Atkins. In my opinion, as a guitarist, Chet Atkins wouldn't hold a candle to him. Amidst all the B grade acting, all the silly, senseless hit songs, lied a man of rare, all too rare, musical ability.
Jerry wrote and recorded "Guitar Man" - which became a huge hit for Elvis. He also wrote tons of songs that Chet Atkins himself actually recorded. Go to Youtube, do a search. Look for "The Claw", "Jerry's Breakdown" or others.
I have saved you the trouble and placed a few representative cuts here. Some of the sillies, along with some of the unbelievable playing. Their not labeled, so you just click and see what you get.
I last heard Reed on the Rick and Bubba Show about a year or so ago. His previously wild, fast talking was now slow and deliberate. He sadly told how he could not longer play the guitar due to arthritis. He talked about how he worked with some sort of group recognizing and honoring our war veterens. He hilariously spoke about "Smokey", Burt Reynolds, Jackie gleason, etc. Overall, though, he seemed contented, blessed, fairly serious, and reverent. It was good to hear.
RIP Snowman!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOGiW-y-Vhs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ1Ggt5f28o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni8KBhnebwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN8dP4CoFaw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04RJyFCg7ks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcoeGjrL-r8
I remember seeing him as a kid on television alot, and remember some of his big hits from the early 1970s. These were mostly 'novelty' type songs such as "Amos Moses," "When You're Hot, You're Hot," and so forth.
I specifically remember my mother, who was a smoker, buying his record "Another Puff," - an excessively silly rant about his trying to quit smoking.
As the 70s wore on, Reed became something of a movie actor, most notably on the "Smokey and the Bandit" Series with Burt Reynolds and Jackie Gleason. EVERYONE of my age group saw that movie. It is one of those that a lot of people can quote from line for line. And of course, the theme song "East Bound and Down" was a big hit for Reed.
As the eighties rolled in, he continued to have a few hits, including the No. 1 hit novelty song "She Got the Goldmine, I Got the Shaft."
Another memory of mine is on weekend mornings watching outdoor shows - notably Bill Dance. That theme song from Bill Dance, "Today is Mine" - that was Reed.
Finally, in the early 1990s, Mrs. Philosopher and I took a trip to the Dallas - Ft. Worth area to visit some friends. We went to Billy Bob's one night to see the ol' Snowman in concert. We were all fairly sure that he was about the drunkest guy in Billy Bob's that night. He came on stage holding a bottle of beer. As the crowd cheered, he walked up to the mic and, looking at his bottle mumbled "What...in....the....hayull....is....."Lone....Star....Beer?"
He spent about ten minutes or more rambling before he started playing music. When he did play, he was actually pretty good, but he talked waaaaayyyy too much. We have all kidded since then that the Jerry Reed Concert was the best we've ever been to.
However, in all this what is lost, in fact unknown to many people, is that Jerry Reed was a phenominal talent. He was one of the most incredible guitarists to ever grace the stage. He was something of a protege of Chet Atkins. In my opinion, as a guitarist, Chet Atkins wouldn't hold a candle to him. Amidst all the B grade acting, all the silly, senseless hit songs, lied a man of rare, all too rare, musical ability.
Jerry wrote and recorded "Guitar Man" - which became a huge hit for Elvis. He also wrote tons of songs that Chet Atkins himself actually recorded. Go to Youtube, do a search. Look for "The Claw", "Jerry's Breakdown" or others.
I have saved you the trouble and placed a few representative cuts here. Some of the sillies, along with some of the unbelievable playing. Their not labeled, so you just click and see what you get.
I last heard Reed on the Rick and Bubba Show about a year or so ago. His previously wild, fast talking was now slow and deliberate. He sadly told how he could not longer play the guitar due to arthritis. He talked about how he worked with some sort of group recognizing and honoring our war veterens. He hilariously spoke about "Smokey", Burt Reynolds, Jackie gleason, etc. Overall, though, he seemed contented, blessed, fairly serious, and reverent. It was good to hear.
RIP Snowman!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOGiW-y-Vhs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ1Ggt5f28o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni8KBhnebwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN8dP4CoFaw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04RJyFCg7ks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcoeGjrL-r8
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
A Hero Falls
How many of you knew that Alexandr Solzhenitsen (sp?) recently passed away?
How many of you know who Alexandr Solzhenitsen was?
While he was an often hard to deal with old man, one whom I no doubt would have had at least a few major differences of opinion with, he was in the end one of a tiny handful of men that I would consider to be a hero.
Solzhenitsen spent about eight years in the horrid world of the Russian Prison Camps during the 1940s and 1950s. Unlike many millions of others, he lived to tell (and write!) about it. He was released during the first supposed Communist reform era of Russia. Decades before the mid to late 80s reforms, the mid 1950s reforms of Kruchev occured. This was the first hint of "Yeah, we're a bunch of totalitarians who can not support ourselves, so we'll act like we are reforming in order to get continued Western support" that continued for decades.
After his release, Solzhenitsen eventually wrote and published (1962 I think) a small novel entitled "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisavich." This was a fictional account of one day in the life of a Soviet Political prisoner in the Gulags of Stalin. This work eventually won Solzhenitsen a Nobel Prize for Literature.
As is always the case with tyrants, eventually the communists tired of Solzhenitsen's continued critiques of their ways. They eventually exiled him. He wound up in the US - Vermont in particular. However, rather than embracing the capitalism of the west, Solzhentisen criticized it, its decadence, its consumerism, its un-reverent religion of status, just as harshly as he criticized the Soviet tyrants.
This marginalized him and his writings. The extreme liberals of the west hated him because he was so staunchly opposed to the religion of statism. The 'conservatives' (mostly modern neo-con Republicans) could not tout him too loudly because he so staunchly opposed the 'religion' of capitalism and consumerism.
However, between the release of "One Day", his exile to the US, and his eventual return to Russia in the late eighties or early nineties, Solzenhitsen published many important works. Most notably, in my opinion, were the novel Cancer Ward and the massive three volume work about life in the prison camps entitled The Gulag Archipelego.
These are literary works based on his own biography. He had himself spent time in a Russian Hospital in the Cancer ward. Gulag was a semi-fictional, semi-factual series of tales from the prison camps. These works, it was said, held a mirror up to Soviet Society. Exactly how much they influenced the eventual fall of communism is up for debate, and likely unknowable. However, they did contribute. This adds to his hero status in my book.
However his hero status actually is based not on his works alone, important though they are. To me they are based on his resiliiance, and the steadfastness of his Faith. (Even though, he as a Russian Orthodox Christian, and me as a Reformed Christian would no doubt argue over the Faith itself) Perhaps there is no more moving sentence in anything that I have ever read than one, near the end of Volume II of Gulag, where, after spending literally hundreds of pages documenting the horrors of the place, could say "Thank you prison, for having been in my life." That is, Solzhenitsen saw clearly that all things are governed by God for his ultimate purpose. This includes the tragedy of spending eight years in a place that could only be described as 'hell on earth.' Sozhentisen recognized he would not be who he was, nor who God intended him to be, without going through this seemingly meaningless madness. Faith puts meaning into both joy and suffering. In fact, it puts joy into suffering.
We would all do well to have have cuch faith!
How many of you know who Alexandr Solzhenitsen was?
While he was an often hard to deal with old man, one whom I no doubt would have had at least a few major differences of opinion with, he was in the end one of a tiny handful of men that I would consider to be a hero.
Solzhenitsen spent about eight years in the horrid world of the Russian Prison Camps during the 1940s and 1950s. Unlike many millions of others, he lived to tell (and write!) about it. He was released during the first supposed Communist reform era of Russia. Decades before the mid to late 80s reforms, the mid 1950s reforms of Kruchev occured. This was the first hint of "Yeah, we're a bunch of totalitarians who can not support ourselves, so we'll act like we are reforming in order to get continued Western support" that continued for decades.
After his release, Solzhenitsen eventually wrote and published (1962 I think) a small novel entitled "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisavich." This was a fictional account of one day in the life of a Soviet Political prisoner in the Gulags of Stalin. This work eventually won Solzhenitsen a Nobel Prize for Literature.
As is always the case with tyrants, eventually the communists tired of Solzhenitsen's continued critiques of their ways. They eventually exiled him. He wound up in the US - Vermont in particular. However, rather than embracing the capitalism of the west, Solzhentisen criticized it, its decadence, its consumerism, its un-reverent religion of status, just as harshly as he criticized the Soviet tyrants.
This marginalized him and his writings. The extreme liberals of the west hated him because he was so staunchly opposed to the religion of statism. The 'conservatives' (mostly modern neo-con Republicans) could not tout him too loudly because he so staunchly opposed the 'religion' of capitalism and consumerism.
However, between the release of "One Day", his exile to the US, and his eventual return to Russia in the late eighties or early nineties, Solzenhitsen published many important works. Most notably, in my opinion, were the novel Cancer Ward and the massive three volume work about life in the prison camps entitled The Gulag Archipelego.
These are literary works based on his own biography. He had himself spent time in a Russian Hospital in the Cancer ward. Gulag was a semi-fictional, semi-factual series of tales from the prison camps. These works, it was said, held a mirror up to Soviet Society. Exactly how much they influenced the eventual fall of communism is up for debate, and likely unknowable. However, they did contribute. This adds to his hero status in my book.
However his hero status actually is based not on his works alone, important though they are. To me they are based on his resiliiance, and the steadfastness of his Faith. (Even though, he as a Russian Orthodox Christian, and me as a Reformed Christian would no doubt argue over the Faith itself) Perhaps there is no more moving sentence in anything that I have ever read than one, near the end of Volume II of Gulag, where, after spending literally hundreds of pages documenting the horrors of the place, could say "Thank you prison, for having been in my life." That is, Solzhenitsen saw clearly that all things are governed by God for his ultimate purpose. This includes the tragedy of spending eight years in a place that could only be described as 'hell on earth.' Sozhentisen recognized he would not be who he was, nor who God intended him to be, without going through this seemingly meaningless madness. Faith puts meaning into both joy and suffering. In fact, it puts joy into suffering.
We would all do well to have have cuch faith!
This election
Even in the face of the post below about definitely not being a Republican, I have to say that I am extremely torn in this election cycle. Here are a few things I can say about it:
First, I know for certain I do not want Barrack Obama as President. In case anyone is looking to make a racial issue out of this let me say emphatically that the amount of pigmentation in anyone's skin has absolutely exactly zero influence on the way I vote. It's not the color of the skin, it is the content of the character, as someone once said.
It may be said that I do not know Obama, so can't judge his character. However, I do know some things about him that give me insight into his character.
To begin with he is 'pro-choice' in regard to abortion - which translated means he has no desire to legally hamper the murder of the most innocent victims imaginable. That says alot. In addition to his stance on the issue of abortion, he is overall probably the most liberal (in terms of social issues and big government philosophy) person in the Senate - at least based on his short voting record and stated positions. Also, he has known ties with the very corrupt Chicago Politcal Machine. This machine is basically mafia-esque (I think I just made up a word)! That says alot. Another thing that says alot about a candidate is who he/she chooses as a running mate.
Obama, who has stated he is 'new kind of politican,' that he is not 'Old-Washington' (and doesn't every single candidate try to distance themselves from the very city they are trying to get into?) chose for his running mate a multi-termed Senator who is the very epitome of 'Old Washington.'
Biden is also pro-abortion, is a long time liberal (again in terms of social issues and big government philosphies). He also has a record of plagerising other politicians in his speeches, has made racial slurs, and fairly recently has stated that Obama was not qualified to be president. But, don't worry. Throw that out the window now. Barrack is now qualified because he has chosen Biden as a running mate.
So, to start with, there is no way I could ever vote for Obama, and I hate the thought that I would contribute in any way to his election.
Secondly, though, I am not exactly thrilled at the prospect of a McCain Presidency. McCain is the perfect example of why I am not a Republican. His 'Maverick' status is a joke. He is in many ways indistinguishable from the Democrats. He has increased corruption in the name of fighting it. Where perhaps he differs from traditional Republicanism is that he supposedly has fought big business interests (esp. Tobacco and Oil) However, in our current political climate, all such things as these need to be considered far more deeply than the surface - something we can not do here.
McCain, to me, proved himself totally unlikable during the Republican Primary debates. His closest competitor was Mitt Romney. Now, I do not much care for Romney either, but the way McCain was toward him in the debates that I saw almost made me lean his way. McCain was, in my opinion, so immature in the way that he attacked Romney, that it made it unthinkable to me that the man could ever be President. Note, I have no problem with him 'attacking' an opponent. It's just the way he did it that bothered me so. It was VERY immature.
However, I must admit, that I am at least a tad intrigued by McCain's choice of running mates. From a practical standpoint it was simply brilliant. There is no other word for it.
For one thing, she is female. This automatically buys him millions of female votes. (Not implying that that anywhere near all women everywhere would vote for him based on this, but many women and moderate men could be swayed by the prospect of a female running mate - esp for a seventy something year old president. This could easily lead to a female presidency in the fairly near term future) In short - many 'moderate' fence sitters for whom a female candidacy might be important may be swayed.
In addition to this, she is a conservative, pro-life, Christian. She even gave birth to her fifth child in her forties, knowing he had Downs Syndrome. There are many millions of conservative Christian pro-life fence sitters out there who may be swayed to vote based on this (Including the Groaning Philosher!)
Add to that she is a gun toting, hunting, life member of the NRA. This will no doubt energize at least a few million gun lovers. Images of her holding a large weapon may excite both strong minded females as well as gun loving males and females.
It is hard to imagine that McCain could have picked a better running mate - her recent revelations about her daughter notwithstanding. The point above is, that there are various groups who had millions of fence sitters in this election. Palin may have just knocked them off the fence and into the McCain Camp. BRILLIANT!!!
So, I know for sure that I do not like Obama, Biden, nor do I much care for McCain. However, I am deeply intrigued by McCain's running mate. Both McCain and his running mate are pro-life, the other two are anti-life. This is nearing the point of swaying me toward McCain. However.....
I am still a fervent believer in the total corruption of both major parties. I believe, from a political standpoint, a third party must emerge. The only two possibilities from where I sit are the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party.
In this cycle, I think I have decided against a vote for the Libertarian Party. I think Bob Barr is an old line Republican who ran out of opportunities there so joined the Libertarians. I do not believe he has a record of solid, limited government philosophy.
I am really impressed with the Constituion Party Candidate, and for the most part, its platform. There is one major exception to this, though (there may be others, but this is the one I am aware of now). The exception is that for some inexplicable reason, the CP, like many paleo-con groups, falls for the economically disastrous idea of mercantilism. This shows forth most clearly in their support of the protective tarriff. (see the Republican post below for at least a brief introduction to the dangers of the protective tarriff.)
Other than this point, though, the CP offers a solid, limited government, pro-constitution, pro-life, platform. On the whole, I could much more comfortably support this party, its candidate, and his running mate, more than the Republicans, the Democrats, or the Libertarians. However, and this is big, he has zero chance of winning.
This is the constant dilemma for the principled voter. Do I vote for the principle, knowing there is no chance, or do I hold my nose and vote for the lesser of the two major party evils? Right now, I do not know. I know which way I am leaning and may write about it in the future, but I am not totally decided yet.
Any thoughts?
J
First, I know for certain I do not want Barrack Obama as President. In case anyone is looking to make a racial issue out of this let me say emphatically that the amount of pigmentation in anyone's skin has absolutely exactly zero influence on the way I vote. It's not the color of the skin, it is the content of the character, as someone once said.
It may be said that I do not know Obama, so can't judge his character. However, I do know some things about him that give me insight into his character.
To begin with he is 'pro-choice' in regard to abortion - which translated means he has no desire to legally hamper the murder of the most innocent victims imaginable. That says alot. In addition to his stance on the issue of abortion, he is overall probably the most liberal (in terms of social issues and big government philosophy) person in the Senate - at least based on his short voting record and stated positions. Also, he has known ties with the very corrupt Chicago Politcal Machine. This machine is basically mafia-esque (I think I just made up a word)! That says alot. Another thing that says alot about a candidate is who he/she chooses as a running mate.
Obama, who has stated he is 'new kind of politican,' that he is not 'Old-Washington' (and doesn't every single candidate try to distance themselves from the very city they are trying to get into?) chose for his running mate a multi-termed Senator who is the very epitome of 'Old Washington.'
Biden is also pro-abortion, is a long time liberal (again in terms of social issues and big government philosphies). He also has a record of plagerising other politicians in his speeches, has made racial slurs, and fairly recently has stated that Obama was not qualified to be president. But, don't worry. Throw that out the window now. Barrack is now qualified because he has chosen Biden as a running mate.
So, to start with, there is no way I could ever vote for Obama, and I hate the thought that I would contribute in any way to his election.
Secondly, though, I am not exactly thrilled at the prospect of a McCain Presidency. McCain is the perfect example of why I am not a Republican. His 'Maverick' status is a joke. He is in many ways indistinguishable from the Democrats. He has increased corruption in the name of fighting it. Where perhaps he differs from traditional Republicanism is that he supposedly has fought big business interests (esp. Tobacco and Oil) However, in our current political climate, all such things as these need to be considered far more deeply than the surface - something we can not do here.
McCain, to me, proved himself totally unlikable during the Republican Primary debates. His closest competitor was Mitt Romney. Now, I do not much care for Romney either, but the way McCain was toward him in the debates that I saw almost made me lean his way. McCain was, in my opinion, so immature in the way that he attacked Romney, that it made it unthinkable to me that the man could ever be President. Note, I have no problem with him 'attacking' an opponent. It's just the way he did it that bothered me so. It was VERY immature.
However, I must admit, that I am at least a tad intrigued by McCain's choice of running mates. From a practical standpoint it was simply brilliant. There is no other word for it.
For one thing, she is female. This automatically buys him millions of female votes. (Not implying that that anywhere near all women everywhere would vote for him based on this, but many women and moderate men could be swayed by the prospect of a female running mate - esp for a seventy something year old president. This could easily lead to a female presidency in the fairly near term future) In short - many 'moderate' fence sitters for whom a female candidacy might be important may be swayed.
In addition to this, she is a conservative, pro-life, Christian. She even gave birth to her fifth child in her forties, knowing he had Downs Syndrome. There are many millions of conservative Christian pro-life fence sitters out there who may be swayed to vote based on this (Including the Groaning Philosher!)
Add to that she is a gun toting, hunting, life member of the NRA. This will no doubt energize at least a few million gun lovers. Images of her holding a large weapon may excite both strong minded females as well as gun loving males and females.
It is hard to imagine that McCain could have picked a better running mate - her recent revelations about her daughter notwithstanding. The point above is, that there are various groups who had millions of fence sitters in this election. Palin may have just knocked them off the fence and into the McCain Camp. BRILLIANT!!!
So, I know for sure that I do not like Obama, Biden, nor do I much care for McCain. However, I am deeply intrigued by McCain's running mate. Both McCain and his running mate are pro-life, the other two are anti-life. This is nearing the point of swaying me toward McCain. However.....
I am still a fervent believer in the total corruption of both major parties. I believe, from a political standpoint, a third party must emerge. The only two possibilities from where I sit are the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party.
In this cycle, I think I have decided against a vote for the Libertarian Party. I think Bob Barr is an old line Republican who ran out of opportunities there so joined the Libertarians. I do not believe he has a record of solid, limited government philosophy.
I am really impressed with the Constituion Party Candidate, and for the most part, its platform. There is one major exception to this, though (there may be others, but this is the one I am aware of now). The exception is that for some inexplicable reason, the CP, like many paleo-con groups, falls for the economically disastrous idea of mercantilism. This shows forth most clearly in their support of the protective tarriff. (see the Republican post below for at least a brief introduction to the dangers of the protective tarriff.)
Other than this point, though, the CP offers a solid, limited government, pro-constitution, pro-life, platform. On the whole, I could much more comfortably support this party, its candidate, and his running mate, more than the Republicans, the Democrats, or the Libertarians. However, and this is big, he has zero chance of winning.
This is the constant dilemma for the principled voter. Do I vote for the principle, knowing there is no chance, or do I hold my nose and vote for the lesser of the two major party evils? Right now, I do not know. I know which way I am leaning and may write about it in the future, but I am not totally decided yet.
Any thoughts?
J
Why I Am Not A Republican
Note: This is an extremely long post. However, it is a very abbreviated attempt to explain myself. It could be a book! In an attempt to simplify, I have placed division lines in places that I believe to be good break points to facilitate possible multi-session readings.
"If the REPUBLICANS lose their little war, they go back home with their pockets lined with their war profits. I we lose the war, we lose everything."
I don’t know if that quote is completely accurate or not – I did it straight from memory – but it is close enough. Any idea who said that and under what circumstances? Read on.
I came to a finalization the other day. This has been building in me for quite some time. I have finally come to the point where I can say, without any hesitation whatsoever, that I am NOT a Republican.
That may come as quite a shock to many around me. "What, you’re a um… Dem… Demo….. Democrat????!!!!" The answer to that is yes and no. (ok, really mostly ‘no’!) Throughout the history of these United States, at certain times and places, what is today the Democratic Party has actually represented what I do indeed stand for. However, the Democratic Party of today does not even come close to representing what I believe. Yes, in many ways today’s Democratic Party is even more evil than today’s Republican Party. Yes, at times and places and amongst certain individual politicians, the Republican Party sometimes appears to approximate my beliefs. However, the party as a whole, and this almost infallibly affects each individual politician within the party, is so corrupted as to be viewed in my opinion as evil, and a vote for a Republican is almost never a vote for the good, but a vote for the lesser of two huge evils. However, my view of the Republican Party as repulsive is not based on it being a good political party that has slipped away slowly and become bad. No, the Republican Party was evil from its inception. The Republican Party is actually (and this may stun many today) THE party of big government in the United States.
I think I can summarize the two parties this way. The Democratic Party was a very good party that over the course of several decades, and now even a couple of centuries, has morphed into a very bad party. The Republican Party was a very bad party that over the course of about one hundred and fifty years has not changed a whole lot. About the only change in the Republicans which gives them some air of goodness, came from the 1960s through the 1980s. Between Lyndon Johnson’s Great Scam Programs and Barry Goldwater’s anti-communism, through Reagan’s optimism, some of the last limited government and pro-morality folks finally ditched the Democrats and joined with the Republicans. Unfortunately, in the almost thirty years since Reagan, they have really accomplished very little. Overall, they are still a minority within the Republican Party. They, to the Republican Party itself, are like the African Americans to the Democratic Party. – that is, they are a near guaranteed block of votes that the party itself can step all over.
To fully understand where I am coming from, you have to have a little knowledge of U.S. History. Going all the way back to the late colonial days, through the Declaration of Independence, the years under the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention, and throughout the first several decades of the American Nation, there were basically two views of government. The one view is that government should be limited and decentralized. The other is that government should be powerful and centralized. What follows below is really about a ten volume ten thousand page history of the United States compressed into a few pages. It is therefore, very grossly oversimplified maybe even to the point of being inaccurate at times. However, I hope the accuracy is enough to make the points I try to make.
Without going into so much detail, we can see the two competing philosophies of government during the early years of the Constitutional Republic. One side, the Federalists believed in powerful centralalized government. The central government should have broad and deep powers to do all sorts of things. However, the constitution only specifically gave them certain limited and enumerated powers. These leaders however, had a way around this limitation. It was called "broad construction". The constitution could be looked at and studied, they believed, then inferences can be drawn and powers derived for the government from those inferences. One example should suffice.
The Federalists desired a National Bank. However, the Constitution is silent about such a charter. The Federalists, though, would look at what the constitution does say. It says that the Central Government can coin money and regulate its value, it can tax, it has a treasury through which it pays its bills, etc. Given all these things and others for which a National Bank would be a natural need, and given that the Constitution does not specifically deny the Federal Government the right to charter a national bank, the Federalists drew the conclusion that a national bank was an acceptable wielding of Central government powers. This is called "Broad Construction." They read and interpreted the Constitution broadly, not narrowly.
The other side believed in more limited constitutional powers. These people were invariably called "anti-federalists" but as a political party grew from them it was known first as the Republican Party - a party which has over the passing couple of centuries has morphed into today’s Democratic Party. That’s right, kids, our modern democratic party has at its roots a belief in limited, decentralized, constitutional government! On the question of a national bank, they would have simply responded that the constitution, as it stood, gave absolutely no authority to the central government to charter a national bank. End of story. This is called "Strict Construction."
Leaders of the broad construction federalists included probably most notably Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. The most prominent early member of the anti-federalist republicans was Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, James Madison started on the federalist side, even writing several of the famous "Federalist Papers," but fairly early on moved more in the direction of Jefferson and the Republicans.
In the early years of the 19th century, the Federalists as a party dried up and went away. Their most effective leader was Hamilton who lost his life in a duel. Their other effective leader was Adams who had a one-term presidency and was not hugely popular or successful as a president. Most of the prominent federalists were New Englanders, while most of the prominent Republicans were from the Middle Colonies, most notably Virginia. The Federalists Party became almost a regional party rather than a national party. The Republicans (which began to be called the Jeffersonian Republicans, or the Democratic-Republicans) were far more of a national party and therefore, they held the White House for several terms. Jefferson was followed by Madison who was followed by Monroe. All of these were Virginia Democrat-Republicans. They were followed by John Quincy Adams who, as the son of John Adams was in fact a northeasterner, but probably had a political bent somewhere in between the two sides. He was followed by the southerner Andrew Jackson. By this time, the party had more or less taken on the name "Democratic" and was in fact trying to place itself as primarily a ‘party of the people’ – one of those platitudes that sound good but is in fact meaningless.
So, by the 1820s the Federalist Party was dead and buried and what was called the Republican Party had somewhat evolved into what was now called the Democratic Party. However, certainly among many democrats, strict construction along with limited, decentralized government was still a motivating factor. If you held to this belief, this was your party. The broad construction, powerful central government beast kept raising its head, however. Most notably during the next couple of decades this was within what was known as the "Whig Party," taking its name from the English party system.
The Whigs also, over time, while obtaining varying levels of power including the White House, eventually became marginalized much like the Federalists.
So, by the 1850s, the original party of Jefferson had become the Democratic Party. It held many factions, including those who believed in limited central government based on a strict construction of the Constitution. There were other more ‘moderate’ wings within the Democratic Party also, who believed in somewhat more power to be wielded on behalf of ‘the people.’ There were also numerous small factions of special interests groups, many of whom were somewhat radical (such as radical abolitionists) who did not have a major party to rely on. The big business powers were only partially empowered in the Democratic Party, but were not numerous enough to have a party of their own that could yield any notable power.
________________________________________________________________________________
There were other things going on during the middle decades of the 19th Century – trends and events that really deserve deep discussion but will only be briefly mentioned here.
The nation began moving westward. This had many effects. The eastern seaboard had always been the seat of power – especially economically. As things evolved, this was changing. The centers of trade and commerce had been Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, etc. However, as the nation moved inland, the Mississippi River provided the best mode of transporting goods to port, or receiving goods from other places and distributing them. This meant New Orleans would appear to be the natural economic/trade center of the country. However, the old money powers of the Northeast could not sit idly by and watch this happen. Much of the nineteenth century political and economic history centers on this natural movement west and south, and the fighting of it from the northeastern political/economic machines. An example would be that in order to get goods from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, (just a few hundred miles across one state) it was actually cheaper to place it on a cargo boat, go along the Ohio River to the Mississippi River all the way to New Orleans, enter the Gulf of Mexico, sail around the tip of Florida, up the Atlantic Coast all the way to Philly than to ship it overland a few hundred miles. It is clear that the south, the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and especially New Orleans would prosper under these conditions. The northern money powers intended to fight such a transfer of economic power by many means.
The powers that existed in the Northeast intended to fight this trend by the building of roads, canals, railroads, etc. using central government aid. That is, all the peoples of the nation were to be taxed in some form, then that money used on internal improvements which were specifically designed to help one section or a few sections of the nation (most especially, the northeast) at the expense of others. Many would question the constitutionality of such moves.
Also related to the economic activities of the north, the north intended to use protective tariffs and other measures that would benefit them at the expense of the south. The economic interests of the north and the south were very different, as was their interests in international trade. Northern politicians backed by northern business interests attempted to manage the government in such a way as to benefit the northern business interest. However, the south had able minded politicians who fought this tooth and nail and often staved off at least some of these measures. Consider:
I. The south grew many crops well that could not be grown well to any great extent in other parts of the country (i.e. cotton, rice, indigo)
II. The south had a huge market for these agricultural raw materials in England. Therefore, the south could sell these to England, and buy from England many finished products such as clothing, metal goods, etc. As a result, there was much trade between the South and England and other European nations
III. The north also produced many of the same finished products as England, and therefore was in competition with them on the world market
During the original constitutional convention the slave trade was a sticking point. The constitution put off a final vote on this issue until 1808. In 1808 they voted to stop the slave trade. What is not widely known is that many of the states had already done so on a state level, including most of the southern states. Virginia, in fact, was the first, or at least one of the first, states to stop the slave trade.
In spite of the above, slavery as a system had taken firm root in the southern states. There are innumerable reasons for this that can not be discussed in this post. However, it was not all simply a matter of their being a bunch of backwards racists pigs, nor greedy rich planters. (No doubt there were some of each, but this does not begin to explain the deep roots of slavery in the south)
Anti slavery movements were abundant in both north and south. While there were without a doubt exceptions to the rule, many southerners, even slave owners, did not like the system of slavery that existed. It was one of those things which had developed gradually over a couple of centuries and was deeply imbedded in the culture and economic system. Many people, again even slave owners themselves, wanted to find a way out. However, it is not as simple as that. It is very easy with our twenty-first century eyes to just say they should have stopped it – period. Free all the slaves and go on. But this is a near impossibility. But,
______________________________
"If the REPUBLICANS lose their little war, they go back home with their pockets lined with their war profits. I we lose the war, we lose everything."
I don’t know if that quote is completely accurate or not – I did it straight from memory – but it is close enough. Any idea who said that and under what circumstances? Read on.
I came to a finalization the other day. This has been building in me for quite some time. I have finally come to the point where I can say, without any hesitation whatsoever, that I am NOT a Republican.
That may come as quite a shock to many around me. "What, you’re a um… Dem… Demo….. Democrat????!!!!" The answer to that is yes and no. (ok, really mostly ‘no’!) Throughout the history of these United States, at certain times and places, what is today the Democratic Party has actually represented what I do indeed stand for. However, the Democratic Party of today does not even come close to representing what I believe. Yes, in many ways today’s Democratic Party is even more evil than today’s Republican Party. Yes, at times and places and amongst certain individual politicians, the Republican Party sometimes appears to approximate my beliefs. However, the party as a whole, and this almost infallibly affects each individual politician within the party, is so corrupted as to be viewed in my opinion as evil, and a vote for a Republican is almost never a vote for the good, but a vote for the lesser of two huge evils. However, my view of the Republican Party as repulsive is not based on it being a good political party that has slipped away slowly and become bad. No, the Republican Party was evil from its inception. The Republican Party is actually (and this may stun many today) THE party of big government in the United States.
I think I can summarize the two parties this way. The Democratic Party was a very good party that over the course of several decades, and now even a couple of centuries, has morphed into a very bad party. The Republican Party was a very bad party that over the course of about one hundred and fifty years has not changed a whole lot. About the only change in the Republicans which gives them some air of goodness, came from the 1960s through the 1980s. Between Lyndon Johnson’s Great Scam Programs and Barry Goldwater’s anti-communism, through Reagan’s optimism, some of the last limited government and pro-morality folks finally ditched the Democrats and joined with the Republicans. Unfortunately, in the almost thirty years since Reagan, they have really accomplished very little. Overall, they are still a minority within the Republican Party. They, to the Republican Party itself, are like the African Americans to the Democratic Party. – that is, they are a near guaranteed block of votes that the party itself can step all over.
To fully understand where I am coming from, you have to have a little knowledge of U.S. History. Going all the way back to the late colonial days, through the Declaration of Independence, the years under the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention, and throughout the first several decades of the American Nation, there were basically two views of government. The one view is that government should be limited and decentralized. The other is that government should be powerful and centralized. What follows below is really about a ten volume ten thousand page history of the United States compressed into a few pages. It is therefore, very grossly oversimplified maybe even to the point of being inaccurate at times. However, I hope the accuracy is enough to make the points I try to make.
Without going into so much detail, we can see the two competing philosophies of government during the early years of the Constitutional Republic. One side, the Federalists believed in powerful centralalized government. The central government should have broad and deep powers to do all sorts of things. However, the constitution only specifically gave them certain limited and enumerated powers. These leaders however, had a way around this limitation. It was called "broad construction". The constitution could be looked at and studied, they believed, then inferences can be drawn and powers derived for the government from those inferences. One example should suffice.
The Federalists desired a National Bank. However, the Constitution is silent about such a charter. The Federalists, though, would look at what the constitution does say. It says that the Central Government can coin money and regulate its value, it can tax, it has a treasury through which it pays its bills, etc. Given all these things and others for which a National Bank would be a natural need, and given that the Constitution does not specifically deny the Federal Government the right to charter a national bank, the Federalists drew the conclusion that a national bank was an acceptable wielding of Central government powers. This is called "Broad Construction." They read and interpreted the Constitution broadly, not narrowly.
The other side believed in more limited constitutional powers. These people were invariably called "anti-federalists" but as a political party grew from them it was known first as the Republican Party - a party which has over the passing couple of centuries has morphed into today’s Democratic Party. That’s right, kids, our modern democratic party has at its roots a belief in limited, decentralized, constitutional government! On the question of a national bank, they would have simply responded that the constitution, as it stood, gave absolutely no authority to the central government to charter a national bank. End of story. This is called "Strict Construction."
Leaders of the broad construction federalists included probably most notably Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. The most prominent early member of the anti-federalist republicans was Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, James Madison started on the federalist side, even writing several of the famous "Federalist Papers," but fairly early on moved more in the direction of Jefferson and the Republicans.
In the early years of the 19th century, the Federalists as a party dried up and went away. Their most effective leader was Hamilton who lost his life in a duel. Their other effective leader was Adams who had a one-term presidency and was not hugely popular or successful as a president. Most of the prominent federalists were New Englanders, while most of the prominent Republicans were from the Middle Colonies, most notably Virginia. The Federalists Party became almost a regional party rather than a national party. The Republicans (which began to be called the Jeffersonian Republicans, or the Democratic-Republicans) were far more of a national party and therefore, they held the White House for several terms. Jefferson was followed by Madison who was followed by Monroe. All of these were Virginia Democrat-Republicans. They were followed by John Quincy Adams who, as the son of John Adams was in fact a northeasterner, but probably had a political bent somewhere in between the two sides. He was followed by the southerner Andrew Jackson. By this time, the party had more or less taken on the name "Democratic" and was in fact trying to place itself as primarily a ‘party of the people’ – one of those platitudes that sound good but is in fact meaningless.
So, by the 1820s the Federalist Party was dead and buried and what was called the Republican Party had somewhat evolved into what was now called the Democratic Party. However, certainly among many democrats, strict construction along with limited, decentralized government was still a motivating factor. If you held to this belief, this was your party. The broad construction, powerful central government beast kept raising its head, however. Most notably during the next couple of decades this was within what was known as the "Whig Party," taking its name from the English party system.
The Whigs also, over time, while obtaining varying levels of power including the White House, eventually became marginalized much like the Federalists.
So, by the 1850s, the original party of Jefferson had become the Democratic Party. It held many factions, including those who believed in limited central government based on a strict construction of the Constitution. There were other more ‘moderate’ wings within the Democratic Party also, who believed in somewhat more power to be wielded on behalf of ‘the people.’ There were also numerous small factions of special interests groups, many of whom were somewhat radical (such as radical abolitionists) who did not have a major party to rely on. The big business powers were only partially empowered in the Democratic Party, but were not numerous enough to have a party of their own that could yield any notable power.
________________________________________________________________________________
There were other things going on during the middle decades of the 19th Century – trends and events that really deserve deep discussion but will only be briefly mentioned here.
The nation began moving westward. This had many effects. The eastern seaboard had always been the seat of power – especially economically. As things evolved, this was changing. The centers of trade and commerce had been Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, etc. However, as the nation moved inland, the Mississippi River provided the best mode of transporting goods to port, or receiving goods from other places and distributing them. This meant New Orleans would appear to be the natural economic/trade center of the country. However, the old money powers of the Northeast could not sit idly by and watch this happen. Much of the nineteenth century political and economic history centers on this natural movement west and south, and the fighting of it from the northeastern political/economic machines. An example would be that in order to get goods from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, (just a few hundred miles across one state) it was actually cheaper to place it on a cargo boat, go along the Ohio River to the Mississippi River all the way to New Orleans, enter the Gulf of Mexico, sail around the tip of Florida, up the Atlantic Coast all the way to Philly than to ship it overland a few hundred miles. It is clear that the south, the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and especially New Orleans would prosper under these conditions. The northern money powers intended to fight such a transfer of economic power by many means.
The powers that existed in the Northeast intended to fight this trend by the building of roads, canals, railroads, etc. using central government aid. That is, all the peoples of the nation were to be taxed in some form, then that money used on internal improvements which were specifically designed to help one section or a few sections of the nation (most especially, the northeast) at the expense of others. Many would question the constitutionality of such moves.
Also related to the economic activities of the north, the north intended to use protective tariffs and other measures that would benefit them at the expense of the south. The economic interests of the north and the south were very different, as was their interests in international trade. Northern politicians backed by northern business interests attempted to manage the government in such a way as to benefit the northern business interest. However, the south had able minded politicians who fought this tooth and nail and often staved off at least some of these measures. Consider:
I. The south grew many crops well that could not be grown well to any great extent in other parts of the country (i.e. cotton, rice, indigo)
II. The south had a huge market for these agricultural raw materials in England. Therefore, the south could sell these to England, and buy from England many finished products such as clothing, metal goods, etc. As a result, there was much trade between the South and England and other European nations
III. The north also produced many of the same finished products as England, and therefore was in competition with them on the world market
- To aid the North (and note it was at the expense of the south) Congress tried repeatedly to pass protective tariffs on imported goods. That is, a good coming in from England would now have a huge tax on it. This raised the price of that good in this nation. That lowered the incentive of the south to trade with England and increased the south’s dependence on the north.
- Two easily seen results of this would be that England would therefore increase its tariffs, thereby lowering their incentive to by goods from the US, partiularly the south. And the North could also raise its price on goods sold to the south and still be cheaper than goods the south would buy from England after the tariff.
- So, in sum, free trade between the southern states and England is hampered. The economy in the south is hurt both from the aspect of selling its products, as well as the aspect of purchasing needed products from elsewhere. The north gets an unearned economic boost (at least on paper) at their expense.
- This situation looks eerily similar to the situation the colonies faced in the 1760s and 1770s.
Again, much of the political/economic history of the mid 19th century is wrapped up in this struggle. Southern Democratic Politicians were able to stave off much of this activity, but it was a continuous struggle.
During the original constitutional convention the slave trade was a sticking point. The constitution put off a final vote on this issue until 1808. In 1808 they voted to stop the slave trade. What is not widely known is that many of the states had already done so on a state level, including most of the southern states. Virginia, in fact, was the first, or at least one of the first, states to stop the slave trade.
In spite of the above, slavery as a system had taken firm root in the southern states. There are innumerable reasons for this that can not be discussed in this post. However, it was not all simply a matter of their being a bunch of backwards racists pigs, nor greedy rich planters. (No doubt there were some of each, but this does not begin to explain the deep roots of slavery in the south)
Anti slavery movements were abundant in both north and south. While there were without a doubt exceptions to the rule, many southerners, even slave owners, did not like the system of slavery that existed. It was one of those things which had developed gradually over a couple of centuries and was deeply imbedded in the culture and economic system. Many people, again even slave owners themselves, wanted to find a way out. However, it is not as simple as that. It is very easy with our twenty-first century eyes to just say they should have stopped it – period. Free all the slaves and go on. But this is a near impossibility. But,
- There were some, no doubt, in both the north and the south, both slave owners and non, who desired to bring an end to the system of slavery. Some may have had some ideas, others were unsure. But all would have agreed that it was a goal to be reached, but that it may take time – years, even generations.
- No doubt there were some, both north and south, both slave owners and non, who really did not care one way or the other.
- No doubt there were some, both north and south, both slave owners and non, who actually desired the continuation, even deepening of the slave system.
- There were some, mostly northerners, who were known as ‘radical abolitionists’. They desired the immediate freeing of all the slaves and were also banging the drums of war to get it. They had no plan whatsoever with what to do with the slaves. The radical abolitionists – mostly northern, mostly religiously liberal Unitarians, had no plan with what to do with the slaves, and certainly did not want them coming their way. They just wanted to end the institution of slavery.
Religious Landscape Changing
The religious landscape of the nation was also changing. The northeast had been the center of Puritanism in the past. However, for a variety of reasons all too deep to delve into here, the north had become far more liberal religiously as well as socially and culturally. Deism, Unitarianism, and Transcendentalism permeated northern society, not to mention various streams of socialism and even atheism. This is not at all to say that there was no Biblical Christianity to be seen in the North, only that it was less pervasive than earlier eras and religious liberalism or atheism was far more widespread than before. In addition to the changing religious landscape of the North,
- The western frontier had a multifaceted religious tenor. The frontier was exposed a great deal to traveling Methodist ministers, Methodist influenced Baptist ministers, and other ‘revivalists’ types. The result was a lot of emotionalism with major ‘spiritual’ upheavals. However, there was often little depth, very few actual changed lives. Little corporate life. In short, shallow, emotional, non-communal religion.
- The South, while also greatly influenced by the new found religious revivalists tendencies, was also being influenced by the old Puritanism which had been so prevalent in the northeast during the early colonial years. That is, while the rest of the nation was in one way or another moving away from traditional biblical Christianity, the South was moving more and more in the direction of the traditional, Puritan religion.
______________________________________________
One trend that can be noted in all of this was that many of the various factions in the north were feverishly pursuing a common end – namely the destruction of Southern Culture.
Northern business interests were threatened by a strong south capable of producing agriculture, trading, and obtaining finished goods for themselves without dependence on the north. They were also fearful of the South itself becoming an international trade and commerce center.
The mostly northern, mostly religiously liberal radical abolitionists wanted an immediate and total end of slavery (not that they had a solution to posit for the aftermath). Also, the religiously liberal north were embarrased by the ‘backwards’ religiously conservative south.
It is therefore not the least bit surprising to learn that wealthy northern business interests financed the radical abolitionists, even in their sometimes terroristic, activities. All of these groups, the northern business interests, the radical abolitionists, and the otherwise religious liberals all desired the destruction of the South and a remaking of it in their image. If this sounds outlandish, crazy, kooky, all I can say is that there is a multitude of primary source evidence to support this claim.
In all this, the west was divided and dividing. Much of the tensions that finally brought about the War Between the States involved how the newly added western states would be aligned politically, socially, economically, commercially, slavery-wise, etc.
Now, the Republican Party was born in this climate. The party started in Michigan in 1854 and spread across the north within a few short years. It was made up of the remnant of Whigs (strong central government, broad constructionists), northern business/economic interests, former Free Soil Party members, disillusioned democrats, radical abolitionists, and others. Almost all of these were devoted to one extent or the other, to the crushing of Southern Culture. After some level of success in the intervening years, by 1860 the Republicans had a viable presidential candidate in Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln was and is an interesting and intriguing, even enigmatic figure. The one thing nearly all historians agree on, though, is that Lincoln’s primary interest was in preserving the Union whole. That is, Lincoln was first and foremost a Unionist. Lincoln, interestingly, had served as an attorney for large northern businesses. He had also served in the House of Representatives. On the one hand, he would have stated himself to be personally against slavery (as most people, north and south, were to some degree). However, two things need to be mentioned in conjunction with this anti-slavery stand of Lincoln’s.
First, his pro-union stance far outweighed any anti-slavery sentiment he may have held. He is famous for saying that if he could preserve the union while freeing the slaves, he would; if he could preserve the union without freeing any of the slaves, he would; if he could preserve the union while freeing some slaves and leaving others in slavery, he would. In short, any feelings of anti-slavery were, according to his own statements entirely subordinate to his desire to maintain the union. Also, preserving the union was in the interest of the North. The north did not want the south separated from the union, it only wanted it to conform to the north’s vision of the union.
Secondly, in what would be shocking to many of today’s Lincoln admirers, he hardly had beliefs that would coincide with 21st century racial equality. There are many quotes which space does not permit that would almost seem to have come from a 1950s Georgia Klansman that were in fact spoken by Old Abe himself. He did not see the Africans as equal to the whites. He did not believe the Africans and the whites could live together peacefully. Therefore, just like the radical abolitionist, he may have wanted to end slavery, but he had not real workable plan to do so.
At any rate, Lincoln’s pro-northern business, pro-union interests provided him with one large block of votes. His vocalized anti-slavery statements gave him the support of many of the abolitionists and other religious liberals. The fact that he was not outwardly radical on any of these things gave him some support from the many moderates of the north. He posed a strong candidacy indeed.
Here, however, is where the south made perhaps it first major political blunder.
The Democratic nominee for president was not a southerner, but was a midwestern moderate named Stephen Douglas. Southerners were not satisfied with this. They then broke free from the national Democratic Party, formed the Southern Democratic Party and nominated Henry Breckenridge from Kentucky for President.
The election then was interesting. Voters in the south split between Douglas and Breckenrigde. Notherners split between Lincoln and Douglas. When the dust settled, Lincoln won the electoral college, but did not have a popular majority. What is even more amazing is that in the states that would soon secede and form the confederacy, Lincoln received not even one vote. Not one single vote by any person in several states. Let that sink in for a minute. In all those states below the Mason Dixon line combined, Lincoln garnered something like one or two percent of the vote. Yet he would be president for the whole nation. Think about that. What if today a president was elected when an entire section of the country basically gave him/her no votes whatsoever. This was just too much. A president backed by those who sought to destroy the south, not receiving ANY votes in the south, yet elected as their president.
Here is where perhaps, the south made a second blunder. Very quickly after the election of Lincoln, southern states started seceding. Even Alexander Stephens, who would become the Confederate Vice President in time, and therefore was most certainly not against the southern cause, strongly encouraged waiting it out. Secession was legal (and still is today despite any statements to the contrary you may hear). But it may not have been wise – at least not yet. However, the states left the union – right or wrong, wise or ignorant.
As a result of their secession, The Republicans then waged war on the south – just as the south had feared they would. Understand that, kids. In the view of the South, they sought independence (like the colonies from the crown some 80 years previously), but the REPUBLICANS initiated and waged war against them. It was seen in the south as a REPUBLICAN war. A war whose purpose was the total annihilation of the south and its culture. Again, if this sounds like hyperbole, just study a bit of history from the time. Check out some first hand, primary source comments.
The quote at the beginning of this post was spoken by Confederate General Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson.
So, the birth and early growth of the Republican Party was not based on any idea of true reform. It was not based on any ideal of limited government, or low taxes, or pro-family or pro-small business, or individual rights, or personal liberty, or right to life, or any other high sounding, conservative, Christian ideal. It was based on preserving the union in the form desired by the moneyed elite of the northeast through the destruction of the southern culture and the bringing of it under the heavy hand of northern power brokers. THERE is your Republican Party.
You can have it!
Note how in this party the supposedly ‘consevative’ or ‘right wing’ business interests were hand in hand with the ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal’ or ‘left wing’ causes such as abolition with the end result being more centralized power. This is always the way it is. ‘Left’ and ‘right’ are really meaningless. Expansion of centralized power is always the goal of the big business/big government cabal. The War Between the States, and the aftermath of reconstruction effectively marked the end of truly limited constitutional government in this nation. It has been downhill ever since.
The directions of the two parties since then has in some ways taken many turns and in some ways remained basically the same. The Democratic Party has continued to try to portray itself as a populist ‘party of the people.’ This has effectively meant it has moved ever more the ‘left’ in order to appease this or that special interest group, or in the name of ‘fighting poverty’ or other such high sounding ideals. The Republican Party has tried to at one and the same time posit itself as ‘pro-business’ as well as ‘progressive.’ This has lead to a hodge-podge of policy from both parties. However, the one thing that is certain is that tracing the last 140 years, it has not seemed to matter much which party controlled the White House or either House of Congress. The direction of travel has remained the same. Big government has gotten bigger. Big business interests continue to be protected. Big government/big business together in both parties with some outward disguised differences in party.
For this reason, I can not consider myself a Republican. One hundred and forty seven years ago, the Republicans began running roughshod over the homes of my ancestors (none of whom owned slaves). They and their partners in the other party have continued to centralize more and more power in their hands thereby more and more limiting my freedom.
Depending on the situation in any given election cycle, I could possibly vote for a Republican if the differences seemed to be great enough. However, in general, as I see it, there really ain’t much difference in the two. I will likely vote third party or not vote at all. And no matter what, I will not call myself a Republican!
_________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
