Just a few of my favorite things in no particular order.
1. Weekly Lord's Day Wosrship (Ok, this is at the top!)
2. Seeing my kids mature
3. Lancer's Slices (look it up!)
4. Anything Sam Adams!
5. Southern Rock (see my red neck?!)
6. eBay (philosophy = BLASH) Check my store when you get a min
7. Studying God's work in history
8. God's Word
9. Alabama Wine
10. Extended Family
11. Auburn Football
12. All things Samford University
13. English Luxury (again, look it up puff puff)
14. If the Crimson Tide Loses (been frustrated lately!)
15. Writings of Peter Leithart and Jim Jordan
16. Austrian Economics
17. Ron and Rand Paul
18. Studying and comparing causes of American Revolutionary War and War For Southern Independence
Least Favorite things in no particular order
1. Effects of the outcome of the War for Southern Independence!
2. Barak Obama
3. Mitt Romney
4. John McCain
5. John Kerry
6. Al Gore
7. George W. Bush (seeing any trends here?)
8. UAT (my daughter goes there - fine, but I still hate it!)
9. Borkim Riff Whiskey (look it up!~)
10. CNN
11. MSNBC
12. Fox News when they smear Ron Paul
13. Bill Clinton (what is the meaning of 'is'?)
14. Hilary Clinton
15. Abortion
16. The gay agenda
I could go on, but I'll stop here!
Friday, May 25, 2012
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Update
Okay, I will try to get back to posting on a more regular basis after a long hiatus!
Let me update a few things.
I now have two in college, both at Samford. Both are doing well right now. Ryan, after some struggles is back on track. He took a few classes last spring and summer at Jeff St., got his grades up, took a full load at Samford in the fall and did good. He is now taking a very full load this semester. Hopefully, he is on track to graduate after next fall and spring semesters. He has continued to work some for Chic Fil A, earning their in house scholarship of $1000. He works for the Samford Athletic Department doing a myriad of jobs, including videoing contests such as football and basketball games. He also writes an opinion piece for the school newspaper – something his father is pleased with as you might imagine! If you are interested, log onto the Samford.edu site, go to the students section, under news go to the Samford Crimson section, and you can find some of his articles. He is an independent thinker, yet there is a certain amount of ‘like father like son’ going on too! In the future, he has a lot of options, and I do not know which way he will go, but the next year to year and a half will bring about a lot of changes and/or opportunities.
Elizabeth has completed one semester and started her second. Because of her love of reading and gift of language, she initially leaned toward a major in English. However, she also has a heart for the poor and is leaning toward doing something in the line of ministering to them. She may well end up majoring in Sociology or something similar. The first semester, Elizabeth made all A’s, garnering much academic attention.
Ryan is a gifted thinker who also writes; Elizabeth is a gifted writer who also thinks.
Then, there is child number three. After several years of homeschooling, then several years in a homeschool coop, Laura is now a ninth grader at a private Christian school. I’ll put it this way….the school is not the best in the world, but it is not the worst. It is affiliated with a somewhat fundamentalist Baptist Church, which definitely gives me pause for concern. However, in our very limited price range, there just aren’t a whole lot of choices around here in the supposed Bible Belt. The closest and most affordable option is so strictly fundamentalist that I as a somewhat high church Calvinist would probably be shunned and maybe even kicked out (I know this from a previous experience with them)
Laura, like Elizabeth, has a gift for language, but also a heart for the suffering. I do not know which way she will go in the future. However, I will say she is doing excellently academically so far in her new home. She has made mostly A’s with a very small smattering of B’s. She has been singled out by teachers for her achievements.
As might be imagined, Sherrie and I are proud of all of our three children!
______________________
Other things going on lately. Right before Christmas, we lost Sherrie’s Father. He had been very slowly going downhill for several years and I will not get into the details of all of his sufferings. However, because of the slowness of it, when he finally took that last turn for the worse, I think it was like it hit a lot of the family out of the blue. Sherrie herself called the emergency folks to come and get him when he went to the hospital. I think most figured it would be temporary and he would be back to the old Papa in no time. However, he never got out of the hospital from that time on. Sherrie was also present along with her Mom and a sister when he died.
Holiday deaths are always hard. Both of my Dad’s parents died on December 23 (1962 and 1999) and my mother’s mom died on January 2. Sherrie’s dad Died on December 20. It made Christmas just a little bit difficult as you may imagine. However, as Christians, it is the very fact of the holidays, the incarnation itself, which makes death bearable. He came and entered humanity and DIED that we may live.
______________
I love Auburn football. Auburn won the BCS (and virtually every other poll) national championship. There has been and continues to be a lot of speculation about the Cam Newton situation. I have no idea who may have done what and who may have known what, but I truly believe that no one officially associated with Auburn knowingly did anything wrong. That is why it would be a shame if this thing gets taken away from them. I’m not denying any wrongdoing by any ‘Auburn’ person. In fact I fear that some may be present and may come out sooner or later. But, I truly do not believe that Auburn coaches, Athletic director, or staff knowingly did anything wrong and that is why it would be so bad if they and the Auburn fan base gets punished for the wrongdoing of others on the fringe.
________________
Over two years ago I got laid off (right around Christmas – I wrote about it in an earlier blog). By the grace of God I obtained employment in a bad economy not too long after that and did not struggle near as much as could have been. I have maintained employment since then, and from what I am hearing, may soon be faced with a choice as my previous employer is hiring back again. I do prefer to go back, as they are closer to home and the job situation is more suited to me. However, the volatility of it does concern me as the one thing I do think I have going right now is job security. I would appreciate any prayers offered my way!
Overall, if I were a pessimist, I could tell you how bad things are right now. Money is tight. Ryan just had his car mess up on him. Sherrie’s van has about 190k miles on it. My car and Elizabeth’s car have well over 130K. We hardly have a penny to spare so if any of these other cars go I do not know what we will do. My job wears me out. Sherrie’s gets to her also. Because of our jobs/schedules, we do not get as much time together as I wish. We are going in the hole with two kids at Samford. Things look bleak.
As at least a partial optimist, however, I will tell you how good things are. I love my wife. I love my kids. They love me (most of the time!) I love my church family whom I serve and who serves me also. My kids stand on the verge of being productive difference makers in the world. I’m gainfully employed. So is my wife. I have never gone hungry/cold/unsheltered/ unclothed, etc. Auburn won the BCS. Man, it just doesn’t get any better than this!
Let me update a few things.
I now have two in college, both at Samford. Both are doing well right now. Ryan, after some struggles is back on track. He took a few classes last spring and summer at Jeff St., got his grades up, took a full load at Samford in the fall and did good. He is now taking a very full load this semester. Hopefully, he is on track to graduate after next fall and spring semesters. He has continued to work some for Chic Fil A, earning their in house scholarship of $1000. He works for the Samford Athletic Department doing a myriad of jobs, including videoing contests such as football and basketball games. He also writes an opinion piece for the school newspaper – something his father is pleased with as you might imagine! If you are interested, log onto the Samford.edu site, go to the students section, under news go to the Samford Crimson section, and you can find some of his articles. He is an independent thinker, yet there is a certain amount of ‘like father like son’ going on too! In the future, he has a lot of options, and I do not know which way he will go, but the next year to year and a half will bring about a lot of changes and/or opportunities.
Elizabeth has completed one semester and started her second. Because of her love of reading and gift of language, she initially leaned toward a major in English. However, she also has a heart for the poor and is leaning toward doing something in the line of ministering to them. She may well end up majoring in Sociology or something similar. The first semester, Elizabeth made all A’s, garnering much academic attention.
Ryan is a gifted thinker who also writes; Elizabeth is a gifted writer who also thinks.
Then, there is child number three. After several years of homeschooling, then several years in a homeschool coop, Laura is now a ninth grader at a private Christian school. I’ll put it this way….the school is not the best in the world, but it is not the worst. It is affiliated with a somewhat fundamentalist Baptist Church, which definitely gives me pause for concern. However, in our very limited price range, there just aren’t a whole lot of choices around here in the supposed Bible Belt. The closest and most affordable option is so strictly fundamentalist that I as a somewhat high church Calvinist would probably be shunned and maybe even kicked out (I know this from a previous experience with them)
Laura, like Elizabeth, has a gift for language, but also a heart for the suffering. I do not know which way she will go in the future. However, I will say she is doing excellently academically so far in her new home. She has made mostly A’s with a very small smattering of B’s. She has been singled out by teachers for her achievements.
As might be imagined, Sherrie and I are proud of all of our three children!
______________________
Other things going on lately. Right before Christmas, we lost Sherrie’s Father. He had been very slowly going downhill for several years and I will not get into the details of all of his sufferings. However, because of the slowness of it, when he finally took that last turn for the worse, I think it was like it hit a lot of the family out of the blue. Sherrie herself called the emergency folks to come and get him when he went to the hospital. I think most figured it would be temporary and he would be back to the old Papa in no time. However, he never got out of the hospital from that time on. Sherrie was also present along with her Mom and a sister when he died.
Holiday deaths are always hard. Both of my Dad’s parents died on December 23 (1962 and 1999) and my mother’s mom died on January 2. Sherrie’s dad Died on December 20. It made Christmas just a little bit difficult as you may imagine. However, as Christians, it is the very fact of the holidays, the incarnation itself, which makes death bearable. He came and entered humanity and DIED that we may live.
______________
I love Auburn football. Auburn won the BCS (and virtually every other poll) national championship. There has been and continues to be a lot of speculation about the Cam Newton situation. I have no idea who may have done what and who may have known what, but I truly believe that no one officially associated with Auburn knowingly did anything wrong. That is why it would be a shame if this thing gets taken away from them. I’m not denying any wrongdoing by any ‘Auburn’ person. In fact I fear that some may be present and may come out sooner or later. But, I truly do not believe that Auburn coaches, Athletic director, or staff knowingly did anything wrong and that is why it would be so bad if they and the Auburn fan base gets punished for the wrongdoing of others on the fringe.
________________
Over two years ago I got laid off (right around Christmas – I wrote about it in an earlier blog). By the grace of God I obtained employment in a bad economy not too long after that and did not struggle near as much as could have been. I have maintained employment since then, and from what I am hearing, may soon be faced with a choice as my previous employer is hiring back again. I do prefer to go back, as they are closer to home and the job situation is more suited to me. However, the volatility of it does concern me as the one thing I do think I have going right now is job security. I would appreciate any prayers offered my way!
Overall, if I were a pessimist, I could tell you how bad things are right now. Money is tight. Ryan just had his car mess up on him. Sherrie’s van has about 190k miles on it. My car and Elizabeth’s car have well over 130K. We hardly have a penny to spare so if any of these other cars go I do not know what we will do. My job wears me out. Sherrie’s gets to her also. Because of our jobs/schedules, we do not get as much time together as I wish. We are going in the hole with two kids at Samford. Things look bleak.
As at least a partial optimist, however, I will tell you how good things are. I love my wife. I love my kids. They love me (most of the time!) I love my church family whom I serve and who serves me also. My kids stand on the verge of being productive difference makers in the world. I’m gainfully employed. So is my wife. I have never gone hungry/cold/unsheltered/ unclothed, etc. Auburn won the BCS. Man, it just doesn’t get any better than this!
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Another season nearly gone
Well, another football season is drawing to a close. I have not written any on it this year. Thought I'd put my two cents worth (and not much more) now while I have just a minute.
I am actually excited about the future prospects of Auburn football. The immediate prospects are not too great, though. They have at times this year looked quite good, especially on offense. At other times they have looked horrendous, in all three phases of the game.
Their main problem right now, and this affects all three phases, is depth. They have pretty good depth at skill positions on offense. Ben Tate, Onterio McCaleb, Mario Fannin, and Erick Smith are all pretty good running backs. However, Smith has had off the field troubles (apparently of his own doing), Fannin seems to have trouble holding on to the ball, and McCaleb has had a nagging injury since the middles of the season. I do not think it is a coincidence that Auburn's offense has tended to look much less explosive when McCaleb was unable to play. I think the one-two punch of O-Mac and Tate opens us up tremendously. Take O-Mac out, and that closes us down a bit.
Our collection of receivers is really incredible. We got a couple of real hot recruits last year, including the 21 year old freshman Deangelo Benton, as well as Emory Blake. We also had returning highly recruited junior (I believe) Tim Hawthorne. However, these three have combined for very little of our receiving. Benton did not have a catch all year until the tenth game in mop up duty against hapless Furman. What has happened is that out of nowhere youngsters Darvin Adams and Terrell Zachary have exploded to become major players. These two far and away lead the team in receptions, td receptions, and receiving yards. In addition to these, QB turned receiver Kodi Burns has a few receptions, as does H-back Fannin, and a few others.
At Tight End, senior Tommy Trott has been consistent and will be missed. However, a couple of times freshman hot shot Phil Luthtrlskdnginglskdmngh (Ok, the spelling may not be right!) has shone. I think he will be a tremendous tight end in our offense in the future.
Chris Todd at QB has looked like a Heisman contender at times, and looked like a High School non-starter at others. He is more or less the mirror of this team. Jekyl and Hyde. As Todd goes, so goes Auburn.
When we get to the O-line, we start to see some problems. We have some good players there, but virtually no depth, and little consistency. There have also been apparently some off field issues, causing some suspensions. When there is no depth, and you lose a player or to to injury or suspension, you get sacks, three and outs, etc.
On the defensive side, while there have certainly been some high points, the biggest problem is definitely depth. Throw in the fact that we have had some injuries and that problem really gets magnified. Our starting D-line is real good, but it falls off behind the starters. Eltoro Freeman has really come on as of late at LB, but has been hurt some and it really falls off from there. Neiko Thorpre at DB has tremendous athletic ability, but his technique leaves me with my doubts that he could cover even me! Seems like every long pass play against us this year has had one thing in common - number 15 trailing the open receiver. Darren Bates is a freshman safety with superstar potential.
Depth really shows on special teams. We have been non-existent in returning punts this year, and I swear if we have dropped one punt we have dropped fifty. We finally found a kick return game against UGA, returning one for a TD.
On the whole, I do not think AU right now is quite as good as they have looked when they looked their best this year. Neither do I think they were quite as bad as they have looked at their worst. They sit at 7-4 which is about what I would have thought, although the 7 and the four may have been against different teams. They now only have undefeated NC contender and hated rival Alabama to go, and the prospects do not look good.
If I had to guess, I would put Bama at least three touchdowns favored right now. This is because Bama's strenghts match up exceedingly well against Auburn. Bama has a tremendous running game, and Auburn has struggled stopping the run even against mediocre teams all year. Bama has a tremendous defense, and Auburns offense has been so up and down all year, due mainly to the lack of depth on the line and the up and down play of Todd.
I never say never and lots of stranger things have happened in football history than an Auburn victory over Alabama - so I do not completely count them out. However, in my mind to realistically make a game out of it, I think they need the following:
1. O-Mac's ankle needs to be 100%, giving Auburn the Thunder and Lightening running attack of him and Tate.
2. Freeman needs to be at 100%. AU is weak on the run defense side, but this weakness is glaring without Freeman.
3. AU needs to score or set up scores on special teams. They finally got some kick returning going las weak. If they can just learn to catch and return a punt, this will help.
4. They need to minimize the needless penalties - something they have struggled with all year.
5. They need to be on the plus side in turnover ratio. This has been another indicator in their wins and losses this year.
If they can do all of this, with a little luck, this could be a good and close game. If not, then my three touchdown prediction may still be undershooting it a bit.
Now, as for the future, I think it is getting brighter. Remember Saban's first year? 6-6. At worst Chiziks first year will be 7-5. And that coming off the disaster of the last Tuberville season, and the disaster of the last several Tuberville recruiting classes. I remember hearing before the season started about how depth would be an issue because not only had CTT not recruited as many good players as needed, but that many that he did recruit either never qualified or have since left the team. While Auburn's starting 22 may be in the upper half of the SEC, certainly their top 44 are in the bottom half, and their total depth of SEC quality players is probably in the lower portions of the bottom half. This explains the Jekyl and Hyde look of this years team. When they've clicked, they've looked good. But a little slip here, and a penalty or turnover there, etc. can knock them out in short order.
But Chizik is not sitting around thinking that quality players will come running to Auburn the way his predecessor seemed to think. Instead he is engaging, even challenging, Saban's dominance of the state. Already for this year, among other hot prospects AU has a committment from one of the consensus top three running backs in the nation. (All three in fact have shown interest in AU, one has committed, and while it is out of the question that all three would, two of the three are within reality). he also got a blue chip receiver, the top rated prep player from the state of Louisianna. He has a committment from the nation's number one kicker.
Going back to last year, it was he, not Tuberville, who brought in Deangelo Benton, Emory Blake, Phil Luhjkjhkojkgks, and QBs Tyrik Rolison and Clint Mosely. If he can just over the next couple of years shore up the O-line and the defensive side of the ball, things will turn around. I think we are on a three to four year project here. Saban actually came into a pretty talented team (which is amazing considering the years of probation and AUs dominance over Bama - AU should have been killing them in recruiting but weren't) Chizik has come into a depleted team, and it will take time to rebuild it. Say if we finish 7-5 this year and go to a bowl, then 7-6 or 8-5. I would not be really surprized if our record did not improve much next year, but our performance should. Then by the third year our record should start showing improvement. Then we go from there.
However, if after three to four years there is not significant improvement in the program, you move on. However, I feel pretty good about Chizik, as a person, in his style of coaching, in his choice of assistants (which will change as some of them will move on to bigger jobs) and especially in his zeal for recruiting and building this team. This year is not quite over yet, and I am already looking forward to next year.
War Eagle!
I am actually excited about the future prospects of Auburn football. The immediate prospects are not too great, though. They have at times this year looked quite good, especially on offense. At other times they have looked horrendous, in all three phases of the game.
Their main problem right now, and this affects all three phases, is depth. They have pretty good depth at skill positions on offense. Ben Tate, Onterio McCaleb, Mario Fannin, and Erick Smith are all pretty good running backs. However, Smith has had off the field troubles (apparently of his own doing), Fannin seems to have trouble holding on to the ball, and McCaleb has had a nagging injury since the middles of the season. I do not think it is a coincidence that Auburn's offense has tended to look much less explosive when McCaleb was unable to play. I think the one-two punch of O-Mac and Tate opens us up tremendously. Take O-Mac out, and that closes us down a bit.
Our collection of receivers is really incredible. We got a couple of real hot recruits last year, including the 21 year old freshman Deangelo Benton, as well as Emory Blake. We also had returning highly recruited junior (I believe) Tim Hawthorne. However, these three have combined for very little of our receiving. Benton did not have a catch all year until the tenth game in mop up duty against hapless Furman. What has happened is that out of nowhere youngsters Darvin Adams and Terrell Zachary have exploded to become major players. These two far and away lead the team in receptions, td receptions, and receiving yards. In addition to these, QB turned receiver Kodi Burns has a few receptions, as does H-back Fannin, and a few others.
At Tight End, senior Tommy Trott has been consistent and will be missed. However, a couple of times freshman hot shot Phil Luthtrlskdnginglskdmngh (Ok, the spelling may not be right!) has shone. I think he will be a tremendous tight end in our offense in the future.
Chris Todd at QB has looked like a Heisman contender at times, and looked like a High School non-starter at others. He is more or less the mirror of this team. Jekyl and Hyde. As Todd goes, so goes Auburn.
When we get to the O-line, we start to see some problems. We have some good players there, but virtually no depth, and little consistency. There have also been apparently some off field issues, causing some suspensions. When there is no depth, and you lose a player or to to injury or suspension, you get sacks, three and outs, etc.
On the defensive side, while there have certainly been some high points, the biggest problem is definitely depth. Throw in the fact that we have had some injuries and that problem really gets magnified. Our starting D-line is real good, but it falls off behind the starters. Eltoro Freeman has really come on as of late at LB, but has been hurt some and it really falls off from there. Neiko Thorpre at DB has tremendous athletic ability, but his technique leaves me with my doubts that he could cover even me! Seems like every long pass play against us this year has had one thing in common - number 15 trailing the open receiver. Darren Bates is a freshman safety with superstar potential.
Depth really shows on special teams. We have been non-existent in returning punts this year, and I swear if we have dropped one punt we have dropped fifty. We finally found a kick return game against UGA, returning one for a TD.
On the whole, I do not think AU right now is quite as good as they have looked when they looked their best this year. Neither do I think they were quite as bad as they have looked at their worst. They sit at 7-4 which is about what I would have thought, although the 7 and the four may have been against different teams. They now only have undefeated NC contender and hated rival Alabama to go, and the prospects do not look good.
If I had to guess, I would put Bama at least three touchdowns favored right now. This is because Bama's strenghts match up exceedingly well against Auburn. Bama has a tremendous running game, and Auburn has struggled stopping the run even against mediocre teams all year. Bama has a tremendous defense, and Auburns offense has been so up and down all year, due mainly to the lack of depth on the line and the up and down play of Todd.
I never say never and lots of stranger things have happened in football history than an Auburn victory over Alabama - so I do not completely count them out. However, in my mind to realistically make a game out of it, I think they need the following:
1. O-Mac's ankle needs to be 100%, giving Auburn the Thunder and Lightening running attack of him and Tate.
2. Freeman needs to be at 100%. AU is weak on the run defense side, but this weakness is glaring without Freeman.
3. AU needs to score or set up scores on special teams. They finally got some kick returning going las weak. If they can just learn to catch and return a punt, this will help.
4. They need to minimize the needless penalties - something they have struggled with all year.
5. They need to be on the plus side in turnover ratio. This has been another indicator in their wins and losses this year.
If they can do all of this, with a little luck, this could be a good and close game. If not, then my three touchdown prediction may still be undershooting it a bit.
Now, as for the future, I think it is getting brighter. Remember Saban's first year? 6-6. At worst Chiziks first year will be 7-5. And that coming off the disaster of the last Tuberville season, and the disaster of the last several Tuberville recruiting classes. I remember hearing before the season started about how depth would be an issue because not only had CTT not recruited as many good players as needed, but that many that he did recruit either never qualified or have since left the team. While Auburn's starting 22 may be in the upper half of the SEC, certainly their top 44 are in the bottom half, and their total depth of SEC quality players is probably in the lower portions of the bottom half. This explains the Jekyl and Hyde look of this years team. When they've clicked, they've looked good. But a little slip here, and a penalty or turnover there, etc. can knock them out in short order.
But Chizik is not sitting around thinking that quality players will come running to Auburn the way his predecessor seemed to think. Instead he is engaging, even challenging, Saban's dominance of the state. Already for this year, among other hot prospects AU has a committment from one of the consensus top three running backs in the nation. (All three in fact have shown interest in AU, one has committed, and while it is out of the question that all three would, two of the three are within reality). he also got a blue chip receiver, the top rated prep player from the state of Louisianna. He has a committment from the nation's number one kicker.
Going back to last year, it was he, not Tuberville, who brought in Deangelo Benton, Emory Blake, Phil Luhjkjhkojkgks, and QBs Tyrik Rolison and Clint Mosely. If he can just over the next couple of years shore up the O-line and the defensive side of the ball, things will turn around. I think we are on a three to four year project here. Saban actually came into a pretty talented team (which is amazing considering the years of probation and AUs dominance over Bama - AU should have been killing them in recruiting but weren't) Chizik has come into a depleted team, and it will take time to rebuild it. Say if we finish 7-5 this year and go to a bowl, then 7-6 or 8-5. I would not be really surprized if our record did not improve much next year, but our performance should. Then by the third year our record should start showing improvement. Then we go from there.
However, if after three to four years there is not significant improvement in the program, you move on. However, I feel pretty good about Chizik, as a person, in his style of coaching, in his choice of assistants (which will change as some of them will move on to bigger jobs) and especially in his zeal for recruiting and building this team. This year is not quite over yet, and I am already looking forward to next year.
War Eagle!
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
I just don't understand some people
Some time back, I wrote a lengthy post on why I am not a Republican. I stick by that account. Not only is the historical founding and growth of the party abhorant to me, it's modern leaders are as well. Admittedly, there is at least a part of me that has a soft spot of The Gipper. And Ron Paul, who holds a congressional seat as a Republican, and ran for President in the Republican primary is a man that I admire. But, on the other hand, going back through at least Eisenhower, the policies pursued by Republican Presidents or Presidential Nominees have been very poor. Think Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain. No real true solid consistent constitutionalist in the bunch. In fact, quite the opposite. (Reagan, I believe was a mixed bag - and while far from perfect, was the best of the bunch)
Basically, I am a man without a party. While I am not a Republican, I do not see how any knowledgeable Christian person could ever support any of the Democratic Presidential candidates of the last several decades. It is chilling to me that many Christians are openly supporters of our current leader, Barack Obama. While I can sympathize greatly with them if they do not like many of the Republican contenders, as neither do I, I can not even see a "hold your nose and vote for Obama as the lesser of the two evils" approach as acceptable. As I wrote elsewhere, I even think a 'wasted' third party vote or even a no vote at all are more respectable than a vote for a downright evil candidate.
But, I am aware of people who profess the name of Jesus Christ and who attend Evangelical Bible Believing churches who whole heartedly support Barack Obama. I honestly do not get it. I can give at least a couple of reasons for it, but I think they would fall apart with even a cursory examination.
1. GWB got us into a war that we do not need to be in and we need a change in that direction.
The whole current war situation is way beyond my understanding and I honestly do not know if it is a 'just war' on our part or not. I am not of a settled opinion, and can actually understand if someone is of the settled opinion of it being bad. That is, I can sympathize with someone who thinks this is the wrong war, at the wrong time, fought in the wrong way, for the wrong reasons. But, after all the hoopla in the election cycle, when all is said and done Obama's timeline for troop withdrawel is virtually identical to Bush's.
2. We have used torture methods and Obama is ending that practice and shutting down Gitmo
The torture method that seems to make all the headlines is waterboarding. This is a very controlled method which produces no injury and no long term harm. Obviously while going through waterboarding, the recipient must be under more than a minor discomfort, else it would not work. But, is it 'torture'? Is it inhumane? What if it produces results which prevent a major attack on the US (which it has) What if this method, which produces no injury results in imformation which saves thousands of lives?
This interrogation process does not even hold a candle to the methods used in the past and present by other nations - many of which either permanently maim, or even kill the victims. (I don't think anyone has ever survived a decapitation)
But, no, we just need to 'love our enemies' I am told. All the while, they not only hate us, but are bent on our very destruction.
Also, as some commentators are now pointing out, for all the grand oratory about closing Gitmo, our beloved leader has no workable plan on what to do with the detainees. Hey, Obama supporters, ya'll got any ideas? Why don't you 'love' them by taking them into your own homes???
Finally, though, if Barak wants to end the practice of waterboarding and even if he wants to close Gitmo, that still does not make it right for him to have released important classified documents to the world.
3. Barack (and of course all Democrats) care for the poor or otherwise underpriviledged, unlike those rich evil Republicans
This is the one that just kills me. Of course, every politician of any party if he or she is going to have any chance of getting elected, is going to claim to want to help the helpless, etc. and of course, virtually everyone falls into some sort of 'underpriviledged category. Women?? Underprivilidged. Minorities? Underpriviledged. Old People; children; overweight; addicts; The list goes on and on.
And of course every right thinking person, especially Christians, actually do want to truly help the truly underpriviledged. BUT, on what do we base the idea that the only way, or even the best way, to do so is through government coercion? I could go on and on, and won't, but I have yet to hear a single person argue effectively that government is good or successful at this. In fact, I have seen scholarly studies proving just the opposite. Also, on what do we base the very idea that this is even a legitimate function of government. Helping the needy IS a legitimate activity, and the Church should be behind it in every way. But before one more Christian ever attempts to tell me that he or she is for the 'liberal' candidate because said candidate 'cares about the poor' I insist that that person make the biblical case that this is a legitimate function of the civil government to carry out. I am also going to insist that they prove to me that if I don't share their love of government programs, that this means that I do not care about the plight of the unfortunate. I hate to harp so much on this, but I have read a few too many Christian writers state that they like Obama (or some other liberal) because he cares about the poor and of course Christians should care about the poor so why would any Christian not support Obama. Well, I care about the poor, and I think in the long run government programs to help the poor actually hurt the poor and everyone else, so why would I support a candidate that wants more and more programs?
Now, in addition to fact that the supposed reason for a Christian to be a supporter of Obama are quite weak, the reasons to not be are even stronger.
1. For over 20 years Obama attended a church that was so obviously racist and anti-American that absolutely no one can deny it. He finally dropped it when it became a politically hot issue and the media immediately dropped the issue as well. But, study up on this church and its preacher. Then exchange the black and white labels and ask yourself would a white person ever stand any chance of having any respectability at all if he attended such a place. You know the answer. It is beyond doubt. The white guy would be universally condemned and would never stand a chance in national politics. AND RIGHTLY SO. But, with Obama, we just act like it never happened. Apparently people even believe his preposterous story that even though he attended there twenty years, he never heard any of the inflamatory type remarks that were documented.
Moreover, Barack's 'religion' is not at all Orthodox Christianity. I base this not on conjecture, but on his own words that can easily be found on the internet. He believes all will go to heaven and there is no hell. He believes 'sin' is defined as 'not being true to yourself'. (Actually, we are all born sinners so sin is actually when we ARE true to ourselves!!) there are so many other things in which whatever his religious beliefs may be, they are definitely not Christian.
2. Obama has very little relavent experience
He has in his adult life been a left wing agitator (aka community organizer) a state repressentative (for a short period) and a US Senator for a short period before running for President.
3. He demonstrates on a daily basis that he does not understand (or is it does not care about?) our constitutional system of government.
The constitution spells out what the federal government as a whole can and can not do, and specifically spells out what the executive can and can not do. He daily acts as if these restraints do not exist.
4. He is driving the economy so far down the tubes that I fear it will never recover
I know I know George Bush did this. Well, he did have a lot to do with it. That is why I do not like W. He pushed the economy further and further toward the breaking point. But, here is what 98% of Americans do not understand. BO does not represent a change in direction from the Bush administration in the area of the economy. Instead, he is going in basically the same direction at a much much higher rate of speed. All this sype policy does is put off the inevitable crash that much longer, and make the inevitable crash that much more severe. Apparently Obama, like Keynes, has the opinion that it does not matter because "in the long run, we're all dead." How CHRISTIAN is it to place our kids and grandkids in the position of a nation in total economic collapse?
5. He radically supports gay 'rights' and the gay agenda
On an earlier post I put a link to a site documenting his beliefs and actions on this issue. You can go look it up
6. He is rabidly pro-abortion - more so than any President or contendor in the history of this nation
Again, that post refered to in #5 has info on this. Of course, many Christian Obama supporters will say that well, they are not 'one issue voters' but if there was ever a single issue that one could vote on, this would be it. Killing innocent unborn human life just should not be an option.
I also realize that some supporters will say that we should be more willing to help and to be understanding to women in the unfortunate position of having an unwanted pregnancy. I agree, that Christians should be on the front lines of this issue and where we are not it is to our shame. But even that is not as shameful as supporting a politician who wants no part of any limitations on abortions. And we do not need to let our care and concern about it remove us from the fact that quite often the woman is not exactly a 'victim' but was a willing accomplice. We are not showing Christian love to a person by telling them there are no consequences to their actions. Instead we show them there is forgiveness in the cross and strength in Christ to work through the situation without resorting to making a bad situation a million times worse by committing murder.
How anyone who considers themselves an evangelical Christian, who believes that humans have dignity and worth because they are created in the image of God, could turn the other way and support with great fanfare a leader who is not only complacent, but active in the destruction of millions of innocent lives, while at the same time decrying a previous leader because he allowed some people to poor water on the faces of terrorists bent on our destruction is totally beyond me.
Can anyone explain this to me please?
Basically, I am a man without a party. While I am not a Republican, I do not see how any knowledgeable Christian person could ever support any of the Democratic Presidential candidates of the last several decades. It is chilling to me that many Christians are openly supporters of our current leader, Barack Obama. While I can sympathize greatly with them if they do not like many of the Republican contenders, as neither do I, I can not even see a "hold your nose and vote for Obama as the lesser of the two evils" approach as acceptable. As I wrote elsewhere, I even think a 'wasted' third party vote or even a no vote at all are more respectable than a vote for a downright evil candidate.
But, I am aware of people who profess the name of Jesus Christ and who attend Evangelical Bible Believing churches who whole heartedly support Barack Obama. I honestly do not get it. I can give at least a couple of reasons for it, but I think they would fall apart with even a cursory examination.
1. GWB got us into a war that we do not need to be in and we need a change in that direction.
The whole current war situation is way beyond my understanding and I honestly do not know if it is a 'just war' on our part or not. I am not of a settled opinion, and can actually understand if someone is of the settled opinion of it being bad. That is, I can sympathize with someone who thinks this is the wrong war, at the wrong time, fought in the wrong way, for the wrong reasons. But, after all the hoopla in the election cycle, when all is said and done Obama's timeline for troop withdrawel is virtually identical to Bush's.
2. We have used torture methods and Obama is ending that practice and shutting down Gitmo
The torture method that seems to make all the headlines is waterboarding. This is a very controlled method which produces no injury and no long term harm. Obviously while going through waterboarding, the recipient must be under more than a minor discomfort, else it would not work. But, is it 'torture'? Is it inhumane? What if it produces results which prevent a major attack on the US (which it has) What if this method, which produces no injury results in imformation which saves thousands of lives?
This interrogation process does not even hold a candle to the methods used in the past and present by other nations - many of which either permanently maim, or even kill the victims. (I don't think anyone has ever survived a decapitation)
But, no, we just need to 'love our enemies' I am told. All the while, they not only hate us, but are bent on our very destruction.
Also, as some commentators are now pointing out, for all the grand oratory about closing Gitmo, our beloved leader has no workable plan on what to do with the detainees. Hey, Obama supporters, ya'll got any ideas? Why don't you 'love' them by taking them into your own homes???
Finally, though, if Barak wants to end the practice of waterboarding and even if he wants to close Gitmo, that still does not make it right for him to have released important classified documents to the world.
3. Barack (and of course all Democrats) care for the poor or otherwise underpriviledged, unlike those rich evil Republicans
This is the one that just kills me. Of course, every politician of any party if he or she is going to have any chance of getting elected, is going to claim to want to help the helpless, etc. and of course, virtually everyone falls into some sort of 'underpriviledged category. Women?? Underprivilidged. Minorities? Underpriviledged. Old People; children; overweight; addicts; The list goes on and on.
And of course every right thinking person, especially Christians, actually do want to truly help the truly underpriviledged. BUT, on what do we base the idea that the only way, or even the best way, to do so is through government coercion? I could go on and on, and won't, but I have yet to hear a single person argue effectively that government is good or successful at this. In fact, I have seen scholarly studies proving just the opposite. Also, on what do we base the very idea that this is even a legitimate function of government. Helping the needy IS a legitimate activity, and the Church should be behind it in every way. But before one more Christian ever attempts to tell me that he or she is for the 'liberal' candidate because said candidate 'cares about the poor' I insist that that person make the biblical case that this is a legitimate function of the civil government to carry out. I am also going to insist that they prove to me that if I don't share their love of government programs, that this means that I do not care about the plight of the unfortunate. I hate to harp so much on this, but I have read a few too many Christian writers state that they like Obama (or some other liberal) because he cares about the poor and of course Christians should care about the poor so why would any Christian not support Obama. Well, I care about the poor, and I think in the long run government programs to help the poor actually hurt the poor and everyone else, so why would I support a candidate that wants more and more programs?
Now, in addition to fact that the supposed reason for a Christian to be a supporter of Obama are quite weak, the reasons to not be are even stronger.
1. For over 20 years Obama attended a church that was so obviously racist and anti-American that absolutely no one can deny it. He finally dropped it when it became a politically hot issue and the media immediately dropped the issue as well. But, study up on this church and its preacher. Then exchange the black and white labels and ask yourself would a white person ever stand any chance of having any respectability at all if he attended such a place. You know the answer. It is beyond doubt. The white guy would be universally condemned and would never stand a chance in national politics. AND RIGHTLY SO. But, with Obama, we just act like it never happened. Apparently people even believe his preposterous story that even though he attended there twenty years, he never heard any of the inflamatory type remarks that were documented.
Moreover, Barack's 'religion' is not at all Orthodox Christianity. I base this not on conjecture, but on his own words that can easily be found on the internet. He believes all will go to heaven and there is no hell. He believes 'sin' is defined as 'not being true to yourself'. (Actually, we are all born sinners so sin is actually when we ARE true to ourselves!!) there are so many other things in which whatever his religious beliefs may be, they are definitely not Christian.
2. Obama has very little relavent experience
He has in his adult life been a left wing agitator (aka community organizer) a state repressentative (for a short period) and a US Senator for a short period before running for President.
3. He demonstrates on a daily basis that he does not understand (or is it does not care about?) our constitutional system of government.
The constitution spells out what the federal government as a whole can and can not do, and specifically spells out what the executive can and can not do. He daily acts as if these restraints do not exist.
4. He is driving the economy so far down the tubes that I fear it will never recover
I know I know George Bush did this. Well, he did have a lot to do with it. That is why I do not like W. He pushed the economy further and further toward the breaking point. But, here is what 98% of Americans do not understand. BO does not represent a change in direction from the Bush administration in the area of the economy. Instead, he is going in basically the same direction at a much much higher rate of speed. All this sype policy does is put off the inevitable crash that much longer, and make the inevitable crash that much more severe. Apparently Obama, like Keynes, has the opinion that it does not matter because "in the long run, we're all dead." How CHRISTIAN is it to place our kids and grandkids in the position of a nation in total economic collapse?
5. He radically supports gay 'rights' and the gay agenda
On an earlier post I put a link to a site documenting his beliefs and actions on this issue. You can go look it up
6. He is rabidly pro-abortion - more so than any President or contendor in the history of this nation
Again, that post refered to in #5 has info on this. Of course, many Christian Obama supporters will say that well, they are not 'one issue voters' but if there was ever a single issue that one could vote on, this would be it. Killing innocent unborn human life just should not be an option.
I also realize that some supporters will say that we should be more willing to help and to be understanding to women in the unfortunate position of having an unwanted pregnancy. I agree, that Christians should be on the front lines of this issue and where we are not it is to our shame. But even that is not as shameful as supporting a politician who wants no part of any limitations on abortions. And we do not need to let our care and concern about it remove us from the fact that quite often the woman is not exactly a 'victim' but was a willing accomplice. We are not showing Christian love to a person by telling them there are no consequences to their actions. Instead we show them there is forgiveness in the cross and strength in Christ to work through the situation without resorting to making a bad situation a million times worse by committing murder.
How anyone who considers themselves an evangelical Christian, who believes that humans have dignity and worth because they are created in the image of God, could turn the other way and support with great fanfare a leader who is not only complacent, but active in the destruction of millions of innocent lives, while at the same time decrying a previous leader because he allowed some people to poor water on the faces of terrorists bent on our destruction is totally beyond me.
Can anyone explain this to me please?
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Been Awhile
I have not been able to blog anything for quite some time. New job with different hours, things going on, etc. When I do have the time, I just don't really fell like it. It takes a lot of energy to write all these brilliant analyses. Maybe one day soon I will get back into it. I hope so.
Monday, April 6, 2009
The God that Runs
The Westminster Shorter Catechism teaches us that God is "a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth." As a Presbyterian, and really as a Christian, I believe every word of that is true. I believe each word used to describe God herein can easily be Biblically validated. I have no disagreements, major or minor, with this statement.
But, here is a question. Does this statement inspire you to really know this God? Yeah, maybe to a certain extent. But, does it really inspire you? While this is an absolutely accurate description, and a study of it has definite benefit for us as Christians, this is an abstract, somewhat academic, definition. I do not knock us having such a description, and think it has an important place to play in our study of theology - in a definite, systematic way.
However, when we actually get to the biblical text, we get a more solid, concrete, real, tangible, meaningful picture of God. We get this in a million places, and in a million different ways.
Just one example comes from the text our pastor used for his sermon on this past Lord's day. The passage is familiar to us all - the parable of the 'prodigal son.'
When we get to the heart of the matter in this parable, God is not just "a Spirit......." as stated here, but God is a Father who comes out to meet his wayward son while he is still afar off. He not only just comes out to see him, but he runs out to greet him. Out pastor indicated that the word means something along the lines of "races." When we repent and return to God, He races to come greet us.
Not only that, but he dresses us in the finest robes, puts sandles on our calloused feet, gives us his signet ring, hugs us, and then throws us the grandest of parties, killing the fatted calf, and also begs our troubled brother to join Him in the celebration.
This is the God I serve. I have been prodigal son and He has welcomed me back, many times, with a smile, a hug, and a party. I have been the grumpy elder (presbyterian!) brother, and he urged me to join the party. No matter my sin, he beckons me to the party.
God is "a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth" and I praise Him for it.
God is also the God who races to see me when I am still afar off.
I praise Him all the more for that.
But, here is a question. Does this statement inspire you to really know this God? Yeah, maybe to a certain extent. But, does it really inspire you? While this is an absolutely accurate description, and a study of it has definite benefit for us as Christians, this is an abstract, somewhat academic, definition. I do not knock us having such a description, and think it has an important place to play in our study of theology - in a definite, systematic way.
However, when we actually get to the biblical text, we get a more solid, concrete, real, tangible, meaningful picture of God. We get this in a million places, and in a million different ways.
Just one example comes from the text our pastor used for his sermon on this past Lord's day. The passage is familiar to us all - the parable of the 'prodigal son.'
When we get to the heart of the matter in this parable, God is not just "a Spirit......." as stated here, but God is a Father who comes out to meet his wayward son while he is still afar off. He not only just comes out to see him, but he runs out to greet him. Out pastor indicated that the word means something along the lines of "races." When we repent and return to God, He races to come greet us.
Not only that, but he dresses us in the finest robes, puts sandles on our calloused feet, gives us his signet ring, hugs us, and then throws us the grandest of parties, killing the fatted calf, and also begs our troubled brother to join Him in the celebration.
This is the God I serve. I have been prodigal son and He has welcomed me back, many times, with a smile, a hug, and a party. I have been the grumpy elder (presbyterian!) brother, and he urged me to join the party. No matter my sin, he beckons me to the party.
God is "a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth" and I praise Him for it.
God is also the God who races to see me when I am still afar off.
I praise Him all the more for that.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Our Current Economic Crisis
I have been reading, studying, and thinking alot about the economy lately. My daughter is having to read a book entitled Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? for her high school economics course and the wife and I have been reading it also. Like all economics books, it is not perfect. But, especially the first several chapters are very good, and should be required reading for every single person in America (that is if I were the dictator type - but I guess the fairness doctrine would insist that everyone also read Keynes or Marx or something).
I have also been re-skimming Honest Money by Dr. Gary North, and What Has the Government Done to Our Money by the late Professor Murray Rothbard. If you get a chance, you need to read any or all of these.
Yesterday while out and about, I stumbled on a radio program which featured a guest named Thomas Woods. His insight into the situation was fascinating. A brief article about his book can be found here: http://www.pointofview.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8531
Woods main argument, one that is echoed in the works of Rothbard and others, is that an unfettered free market is NOT the cause of the problems we are facing, and government intervention of one form or the other is NOT the solution. In fact, the exact inverse is true.
The current situation, like that of the Great Depression of the 1930s, has been caused by irresponsible governmental monetary policy.
The books mentioned above make this claim as well. In reading my version of Penny Candy which was dated 2005, I was fascinated by the relevance to the current situation. The author demonstrates how throughout history, governments have turned to the same currency devaluing schemes to try to continue to prop themselves up, ultimately leading to their inevitable downfall, and the downfall of the society they were suppose to be protecting. The same thing is happening now at a terribly alarming rate.
Money is simply a medium of exchange. Nothing more. Nothing less. The natural state of things has always led in civilized society to the use of precious metals ( hereafter referred to as PMs), specifically gold and silver, as this medium of exchange. The reasons for this are many. PMs have real value in and of themselves. They can be broken down into usable quantities (from large bullion to small coins). The amount of them available in society can not be quickly, nor infinitely increased. In short, they provide value, ease of use, and stability.
Monetary units (such as dollars) are simply known quantities of some precious metals. By definition, a dollar was the equivalent of one ounce of silver. (The British Pound Sterling was just that - a pound of sterling silver). At the time of the formation of the U. S. Constitution, gold was considered to have roughly twenty times the value of silver - hence a 'dollar' was also one twentieth an ounce of gold, or an ounce of gold was twenty dollars. That is, the value of gold or silver did not fluctuate in terms of dollars, but the value of a dollar would fluctuate if the value of gold or silver fluctuated. Things were essentially this way for the better part of 150 years. If you had a dollar, that meant you had an ounce of silver or a twentieth of an ounce of gold. If silver or gold for some reason increased or decreased in value, your purchasing power increased or decreased with it. However, due to the nature of things, rapid or large fluctations in the value of precious metals rarely occur.
In times past, such as during the late stages of the Roman Empire, governments would devalue the currency by 'clipping' the coins. That is, they would collect coins (through taxation or whatever means), shave off portions of the gold or silver, then mint new coins with the shavings. A coin that was say one ounce, may then be 0.9 ounce, but, have the same 'face value' even though the real value had diminished. Also, there were now more coins made from the same amount of PM.
Now suppose you were a Roman merchant who was selling an item for an amount equal to nine ounces of PM. Previously, you collected nine 1 ounce coins. Now, to obtain the same quantity, you needed ten 0.9 ounce coins. (Obviously, I am simplifying here). The result? There are more coins (therefore, supposedly more 'money' available for exchange) in the market, but prices have gone up. That is, the currency has been devalued. Prices have risen. People may seemingly have more 'money' in their pocket, but, their purchasing power has not improved. This is inflation.
Please note, inflation is not a rising of prices. The rising of prices is a result of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of the currency.
Over the centuries other innovations have made this practice more convenient for the government devaluers (counterfeiters) to ply their trade. The most useful innovation has been the introduction of paper money.
Paper money began as what could be termed bank notes. Someone may not want to store their reserves of PM in their own home. Businesses which were essentially warehouses for PMs developed. One could deposit his PM in the warehouse, and the warehouse would issue him a paper receipt or receipts. Suppose I deposited 25 ounces of gold and 100 ounces of silver in the warehouse. I get receipts stating that I have this (maybe I get twenty five receipts each worth one ounce of gold, and 100 receipts each worth one ounce of silver). Now, I do not carry all this gold and silver around with me, but I can redeem any or all of my receipts whenever I desire. If I buy an item priced at one silver ounce, I could trade my receipt for it. Now, the merchant I traded with can redeem that receipt upon demand and receive the actual silver. (Likely, the warehouse (bank) would charge some type of holding and processing fee for this service.)
Now, these banks began to get creative. They determined that rarely if ever did they have a run on all deposits. At any time, they had the overwhelming majority of deposits on hand. Therefore, they began 'loaning' some of the reserves that they had. This is called Fractional Reserve Banking. So, just using my deposits for example. I may come in and out occasionally and deposit more, or withdraw some, but on the whole, my balance is staying somewhere near what I originally deposited. The bank may then write out another receipt against my deposit and give it to another individual as a loan that must be repaid. So, now for my one deposit, there are two sets of receipts in circulation. The borrower then goes and somehow invests this, trying to make a return. He may go turn his certificate over to a merchant who sells him some equipment that he uses to provide a good or service to make more money. If he makes a return, he pays back the borrowed credit, with interest. The bank has made money. As long as I, and the others who are now holding certificates against my deposits do not demand our PMs at the same time, the bank is safe. However, obviously, the larger the overlending verses the amount actually on reserve, the larger the risk the banker is taking. Also, the riskier the investment, the more risk of the bank failing.
Fractional reserve banking has caused some problems during economically troubled times in the past. In fact, it has actually caused some of the economic problems themselves. For one, this has inflated the currency (If the banker 'loans out' receipts equal to my original deposit, he has essentially doubled the currency in circulation, thereby lowering its value, much like the coin clippers of old)
During much of the 19th century, American politicians struggled with these issues. On the one hand were the bankers, licking their chops to use fractional reserve banking, along with the politicians they backed to help foster the system. On the other hand, were more economically conservative politicians who fought against this system.
Finally, in 1913, perhaps the greatest debacle in the history of American economics occured. The Federal Reserve system went into effect. Since that time, they have continued along a path that has gone further and further in the direction of currency devaluation.
The climax of this has been to utimately remove all ties from our paper money to any PM, along with the passage of 'legal tender' laws. Not too many years ago, your paper money had a noted on it saying it could be redeemed for 'real money' (i.e. silver or gold). That is no longer the case. Now, it is simply a note that we are forced by law to accept as legal tender for all debts. In reality it is nothing but a worthless piece of paper. (And nowadays, often it is not even that, but is simply an electronic blip on a computer program). You could have piles and piles of hundred dollar bills, and they are absolutely worthless in and of themselves (unlike silver or gold) and the ONLY reason they have value is because the government by law forces everyone to accept them as tender.
So, now the 'value' of a dollar is not tied to PMs. It therefore can fluctuate tremendously. As stated previously, one of the major reasons why PMs became used as a medium of exchange is because they could not be quickly and easily devalued by a sudden large influx. (It is not impossible that this could happen, as it happened in Spain when they obtained huge amounts of gold from the Americas during the 16th century - another story for another post at another time!) However, it can not easily and frequently happen.
However, when paper that is printed solely at the governments discretion and is forced to be used as legal tender is the only allowable legal tender, the government can inflate the currency at will. A huge influx of this so called money into the economy does not add one whitt of wealth to the economy, but only devalues the currency.
Our wealth as a nation is the sum total of all our productivity. In reality, money is only a medium of exchange for that productivity. If suddenly the government prints one trillion dollars and injects that into the economy, it has not increased our wealth one iota. All it has done is make the buying power of each unit (dollar) that much less. This can cause widespread destruction.
Suppose you are 70 years old, have worked hard all your life, have saved, invested, and smartly handled your money and you now have a net value of one million dollars. Sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it? However, if the government suddenly prints and circulates trillions of dollars into the economy, now your one million dollars is worth a fraction of what it once was. All your hard work and intelligence just went down the drain. This is happening to millions of Americans right now.
Well, in our current hard financial situation (which has been caused by the very monetary policies we are talking about) the Messiah's, uh, I mean the President's plan for fixing it is to inject tons of money into the economy. See how utterly senseless this is?
Not one person in a hundred understands this. The average Joe, while possibly thinking something might be amiss in what is going on, at least on some level thinks that injecting money to 'jump start' the economy is a good thing.
In actuality, it is a travesty - and one we will be suffering from for a long time to come.
This inflationary monetary policy is actually harmful in many many more ways than I can even begin to talk about here. This policy, and not the unfettered free market, causes the business 'boom and bust' cycles we have seen throughout our history. We have just come out of a long 'boom' and are now going into a huge 'bust.' The best that our current policy of stimulous can do is to continue to artifically lengthen the aritificial 'boom' and forestall the inevitable 'bust,' while making the eventual 'bust' just that much more severe. I fear we are near a breaking point where no matter what happens, soon the 'bust' will be irreversable - perhaps leading to a total cultural meltdown. The only way to fully and finally recover is to allow the 'bust' to run its course - as painful as that may be, then to restore a sound monetary policy in its wake.
Austrian economists (see the Woods link above, or that of the Mises Institute or Lew Rockwell Report to the right) have been saying this for years, only to be labeled lunatics. However, I think it is undeniable that the only solution to this situation is to somehow someway get back on some sort of Precious Metal ("honest money") monetary system with little or no government intervention.
I have also been re-skimming Honest Money by Dr. Gary North, and What Has the Government Done to Our Money by the late Professor Murray Rothbard. If you get a chance, you need to read any or all of these.
Yesterday while out and about, I stumbled on a radio program which featured a guest named Thomas Woods. His insight into the situation was fascinating. A brief article about his book can be found here: http://www.pointofview.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8531
Woods main argument, one that is echoed in the works of Rothbard and others, is that an unfettered free market is NOT the cause of the problems we are facing, and government intervention of one form or the other is NOT the solution. In fact, the exact inverse is true.
The current situation, like that of the Great Depression of the 1930s, has been caused by irresponsible governmental monetary policy.
The books mentioned above make this claim as well. In reading my version of Penny Candy which was dated 2005, I was fascinated by the relevance to the current situation. The author demonstrates how throughout history, governments have turned to the same currency devaluing schemes to try to continue to prop themselves up, ultimately leading to their inevitable downfall, and the downfall of the society they were suppose to be protecting. The same thing is happening now at a terribly alarming rate.
Money is simply a medium of exchange. Nothing more. Nothing less. The natural state of things has always led in civilized society to the use of precious metals ( hereafter referred to as PMs), specifically gold and silver, as this medium of exchange. The reasons for this are many. PMs have real value in and of themselves. They can be broken down into usable quantities (from large bullion to small coins). The amount of them available in society can not be quickly, nor infinitely increased. In short, they provide value, ease of use, and stability.
Monetary units (such as dollars) are simply known quantities of some precious metals. By definition, a dollar was the equivalent of one ounce of silver. (The British Pound Sterling was just that - a pound of sterling silver). At the time of the formation of the U. S. Constitution, gold was considered to have roughly twenty times the value of silver - hence a 'dollar' was also one twentieth an ounce of gold, or an ounce of gold was twenty dollars. That is, the value of gold or silver did not fluctuate in terms of dollars, but the value of a dollar would fluctuate if the value of gold or silver fluctuated. Things were essentially this way for the better part of 150 years. If you had a dollar, that meant you had an ounce of silver or a twentieth of an ounce of gold. If silver or gold for some reason increased or decreased in value, your purchasing power increased or decreased with it. However, due to the nature of things, rapid or large fluctations in the value of precious metals rarely occur.
In times past, such as during the late stages of the Roman Empire, governments would devalue the currency by 'clipping' the coins. That is, they would collect coins (through taxation or whatever means), shave off portions of the gold or silver, then mint new coins with the shavings. A coin that was say one ounce, may then be 0.9 ounce, but, have the same 'face value' even though the real value had diminished. Also, there were now more coins made from the same amount of PM.
Now suppose you were a Roman merchant who was selling an item for an amount equal to nine ounces of PM. Previously, you collected nine 1 ounce coins. Now, to obtain the same quantity, you needed ten 0.9 ounce coins. (Obviously, I am simplifying here). The result? There are more coins (therefore, supposedly more 'money' available for exchange) in the market, but prices have gone up. That is, the currency has been devalued. Prices have risen. People may seemingly have more 'money' in their pocket, but, their purchasing power has not improved. This is inflation.
Please note, inflation is not a rising of prices. The rising of prices is a result of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of the currency.
Over the centuries other innovations have made this practice more convenient for the government devaluers (counterfeiters) to ply their trade. The most useful innovation has been the introduction of paper money.
Paper money began as what could be termed bank notes. Someone may not want to store their reserves of PM in their own home. Businesses which were essentially warehouses for PMs developed. One could deposit his PM in the warehouse, and the warehouse would issue him a paper receipt or receipts. Suppose I deposited 25 ounces of gold and 100 ounces of silver in the warehouse. I get receipts stating that I have this (maybe I get twenty five receipts each worth one ounce of gold, and 100 receipts each worth one ounce of silver). Now, I do not carry all this gold and silver around with me, but I can redeem any or all of my receipts whenever I desire. If I buy an item priced at one silver ounce, I could trade my receipt for it. Now, the merchant I traded with can redeem that receipt upon demand and receive the actual silver. (Likely, the warehouse (bank) would charge some type of holding and processing fee for this service.)
Now, these banks began to get creative. They determined that rarely if ever did they have a run on all deposits. At any time, they had the overwhelming majority of deposits on hand. Therefore, they began 'loaning' some of the reserves that they had. This is called Fractional Reserve Banking. So, just using my deposits for example. I may come in and out occasionally and deposit more, or withdraw some, but on the whole, my balance is staying somewhere near what I originally deposited. The bank may then write out another receipt against my deposit and give it to another individual as a loan that must be repaid. So, now for my one deposit, there are two sets of receipts in circulation. The borrower then goes and somehow invests this, trying to make a return. He may go turn his certificate over to a merchant who sells him some equipment that he uses to provide a good or service to make more money. If he makes a return, he pays back the borrowed credit, with interest. The bank has made money. As long as I, and the others who are now holding certificates against my deposits do not demand our PMs at the same time, the bank is safe. However, obviously, the larger the overlending verses the amount actually on reserve, the larger the risk the banker is taking. Also, the riskier the investment, the more risk of the bank failing.
Fractional reserve banking has caused some problems during economically troubled times in the past. In fact, it has actually caused some of the economic problems themselves. For one, this has inflated the currency (If the banker 'loans out' receipts equal to my original deposit, he has essentially doubled the currency in circulation, thereby lowering its value, much like the coin clippers of old)
During much of the 19th century, American politicians struggled with these issues. On the one hand were the bankers, licking their chops to use fractional reserve banking, along with the politicians they backed to help foster the system. On the other hand, were more economically conservative politicians who fought against this system.
Finally, in 1913, perhaps the greatest debacle in the history of American economics occured. The Federal Reserve system went into effect. Since that time, they have continued along a path that has gone further and further in the direction of currency devaluation.
The climax of this has been to utimately remove all ties from our paper money to any PM, along with the passage of 'legal tender' laws. Not too many years ago, your paper money had a noted on it saying it could be redeemed for 'real money' (i.e. silver or gold). That is no longer the case. Now, it is simply a note that we are forced by law to accept as legal tender for all debts. In reality it is nothing but a worthless piece of paper. (And nowadays, often it is not even that, but is simply an electronic blip on a computer program). You could have piles and piles of hundred dollar bills, and they are absolutely worthless in and of themselves (unlike silver or gold) and the ONLY reason they have value is because the government by law forces everyone to accept them as tender.
So, now the 'value' of a dollar is not tied to PMs. It therefore can fluctuate tremendously. As stated previously, one of the major reasons why PMs became used as a medium of exchange is because they could not be quickly and easily devalued by a sudden large influx. (It is not impossible that this could happen, as it happened in Spain when they obtained huge amounts of gold from the Americas during the 16th century - another story for another post at another time!) However, it can not easily and frequently happen.
However, when paper that is printed solely at the governments discretion and is forced to be used as legal tender is the only allowable legal tender, the government can inflate the currency at will. A huge influx of this so called money into the economy does not add one whitt of wealth to the economy, but only devalues the currency.
Our wealth as a nation is the sum total of all our productivity. In reality, money is only a medium of exchange for that productivity. If suddenly the government prints one trillion dollars and injects that into the economy, it has not increased our wealth one iota. All it has done is make the buying power of each unit (dollar) that much less. This can cause widespread destruction.
Suppose you are 70 years old, have worked hard all your life, have saved, invested, and smartly handled your money and you now have a net value of one million dollars. Sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it? However, if the government suddenly prints and circulates trillions of dollars into the economy, now your one million dollars is worth a fraction of what it once was. All your hard work and intelligence just went down the drain. This is happening to millions of Americans right now.
Well, in our current hard financial situation (which has been caused by the very monetary policies we are talking about) the Messiah's, uh, I mean the President's plan for fixing it is to inject tons of money into the economy. See how utterly senseless this is?
Not one person in a hundred understands this. The average Joe, while possibly thinking something might be amiss in what is going on, at least on some level thinks that injecting money to 'jump start' the economy is a good thing.
In actuality, it is a travesty - and one we will be suffering from for a long time to come.
This inflationary monetary policy is actually harmful in many many more ways than I can even begin to talk about here. This policy, and not the unfettered free market, causes the business 'boom and bust' cycles we have seen throughout our history. We have just come out of a long 'boom' and are now going into a huge 'bust.' The best that our current policy of stimulous can do is to continue to artifically lengthen the aritificial 'boom' and forestall the inevitable 'bust,' while making the eventual 'bust' just that much more severe. I fear we are near a breaking point where no matter what happens, soon the 'bust' will be irreversable - perhaps leading to a total cultural meltdown. The only way to fully and finally recover is to allow the 'bust' to run its course - as painful as that may be, then to restore a sound monetary policy in its wake.
Austrian economists (see the Woods link above, or that of the Mises Institute or Lew Rockwell Report to the right) have been saying this for years, only to be labeled lunatics. However, I think it is undeniable that the only solution to this situation is to somehow someway get back on some sort of Precious Metal ("honest money") monetary system with little or no government intervention.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
An open letter to President Obama, and all people in power
Dear President Obama,
You may want to consider the following words from a 'Good Book' that I have:
Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.”
He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.”
I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me and I will make the nations your heritage and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
Thank you for your time.
You may want to consider the following words from a 'Good Book' that I have:
Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.”
He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.”
I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me and I will make the nations your heritage and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
Thank you for your time.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Fooled Again?
A blogger friend of mine (The Sun Stands Still - linked at the right) posted the following quote from Mark Horne concerning Obama:
"Obama’s arrival is change from the Bush administration the way a baby is change from a pregnancy. He’s not a repudiation; he’s the ultimate end."
When I read that, I immediately thought of that classic hard rock anthem "Won't Get Fooled Again." by The Who. (I know - I'm kinda weird). The lyrics seem to speak of a 'revolutionary' change of power, which only results in more of the same.
Look up the lyrics on the internet - they're easy enough to find. I am sure The Who were not politically (or religiously, or in any ways) near any form of agreement with Evangelical Christianity, yet taken generically, the lyrics to this song are actually, for rock music, pretty profound.
The climactic final lines of that song demonstrate a similar thought to those of Mark Horne:
"Meet the new boss.......Same as the old boss!"
"Obama’s arrival is change from the Bush administration the way a baby is change from a pregnancy. He’s not a repudiation; he’s the ultimate end."
When I read that, I immediately thought of that classic hard rock anthem "Won't Get Fooled Again." by The Who. (I know - I'm kinda weird). The lyrics seem to speak of a 'revolutionary' change of power, which only results in more of the same.
Look up the lyrics on the internet - they're easy enough to find. I am sure The Who were not politically (or religiously, or in any ways) near any form of agreement with Evangelical Christianity, yet taken generically, the lyrics to this song are actually, for rock music, pretty profound.
The climactic final lines of that song demonstrate a similar thought to those of Mark Horne:
"Meet the new boss.......Same as the old boss!"
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Keynesian 'Solution'
Dictionary.com describes John Maynard Keynes as follows:
1883–1946, English economist and writer.
British economist who proposed that high unemployment, being a result of insufficient consumer spending, could be relieved by government-sponsored programs. He also advocated deficit spending by governments to stimulate ecomomic activity.
English economist who advocated the use of government monetary and fiscal policy to maintain full employment without inflation
Keynesian economics has dominated the American political economy for decades, going back at least to the great depression. It was Keynesian policy which FDR used to get us out (cough, gag) of the depression. In the late 1960s early 1970s Richard Nixon (who had taken us off the gold standard completely) stated “We’re all Keynesian now.”
Virtually every president since at least FDR has been to some extent or the other, Keynesian, no matter what else you may say about him. That even includes Reagan, though possibly to a lesser extent.
As can be seen from the above definitions, one of the main, perhaps THE main tenant of Keynesian economics is that during times of economic slowdown, the government should spend money on infrastructure and various projects in order to provide jobs, spur consumer spending, etc. This, supposedly will get the economy through the tough times. Once the economy recovers, the government spending can be curtailed. It is a form of planned economy.
Sounds good on paper to the layman, but there are more than a few drawbacks.
To start with, it really does not work. As I have said elsewhere, the state of the economy was at least as bad, if not worse in the late 1930s, after years of FDR, than it was when FDR took over. FDRs programs were, among many other things, Keynesian.
It is not a natural thing for the whole economy to be in a downturn all at the same time. Unfortunately, most people think that the free market will frequently result in a total economic meltdown, at which point some government intervention (in the form, at least, of Keynesian policies, if not outright socialism) is required. However, while no possible economic system can ever insulate every individual from hardship, the free market will never end up in an economic meltdown. The meltdowns that do occur (such as 1929 onward and our current situation) are almost always directly related to government intervention. However, the solution proposed by our government leaders? More government intervention. Make sense to you??? Yeah, me neither.
1929 was the result of government intervention. The as bad or worse situation of 1938 was due to continued government intervention.
Second, it is as close to an absolute fact as anything in the world that once government spending is started, it is not stopped. Many of the programs for economic recovery of the 1930s are still with us today. This causes continued deficits and other problems which result in further economy wide problems on down the road.
Third, and most importantly, there are long term negative effects of this type of spending (deficits and higher taxes and the further economic hardships that occur due to these things). When asked about what the effects of his policy would be in the long run, Keynes himself famously quipped, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” There ya go. That’s the philosophy we want to hand down to our kids, right? We want policy which we believe (rightly or wrongly) will benefit us, but who gives a rip what it will do to our descendents? Sure, count me in. I don’t care what Jr. says.
Now, what to do about our current mess? First off, let us be clear. Our problems are not the result of the free market gone wild. Our problems are directly related to over arching government intervention into the lives and businesses of individuals and corporations, from bad, even terrible tax policy, from wretched spending programs, from freedom squelching regulations, from currency devaluing monetary policy, and on and on. The proposed solution? More government. Create money out of thin air and spend it on ‘infrastructure,’ and a myriad of other social programs. In short, the current proposed solutions are the same old tired Keynesian policies which have actually contributed to the current mess.
In the end, I have no idea exactly how all this will turn out. But I can promise you, absent any major change, the direction we are heading is wrong. We can keep putting band-aids on our severed jugulars and keep the patient alive until hopefully, in the long run, we are all dead, OR we can care about our descendents and try to fix the problems permanently with sound, honest money, low taxes, limited government, and so forth.
What do you think?
1883–1946, English economist and writer.
British economist who proposed that high unemployment, being a result of insufficient consumer spending, could be relieved by government-sponsored programs. He also advocated deficit spending by governments to stimulate ecomomic activity.
English economist who advocated the use of government monetary and fiscal policy to maintain full employment without inflation
Keynesian economics has dominated the American political economy for decades, going back at least to the great depression. It was Keynesian policy which FDR used to get us out (cough, gag) of the depression. In the late 1960s early 1970s Richard Nixon (who had taken us off the gold standard completely) stated “We’re all Keynesian now.”
Virtually every president since at least FDR has been to some extent or the other, Keynesian, no matter what else you may say about him. That even includes Reagan, though possibly to a lesser extent.
As can be seen from the above definitions, one of the main, perhaps THE main tenant of Keynesian economics is that during times of economic slowdown, the government should spend money on infrastructure and various projects in order to provide jobs, spur consumer spending, etc. This, supposedly will get the economy through the tough times. Once the economy recovers, the government spending can be curtailed. It is a form of planned economy.
Sounds good on paper to the layman, but there are more than a few drawbacks.
To start with, it really does not work. As I have said elsewhere, the state of the economy was at least as bad, if not worse in the late 1930s, after years of FDR, than it was when FDR took over. FDRs programs were, among many other things, Keynesian.
It is not a natural thing for the whole economy to be in a downturn all at the same time. Unfortunately, most people think that the free market will frequently result in a total economic meltdown, at which point some government intervention (in the form, at least, of Keynesian policies, if not outright socialism) is required. However, while no possible economic system can ever insulate every individual from hardship, the free market will never end up in an economic meltdown. The meltdowns that do occur (such as 1929 onward and our current situation) are almost always directly related to government intervention. However, the solution proposed by our government leaders? More government intervention. Make sense to you??? Yeah, me neither.
1929 was the result of government intervention. The as bad or worse situation of 1938 was due to continued government intervention.
Second, it is as close to an absolute fact as anything in the world that once government spending is started, it is not stopped. Many of the programs for economic recovery of the 1930s are still with us today. This causes continued deficits and other problems which result in further economy wide problems on down the road.
Third, and most importantly, there are long term negative effects of this type of spending (deficits and higher taxes and the further economic hardships that occur due to these things). When asked about what the effects of his policy would be in the long run, Keynes himself famously quipped, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” There ya go. That’s the philosophy we want to hand down to our kids, right? We want policy which we believe (rightly or wrongly) will benefit us, but who gives a rip what it will do to our descendents? Sure, count me in. I don’t care what Jr. says.
Now, what to do about our current mess? First off, let us be clear. Our problems are not the result of the free market gone wild. Our problems are directly related to over arching government intervention into the lives and businesses of individuals and corporations, from bad, even terrible tax policy, from wretched spending programs, from freedom squelching regulations, from currency devaluing monetary policy, and on and on. The proposed solution? More government. Create money out of thin air and spend it on ‘infrastructure,’ and a myriad of other social programs. In short, the current proposed solutions are the same old tired Keynesian policies which have actually contributed to the current mess.
In the end, I have no idea exactly how all this will turn out. But I can promise you, absent any major change, the direction we are heading is wrong. We can keep putting band-aids on our severed jugulars and keep the patient alive until hopefully, in the long run, we are all dead, OR we can care about our descendents and try to fix the problems permanently with sound, honest money, low taxes, limited government, and so forth.
What do you think?
Another Freebird Falls
I heard on the way home last night, that Billy Powell, keyboardist for Lynyrd Skynyrd, passed away.
Powell's story was an interesting one. He had been classically trained as a pianist. In high school, he befriended Leon Wilkeson, future bassist for Skynyrd. Ultimately, he began working for the band as a roadie, setting up and taking down equipment, etc. No one in the band really knew that he even played an instrument, let alone that he was good.
One night in 1972 after the band had played at a prom (can you see Skynyrd playing a prom???) Billy had a few minutes and he sat down at a piano, and began playing "Freebird." Ronnie Van Zant was blown away. "Man, you mean you've been working with us for two years, and you can play like that??? We've been wanting to add a keyboardist. You're in the band."
The rest is history. Other members of the band have joked about Billy's playing. The problem is in holding him back. He does not know when to not play. he plays constantly, throughout the song. Although classically trained, Billy's work with Skynyrd produced more of a 'honky tonk' piano style.
This band (a favorite of my youth, and one that still holds a special place in my heart and mind) has had perhaps the most tragic history of any band. Everyone, of course, knows about the plane crash of October 20, 1977. That crash killed the heart and soul of Skynyrd - Ronnie Van Zant, as well as the most recent addition - Steve Gaines, who had replaced Ed King as third guitarist.
In subsequent years, guitarist Allen Collins was seriously injured (and his girlfriend killed) in an alcohol related auto accident. Collins was left permanently crippled.
In 1987, the band reunited and embarked on a reunion tour. On October 20, the ten year anniversary of the plane crash, they played the Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center. Your's truly was present, about 15 rows back from the stage. It was a great show. Included were Gary Rossington, Powell, Leon Wilkeson, and Ed King (original 3rd Guitarist). I'm thinking Artimus Pyle may have manned the drums that night, but I am not sure. Of course Johnny replaced his brother Ronnie on vocals. A touching moment was when Allen Collins came onto the stage in his wheelchair and praised the band, and encouraged everyone to not drink and drive.
The show was great and the band has been playing with varying lineups ever since. However, most of what they have done is insignificant tripe compared to the old days.
Since that night, however, Allen Collins subsequently passed away (I think around 1990) from further complications going back to his accident. A falling out occured amongst many of the old members. Ed King was kicked out (he claims that as a Californian, he was never accepted by the other members, even in the old days - even though he is responsible for the licks on Sweet Home Alabama, their biggest hit) Artimus Pyle has had major legal battles and is no longer welcome ni the band. Many of the old timers speak ill of Rossington.
In 2001, Leon Wilkeson died of liver problems, likely related to years of not living right.
Now, Powell dies at 56. He had a history of heart problems, and was significantly overweight in later years. I am sure that he had had substance abuse issues in his life too, but I have no idea if that was a demon he had conquered or if he still dealt with it.
During the original years of Skynyrd fame (1973-1977) the band had 6 or 7 members at any one time on any one album. With some rotation, this included a total of nine people. Of these, at least five are now dead (unless there are others I am unaware of.) Of these, Powell lived the longest, and that only to 56. The only ones still living are original drummer Bob Burns, replacement drummer Pyle, Original 3rd guitarist (and sometimes bassman) Ed King, and Gary Rossington. Of the current Skynyrd recording/touring group, only Rossington is present. King has had major heart problems. Pyle has had major legal problems. I don't know much about what has happened to Burns.
I got into Skynyrd after the plane crash - probably first latching on to their music around 1980. During my high school years, all of music could be divided into two categories. There was Lynyrd Skynyrd, then there was everything else. I've grown a great deal since then, thankfully. But the original Skynyrd will always have a place in my heart. Powell was an incredible talent, and, from what I could tell seemed to be a nice, soft spoken gentleman. He will be missed and remembered fondly.
Incidently, the childhood friend/neighbor I grew up with - his birthday was October 20, the day the plane went down. Now Powell dies on January 28 - my son's 19th birthday. Weird.
Powell's story was an interesting one. He had been classically trained as a pianist. In high school, he befriended Leon Wilkeson, future bassist for Skynyrd. Ultimately, he began working for the band as a roadie, setting up and taking down equipment, etc. No one in the band really knew that he even played an instrument, let alone that he was good.
One night in 1972 after the band had played at a prom (can you see Skynyrd playing a prom???) Billy had a few minutes and he sat down at a piano, and began playing "Freebird." Ronnie Van Zant was blown away. "Man, you mean you've been working with us for two years, and you can play like that??? We've been wanting to add a keyboardist. You're in the band."
The rest is history. Other members of the band have joked about Billy's playing. The problem is in holding him back. He does not know when to not play. he plays constantly, throughout the song. Although classically trained, Billy's work with Skynyrd produced more of a 'honky tonk' piano style.
This band (a favorite of my youth, and one that still holds a special place in my heart and mind) has had perhaps the most tragic history of any band. Everyone, of course, knows about the plane crash of October 20, 1977. That crash killed the heart and soul of Skynyrd - Ronnie Van Zant, as well as the most recent addition - Steve Gaines, who had replaced Ed King as third guitarist.
In subsequent years, guitarist Allen Collins was seriously injured (and his girlfriend killed) in an alcohol related auto accident. Collins was left permanently crippled.
In 1987, the band reunited and embarked on a reunion tour. On October 20, the ten year anniversary of the plane crash, they played the Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center. Your's truly was present, about 15 rows back from the stage. It was a great show. Included were Gary Rossington, Powell, Leon Wilkeson, and Ed King (original 3rd Guitarist). I'm thinking Artimus Pyle may have manned the drums that night, but I am not sure. Of course Johnny replaced his brother Ronnie on vocals. A touching moment was when Allen Collins came onto the stage in his wheelchair and praised the band, and encouraged everyone to not drink and drive.
The show was great and the band has been playing with varying lineups ever since. However, most of what they have done is insignificant tripe compared to the old days.
Since that night, however, Allen Collins subsequently passed away (I think around 1990) from further complications going back to his accident. A falling out occured amongst many of the old members. Ed King was kicked out (he claims that as a Californian, he was never accepted by the other members, even in the old days - even though he is responsible for the licks on Sweet Home Alabama, their biggest hit) Artimus Pyle has had major legal battles and is no longer welcome ni the band. Many of the old timers speak ill of Rossington.
In 2001, Leon Wilkeson died of liver problems, likely related to years of not living right.
Now, Powell dies at 56. He had a history of heart problems, and was significantly overweight in later years. I am sure that he had had substance abuse issues in his life too, but I have no idea if that was a demon he had conquered or if he still dealt with it.
During the original years of Skynyrd fame (1973-1977) the band had 6 or 7 members at any one time on any one album. With some rotation, this included a total of nine people. Of these, at least five are now dead (unless there are others I am unaware of.) Of these, Powell lived the longest, and that only to 56. The only ones still living are original drummer Bob Burns, replacement drummer Pyle, Original 3rd guitarist (and sometimes bassman) Ed King, and Gary Rossington. Of the current Skynyrd recording/touring group, only Rossington is present. King has had major heart problems. Pyle has had major legal problems. I don't know much about what has happened to Burns.
I got into Skynyrd after the plane crash - probably first latching on to their music around 1980. During my high school years, all of music could be divided into two categories. There was Lynyrd Skynyrd, then there was everything else. I've grown a great deal since then, thankfully. But the original Skynyrd will always have a place in my heart. Powell was an incredible talent, and, from what I could tell seemed to be a nice, soft spoken gentleman. He will be missed and remembered fondly.
Incidently, the childhood friend/neighbor I grew up with - his birthday was October 20, the day the plane went down. Now Powell dies on January 28 - my son's 19th birthday. Weird.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Obamanomics
Maybe interesting to some of my millions of readers.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/armentano-d/armentano16.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/armentano-d/armentano16.html
Thursday, January 8, 2009
A New Day on the Plains
I wrote a couple of posts below concerning Tuberville's tenure at Auburn. Some people loved him. Some people didn't.
I never quite knew where I stood with him. I did not understand the fuss about him when he was hired. He had five years head coaching experience. This was at Ole Miss who he took over when they had been hit with major probation. He did ok. Not great, but not terrible especially considering the circumstances. But, was he the best coach Auburn could have gotten?
He came to Auburn and brought his entire coaching staff in tact. After five years he had two four loss seasons, two five loss seasons, and a six loss season. His overall record was 38-24 (0.613) No conference championships (though he did play for one). Nowhere near any National Championship contention. I was ready for him to go. So were a lot of other people. Some were not.
The powers that be then made Auburn a laughing stock. Instead of firing him or doing something to improve things and generally going about it the right way, they sercretly flew the private jet of a major donor (and Board Member) to Louisville to hire Bobby Petrino just before the Alabama Game. Apparently they were then going to fire Tuberville and announce Petrino. I am glad we did not get Petrino.
However, the best laid plans have a way of failing. The plan leaked out. AU was embarassed. Petrino was embarassed and backed out. The AD got fired. Auburn surprisingly beat Alabama. Tuberville was kept on, given an extension. He promised a National Championship in his tenure. "You can write that down."
Surprises kept coming. After starting out with no seasons in five with less than four losses, in his sixth season he went 13-0, won the SEC, should have been able to play for the National Title. All of a sudden, everyone loves Tubby. He gets a huge extension. Big money. Oh, great great Coach. What then?
They start out the 2005 season losing the Georgia Tech. However, the only other loss in regular season was an OT loss to LSU who was a pretty darn good football team. The season ended on a low note with a bowl loss to Wisconsin.
2006 was a weird year. They were highly rated at one point. The finished a very good 11-2. However, they lost to Arkansas in embarrasing fashion and did not even show up for Georgia.
In 2007 they started out 1-2, losing to South Florida and Mississippi State. They did not show up for Georgia again. They finished 9-4.
2008....well.....don't get me started.
So, really, 2004-2006 were very respectable, even very good years. But, other than those three years, Auburn lost at least four games every single year under Tubby. Sure they won six straight over Bama (a Bama that was down mostly). They kept barely winning over Bama while Bama's bookend wins over Auburn were blowouts. Tubby never had the killer instinct. He never quite got AU over the hump, and was now on the downhill slide. He had a revolving door at the coordinator positions, yet kept basically the same staff in tact for fifteen years. He totally blew the Franklin hire.
Good or bad, love him or hate him, I truly believe it was time for Tommy to go.
"We should get a great coach," I thought. When we hired Gene Chizik, a man with a head coaching record of 5-19, I was speechless.
However, while only time will tell, I am very pleased with what Chizik has done so far. He has hired Gus Malzahn as OC. Gus led Tulsa to be a top 2 offense the last two years. This year they were in the top ten in both rushing AND passing as well as scoring. He has hired what appears to be several assistants on offense that are succesful coaches plus great recruiters. He kept one of the better defensive coaches off of Tuberville's staff who also is a good recruiter. He has hired a potentially very good D Coordinator. The good thing is that between all thee guys they have recruiting connections all over from Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and maybe others.
Oh, and the 13-0 season at Auburn? Chizik was the defensive coordinator. He left and went to Texas in 2005 where they went 13-0 and won the National Title. So Dude CAN coach!
It will be very interesting to see how that goes.
I never quite knew where I stood with him. I did not understand the fuss about him when he was hired. He had five years head coaching experience. This was at Ole Miss who he took over when they had been hit with major probation. He did ok. Not great, but not terrible especially considering the circumstances. But, was he the best coach Auburn could have gotten?
He came to Auburn and brought his entire coaching staff in tact. After five years he had two four loss seasons, two five loss seasons, and a six loss season. His overall record was 38-24 (0.613) No conference championships (though he did play for one). Nowhere near any National Championship contention. I was ready for him to go. So were a lot of other people. Some were not.
The powers that be then made Auburn a laughing stock. Instead of firing him or doing something to improve things and generally going about it the right way, they sercretly flew the private jet of a major donor (and Board Member) to Louisville to hire Bobby Petrino just before the Alabama Game. Apparently they were then going to fire Tuberville and announce Petrino. I am glad we did not get Petrino.
However, the best laid plans have a way of failing. The plan leaked out. AU was embarassed. Petrino was embarassed and backed out. The AD got fired. Auburn surprisingly beat Alabama. Tuberville was kept on, given an extension. He promised a National Championship in his tenure. "You can write that down."
Surprises kept coming. After starting out with no seasons in five with less than four losses, in his sixth season he went 13-0, won the SEC, should have been able to play for the National Title. All of a sudden, everyone loves Tubby. He gets a huge extension. Big money. Oh, great great Coach. What then?
They start out the 2005 season losing the Georgia Tech. However, the only other loss in regular season was an OT loss to LSU who was a pretty darn good football team. The season ended on a low note with a bowl loss to Wisconsin.
2006 was a weird year. They were highly rated at one point. The finished a very good 11-2. However, they lost to Arkansas in embarrasing fashion and did not even show up for Georgia.
In 2007 they started out 1-2, losing to South Florida and Mississippi State. They did not show up for Georgia again. They finished 9-4.
2008....well.....don't get me started.
So, really, 2004-2006 were very respectable, even very good years. But, other than those three years, Auburn lost at least four games every single year under Tubby. Sure they won six straight over Bama (a Bama that was down mostly). They kept barely winning over Bama while Bama's bookend wins over Auburn were blowouts. Tubby never had the killer instinct. He never quite got AU over the hump, and was now on the downhill slide. He had a revolving door at the coordinator positions, yet kept basically the same staff in tact for fifteen years. He totally blew the Franklin hire.
Good or bad, love him or hate him, I truly believe it was time for Tommy to go.
"We should get a great coach," I thought. When we hired Gene Chizik, a man with a head coaching record of 5-19, I was speechless.
However, while only time will tell, I am very pleased with what Chizik has done so far. He has hired Gus Malzahn as OC. Gus led Tulsa to be a top 2 offense the last two years. This year they were in the top ten in both rushing AND passing as well as scoring. He has hired what appears to be several assistants on offense that are succesful coaches plus great recruiters. He kept one of the better defensive coaches off of Tuberville's staff who also is a good recruiter. He has hired a potentially very good D Coordinator. The good thing is that between all thee guys they have recruiting connections all over from Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and maybe others.
Oh, and the 13-0 season at Auburn? Chizik was the defensive coordinator. He left and went to Texas in 2005 where they went 13-0 and won the National Title. So Dude CAN coach!
It will be very interesting to see how that goes.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Is this what is wrong with the current economy?
Awhile back, I wrote on the dismal state of economic knowledge. This lack of understanding is never more evident than in an economic crisis such as we now have.
Several weeks ago I happened to be watching TV. I believe it was CNN - which I never watch but I was at someone elses home who had it on. Some guy was talking about the current crisis. I very much wish I would have written his name down and took notes so that I could be more specific than I am able to be.
He was talking about how some experts have said this collapse was coming for quite some time. He said, until now, most 'experts' just thought these guys were crazy. Now it turns out they knew what they were talking about.
My immediate thought was that yes, the Autstrian School economists (and those of similar inclinations that may go by various names) have for years explained the business cycles and particularly huge drawn out recessions/depressions such as the one from 1929 to ~1942. These guys have stated again and again how we are going down the same road that led us to that disaster (only it is worse now because more and more of the obstacles on that road have been removed) and the result will be a depression even worse than that.
The problem is the market is not allowed to work. Government intervenes through regulation, through monetary policy, (including now the removal of the gold standard that at least we still had in 1929), Keynseyen (sp??) spending, jerking around interests rates, etc. The Austrians would argue that this government intervention into the natural economy is what causes the huge and drawn out crises.
Sure, in any economic system there will be countless contiunous 'little crises'. If you lose your job, that is a crisis and no type of economic system can guarantee that you will always have a job. However, a planned economy (where the government tries to control the whole economy) leads to economy wide crises. Just read the current headlines to see the result.
So, naturally, I assumed that this was what the CNN reporter was getting at. Planned economy, debased currency, all encompassing economic policy is what got us here. Some experts have said this for years, now it is coming true. The answer is to shrink government and reduce (almost to the point of elimination) its effect on the economy.
But, NOOOOOOO that is not what this guy was saying. He went on, and I paraphrase, but this is a very accurate paraphrase: "One thing we know for sure is that we can no longer just let the free market rule. That is what we have been doing and it has led us into this mess. We must have more regulation and control."
Does this guy live in the same universe that I do? We have had a free market up to now?
This of course was the exact same argument that has been used for eighty years now concerning the Great Depression. We had a free market. It began to crumble. Hoover refused to do anything thinking the free market would work. It crashed. FDR came in and instituted economic policies which led us out of the depression. Hurray for FDR. Hurray for our government saviour. Boo freedom.
However as Murray Rothbard showed conclusively in his book "America's Great Depression" this is not at all accurate. We were hardly a 'free market" in the years leading up to 1929. Hoover increased government intervention drastically (to the point that FDR ran against Hoover's 'big government' philosophy. FDR was clueless what to do. The result? Unemployment was higher in 1938 than it was in 1932 when FDR too over.
I don't know about you, but all that sounds familiar to me. We have not been in a free economy in my lifetime. Bush, in the face of bad economic indicators has tremendously increased government intervention, but is going down in history as a 'do nothing.' Obama is our FDR/Messiah. What will this all look like four, five or six years down the road.
I shudder to think.
However, I can't think for long, I have to go look for a job.
Several weeks ago I happened to be watching TV. I believe it was CNN - which I never watch but I was at someone elses home who had it on. Some guy was talking about the current crisis. I very much wish I would have written his name down and took notes so that I could be more specific than I am able to be.
He was talking about how some experts have said this collapse was coming for quite some time. He said, until now, most 'experts' just thought these guys were crazy. Now it turns out they knew what they were talking about.
My immediate thought was that yes, the Autstrian School economists (and those of similar inclinations that may go by various names) have for years explained the business cycles and particularly huge drawn out recessions/depressions such as the one from 1929 to ~1942. These guys have stated again and again how we are going down the same road that led us to that disaster (only it is worse now because more and more of the obstacles on that road have been removed) and the result will be a depression even worse than that.
The problem is the market is not allowed to work. Government intervenes through regulation, through monetary policy, (including now the removal of the gold standard that at least we still had in 1929), Keynseyen (sp??) spending, jerking around interests rates, etc. The Austrians would argue that this government intervention into the natural economy is what causes the huge and drawn out crises.
Sure, in any economic system there will be countless contiunous 'little crises'. If you lose your job, that is a crisis and no type of economic system can guarantee that you will always have a job. However, a planned economy (where the government tries to control the whole economy) leads to economy wide crises. Just read the current headlines to see the result.
So, naturally, I assumed that this was what the CNN reporter was getting at. Planned economy, debased currency, all encompassing economic policy is what got us here. Some experts have said this for years, now it is coming true. The answer is to shrink government and reduce (almost to the point of elimination) its effect on the economy.
But, NOOOOOOO that is not what this guy was saying. He went on, and I paraphrase, but this is a very accurate paraphrase: "One thing we know for sure is that we can no longer just let the free market rule. That is what we have been doing and it has led us into this mess. We must have more regulation and control."
Does this guy live in the same universe that I do? We have had a free market up to now?
This of course was the exact same argument that has been used for eighty years now concerning the Great Depression. We had a free market. It began to crumble. Hoover refused to do anything thinking the free market would work. It crashed. FDR came in and instituted economic policies which led us out of the depression. Hurray for FDR. Hurray for our government saviour. Boo freedom.
However as Murray Rothbard showed conclusively in his book "America's Great Depression" this is not at all accurate. We were hardly a 'free market" in the years leading up to 1929. Hoover increased government intervention drastically (to the point that FDR ran against Hoover's 'big government' philosophy. FDR was clueless what to do. The result? Unemployment was higher in 1938 than it was in 1932 when FDR too over.
I don't know about you, but all that sounds familiar to me. We have not been in a free economy in my lifetime. Bush, in the face of bad economic indicators has tremendously increased government intervention, but is going down in history as a 'do nothing.' Obama is our FDR/Messiah. What will this all look like four, five or six years down the road.
I shudder to think.
However, I can't think for long, I have to go look for a job.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Christmas
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
