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.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Tuberville'w Record
I know I've turned this into a sports blog, but lately I have not had time to write about much of anything, and I can churn out this sports stuff without much thought!
I found a site where I could actually calculate Tommy Tuberville's tenure at Auburn to determine how I think he has done. Because of the 13-0 season in 2004, and because for a time he had a pretty good streak against ranked opponents, everyone just sorta figures Tubby has been highly successful and one bad season should not do him in. However, consider....
Tuberville's overall record as of today at AU is 84-38 which is a .689 winning percentage. That is not too bad, though it is certainly not legendary coach status for sure. It is roughly the same percentage that Shug Jordan maintained at Auburn for 25 years, and is lower than Pat Dye's percentage. However, consider that Jordan came into an Auburn program that had been down and out for over thirty years, (they were o-10 the year before) was beat like a step child by Bama on a regular basis, but in his 7th year he won a National title. Beginning in his 8th year he had to compete in every way imaginable with the Bear who was basically the perenial SEC champ every year, as well as frequent NC winner or at least contender. That is, Shug, over a much longer period of time and against much greater odds still maintained basically the same record as Tubby has during a ten year streak in which Bama was down and out.
Dye took over an AU team that had not beaten Bama in recent memory, and turned it all around and made it a competitive rivalry again.
Tubby did do a good job getting AU back competitive again, and has beat Bama in 7 out of 9 tries (best pct of any AU coach by far) but he has done so during the bleakest years at Bama since the 1950s and he has still not managed to take full advantage of the situation - never once beating UAT handily and now losing the recrruiting battle severely.
However, when we look at that 84-38 record, we need to also understand that Auburn is 18-0 (as they should be) against 'cupcakes' (Ball St., The Citadel, etc) and 5-1 against what I would call 'mid level' non-conference competition (Central Florida, South Florida, etc.) Against anything remotely approaching 'quality' non-conference teams, Tubby is 9-9. This includes his total records against Clemson (1-0) Georgia Tech (0-2) Kansas State (1-0) Michigan (0-1) Nebraska (1-0) North Carolina (0-1) Penn State (1-0) Southern Miss (1-0) West Va (0-1) USC (0-2) Syracuse (1-1) Va Tech (1-0) Washignton St (1-0) and Wisconsin (1-1). So, TT is 23-1 against those teams which he should be 23-1 against, and 9-9 (.500) against teams that should be about his equal level. I would say that .500 makes him 'average' wouldn't you?
What about the SEC? As stated before, the greatest thing in his coaching career is his 7-2 record against Bama (of course it looks like it is about to be 7-3). But again, this has been against a down and out Bama program. The 2002 and 2003 victories were sweet for their own reasons, and all these wins over the hated Bamers are great, but on basically every one of them, AU has struggled and just come out victorious by the skin of their teeth. The last Bama win, however, was a 31-7 thrashing (when AU was actually a better team that year) and this year looks like another thrashing. In other words, when AU is (supposedly) up and Bama is definitely down, Auburn eeks out a bunch of wins. When Bama is up and AU is down, it is a thrashing. (of course, AU could win or give them a good game this year, but from here it looks like it might be ugly).
Overall in the SEC, AU is 52-28 for a .650 pctg. That is good (if .500 is 'average' then .65 is above average) However, there are certain teams that during these ten years, AU should pretty much beat every single time. The proof of the pudding is, how do they do against 'quality' SEC opponents.
Right now, AU is 5-5 (.500) against LSU, and have lost twice in a row. They are 5-4, and surely about to be 5-5 against UGA, which would include a third loss in a row, probably by a large margin for the third year in a row. Although TT has a rep as a Gator beater, he is actually 3-4 against UF. He is 4-1 against UT, but that includes this year when UT was down and out worse than even AU. And it includes beating them twice in the 2004 13-0 run. Stepping down a slight level in quality, and this is one that really makes me mad, AU is 5-5 against Arkansas. Arkansas this year is a terrible team, yet they beat AU. Several times in these ten years, Ark has routed Auburn. Several of the 5 victories AU has over Ark have been nail biters that could have gone either way.
Auburn has also lost three times to Ole Miss, and three times to MSU. And now they have even lost to Vandy.
Against 'Quality" SEC opponents (throw out Ole Miss, MSU, KY, Vandy, SC) AU is 29-21 for a .58 winning percentage.
If you can look even deeper than the records, you will see what I have already hinted at....AU wins usually close, ugly games, but loses bad. Alabama, LSU, Florida, Arkansas, and Georgia have all routed Auburn under TT. I am not sure how many times AU has routed those opponents, though. I know they did once or twice agains UGA and LSU, but the point is, there have been many very ugly losses during these ten years, and a lot of the victories have been games that could have gone either way.
Of course, there will always be some close games that you win, and some you lose and I guess AU has won more than they lost. But here is the real point in all this....Supposedly TT has done an outstanding job at AU, and it is unfair to talk of firing him after one bad year. The truth is, AU has done average under TT, has lost some very embarassing games, has in every year except one totally failed to show up for at least one game per year, has one one SEC title in ten years, has had one really good season in ten years. AU has essentially been an 8-4 team year in and year out and usually 2-3 of those wins have been against absolute cupcakes, and 3-4 of those wins have been against teams they should beat 8/10 times. Against comparable teams, AU is basically at .500 which means they are doing average.
In ten years under Tuberville, AU has been average.
The question for the AU nation is, "Are you satisfied with average?"
I found a site where I could actually calculate Tommy Tuberville's tenure at Auburn to determine how I think he has done. Because of the 13-0 season in 2004, and because for a time he had a pretty good streak against ranked opponents, everyone just sorta figures Tubby has been highly successful and one bad season should not do him in. However, consider....
Tuberville's overall record as of today at AU is 84-38 which is a .689 winning percentage. That is not too bad, though it is certainly not legendary coach status for sure. It is roughly the same percentage that Shug Jordan maintained at Auburn for 25 years, and is lower than Pat Dye's percentage. However, consider that Jordan came into an Auburn program that had been down and out for over thirty years, (they were o-10 the year before) was beat like a step child by Bama on a regular basis, but in his 7th year he won a National title. Beginning in his 8th year he had to compete in every way imaginable with the Bear who was basically the perenial SEC champ every year, as well as frequent NC winner or at least contender. That is, Shug, over a much longer period of time and against much greater odds still maintained basically the same record as Tubby has during a ten year streak in which Bama was down and out.
Dye took over an AU team that had not beaten Bama in recent memory, and turned it all around and made it a competitive rivalry again.
Tubby did do a good job getting AU back competitive again, and has beat Bama in 7 out of 9 tries (best pct of any AU coach by far) but he has done so during the bleakest years at Bama since the 1950s and he has still not managed to take full advantage of the situation - never once beating UAT handily and now losing the recrruiting battle severely.
However, when we look at that 84-38 record, we need to also understand that Auburn is 18-0 (as they should be) against 'cupcakes' (Ball St., The Citadel, etc) and 5-1 against what I would call 'mid level' non-conference competition (Central Florida, South Florida, etc.) Against anything remotely approaching 'quality' non-conference teams, Tubby is 9-9. This includes his total records against Clemson (1-0) Georgia Tech (0-2) Kansas State (1-0) Michigan (0-1) Nebraska (1-0) North Carolina (0-1) Penn State (1-0) Southern Miss (1-0) West Va (0-1) USC (0-2) Syracuse (1-1) Va Tech (1-0) Washignton St (1-0) and Wisconsin (1-1). So, TT is 23-1 against those teams which he should be 23-1 against, and 9-9 (.500) against teams that should be about his equal level. I would say that .500 makes him 'average' wouldn't you?
What about the SEC? As stated before, the greatest thing in his coaching career is his 7-2 record against Bama (of course it looks like it is about to be 7-3). But again, this has been against a down and out Bama program. The 2002 and 2003 victories were sweet for their own reasons, and all these wins over the hated Bamers are great, but on basically every one of them, AU has struggled and just come out victorious by the skin of their teeth. The last Bama win, however, was a 31-7 thrashing (when AU was actually a better team that year) and this year looks like another thrashing. In other words, when AU is (supposedly) up and Bama is definitely down, Auburn eeks out a bunch of wins. When Bama is up and AU is down, it is a thrashing. (of course, AU could win or give them a good game this year, but from here it looks like it might be ugly).
Overall in the SEC, AU is 52-28 for a .650 pctg. That is good (if .500 is 'average' then .65 is above average) However, there are certain teams that during these ten years, AU should pretty much beat every single time. The proof of the pudding is, how do they do against 'quality' SEC opponents.
Right now, AU is 5-5 (.500) against LSU, and have lost twice in a row. They are 5-4, and surely about to be 5-5 against UGA, which would include a third loss in a row, probably by a large margin for the third year in a row. Although TT has a rep as a Gator beater, he is actually 3-4 against UF. He is 4-1 against UT, but that includes this year when UT was down and out worse than even AU. And it includes beating them twice in the 2004 13-0 run. Stepping down a slight level in quality, and this is one that really makes me mad, AU is 5-5 against Arkansas. Arkansas this year is a terrible team, yet they beat AU. Several times in these ten years, Ark has routed Auburn. Several of the 5 victories AU has over Ark have been nail biters that could have gone either way.
Auburn has also lost three times to Ole Miss, and three times to MSU. And now they have even lost to Vandy.
Against 'Quality" SEC opponents (throw out Ole Miss, MSU, KY, Vandy, SC) AU is 29-21 for a .58 winning percentage.
If you can look even deeper than the records, you will see what I have already hinted at....AU wins usually close, ugly games, but loses bad. Alabama, LSU, Florida, Arkansas, and Georgia have all routed Auburn under TT. I am not sure how many times AU has routed those opponents, though. I know they did once or twice agains UGA and LSU, but the point is, there have been many very ugly losses during these ten years, and a lot of the victories have been games that could have gone either way.
Of course, there will always be some close games that you win, and some you lose and I guess AU has won more than they lost. But here is the real point in all this....Supposedly TT has done an outstanding job at AU, and it is unfair to talk of firing him after one bad year. The truth is, AU has done average under TT, has lost some very embarassing games, has in every year except one totally failed to show up for at least one game per year, has one one SEC title in ten years, has had one really good season in ten years. AU has essentially been an 8-4 team year in and year out and usually 2-3 of those wins have been against absolute cupcakes, and 3-4 of those wins have been against teams they should beat 8/10 times. Against comparable teams, AU is basically at .500 which means they are doing average.
In ten years under Tuberville, AU has been average.
The question for the AU nation is, "Are you satisfied with average?"
Friday, October 24, 2008
Worse times on the Plains
I have to wonder where the bottom is. How much lower can this thing go. Since Franklin's firing, AU has lost two straight....and in embarrasing fashion.
They lost to what I thought was probably the worst team in the SEC - Arkansas. The scary thing was, not only did the offense continue to struggle monumentally, but the defense struggled too, allowing a pitiful Arkansas offense to actually look good.
Then, last night, Auburn blew a 17-3 first half lead, allowing 31 unanswered points to lose to a mediocre West Va. team. WVU had 17 plays of over ten yards. Their running back had 207 yards rushing. Pat White threw three touchdown passes. The defense, which looked so awesome saving victories for the anemic offense earlier in the year, has now totally tanked.
At the start of this year I was excited at the prospect of a high potency offense to go with our strong defense. Immediately I saw that the offense was going to be a drawn out process. Then the offense just became bad. Then the defense began to struggle. Now the defense is just plain bad. Add to this bad punting, bad field goal kicking, and inconsistent kickoffs and what do you have? You have a BAD TEAM. That's right, AU is a bad team. No two ways about it.
There is of course rumbling about firing the coach. That may be what we need, but I do not know for sure. I have never been totally sold on Tubberville. He bought a LOT of patience with me in '04, going 13-0. But, that patience has now worn off. The offense since that time has progressively gotten worse - spiraling down hill so fast as to make you dizzy. Now the rest of the team is following suit. I see only two possible explanations for this. Either AU just does not have the players to compete or they have the players but they are not properly coached. (Ok, a third possibility is they do not have the players AND they are not well coached) Either way, all this falls on Tubby. If they do not have the players, whose fault is that? If they are not well coached, whose fault is that?
I am hesitant to scream for his firing because things like this have happened to great coaches before. In 1969 and 1970, Bama fans were yelling for the end of the Bryant era. He basically went somewhere around 6-5 those years, and lost to AU both years. He was past his prime they said. The game had passed him by, they said. But, he stayed and won 3 National Championships in the 1970s. There is no way Bama could have been that good without him.
In a far more recent occurence, Penn State has struggled for several years. Fans were reluctant to call for Joe Pa's head because he had been there longer than most of them had been alive, but certainly people were assuming the old man was way past his prime. But now look. PSU is undefeated, ranked high, and is in my opinion one of the four or five best teams in the country.
Therefore, it is possible that Tubby's best years are to come. Perhaps this is a slump that he will get out of. Therefore, I am slow to just automatically call for his firing. However, I tend to think that he is just not into it like he should be. He seems almost nonchalant most of the time. To me, he just does not come across like he has the fire (in fact, he never has). I think at least if he stays, he needs to make some major changes.
He has had almost the same staff of coaches since his arrival, except for the revolving door at offensive and defensive coordinator. He keeps firing or otherwise loosing his coordinators, then hiring new ones and forcing them to use the existing staff. On the whole this has worked fairly well on defense (where he has lost at least two coordinators to Texas), but it has caused untold problems on offense as seen by the whole Tony Franklin fiasco. (Franklin wanted to bring his own people in, but Tubs would not let him. Franklin therefore had to teach both the players AND the other coaches his offense and apparently the coaches were not too eager to learn.)
I believe at the very least Tubby needs to evaluate where they are at right now, and make changes during this off season. Every single coach on staff needs to be evaluated. He needs to fire those who are not performing. I know it would be hard, but life is hard.
If he is not willing to do this, or if really deep down his fire is gone, he needs to just resign.
If he is unwilling to do either, then whether or not AU fires him, they need not adjust his contract any at all in a positive way until major improvement is made. I do not believe in firing him and having to pay the multi-million dollar buyout. But I certainly would not give him one minute of an extension or one penny of a raise - at least until something changes.
I wonder if Tubby is still miffed at the 2003 ordeal, though. In '03, AU was suppose to be fairly good, but they lost four games, never looked particularly good - especially on offense. In 2002 their offense was pretty good but they lost then OC Bobby Patrino to Louisville. Rather than hiring a new OC, Tubby made 'joint OCs' out of offensive line coach Hugh Nall and Steve Ensminger. The whole thing was a disaster and the offense looked inept all year. Right before the Iron Bowl, some AU officials, including then AD David Housel went on a private plane to Louiville to coax Patrino to come to AU after they fired TUbby. Word leaked out, the whole thing blew up. AU backed out. Auburn beat Alabama. The next year Tubby hired Al Borges as OC and AU went 13-0 and should have played for the National Title. AU officials looked stupid for doing what they did. But, really, at the time, I was thinking it was the right thing to do - just maybe not the right way to do it.
My how things changed after that. AUs offense has been on a downhill slide since then. After the '07 season Tubby fired Borges (still keeping his good ole boys on the staff) hired Franklin without allowing him to bring his people in and the whole thing looks like I don't know what. In what is more than a bit of irony, Tubby fired Franklin mid season leaving, you guessed it, Nall and Ensminger in charge of the offense again and the first game after that AU lost to a horrible Arkansas team coached by......Bobby Patrino.
All in all, to me Tubby has been an average at best coach who had one outstanding year (in which he had FOUR first round NFL picks on the team including the entire offensive backfield). Beyond this, he has had a couple of pretty good years, a couple of pretty bad years (the present being the worst), and a bunch of mediocre years. He is a mediocre coach, in my opinion. Doug Barfield was fired after five years in which he tried to lead a probation damaged team while the Bear was still coaching across the state. I believe that Barfield would have done at least as good as Tubby in the same situation, and Tubby would have done at least as bad as Barfield in his situation. Yet, we are suppose to love Tubby and Barfield is a forgotten joke of a coach in Auburn history.
I think the biggest problem I have is that Tubby has not taken advantage of his strong situation. Sure, he has beat Bama six in a row, but it has been a highly damaged Bama team and he has not beat them in an impressive fashion the whole time. The average margin has been about 8 points, and the largest margin has only been by 10 points. But, what is more alarming to me is that even during these years of winning consistently against Bama, and even after going 13-0, he has not capitalized with great recruiting classes. AU is a wonderful and beautiful institution with great tradition. Yet even with all that in his favor, Auburn is already way behind Bama and Nick Saban in recruiting. It will only get worse from here.
I really do not know where AU can go from here, but SOMETHING has to change.
They lost to what I thought was probably the worst team in the SEC - Arkansas. The scary thing was, not only did the offense continue to struggle monumentally, but the defense struggled too, allowing a pitiful Arkansas offense to actually look good.
Then, last night, Auburn blew a 17-3 first half lead, allowing 31 unanswered points to lose to a mediocre West Va. team. WVU had 17 plays of over ten yards. Their running back had 207 yards rushing. Pat White threw three touchdown passes. The defense, which looked so awesome saving victories for the anemic offense earlier in the year, has now totally tanked.
At the start of this year I was excited at the prospect of a high potency offense to go with our strong defense. Immediately I saw that the offense was going to be a drawn out process. Then the offense just became bad. Then the defense began to struggle. Now the defense is just plain bad. Add to this bad punting, bad field goal kicking, and inconsistent kickoffs and what do you have? You have a BAD TEAM. That's right, AU is a bad team. No two ways about it.
There is of course rumbling about firing the coach. That may be what we need, but I do not know for sure. I have never been totally sold on Tubberville. He bought a LOT of patience with me in '04, going 13-0. But, that patience has now worn off. The offense since that time has progressively gotten worse - spiraling down hill so fast as to make you dizzy. Now the rest of the team is following suit. I see only two possible explanations for this. Either AU just does not have the players to compete or they have the players but they are not properly coached. (Ok, a third possibility is they do not have the players AND they are not well coached) Either way, all this falls on Tubby. If they do not have the players, whose fault is that? If they are not well coached, whose fault is that?
I am hesitant to scream for his firing because things like this have happened to great coaches before. In 1969 and 1970, Bama fans were yelling for the end of the Bryant era. He basically went somewhere around 6-5 those years, and lost to AU both years. He was past his prime they said. The game had passed him by, they said. But, he stayed and won 3 National Championships in the 1970s. There is no way Bama could have been that good without him.
In a far more recent occurence, Penn State has struggled for several years. Fans were reluctant to call for Joe Pa's head because he had been there longer than most of them had been alive, but certainly people were assuming the old man was way past his prime. But now look. PSU is undefeated, ranked high, and is in my opinion one of the four or five best teams in the country.
Therefore, it is possible that Tubby's best years are to come. Perhaps this is a slump that he will get out of. Therefore, I am slow to just automatically call for his firing. However, I tend to think that he is just not into it like he should be. He seems almost nonchalant most of the time. To me, he just does not come across like he has the fire (in fact, he never has). I think at least if he stays, he needs to make some major changes.
He has had almost the same staff of coaches since his arrival, except for the revolving door at offensive and defensive coordinator. He keeps firing or otherwise loosing his coordinators, then hiring new ones and forcing them to use the existing staff. On the whole this has worked fairly well on defense (where he has lost at least two coordinators to Texas), but it has caused untold problems on offense as seen by the whole Tony Franklin fiasco. (Franklin wanted to bring his own people in, but Tubs would not let him. Franklin therefore had to teach both the players AND the other coaches his offense and apparently the coaches were not too eager to learn.)
I believe at the very least Tubby needs to evaluate where they are at right now, and make changes during this off season. Every single coach on staff needs to be evaluated. He needs to fire those who are not performing. I know it would be hard, but life is hard.
If he is not willing to do this, or if really deep down his fire is gone, he needs to just resign.
If he is unwilling to do either, then whether or not AU fires him, they need not adjust his contract any at all in a positive way until major improvement is made. I do not believe in firing him and having to pay the multi-million dollar buyout. But I certainly would not give him one minute of an extension or one penny of a raise - at least until something changes.
I wonder if Tubby is still miffed at the 2003 ordeal, though. In '03, AU was suppose to be fairly good, but they lost four games, never looked particularly good - especially on offense. In 2002 their offense was pretty good but they lost then OC Bobby Patrino to Louisville. Rather than hiring a new OC, Tubby made 'joint OCs' out of offensive line coach Hugh Nall and Steve Ensminger. The whole thing was a disaster and the offense looked inept all year. Right before the Iron Bowl, some AU officials, including then AD David Housel went on a private plane to Louiville to coax Patrino to come to AU after they fired TUbby. Word leaked out, the whole thing blew up. AU backed out. Auburn beat Alabama. The next year Tubby hired Al Borges as OC and AU went 13-0 and should have played for the National Title. AU officials looked stupid for doing what they did. But, really, at the time, I was thinking it was the right thing to do - just maybe not the right way to do it.
My how things changed after that. AUs offense has been on a downhill slide since then. After the '07 season Tubby fired Borges (still keeping his good ole boys on the staff) hired Franklin without allowing him to bring his people in and the whole thing looks like I don't know what. In what is more than a bit of irony, Tubby fired Franklin mid season leaving, you guessed it, Nall and Ensminger in charge of the offense again and the first game after that AU lost to a horrible Arkansas team coached by......Bobby Patrino.
All in all, to me Tubby has been an average at best coach who had one outstanding year (in which he had FOUR first round NFL picks on the team including the entire offensive backfield). Beyond this, he has had a couple of pretty good years, a couple of pretty bad years (the present being the worst), and a bunch of mediocre years. He is a mediocre coach, in my opinion. Doug Barfield was fired after five years in which he tried to lead a probation damaged team while the Bear was still coaching across the state. I believe that Barfield would have done at least as good as Tubby in the same situation, and Tubby would have done at least as bad as Barfield in his situation. Yet, we are suppose to love Tubby and Barfield is a forgotten joke of a coach in Auburn history.
I think the biggest problem I have is that Tubby has not taken advantage of his strong situation. Sure, he has beat Bama six in a row, but it has been a highly damaged Bama team and he has not beat them in an impressive fashion the whole time. The average margin has been about 8 points, and the largest margin has only been by 10 points. But, what is more alarming to me is that even during these years of winning consistently against Bama, and even after going 13-0, he has not capitalized with great recruiting classes. AU is a wonderful and beautiful institution with great tradition. Yet even with all that in his favor, Auburn is already way behind Bama and Nick Saban in recruiting. It will only get worse from here.
I really do not know where AU can go from here, but SOMETHING has to change.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Bad times on the Plains
I have been wanting to write about the sorry state of affairs at Auburn all year long, but have not gotten around to it. I'm glad I haven't because yesterday the whole thing took a major turn of events. I do not have any idea if this will be a positive move or further the slide downhill.
Tony Franklin of the much vaunted Tony Franklin System was hired last December to take Auburn's offense to new heights. After six games, they have fallen to unprecedented depths. During the middle of the week after an embarrassing loss to Vanderbilt and facing yet another conference opponent in Arkansas in three days, Coach Tommy Tuberville relieved Franklin of his duties. I really do not know what all to say about this except that I am almost one hundred percent sure there is much more than meets the eye.
Franklin coached High School Ball with apparently some level of success for several years. In the late 1990s, he became an assistant at the University of Kentucky (his home state). He was QB coach and coached such greats as Tim Couch, who set all sorts of records, as well as Jared Lorenzen, who was also quite successful. I believe both of these guys averaged well over 300 yards passing per game. Kentucky had a phenominal offense and a very average at best defense. But, Kentucky did win more than they usually have - even going to bowl games. If they only had a defense.....
However, the whole thing fell apart at KY, as Head Coach Hal Mumme was run out of town under allegations of wrongdoing. Franklin retreated out of coaching, wrote a book about his time at UK where he named names in the whole scandal. He then began developing and marketing his system mostly to high school teams all over the country.
His system drew teams from all over the place. Close to my home is Hoover High School, who had used his system to win like five out of six state championships - being so good that they got their very own MTV show called "Two a Days."
Some colleges also ran his system. Most notably of these have been Texas Tech. The Red Raiders have always been a middle of the road team. But in recent years their offense has been so good that they have begun winning. If they only had a defense......
Well, apparently, they have finally developed some defense and are now a top ten team. Last weak they scored 58 points.
I believe other teams either run the TF system or some offense similar. I believe that Oregon was running it and was undefeated and one of the best teams in the country last year until their QB got hurt. West Virginia has run some variation on the spread offense to much success. The current number one team in the country, Oklahoma, runs some variation of the spread (I do not know how related it is to the Franklin system) and they have the best offense around.
I went onto Youtube, and looked at some old Kentucky highlights with Couch and Lorenzen. VERY exciting stuff - even realizing that these were highlights and undoubtedly there were plenty of unseccuessful plays mixed in, too, that weren't shown.
So, we get this genius, this guy who makes Kentucky, Texas Tech, and Oregon to be contenders, this guy whose systems wins High School Championships, we get him to come to Auburn - a team whose offense has struggled in the past couple of years, but who has a very strong defense. We get that offense playing to the level of the defense, and we will be tough to beat. Many in AU land were excited.
I expected that they would not be lighting up the scoreboard right off the bat. I was glad we opened with a very weak team, followed by a very mediocre team, so as to help get in stride. I figured by the third game of the year, we should be showing massive improvement.
Well, the first game against La Monroe was somewhat concerning. Sure, they won 34-0, which is actually a quite modest score for a 'powerhouse' against a weak sister. However, one touchdown came on a defensive play where a fumble was recovered and returned, and another came on a beautiful punt return. Therefore, Auburn's vaunted, high octane spread offense scored a whopping 20 points against this gosh-awful team from the bayou state. On top of that, in four quarters against a warm up opponent, AU had less than 100 yards of passing, moving the ball most effectively on the ground. This is the Spread?
The next week found AU playing a fair, but not really good, Southern Miss team. The first two possessions, Auburn marched down the field beautifully, but fumbled the ball away deep in USM territory both times. They still went on to build something like a 17-0 (or something like that) halftime lead then held on to win 27-13. Not great, but at least there was promise. Without the two fumbles, it could have been 31-0 at the half, and who knows where it would have ended up. Now, this is what I am talking about!! Not great, but progress - potential greatness in the making.
However, since the first half of that game, the wheels have completely come off. Auburn beat Mississippi State, a bona finde cellar team in the SEC in probably the most embarring win in Auburn history. Their high charged offense scored five points! And two of them were for Mississippi State, winning 3-2. Oh, well, I thought. Still working some kinks out. Maybe MSU has a great defense. That was shot down for me the next week when MSU lost to Georgia Tech something like 38-7!
The next game was against LSU - the defending National Champs. Very good team. AU managed to go up 14-3 and knock their starting QB out of the game. (One of the TDs was an interception for a TD so only one offensive TD) The other QB for LSU came in and played flawlessly in the second half. Still AU managed to drive for a TD in the fourth and regain the lead at 21-20. A short punt set LSU up near midfield late, and they drove for the winning TD. Oh well. They are great. We may be making at least some progress.
Next came Tennessee - who is very sub par for a UT team. Again, we build a 14-3 lead early, in part due to a Tennessee fumble recovered in the end zone. We hang on to win 14-12 - putting constant pressure on our defense to hold UT time and again with good field position as our offense could not move the ball.
Finally, the last nail came last week against Vandy. Granted, this is the best Vandy team in a long time. They are undefeated - the deepest they have been so since WWII!! However, they have done so through just finding some way to win. Actually, coming into the game, they were rated last in the SEC in total offense and total defense. (How they could have been behind AU in offense is beyond me)
AU came out scrapping the spread and playing power ball. First three plays were sweeps to the right side by Ben Tate. All three went for over ten yards. They continued to drive down the field getting a first and goal inside the five. They then ran four straight plays up the middle and did not score. Not to worry, they stopped Vandy, got the ball back and drove down the field, mixing run and pass and scored easily.
When Vandy go the ball back again, AU intercepted a pass, then scored quickly again on a beautiful pass play. The route was on. Oh, but one minor flaw, they missed the PAT.
After one quarter, Auburn had well over one hundred yards offense, 13 points which very easily could have been 21. They were in complete control of the game.
From that point on, they scrapped what they were doing and went to the TFS spread for the rest of the game. They managed a TOTAL of 82 yards offense for the remaining three quarters. Once again, the starting QB for the opponent left the game, but the backup played beautifully. AU let Vandy hang around, until finally, Vandy won the dadgum thing 14-13.
Let's think about this. As far as offensive points produced, AU has scored 20 (out of 34), 27, 3, 14 (out of 21), 14, 13. That, my friends is an average 15 points per game, and other than LSU, this was against very subpar defenses. The worst thing is that there has been absolutely zero progression from week to week. Actually, it appears to me that there has been regression.
Tuberville insists he is sticking by Franklin and the spread. That is, until yesterday, when suddenly he fired him. I am at a loss for exactly what is going on here. I do believe there is more than meets the eye, but I have no idea precisely what it is. But, here are a few observations:
* Auburn's great offensive line has struggled constantly with procedure penatlies, holding, and just getting outmanned.
* The negative plays from the first line above have frequently happened at the most inopportune time - just as we get one or two positive plays and good field position and momentum, we have a procedure, hold, or sack.
* Watching Tim Couch highlights, I recognized right off the whole offense was not the same as AU is currently running.
----He frequently had one and sometimes two tight ends and one and sometimes two backs in the backfield. This was mixed in with an occasional no back, no tight end set. Auburn a great deal of the time runs with no backs or tight ends, placing tremendous pressure on the five linemen.
---- He would frequently line up under center - AU has stuck predominately with the shotgun play after play.
---- The UK linemen would often line up in a three point stance - AUs is almost exclusively in a two point stance.
---- UK ran a ton of quick plays - either by design, or as a safety valve drop off. Even when these only get 1-5 yards, that is better than zero or negative yardage. AU seems to run plays that take ten minutes to develop, and usually end up blowing up in their face.
---- Because of the above, UK seemed to keep pressure on the Defense. The only defense AUs offense has pressured has been their own.
I have no idea what precipitated the firing. I do not believe it came out of thin air. I believe there is something going on - whether it be chemistry among the coaches (and this could be TTs fault, or TFs - I really do not know) . there could be insurmountable frustration on the players parts. There apparently was some sort of a blow up in the last day or two - though Tuberville the Politician insists nothing of the sort led to the dismissal.
I tend to think as the season progressed, TT began pressuring TF to produce. By the time of the Vandy game, TT could well have said "Give the rest of us the first quarter to see what we can do, then I'll give it back to you." You see how that worked out. I imagine at this point, TT was calling for TF to back up and rethink what he was doing. TF probably took this as an insult. Sparks flew. TF is gone. Coaches have egos (see Nick Saban).
Tubs is actually insistent on his love for the spread and claims to keep plugging away at it. Doing so without the spread guru himself tells me there must have been major personality/philosophical issues going on behind the scenes.
One thing I do know. Auburns offense, which ranks worse than 100th in the country in virtually every stat, has been for all intents and purpose, totally non-productive. I mean totally. Yet, we have two losses each against a team that is still undefeated and highly ranked. These losses have been by a total of six points. If we can simply have an offense that can produce some time of possession, field position, and some amount of scoring, AU can end the year quite successfully. That is my hope. My fear is that this, yet another embarassing moment in AU football history, may have long term negative impacts in terms of national perception, and recruiting - as well as in terms of who in the world would now come to AU as Offensive cooridinator? TT ahs had 5 in ten years!
Oh, well, we'll just have to watch and see!
Tony Franklin of the much vaunted Tony Franklin System was hired last December to take Auburn's offense to new heights. After six games, they have fallen to unprecedented depths. During the middle of the week after an embarrassing loss to Vanderbilt and facing yet another conference opponent in Arkansas in three days, Coach Tommy Tuberville relieved Franklin of his duties. I really do not know what all to say about this except that I am almost one hundred percent sure there is much more than meets the eye.
Franklin coached High School Ball with apparently some level of success for several years. In the late 1990s, he became an assistant at the University of Kentucky (his home state). He was QB coach and coached such greats as Tim Couch, who set all sorts of records, as well as Jared Lorenzen, who was also quite successful. I believe both of these guys averaged well over 300 yards passing per game. Kentucky had a phenominal offense and a very average at best defense. But, Kentucky did win more than they usually have - even going to bowl games. If they only had a defense.....
However, the whole thing fell apart at KY, as Head Coach Hal Mumme was run out of town under allegations of wrongdoing. Franklin retreated out of coaching, wrote a book about his time at UK where he named names in the whole scandal. He then began developing and marketing his system mostly to high school teams all over the country.
His system drew teams from all over the place. Close to my home is Hoover High School, who had used his system to win like five out of six state championships - being so good that they got their very own MTV show called "Two a Days."
Some colleges also ran his system. Most notably of these have been Texas Tech. The Red Raiders have always been a middle of the road team. But in recent years their offense has been so good that they have begun winning. If they only had a defense......
Well, apparently, they have finally developed some defense and are now a top ten team. Last weak they scored 58 points.
I believe other teams either run the TF system or some offense similar. I believe that Oregon was running it and was undefeated and one of the best teams in the country last year until their QB got hurt. West Virginia has run some variation on the spread offense to much success. The current number one team in the country, Oklahoma, runs some variation of the spread (I do not know how related it is to the Franklin system) and they have the best offense around.
I went onto Youtube, and looked at some old Kentucky highlights with Couch and Lorenzen. VERY exciting stuff - even realizing that these were highlights and undoubtedly there were plenty of unseccuessful plays mixed in, too, that weren't shown.
So, we get this genius, this guy who makes Kentucky, Texas Tech, and Oregon to be contenders, this guy whose systems wins High School Championships, we get him to come to Auburn - a team whose offense has struggled in the past couple of years, but who has a very strong defense. We get that offense playing to the level of the defense, and we will be tough to beat. Many in AU land were excited.
I expected that they would not be lighting up the scoreboard right off the bat. I was glad we opened with a very weak team, followed by a very mediocre team, so as to help get in stride. I figured by the third game of the year, we should be showing massive improvement.
Well, the first game against La Monroe was somewhat concerning. Sure, they won 34-0, which is actually a quite modest score for a 'powerhouse' against a weak sister. However, one touchdown came on a defensive play where a fumble was recovered and returned, and another came on a beautiful punt return. Therefore, Auburn's vaunted, high octane spread offense scored a whopping 20 points against this gosh-awful team from the bayou state. On top of that, in four quarters against a warm up opponent, AU had less than 100 yards of passing, moving the ball most effectively on the ground. This is the Spread?
The next week found AU playing a fair, but not really good, Southern Miss team. The first two possessions, Auburn marched down the field beautifully, but fumbled the ball away deep in USM territory both times. They still went on to build something like a 17-0 (or something like that) halftime lead then held on to win 27-13. Not great, but at least there was promise. Without the two fumbles, it could have been 31-0 at the half, and who knows where it would have ended up. Now, this is what I am talking about!! Not great, but progress - potential greatness in the making.
However, since the first half of that game, the wheels have completely come off. Auburn beat Mississippi State, a bona finde cellar team in the SEC in probably the most embarring win in Auburn history. Their high charged offense scored five points! And two of them were for Mississippi State, winning 3-2. Oh, well, I thought. Still working some kinks out. Maybe MSU has a great defense. That was shot down for me the next week when MSU lost to Georgia Tech something like 38-7!
The next game was against LSU - the defending National Champs. Very good team. AU managed to go up 14-3 and knock their starting QB out of the game. (One of the TDs was an interception for a TD so only one offensive TD) The other QB for LSU came in and played flawlessly in the second half. Still AU managed to drive for a TD in the fourth and regain the lead at 21-20. A short punt set LSU up near midfield late, and they drove for the winning TD. Oh well. They are great. We may be making at least some progress.
Next came Tennessee - who is very sub par for a UT team. Again, we build a 14-3 lead early, in part due to a Tennessee fumble recovered in the end zone. We hang on to win 14-12 - putting constant pressure on our defense to hold UT time and again with good field position as our offense could not move the ball.
Finally, the last nail came last week against Vandy. Granted, this is the best Vandy team in a long time. They are undefeated - the deepest they have been so since WWII!! However, they have done so through just finding some way to win. Actually, coming into the game, they were rated last in the SEC in total offense and total defense. (How they could have been behind AU in offense is beyond me)
AU came out scrapping the spread and playing power ball. First three plays were sweeps to the right side by Ben Tate. All three went for over ten yards. They continued to drive down the field getting a first and goal inside the five. They then ran four straight plays up the middle and did not score. Not to worry, they stopped Vandy, got the ball back and drove down the field, mixing run and pass and scored easily.
When Vandy go the ball back again, AU intercepted a pass, then scored quickly again on a beautiful pass play. The route was on. Oh, but one minor flaw, they missed the PAT.
After one quarter, Auburn had well over one hundred yards offense, 13 points which very easily could have been 21. They were in complete control of the game.
From that point on, they scrapped what they were doing and went to the TFS spread for the rest of the game. They managed a TOTAL of 82 yards offense for the remaining three quarters. Once again, the starting QB for the opponent left the game, but the backup played beautifully. AU let Vandy hang around, until finally, Vandy won the dadgum thing 14-13.
Let's think about this. As far as offensive points produced, AU has scored 20 (out of 34), 27, 3, 14 (out of 21), 14, 13. That, my friends is an average 15 points per game, and other than LSU, this was against very subpar defenses. The worst thing is that there has been absolutely zero progression from week to week. Actually, it appears to me that there has been regression.
Tuberville insists he is sticking by Franklin and the spread. That is, until yesterday, when suddenly he fired him. I am at a loss for exactly what is going on here. I do believe there is more than meets the eye, but I have no idea precisely what it is. But, here are a few observations:
* Auburn's great offensive line has struggled constantly with procedure penatlies, holding, and just getting outmanned.
* The negative plays from the first line above have frequently happened at the most inopportune time - just as we get one or two positive plays and good field position and momentum, we have a procedure, hold, or sack.
* Watching Tim Couch highlights, I recognized right off the whole offense was not the same as AU is currently running.
----He frequently had one and sometimes two tight ends and one and sometimes two backs in the backfield. This was mixed in with an occasional no back, no tight end set. Auburn a great deal of the time runs with no backs or tight ends, placing tremendous pressure on the five linemen.
---- He would frequently line up under center - AU has stuck predominately with the shotgun play after play.
---- The UK linemen would often line up in a three point stance - AUs is almost exclusively in a two point stance.
---- UK ran a ton of quick plays - either by design, or as a safety valve drop off. Even when these only get 1-5 yards, that is better than zero or negative yardage. AU seems to run plays that take ten minutes to develop, and usually end up blowing up in their face.
---- Because of the above, UK seemed to keep pressure on the Defense. The only defense AUs offense has pressured has been their own.
I have no idea what precipitated the firing. I do not believe it came out of thin air. I believe there is something going on - whether it be chemistry among the coaches (and this could be TTs fault, or TFs - I really do not know) . there could be insurmountable frustration on the players parts. There apparently was some sort of a blow up in the last day or two - though Tuberville the Politician insists nothing of the sort led to the dismissal.
I tend to think as the season progressed, TT began pressuring TF to produce. By the time of the Vandy game, TT could well have said "Give the rest of us the first quarter to see what we can do, then I'll give it back to you." You see how that worked out. I imagine at this point, TT was calling for TF to back up and rethink what he was doing. TF probably took this as an insult. Sparks flew. TF is gone. Coaches have egos (see Nick Saban).
Tubs is actually insistent on his love for the spread and claims to keep plugging away at it. Doing so without the spread guru himself tells me there must have been major personality/philosophical issues going on behind the scenes.
One thing I do know. Auburns offense, which ranks worse than 100th in the country in virtually every stat, has been for all intents and purpose, totally non-productive. I mean totally. Yet, we have two losses each against a team that is still undefeated and highly ranked. These losses have been by a total of six points. If we can simply have an offense that can produce some time of possession, field position, and some amount of scoring, AU can end the year quite successfully. That is my hope. My fear is that this, yet another embarassing moment in AU football history, may have long term negative impacts in terms of national perception, and recruiting - as well as in terms of who in the world would now come to AU as Offensive cooridinator? TT ahs had 5 in ten years!
Oh, well, we'll just have to watch and see!
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Who Needs Radio?
Some time back, I read an ad for a web site called www.slacker.com. It seems you can go there, tell it artists you like, and listen to them all the time. What a concept!
I have been using this for awhile now. My computer speakers are not exactly hi-end, but they sound good enough. I have multiple Slacker stations - including one country, one soft rock, one classic rock, one r&b, one with a bit of everything, and several others. And, it is all free.! Of course there are upgrades you can buy, but even at the free level, it is great. This gives me enough exposure to the music I like, that I do not have to buy anything else!
It has also allowed me to find out there is music out there that I like and others that I don't that I would not have been able to know about before. I have found out that I like Gov't Mule, The Derek Trucks Band, Ray Wiley Hubbard, and others. I don't much care for Warren Zevon (I figure actually being able to sing would be a plus!)
I wish I could have a little bit more control. I wish I could list Chicago and only get stuff from the sixties and seventies, and leave all that eighties garbagio alone. I have listed Fleetwood Mac, and as you might expect, I get a great deal more of the Buckingham/Nicks era Mac than I do the Peter Green (which I love) or Bob Welch eras. On the plus side, when I put in Skynyrd, I get mostly the old original and not the current stuff. Another plus is that with the Allman's I get mostly pre 1975 and post 1990, and not much of the stuff in between. So, all in all it is a mixed bag but did I mention it is free? I guess if I got off the wallet I might be able to control it a little more, but for free it is great!
I have been using this for awhile now. My computer speakers are not exactly hi-end, but they sound good enough. I have multiple Slacker stations - including one country, one soft rock, one classic rock, one r&b, one with a bit of everything, and several others. And, it is all free.! Of course there are upgrades you can buy, but even at the free level, it is great. This gives me enough exposure to the music I like, that I do not have to buy anything else!
It has also allowed me to find out there is music out there that I like and others that I don't that I would not have been able to know about before. I have found out that I like Gov't Mule, The Derek Trucks Band, Ray Wiley Hubbard, and others. I don't much care for Warren Zevon (I figure actually being able to sing would be a plus!)
I wish I could have a little bit more control. I wish I could list Chicago and only get stuff from the sixties and seventies, and leave all that eighties garbagio alone. I have listed Fleetwood Mac, and as you might expect, I get a great deal more of the Buckingham/Nicks era Mac than I do the Peter Green (which I love) or Bob Welch eras. On the plus side, when I put in Skynyrd, I get mostly the old original and not the current stuff. Another plus is that with the Allman's I get mostly pre 1975 and post 1990, and not much of the stuff in between. So, all in all it is a mixed bag but did I mention it is free? I guess if I got off the wallet I might be able to control it a little more, but for free it is great!
Further Thoughts on the Upcoming Election
The closer we get to the election, the more uncertain I become of which way to go.
In brief, here is my delimma:
I absolutely do not like and can not support Obama/Biden. They clearly represent everything I am against, and are against everything I represent.
I do not care much at all for McCain. I am not real sure what it is he does represent. I don't care for his personality, such as it is. On a great variety of issues I see no huge difference between him and Obam/Biden.
I am very intrigued by Sarah Palin.
On the whole from what I know, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party would be far closer to what I would feel comfortable supporting (though he/they are not perfect). But, he has exactly zero chance of winning the election.
The struggle is this - is the addition of Palin enough to make me vote for the Republican ticket?
Palin has in her favor in my mind several things which the liberals scoff at her for:
1. She is a biblical literalist (I do not know exactly what her interpretive principles are and if they are the same as mine, but just the fact that she accepts the Bible as God's inerrant word to be taken seriously is good for me) I know a great many would question what in the world this has to do with being a national leader, but I would say it has plenty. She also has the guts (if she were a man, I would possible use another bodily reference) to state this publically and stand by it. This colors a lot of her other views in a positive light, some of which I'll mention here.
2. She is VERY pro-life. Not kinda sorta in a politically correct way when it is convenient, but solidly staunchly biblically pro-life as best I can tell. She also lives consistently with this, giving birth to a Downs Syndrome child and having her daughter carry her pregnancy through. It is not as if she says one thing then acts another way.
3. She has pursued action in Alaska consistent with not pushing the gay agenda - including wanting to rid the schools of pro-gay readings.
4. Most consistently, she has publically stated her belief in the literal reading of Genesis - meaning God created the world in six days not so very long ago. Adam and Eve were real people, etc. I recently read a liberal columnists which used this as reason enough to be scared silly of her. She must just be stoopid to believe that fairy tale, ya know!
These things makes me tend to want to have huge respect for her. Maybe even God is using this time of wimpy men to raise up another Deborah, as Douglas Wilson pointed out. (Deborah had to deal with a wimpy leader named, of all things, Barak!)
However, I do have a few reservations about making her VP, and with a certain turn of events, eventually President.
1. This may sound silly, but the fact that she is sided with John McCain makes me uncomfortable. I know Joseph had to work for the Pharoah. I know Daniel had to work with the leaders of his day. But, these great Godly leaders did not have to politically bow to the leadership direction they served under. Quite the opposite, Joseph and Daniel rose to the top by staying faithful to God even when it was unpopular, even dangerous. I have know idea what the level of faith of John McCain is, but some of his positions are not what I believe someone who understands biblical government, our constitution, and the relation between the two would be. The political reality of our day is that a VP has to be almost an exact echo of the Pres. How far is Palin willing to compromise? Or is that even a compromise for her? Is she politically comfortable with McCain?
2. A specific example was displayed to me in an interview I recently heard. I believe it was Sean Hannity who repeatedly asked her what was the problem with the economy, and what was the solution. Her consistent answer was that THE cause of our current economic woes was corruption on Wall Street and that THE solution was more government in the form of regulation. Now, I do not at all deny that there is some corruption on Wall Street. Only an imbecile, and Ayn Rand would. And I do not even deny that the government has a legitimate role to play in dealing with corruption (its job being to administer justice). However, the totality of our current economic problems is really a long and complex result of over one hundred and forty years of bad economic policy and too much government. There are so so many other things she could have more accurately stated as being major causes of our current economic woes and so many other directions she could have taken to point the way out. But, instead, she says that THE problem is Wall Street corruption and THE solution is more government. She even mocked the idea of 'self regulation' stating that it was actually 'no regulation.' My question to this is always then, who regulates the regulaters? At some point somewhere, someone is 'self regulated.' For all the dangers associated with the money of Wall Street, I feel much better with them being 'self regulated' than with the government empowered regulaters being 'self regulated.'
All this fits in nicely with McCain's own direction. He brags that while he is a Republican (presumably pro-big money interest) he has attacked Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Money Campaign Financing, etc. If McCain is a "Maverick" it is because in what little difference there is in the actual direction of the Republican and Democratic parties, there are some issues in which his rhetoric is that of Democrats instead of Republicans.
So, in the end, I am uncertain if I can swallow all of this and vote for McCain/Palin or if I should cast a protest vote.
Any help would be appreciated!
In brief, here is my delimma:
I absolutely do not like and can not support Obama/Biden. They clearly represent everything I am against, and are against everything I represent.
I do not care much at all for McCain. I am not real sure what it is he does represent. I don't care for his personality, such as it is. On a great variety of issues I see no huge difference between him and Obam/Biden.
I am very intrigued by Sarah Palin.
On the whole from what I know, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party would be far closer to what I would feel comfortable supporting (though he/they are not perfect). But, he has exactly zero chance of winning the election.
The struggle is this - is the addition of Palin enough to make me vote for the Republican ticket?
Palin has in her favor in my mind several things which the liberals scoff at her for:
1. She is a biblical literalist (I do not know exactly what her interpretive principles are and if they are the same as mine, but just the fact that she accepts the Bible as God's inerrant word to be taken seriously is good for me) I know a great many would question what in the world this has to do with being a national leader, but I would say it has plenty. She also has the guts (if she were a man, I would possible use another bodily reference) to state this publically and stand by it. This colors a lot of her other views in a positive light, some of which I'll mention here.
2. She is VERY pro-life. Not kinda sorta in a politically correct way when it is convenient, but solidly staunchly biblically pro-life as best I can tell. She also lives consistently with this, giving birth to a Downs Syndrome child and having her daughter carry her pregnancy through. It is not as if she says one thing then acts another way.
3. She has pursued action in Alaska consistent with not pushing the gay agenda - including wanting to rid the schools of pro-gay readings.
4. Most consistently, she has publically stated her belief in the literal reading of Genesis - meaning God created the world in six days not so very long ago. Adam and Eve were real people, etc. I recently read a liberal columnists which used this as reason enough to be scared silly of her. She must just be stoopid to believe that fairy tale, ya know!
These things makes me tend to want to have huge respect for her. Maybe even God is using this time of wimpy men to raise up another Deborah, as Douglas Wilson pointed out. (Deborah had to deal with a wimpy leader named, of all things, Barak!)
However, I do have a few reservations about making her VP, and with a certain turn of events, eventually President.
1. This may sound silly, but the fact that she is sided with John McCain makes me uncomfortable. I know Joseph had to work for the Pharoah. I know Daniel had to work with the leaders of his day. But, these great Godly leaders did not have to politically bow to the leadership direction they served under. Quite the opposite, Joseph and Daniel rose to the top by staying faithful to God even when it was unpopular, even dangerous. I have know idea what the level of faith of John McCain is, but some of his positions are not what I believe someone who understands biblical government, our constitution, and the relation between the two would be. The political reality of our day is that a VP has to be almost an exact echo of the Pres. How far is Palin willing to compromise? Or is that even a compromise for her? Is she politically comfortable with McCain?
2. A specific example was displayed to me in an interview I recently heard. I believe it was Sean Hannity who repeatedly asked her what was the problem with the economy, and what was the solution. Her consistent answer was that THE cause of our current economic woes was corruption on Wall Street and that THE solution was more government in the form of regulation. Now, I do not at all deny that there is some corruption on Wall Street. Only an imbecile, and Ayn Rand would. And I do not even deny that the government has a legitimate role to play in dealing with corruption (its job being to administer justice). However, the totality of our current economic problems is really a long and complex result of over one hundred and forty years of bad economic policy and too much government. There are so so many other things she could have more accurately stated as being major causes of our current economic woes and so many other directions she could have taken to point the way out. But, instead, she says that THE problem is Wall Street corruption and THE solution is more government. She even mocked the idea of 'self regulation' stating that it was actually 'no regulation.' My question to this is always then, who regulates the regulaters? At some point somewhere, someone is 'self regulated.' For all the dangers associated with the money of Wall Street, I feel much better with them being 'self regulated' than with the government empowered regulaters being 'self regulated.'
All this fits in nicely with McCain's own direction. He brags that while he is a Republican (presumably pro-big money interest) he has attacked Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Money Campaign Financing, etc. If McCain is a "Maverick" it is because in what little difference there is in the actual direction of the Republican and Democratic parties, there are some issues in which his rhetoric is that of Democrats instead of Republicans.
So, in the end, I am uncertain if I can swallow all of this and vote for McCain/Palin or if I should cast a protest vote.
Any help would be appreciated!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
