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.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
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?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
