29.8.04
College Football: The college football season opener, featuring Virginia Tech and Southern Cal, was played last night. I ended up having a couple of beers and practically partying with the dudes who were near us. I'm guessing they are, or were recently, students: they stood the entire game, something that Tech students do. And, other than (a) Tech losing, and (b) this one dude (I was tipped off by one of the guys I actually came with) stealing one of my beers from the stooped-over beer man, I had a very good experience. A couple of quick observations:
- SC is pimping the wrong candidate for Heisman. Reggie Bush, while he didn't do a lot rushing, did catch three touchdown passes, all more than 30 yards. His first touchdown was a situation where SC caught us blitzing and dumped it to him on a screen. His third (the one which, though it didn't ice it, did make it very difficult for us) was where he beat safety Blake Warren when Warren tripped. And I think that if he hadn't tripped, Bush still would have beat him by a couple of steps. The second was caused by the "Spirit of Ronyell". A brief digression: Jimmy Williams has been totally - totally! - ineffective since switching to Ronyell's number 2 jersey. In any case, Bush beat Williams...badly. I guess we know which part of the defence is going to be targeted week in and week out.
- Other than a poor throw resulting in an interception in the first half, Bryan Randall looked good. He looked very good running the ball. He ended up being the game's only 100 yard rusher.
- Pete Carroll made better adjustments than Coach Beamer. Pete Carroll has, since taking over SC, been one of the best in the country at that department.
- Yes, that offensive pass interference call was bogus.
- Tech's cheerleaders said that it was louder in Landover than in Blacksburg. SC's sideline apparently treated it as a road game. I thought it was loud (I lost my voice adding to the noise), and the crowd was, with the exception of a bunch of folks behind SC's sideline (and a couple of groups behind me), rooting for Tech. I heard anything from 50,000 Tech fans before the game ("and they'll convert the neutrals") to, after the game, 75,000 Tech fans to SC's 15,000. Considering that SC is 2,300 miles from Landover, a good showing by their fans. And, considering that Lane Stadium doesn't even hold 75,000 fans, a good showing by the Tech fans. But I have heard Lane louder. Wait until a big night game (WV maybe, or definitely Maryland). Then Lane will be louder.
- One last thing: Someone asked me my opinion on the way out. I said what I thought: that the loss sucked, but that Tech showed me something. At this point, he said that the offense looked like crap. I'm still not sure what game he watched. No, the offense didn't look great, but they were playing, arguably, the best defense in the nation. And, other than Bryan Randall's interception (and a couple of missed passes), the offense didn't look bad, considering their competition. Other than the three Leinart-Bush TD hookups, the defense looked very good too. I suspect that this will be a very good inaugural ACC season for Tech, or at the least better than most folks predict. The only explanation I have for that nattering nabob of negativism is that he's accustomed to playing James Madison and Arkansas State on opening day. And, with that, he's accustomed to winning the opener fortysomething to less-than-ten. But they played the team ranked best in the land by the pundits. And, evidently, character doesn't count too highly with him. Because no one gave Tech a chance, yet they were in it until the last 2 minutes (when SC's defense forced Randall to fumble, and they later converted the field goal). I'd be willing to bet that SC doesn't allow 13 points again this season before scoring 24. Except against Cal. Maybe.
- And, yes, I was wrong in my season preview. Mike Williams didn't play (a decision I agree with, by the way: he knew what he was risking when he declared for the draft, hired an agent, and skipped spring semester, regardless of what the courts said). The decision not to restore Mike Williams' eligibility wasn't disseminated until Thursday (a decision that I will join Pete Carroll in condemning - SC should have had more notice than that, and considering that it was decided just before they left for Maryland, it could have been a huge distraction).
More later, at some point (who knows when...no later than after the WMU game, though),
Ryan
22.8.04
because...
- he brought it up?
- it speaks to his fitness as a leader in combat?
- it speaks to his integrity and character? or
- more than one of the above?
Let's see...he has been virtually silent about every other part of his life, both before and after. Considering that (a) he married into money, (b) slandered - whether by repeating others' comments or expressing his own views - fellow Vietnam veterans, (c) has not had one major legislative accomplishment as a member of the U.S. Senate, and (d) has shown an intellectual and moral flexibility in dealing with certain issues ("I voted for the $87bn before I voted against it" comes to mind).
Certainly, being the leader of a 50 foot Swift boat - and commanding only a few sailors - is vastly different than being President, commanding not only the technological successor to that Swift boat but the rest of the American military. There are certain character traits that may lend themselves to succeeding in one role whilst failing in the other, but there are certainly other character traits - such as integrity and character - which will, if not lead to success in both roles, then at least give a vast head start to success over those who don't possess these traits.
Sen. Kerry's stories about various issues - the "Christmas in Cambodia" episode comes to mind - have shown that intellectual flexibility I mentioned earlier. First it was Christmas Eve '68, explicitly ordered over the Cambodian border whilst President(-elect) Nixon denied any American presence in that nation. Then maybe it was January '69. Or maybe he inadvertantly strayed. But, whatever happened, it was seared! into his memory. Or maybe (as his journals apparently indicate) he was 50 miles inside the Vietnamese border, at Sa Dec. Who knows. But, unless I've missed something, he was the only one. None of his crewmates - or his division-mates - have claimed that they (or he, or their boats) were in Cambodia.
This (and other related topics, such as the "ambush" which led to Kerry pulling 1/LT Rassman out of the water, or the Purple Heart fiasco) have been covered extensively elsewhere, such as here and here.
Let's Mess With Texas? Power Line brought my attention to this and this. And Trunk refers to this as well, prompting me to ask a few questions (and showing my historical ignorance):
- Did Virginia provide an "after-the-fact" consent in order to regain their place in the Union after Reconstruction?
- Were that consent provided, was (is) it constitutional, considering that it undoubtedly would have been coerced?
- Were it not provided, would an "after-the-fact" consent provided now be constitutional?
- One imagines that West Virginia wants to remain a state separate from the Commonwealth; that they have not begged for the government in Richmond to accept them speaks to that.
- Moreover, would Virginia want them back? Virginia Democrats might, because the power of the conservative Democratic establishment in West Virginia might hurt the powerful Republican Party here in Virginia. But would Virginia Republicans not issue a consent and hope that it met the consitutional requirements?
- Moving to the Texas issue, I have a couple of questions: Would contemporary Congressional Democrats allow, without a fight, eight more senators from the current State of Texas?
- Would the treaty negotiated between the Republic of Texas and the United States be treated like the Iraq war resolution, with Democrats seizing on the "pursuant to the constitution" clause, much as they claimed that the resolution favouring war with Iraq allowed the President to a show of force, and no more?
- Moreover, does the State of Texas' decision to secede from the Union for the duration of the Civil War render that treaty null and void?
Just a few thoughts.
No Zuletzt today.
More later (how much later I don't know...only time will tell),
Ryan
UPDATE (22.13EDT, 23Aug): I had said that there would be no Zuletzt, but I had tried to find a quote that stuck with me. I finally found it here. A commenter in this post had this to say about Senator Kerry:
Kerry is reminding me more and more of Hollywood braggarts like Michael Cimino (who claimed he served with the Green Berets when he was only attached to a small troop clinic stateside at Bragg) or John Milius (he of the swaggering militaristic movies and quotes who dodged the draft).
One thing that I find particularly offensive about Kerry, and I'm ashamed as an ex-officer to admit I only realized it last night: in the heroic action he arrogated to himself, the one in which Peck and Alston were wounded, the boat was actually saved by the actions of an enlisted man who took the helm and steered the boat out of the ambush.
Let's be very clear about this. John Forbes Kerry, a commissioned officer in the United States Navy who wants to be commander-in-chief, stole the credit for the heroism of an enlisted man.
That is lower than whale shit. The man should not be in public office, much less the White House.
8.8.04
Politics: At this point, I don't think that there are many thoughts of mine which haven't been explored by others. John Kerry has decided to run on his Vietnam record; kind of hard for me to see why he didn't pick a running-mate who was also in Vietnam, like Wes Clark, or John McCain. At least he tried for McCain. Considering how heavily he's relying on his 4 month tour in Vietnam to get him elected, I find it troubling that he isn't addressing the challenge to his credibility posed by his comrades-in-arms. Another question that has popped into my mind is "Why now?" That is to say, why wasn't this an issue when Kerry ran for (and won) the Lieutenant Governorship in Massachusetts? Or why has this not been an issue when he ran for (and won) a seat in the U.S. Senate? Possibly it was. Maybe it wasn't. A couple of obvious thoughts which come to mind are that, in those cases, John Kerry was running in Massachusetts; then, regardless of whether or not it was an issue, the citizens of the other 49 states would have no reason to hear about it, considering that no one outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ever cast a vote for or against John Kerry until the presidential primary. If it was an issue, perhaps those of us in the other 49 states didn't hear about it. It is also possible that it was never brought up by his honorable ship- and division-mates because they may be primarily concerned about the nation's military. Lieutenant Governors and Senate backbenchers don't exert a lot of authority over the same. But the President is, constitutionally, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and so they may have decided to break their silence.
Another possible issue is Theresa Heinz-Kerry. A letter writer in the L.A. Times (I think; it's been a couple of days and they kind of blend together after a little while) asked whether her eccentricity (my word; I forget, exactly, how it was phrased) was tolerated by conservatives when she was a Republican, and the wife of a Republican senator. I'll reuse an explanation I made earlier in the post: The family lives of backbencher senators are, more or less, private. So my response is thus: yes, her eccentric behaviour was tolerated when she was John Heinz' wife. Just as it was tolerated when she was Senator John Kerry's wife, but not nearly as much now that she is, potentially, the next First Lady. My (more relevant, I believe) question in response to his is whether the press and other liberals would have tolerated her if Senator Kerry was running as a conservative. If they had a field day with the fact that Nancy Reagan occasionally consulted astrologers...
College Football: College football is here once again, marked by the fact that, in fewer than three weeks, yours truly will see Virginia Tech in action against Southern Cal in the BCA Classic. So here's a quick beef I have with the polls: why is Virginia Tech getting no love?
(okay, other than the fact that one of the legendary Vicks was suspended from school for the fall, and so is off the team for the season)
(and other than the fact that Tech has a tougher road to hoe in a tougher conference)
(and other than the fact that its leading wide receiver, Earnest Wilford, graduated)
(and, perhaps biggest of all, other than the fact that they collapsed, going 2-5 in their last seven, with wins only over Temple - Temple! - and Miami - thus showing what might have been, while losing to WVU, Pitt, BC, Virginia and Cal - Cal!)
Never mind about that "no love" thing. This season's team is better than last year's. Yes, you read that right. The defence doesn't both suck and blow. The offence doesn't have to worry about who the leader is (hint: he's number 3 and has "RANDALL" across his back) and is going to get back to more of a power running game, so I hear, instead of the trickeration last season (although power running may be a small problem with Mike Imoh and Brenden Hill suspended for the first 3 games).
In any case, Tech's schedule has long been out. And maybe, just maybe, I'm tardy in posting this:
28 August, vs. Southern Cal in the BCA Classic (FedEx Field, Landover, Maryland). Tech's two biggest games (UVa notwithstanding) are at the ends of their schedule. They open with the defending national co-champion, possibly sans Mike Williams, possibly avec. He is good enough that, if he's gone, Tech has a fighting chance. But if he's in the game, Tech would have to stop both him and a very good ground game. And face down one of the best defences in the nation. Best of luck. If he's in, Tech loses (but covers the spread). If he's out, Tech wins outright (Panglossian, I know, but you heard it here first).
4 September, off. Blacksburg will be just about rebuilt, either from the crushing loss or the unexpected win. The students will go bloody nuts either way. Oh, wait, LSU's not coming to town. Never mind. The students will still be out of their bloody gourds.
11 September, vs. Western Michigan (Lane Stadium, Worsham Field, Blacksburg). You know they stopped making the Bronco about 10 years ago, right? And, before they did, they made it smaller?
18 September, vs. Duke (Lane). Now that Temple isn't playing us this season, I see that other ACC teams (Virginia and Maryland) have snapped them up. Virginia is even travelling to Philadelphia. And now that we're not playing Temple, we have to find another conference doormat. And Duke (at least until January) fills that role admirably.
25 September, vs. N.C. State (Lane). First big conference test. It'll be nice to get revenge on Chuck Amato (it was his special teams who had the field day against Va Tech in the Sugar Bowl in 2000, after all). Philip Rivers is gone, and one wonders whether T.A. McClendon can carry the load his ownself.
2 October, vs. West Virginia (Lane). Being the classy Hokie fan that I am, I can't in good conscience call on my fellow fans to treat the Mountaineers as the Hokies have been treated in Morgantown over the years. I would have hoped that something like that would show Mountaineer county (I won't call them a nation or even a state; even southern West Virginians go for Tech) the error of their ways. But they have the rivalry with their fellow arsonists at Maryland. I suspect that Tech will have a sense of itself and kick West Virginia's ass (West Virginia is overrated, and will only be kept in the polls by a weak-ass Big East conference).
9 October, at Wake Forest (Groves Stadium, Winston-Salem, N.C.). Can we say small basketball school? Can we say 2 hours from Blacksburg? Can we say just another home game?
16 October, vs. Florida A&M (Lane). Homecoming. Given the opponent, I suspect that the rigged King and Queen vote (I'll take the German Club and the Corps; I'll give 3-1 odds; any takers?) will be more interesting than the game. Folks will get good and drunk, and that's all that really matters.
23 October, off. Let me guess. Parents' weekend. I suspect that various social organisations will just be recovering from their homecoming celebrations.
28 October (Thursday), at Georgia Tech (Bobby Dodd Stadium, Grant Field, Atlanta). Tailgate Fever has a good point. It's not Va-a-a-ah Tech and Ga-a-a-a-ah Tech, guys. I'd feel more comfortable if it were at Lane (see Maryland, 18 November), but I suspect that the Hokies will eke it out.
6 November, at North Carolina (Kenan Field, Chapel Hill, N.C.). Temple is private. So is Duke. Rutgers is public. So is Carolina. The conference is big enough for two doormats, much like the Big East was. And both Mack Brown and Greg Ellis are in the state of Texas, thanks much. Nice try, guys.
13 November, off. Prepping for another Thursday night game. And recovering from...the previous week's bye.
18 November (Thursday), vs. Maryland (Lane). Four words: Thursday night in Blacksburg. I have noted my objections with playing during the week. So be it. But, that said, a quick bit of trivia for you: when was the last time the Hokies lost a Thursday night game in Blacksburg? (answer later). Maryland gets exposed for being yet another basketball school and gets blown out by three touchdowns.
27 November, vs. Virginia (Lane). Tech has beaten Virginia bad, they've beaten them the same season UVa was ranked #1, they've beaten them when (UVa/Tech) was down and out, and (Tech/UVa) was the baddest team around. Tech has won despite halftime defecits, coaches interfering, and senile coaches (theirs, not ours). So Virginia has a good defence. Tech's will be better by the end of the season. And don't sit here and tell me that UVa's offence will be particularly good, having lost the ACC player of the year. Tech wins by two touchdowns; the game isn't that close.
4 December, at Miami (Orange Bowl, Miami). So now that the fucking soldier is no longer with the 'Canes, and now that the defensive secondary is no longer anchored by, arguably, the best safety ever to play in college, what does that leave Miami? A motley crew of blue chips and a Steve Spurrier retread (not to mention a budding quarterback controversy). I'd feel more comfortable if the game was in Blacksburg, but it isn't. C'est la vie. But Miami, after last year's ass-kicking, will be gunning for Tech. And Tech, after the way that Miami showed them up at the end of last year's game, will be gunning for Miami. The big question is how great a team has to be to win this game, on the road, against one of the game's powers. I say that the team has to have greatness, be destined for it.
I believe.
A lot of people are saying that Tech will be 8-4 or, possibly, 9-3. Don't believe the hype. With the exception of the Miami game, the toughest games are at home (or, at the least, in front of rabidly partisan Tech-friendly crowds). And the Hokies now have to show that they can play without Marcus Vick, so they'll be motivated. If I were really a Pangloss, I would say that they'd go 12-0 and to the Orange Bowl. But I suspect that 10-2 is in the cards this season. And Virginia Tech last lost a Thursday night game at home in September 1995, against Boston College.
Zuletzt: I don't know the answer I posed to the Zuerst. But I do know this: The BCS formula was created to get away from primarily human polls. So mark my words: within the next 5 years, partisans will complain that their team was left out of the title game. They may even have a legitimate argument. And the BCS formula will be tweaked toward favouring the computer models.
Just give us the damn playoff already.
Later.
