eulessismore

AMEN! And with the "North Texas" identity, no one should confuse us with the soon to be oil fouled coastal areas of "South Texas".

It would be tough for anyone to walk away from that kind of money. As for us, after seeing how we got McCoy and Bradford started on their way to being draft picks, I'm glad to see a quarterback drafted before we ever see him play.

Nice link, but I had to scroll down and look at James McMurtry doing his own song: http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Well, at least somebody here is asking the right question. Not that I didn't find that long ago road trip that included Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri to be quite thrilling. Oh yeah, Illinois and Indiana. Kinda reminds me of a stanza from James McMurtry's "Levelland": Makes you wonder why they stopped here Wagon must have lost a wheel Or they lacked ambition one

If we win 7 or more games next year, it could happen in so many ways that nobody here can really predict what would happen afterwards. One thing it WOULD mean: Todd Dodge finally learned to coach at the FBS level. I'm not predicting that this will happen, but just imagine the possibility of UNT winning 7 or more games in the last season before the new stadium is to open. Would you take some personnel action, including at least SOME contract extension, so that new recruits would see it as likely the coach who recruited them would be there long enough for them to play for him, thus increasing the likelihood of a quality class being signed? I guess this is a good time of year to speculate on whether the coach is fired after losing the first 3 games or winning 7. Hey, I'm not saying I have enjoyed watching the last 3 years, but it doesn't seem likely that much will be known about our coach or anyone else's before some games get played on the field in the 2010 season.

Their analysis was thorough. +1 for noticing.

He threw some bad passes last year, but ran well and seemed to make the big plays almost at will. If his passing was bad, our tackling was terrible.

Well, it sounds like you enjoyed your freedom, and didn't take yourself too seriously, so +1 for sucking less at golf (I tried golf once and gave up, so have to respect that you're at least trying).

If you have the day off as I do, enjoy it. Just remember, it's the sacrifices of others who made it all possible. The one our family remembers: Lawrence Garrison, a beloved uncle, who died before I was born, on an amphibious landing of the Pacific Island Tarawa by the Marines in WWII. Recently a letter was found to the family, written on Christmas just before that landing; that is a precious heirloom. As it was read to me by my older sister, I just thought how much I wish I had known him. I find it interesting to read his bio, and to look at the history of that battle on this site: His Bio from "Tarawaontheweb"

It wouldn't matter if we would just line up in the wildcat and direct snap the ball to Lance Dunbar; just start the best blocking quarterback.

I just recently found it interesting that the only other veteran in our office did not know where the Dallas National Cemetary was located. Probably, many in this area are not even aware that it exists. Dallas National Cemetary Website

I tend to agree with some who have posted here before about how Dodge should have retained some of Dickey's assistants, some of whom have done quite well after being hired elsewhere. If a hypothetical new coach should be given a free hand, shouldn't the decision to retain one or more assistants be his prerogative?

You're right, so I deleted that part. I guess what I was really trying to say is, the premise of this topic won't be relevant until a couple of games into next season. Right now, the topic just seems like a strange way to get your cheerios wet.

This thread = desperation for forum content. Except for Auburn with Tony Franklin, even assistants aren't fired 3 games into the season. Under these criteria, it would have been hard to justify keeping Dickey for the second half of the 2001 season. Of course, he had beaten then 1-AA Boise State twice by then. I did love the win over Texas Tech, but New Mexico State was pretty bad the two times we beat them. Considering the level of competition he was playing against at Louisville (buy hey, he owned Western Kentucky), Schnellenberger should have been ripe for firing by the 3rd game of his 4th year, instead of hanging around to go 8-3 and setting Louisville on the right path. I mean, Schnelly's only multiple wins against anyone recognizable as D1 in those years were against Tulane; the second one of those was in Mack Brown's 3rd season, when he finally went 6-6, after starting out 1-10 and 4-7. My prediction: this thread may be interesting by the 3rd game of next season. In the meantime, I'm dreaming about Thompson or Tune throwing the long one downfield, when Dunbar isn't running free in the opposing secondary. At this time of year, a man can dream big.

Ok, I'll send out the first +1 from me to you, since you've eloquently taken a position which was so eloquently stated by a liberal justice (who had never been a judge), Louis Brandeis. Here's his Wikipedia link: Louis Brandeis bio: I find this quote to contain some real insight: Brandeis furthermore denied that large trusts were more efficient than the smaller firms which were generally driven out of business. He argued the opposite was often true, that monopolistic enterprises became "less innovative" because, he wrote, their "secure positions freed them from the necessity which has always been the mother of invention." To him there was no way an executive could learn all the details of running a huge and unwieldy company. "There is a limit to what one man can do well," he wrote. Brandeis was naturally aware of the economies of scale and initially lower prices offered by growing companies, but he emphasized the future by claiming that once a trust drove out its competition, "the quality of its products tended to decline while the prices charged for them tended to go up." Eventually, he felt, the trusts would be like "clumsy dinosaurs, which, if they ever had to face real competition, would collapse of their own weight." I have certainly felt that way about any of the large banks I've dealt with, who seem to feature that "clumsy dinosaur" effect, but maybe they're just not interested in providing customer service. Maybe you'll like it that he also positioned himself against FDR's "centralizing" at times. After a unanimous court declared the National Recovery Act unconstitutional, this is what he had to say: Speaking to aides of Roosevelt, Justice Louis Brandeis remarked that, “This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the president that we're not going to let this government centralize everything." I just thought you might find that interesting; I still consider myself a liberal, but maybe conservatives and liberals can find some problems with bigness, whether corporate or governmental.

Hey, it's no more of a stretch than the stuff over in the political forum....hmmm, maybe even more of a bummer.

Actually, President Carter's policy against reprocessing uranium was just extending a moratorium started by President Ford, 6 days before the 1976 election, based on the findings of a secret commission, the Ford/Mitre panel. Carter got a briefing from them after he became President and was so impressed that he extended it indefinitely. But no, I'm not automatically opposed to the election of a Republican President just based on Ford and his support for said moratorium. It still seems debatable whether those nations who went ahead with "breeder reactors" have gained that much from them compared to conventional use of low grade uranium, although the reduction in the volume of nuclear waste gained by them seems like an argument in their favor. Here's a link discussing the history and policy implications of those decisions. Two views on "breeder reactors". Just in case you're thinking that all democrats and environmentalists are opposed to nuclear, I'm a democrat who does support President Obama's new nuclear energy initiatives. This one was just announced a couple of days ago: DOE provides $2 billion loan guarantee for Idaho nuclear facility.

It's interesting the extent to which Japan is basing its energy policy on nuclear. Here's a link: Japanese nuclear policy Interestingly, Ukraine is in the process of planning and construction of nuclear plants, in addition to the ones they already have. My opinion: there's plenty of petroleum in various reserves around the world. The problem is, it's harder to get to, and we don't seem to have worked out the technology it takes to extract it as safely as needed. France relies on nuclear for a greater percentage of any other nation, and is reputed to have the cleanest air. Yes there are problems; the long term waste storage being the big one. Nuclear power plants take a long time to be brought on line, and if we wish to consider that as part of our energy future, serious discussions need to begin soon.

I've heard that other schools have music programs, but I've never heard them mentioned by name.

Dewey beats Truman!

Accidents have been happening with BP for several years now. I think it's the families and loved ones of those who died in the Houston refinery explosion and Deepwater Horizon well blowout who deserve our support. I know a geologist who has worked in oil and thinks BP should surrender all its profits for the next ten years to mitigate the losses already caused. One thing he's mentioned as having no real answer is why they removed the drilling mud that was working to control the pressures from the well bore to replace it with sea water (during an operation to cap an exploration well). I guess sea water is cheap.

I'll give you a +1 for sheer audacity. I still say there's no reason our football program can't be held in as much awe as our music program. I can just see it; music school alums speaking reverentially about the Music School after their performances in church on Sunday mornings, sportscasters talking about (put name here) out of North Texas on Sunday afternoons during the football season.

At one point I might have enjoyed arguing with someone here about how we got to this point and what could be done now, but I just don't have the heart for it. Still, I have strong disagreements with anyone who says such incidents are just part of our energy future, or "stuff happens". This is just a tragedy of epic proportions, not only for those men who have lost their lives and their families, but for those hoping to make their livelihood by fishing and tourism, as well as the environmental toll, of which the extent will not be known for a very long time.

Here's the link: BP: Siphon is working I'm certainly glad that, for the first time in a month, something seems to be working. There is other material in this article that doesn't paint a very good picture of the damage that has already occurred; in short: a very oxygen deprived environment for sea life, including those we might hope to be eating. I guess one thing I can't understand from some who have commented on this incident is an attitude that something of this nature is simply "stuff happening" and that we shouldn't expect improved practices from the industry and regulatory agencies. Sure, we need petroleum products (and yes, coal), but, at this point, I'm less willing than ever to leave worker safety and environmental protections to the tender mercies of the industry. But, I'm willing to give what McCain said a chance, that offshore drilling can be done "safely", but only if we've learned something from this and are willing to apply it. I think it was a pretty smart conservative (from a onetime Texas oil family), William F. Buckley, who said something like "regulation is a legitimate function of government".

I'm just hoping the "mile long siphon hose" they're trying now will start working within the next few days.