Barry Switzer “wrote” a letter to Non Doc…
11:18 AM EDT on September 7, 2016
As I was driving to my brother's house on Saturday morning to watch the OU game and chat about earthquakes, I flipped the radio over to The Sports Animal. Although it's something I try to avoid doing nowadays, I just couldn't resist the urge to listen to a has-been troll and cave goblin over-analyze a college football game before kickoff.
By the time I tuned in, Regular Jim, Al Eschbach and Mark Rodgers were already giving their final thoughts and predictions. While Regular Jim rambled about how this would be a "massive game" for Mike Stoops or whatever, Mark interrupted to inform them that "Coach" wanted to speak.
A few seconds later, a probably intoxicated Barry Switzer yelled into the phone some random semi-incoherent sentence about "Hangin' half a hundred on them." He then told a story about staying in a hotel in Waco in 1973 with Al Eschbach. It was sad and weird. He sounded like an old, senile grandpa talking to his grandkids about the past. He was getting names and dates confused and I'm pretty sure he thought OU was about to play and exhibition against the Houston Oilers. To make things worse, Regular Jim and Al were talking to Barry like he was an old senile grandpa:
"Yeah, that's nice. Oh really? Two hummingbirds by the feeder? That's neat. Yes... yes... Aunt Rita would have liked that... Wait... No, grandpa... Aunt Rita died 30 years ago."
Anyway, I'm sharing this odd tidbit because Barry Switzer recently "wrote" a letter to Non Doc – a site that I'm sure he has bookmarked on his toolbar – in opposition to SQ 777. Because we live in a state where the political opinions of hard-partying former football coaches who lied and cheated their ways to several college football championships before leaving their programs in disgrace and disarray for some reason still matters, Non Doc published it.
My passion for the gridiron is well known. What a lot of people don’t know about me is my love of animals.
My wife, Becky, and I own several dogs, and they are a big part of our life. We have trained working dogs, and we own others that are being trained for search and rescue missions. We’ve also rescued many dogs over the years who were abused or neglected, and we do whatever we can to elevate animal welfare, including facilitating adoptions. Our passion for animals is just one of the reasons we oppose State Question 777.
If SQ 777 passes, it will make it easier for puppy mills to exist. Puppy mill operators will be able to classify themselves as farmers and their animals as livestock.
Puppy mills are atrocities where neglect, disease and abuse is rampant. Animals are caged 24-7, and some live their entire lives in wire cages, never once touching or rolling in the grass. Adult dogs are often debarked, which involves ramming a steel rod down their throats to rupture their vocal cords.
I could go on with the atrocities, but you get the point: Puppy mills are an abomination.
Like coach Switzer, I'm a dog guy and agree 100% with whoever he paid to write this letter. Puppy mills are bad and a "Yes" vote for SQ 777 will do nothing but help them.
Another reason Becky and I are voting no on SQ 777 is because it threatens Oklahoma’s ability to maintain clean water and air for our grandchildren. Instead, it gives constitutional protection to corporations who profit off industrial farming, entrusting them, and not local and state officials, to decide what’s best for Oklahomans’ public welfare.
These corporations are trying to mislead voters by painting SQ 777 as “right to farm” and using wholesome imagery of family farmers and Oklahoma landscapes to lure votes to change our state constitution. This is a problem because SQ 777 isn’t about family farmers; it’s about big-time corporate agriculture wanting fewer and fewer restrictions on how they operate.
Hey Coach, I agree with you again! SQ 777 gives unprecedented and unnecessary protections to big farm corporations. It's a bad deal! That being said, you're a former football coach. Where are the sports analogies and catchphrases?! Hang half-a-hundred on them, Coach!? Grab OU Geno and the S.W.A.R.M. and break out da' bone!
Oklahoma’s family farmers have always been good team players, taking care of land, water and air. Big Ag doesn’t have the same game plan and winning record.
Big Ag is trying to represent itself as the underdog, as the little team being blitzed. They’re actually going town to town across our state saying they’re in danger of being sacked and that our food supply could be compromised.
I’m not making this up. That’s what they’re saying to scare Oklahomans into voting yes. Football coaches would call this a trick play, a tight end around, and we shouldn’t be fooled by it.
Consider this football analogy: One team is Big Ag. The other team is natural resources and animal welfare. The referees are state and local officials who make sure both sides play fair. But a “yes” vote for SQ 777, gives Team Big Ag the referees, too.
If this happens, it’s game over. Big Ag will “hang half-a-hundred” on us.
Join me in voting “No” on 777.
Barry SwitzerNorman, Oklahoma
There we go. That's better.
Anyway, I guess we should give Non Doc some credit. Even though I seriously doubt Barry Switzer wrote the letter, and the same thing was published in the Tulsa World, that's a good get. I'm sure all the people who value Barry Switzer's opinion on political issues are regular readers of Non Doc and will find the letter informative. Now let's just hope Switzer actually wrote / approved it. As The Norman Transcript has proved, that's not always the case.