Ulty

1 hour ago, Cdog923 said:

I've got a couple of nieces in their teens asking me all sorts of football questions now

"Uncle Cdog, what's a tight end?" (giggle giggle)

17 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Ok young ones....honest question.  I love good guitarists.

 

Prince was amazing and, I honestly think, underappreciated while he was alive.

 

What young musicians can do this?  I hear the music my kids listen to and I don't hear or see musicians being able to do live music like this.  I'm sure they are out there and I just don't know them.  So....who?

 

 

I don't really know anything about today's music or what the kids are listening to, so I won't have a specific answer to your question. But I do have a long-winded theory.

I think it is worth noting in Prince's case that he was an amazing musician on the guitar and an extremely prolific songwriter. However, he mostly made pop music that did not necessarily display the kind of skill he that he showed off in this video. I love classic rock and love great guitar work, but I don't really like most of Prince's catalog. 

There are other musical geniuses that don't necessarily play the kind of stuff that appeals to us. For example, Flavor Flav of Public Enemy (the doofus with the clock around his neck). I heard that he is a musical virtuoso who plays like 15 different instruments. But he made rap music and wasn't even the best rapper in his group. A casual listen of Public Enemy would give you no idea that Flav has such a broad range of musical skill. 

So my theory is that there are probably still a lot of very talented musicians out there making music, but no one really shreds on the guitar anymore, and rock and roll is essentially dead. Those of us who love what we heard in this video are not going to find it in today's music. There is a new generation of musical geniuses out there making other types of music that us old-timers aren't going to be interest in.

Thanks to his increased endorsements and merch sales, this guy is essentially getting paid millions of dollars to bang Taylor Swift. I'm not a Chiefs fan nor a Swiftie, but I can't help but admire that! 

I guess it's time to find this post again...damn, I wrote this almost 10 years ago and have pasted it a couple times since then whenever a death penalty argument comes up. It usually ends the debate.

I don't know if the links still work or if the data is up to date, but as others have already posted, the evidence certainly does show that the death penalty is not a deterrence, and there is no practical reason to keep it around. The only purpose of the death penalty is for our primitive sense of vengeance.

On 5/1/2014 at 1:41 PM, Ulty said:

Now let's talk about the deterrence issue. Deterrence is hard to measure, but there is certainly more evidence to show that the death penalty is not a deterrent. In fact, the conclusion should be pretty damn clear.

 

Dusting off the old criminal justice notes from college, the theory of deterrence posits that in order for any punishment to be an effective deterrent, the punishment must be swift, certain, AND severe. All three must be present. Of course, there is no perfect deterrent, partially due to our justice system (rights of the accused, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, etc). Swiftness dictates that you are quickly punished after the crime occurs, which almost never happens, and in fact it is rare to even be caught quickly after committing a crime. Certainty of punishment would mean that you are certainly going to get caught and punish if you commit the crime, but we all know that a large number of crimes, including murders, go unsolved. In terms of a severe punishment, it doesn't get any more severe than the DP, but without the other elements of swiftness and certainty, deterrence isn't going to happen. Then of course you can argue whether or not life in prison is on par with DP in terms of severity, or if it is a big enough difference to matter in terms of deterrence. I'd argue that life in prison without possibility of parole is pretty severe.

 

To reinforce this point, if the death penalty was an effective deterrent to committing murder, you might expect that the murder rates in states that use the death penalty would be lower than states that don't use capital punishment. Nope.

 

States that do not use the death penalty have significantly lower murder rates.

 

http://www.deathpena...er-murder-rates

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/murderratesdpvsnodp.jpg

 

This is not totally conclusive, you can argue correlation/causation or whatever else, but the people who really study this stuff agree:

http://www.deathpena...d-death-penalty

 

There's also this little theory called the "Brutalization Effect," which suggests that executions actually lead to (or at least correlate with) an increase in crimes:

http://www.e-archive...ime_control.htm

 

That same article also says this about deterrence:

 

Finally, there is another kind of deterrence. I've been talking about general deterrence here, the idea that the notion of punishment will have a deterring effect on the general population. There is also specific deterrence, which means that when you punish someone, you deter that specific person from committing the same offense again. The death penalty is a damn effective form of specific deterrence; that person is not going to kill anyone else. But that same objective can be achieved with life in prison without parole.

 

So there you go. Feel free to provide an argument to show that the death penalty has any added benefit.

 

21 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

People change their views or stances quite often, or a least soften hard stances as they get more timely information. Don't you?

Oh absolutely. I have changed a lot in the past 20 years, as I imagine most of us have. 

23 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

I am curious if you apply the same lens to your party members' views from 20 years ago?

Yep. I find it maddening when any politician, D or R, is found to have done and said terrible things in the past, and when their "views" change (either from an actual epiphany of sorts, or just because it is politically convenient) I would prefer that they acknowledge their past mistakes and actually do things that will help create progress, especially in the arena of civil rights. Gay marriage and other LGBTQ issues are areas where many Dem politicians have had "evolving views" over the years (Hillary being a prime example). Their explanations are rarely convincing (I would prefer to replace them with new blood), but at least the blow in the right direction as society slowly evolves.

Republicans? Not so much (feel free to provide evidence to the contrary). This Johnson guy still appears to be a hardcore evangelical Trumper with extremist views. Yet you give him the benefit of the doubt on his views on LGBTQ rights? Why?

You admit that you know nothing about him (as is the case with most of us before yesterday). However, we've seen enough just from yesterday's to gain some insight into this guy's values. What are you seeing that affords him the benefit of the doubt in terms of being a leader in the 21st Century and promoting a healthy republic?

11 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

The easy answer is no...I am not.

 

But, 146 others voted as he did. I haven't seen where he "actively" tried to overturn anything. Please share where he claimed covid was a hoax. And the other shares were, as previously stated, from the early 2000s.

 

My point is that Jordan was a terrible choice, and he was not elected. They've tried for 3 weeks to elect a Speaker, and no one else passed muster. I've never heard of this guy, and am willing to see what track he takes in 2024...not 20+ years ago.

 

You seem concerned that his views from 20 years ago are being exposed, and you would rather focus on his views today. Do you think his views on the LGBTQ community have changed over the past 20 years? How has he evolved or progressed?

Since some of ya'll are quibbling over the differences between MTG and MAGA Johnson, and @Archy1221 seems to be quite knowledgable about GOP leadership, I have two questions:

1. What are the substantive differences between Johnson and MTG (or Jordan, or Gaetz, or Trump for that matter) in terms of leadership, values, and policy?

2. Archy, how do Johnson's and MTG's values differ from your own?

1 hour ago, nic said:

Uber Woke Literature teacher

Can you explain what this means?

1 hour ago, nic said:

I don't think conservatives trust the education department and school boards anymore.

All across the country, conservatives have been installing unqualified crackpots onto local school boards to make sure the furries don't have litter boxes, to ban books about Hank Aaron and Anne Frank, and to make sure no one forces their kids to turn transgender. Yeah, I don't trust school boards anymore either.

Here is some of the gossip:

5 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Maybe!  Honestly though, it won't be an issue.  The issue is just going to be with Michigan. 

But....(putting on my tinfoil hat)...IF South Carolina got cheater-info prior to the Tennessee game last year, and IF Satterfield used that info in what was by far SC's best offensive showing all year, and IF Satterfield parlayed that offensive performance into the OC job at Nebraska....then godammit we need to hire our own signal-spy or else our offense will continue to suck.

so, I looked up this Stalions guy's name on twitter, and people are posting videos of him standing next to the coaches on the sideline talking to them pre-snap, including this one where he looks across the field at the same time as the OSU offense, and he (and the whole sideline) immediately start signaling to each other as soon as they see the sign:

Then I went down another rabbit hole (and now can't find the link where I saw it), where it is rumored that he similarly scouted Tennessee last year, and shared intel with South Carolina, which led to SC blowing out Tenn. If this is actually true, wouldn't that possibly implicate Satterfield in this mess? 

19 hours ago, suh_fan93 said:

 

I hate to even use the word, but these people are all pussies. They are cowards, pathetic, ignorant, scum of the earth. 

And can you guess which political party these asshats vote for?

   What are these snowflakes afraid of?

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Who???  And..Why???

What? You haven't heard of the Mighty Huskies?!?!

Looks like they are an FCS school that has been in existence for almost an entire decade. Between 2014-2022, they averaged 2 wins per season. Their stadium holds 5000 fans (I'm guessing they fill about a tenth of the stadium for each game).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Christian_Huskies_football#Year-by-year_results

53 minutes ago, suh_fan93 said:

 

 

I could pick one of these sites and I can almost guarantee the content will be a thousand times better than all of the Nebraska sites I perma blocked a long time lol.  Husk Guys etc.  

 

As Charles Barkley would say they're all...

 

 

 

Also you put in a lot of work for that list.  Wow.  The time spent....lulz

 

Special shout 'out' to the poster who's feelings were hurt by my initial post above also...  I'm gonna run to a mod!!!   R u serious?!???      Double lulz

Can you at least help us to understand your posting behavior this year? 

You've been on Huskerboard since 2009 with 19k posts, yet this past year you've been obsessively fangirling over Deion and CU. You have 53 posts in this thread alone and dozens more in other threads praising Deion's every move. I mean, this board has fans from other teams occasionally make accounts to troll or antagonize, but your posting has been more obnoxious than any of those have been. No one loves Deion more than Deion, but you come a close second. 

Hell, your namesake had one of his finest moments by stomping the $h!t out of the CU coach's kid during a pick 6. But now you're their greatest fan?

What gives?

57 minutes ago, teachercd said:

My god, they have that many fan sites???

Before the Deion bandwagon, CU used to give every actual fan their own website. So yeah, they got all the way up to five!

11 hours ago, LennynSquiggy said:

He just might be innocent.

https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/mel-tuckers-attorneys-release-new-evidence-as-former-msu-football-coachs-title-ix-hearing-begins/

This is old. The new "evidence" that they released on the day that Tucker skipped his hearing, appears to be mostly irrelevant and/or speculative.

This has been discussed in more detail in this thread: 

6 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

  And yes, many need a slap across the face and a kick in the butt

I guess people can actually read the article and see the info about how black children go missing at a disproportionately higher rate but cases receive less attention than missing white children.

Quote

About 141,000 Black children under the age of 18 went missing in 2022, and Black women over 21 accounted for nearly 16,500 missing persons cases that year, according to the most recent data from the National Crime Information Center. More than 30,000 Black people in the U.S. remained missing at the end of 2022, according to the center. Although about 38% of the people who went missing i in 2022 were Black, according to the Black and Missing Foundation, missing Black people are less likely than white people to have their stories highlighted in the media. Also, missing persons cases for Black people remain open longer than those for white people. Derrica Wilson, co-founder of the foundation, told CNN that a majority of the 6,000 cases of missing Black people in her database remain unsolved. 

Or, we can look at the headline and just say "oh no, why are they dividing us based on race?"

1 hour ago, macroboy said:

We beat a B10 team on the road by two scores. A team that we haven’t beat in a while. We even did most of the stupid stuff we always do and won. It’s a good win. Take it.

Yep.

A night game, on the road, on a short week, after being utterly crushed the prior game, missing two starters on defense, missing our top 2 WRs and top 2 RBs from the beginning of the year, losing one of our top 2 remaining receivers on the first drive, starting our backup QB, missed a FG, umpteen stupid penalties and missed opportunities...

I don't feel bad about this win at all. We beat the spread by 16 points, and given the circumstances and recent history, this should have been a loss just like so many we have seen before. I'm happy with the win, and now the team gets two Saturdays off in a row to heal and learn, with the next 3 games being against struggling teams.

And cheer as the winners go by

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

You think they just end up settling or do you think MSU will try to not pay him at all?

If I had to guess, they settle. Neither party nor the school comes out of this looking good.

I 100% believe Tucker f#%ked up and all of the ranting and raving in his & his attorneys' responses do nothing to prove his innocence. But if his attorneys have raised enough of an argument based on his contract or on jurisdiction of the investigation, then it could be the sort of thing that would drag out in court for a long while, which MSU will want no part of. MSU is gonna be desperate to end the bad press and make some of this go away.

Wow, didn't see this tweet earlier: I don't know who this reporter is, but if she is correct, Tucker's lawyers reveal new "evidence" on the date of the hearing (which he skipped) that could potentially change the entire outcome, but they did not provide it during the investigation, and they don't even identify the actual witness or the source of the info?

LOL! This "evidence" is absolutely worthless. 

So, some interesting info being reported today, with Tucker not being able to attend his hearing. I'm not quite sure what to make of this. A few thoughts and questions:

1. Does any of this make it more or less likely that Tucker himself engaged in sexual misconduct? Or is this all just to make Brenda Tracy look bad?

2. A typical Title IX/sexual misconduct case is not going to use a Complainant's prior sexual history as evidence (and in fact it is impermissible) except for a couple of rare exceptions. Further, what we can see of this letter says she was in a "consensual personal relationship" with yet another coach. What does that mean? It looked like she had a personal relationship with Tucker as well. That does not mean it was sexual, and it does nothing to say that his jerking off over the phone to her was consensual. The only thing this might show is maybe if she lied about something to the investigator, but a personal relationship with someone else does not seem relevant to the actual allegations against Tucker.

3. So now the letter says they have a witness who says the phone sex was consensual. That would be big, if it was reliable evidence. Unless someone else was listening, how would this witness know anything? Unless Tracy herself told this witness that it was consensual. Otherwise the validity of this witness is kind of sus. In all of this noise, this seems like the only bit of information that might impact the finding. 

4. There are conversations about the size of Tucker's...contract. I mean, that contract was pretty big news in the sports world when it happened, it should not be surprising that people would be talking about how crazy it was. I know they are trying to establish a motive for Tracy's charges, but there would still need to be a lot more to connect the dots. 

5. If all of this evidence is relevant (and I bet a lot of it is not), why is it being sent now and not earlier? The investigation was months ago, and the hearing was scheduled for today. The hearing is not the time to provide new evidence...parties deserve the right to review and respond (in a typical Title IX process). Further, why was this sent to the President and BOT...they are not the ones conducting the hearing. If Tucker's people are taking this process seriously, I hope this info would have been sent to the Title IX folks long before now (maybe it was, who knows). 

43 minutes ago, Loebarth said:

Fox Sports reporting rumors of Urban Meyer coaching Michigan State.. Hope Not

I hope not too, mostly because I don't like Urban Meyer. But from MSU's standpoint, with everything that they have gone through (and are still going through), is Captain Lapdance really the right path? Also, Urban Meyer won't come cheap (pun intended), and MSU already blew their wad (ahem) on one huge contract which ended in an expensive scandal (yeah they fired him with cause, but there's going to be a settlement negotiated when it is all said and done). 

MSU just needs to take a quieter route for a while until they get their house in order.