TGHusker

I'm ok with this. Actually more than ok. I think it will be a good thing. Normalizing relationship wt Cuba is long overdue. We have communist China as our # 1 trading partner, which has its own civil rights and anti-American issues, yet we hold Cuba at arms length. The environment in Central and South America has changed dramatically since 1982 when Cuba was placed on the list. If the voice of democracy and liberty has any power at all, it should be expressed to our neighbor 90 miles away. Perhaps normalized relationships will paved the way for greater freedom within their system. I'd rather Cuba be linked to us financially/economically then to their old Russian (Soviet) masters. One side benefit: Both political parties have been 'beholding' to the Cuban/American vote in Florida. Thus policy towards Cuba has been swayed by the same. This will remove this 'pandering' issue from the table to a certain degree. I know Rubio will make a big issue out of it (as well as most of the other Repubs running for President) but I think overall it is time to get beyond the politics of 1962-63 http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-takes-cuba-off/2015/04/14/id/638442/

Yes, lets have a guy that doesn't have a college degree be the leader of our country. I dont' disagree with basically what you said but I find it funny at the same time. I have had many conversations on forums like this with liberal people who believe jobs that require a college degree are elitist and do nothing but hurt poor people and are designed to keep the poor in their place. I've been a Scott Walker fan but of late I wonder if he will be able to weather the heat of the constant campaign pressure and exposure. Bush, Christie, Cruz, Paul all have had more media experience and exposure. We'll see if Walker is ready for prime time and avoids the Rick Perry moment.

Because we wouldn't' want to help or fellow man now would we? I'm for anybody but a status quo GOP candidate who panders to the extremists. However I'm not dumb enough to think that will ever happen. Too many damn redneck idiots out there, and too many ignorant bible thumpers that want to force their "values" on me. Z - I agree wt the 1st part I highlighted in red. No more establishment candidates - Jeb Bush for example and also not one from the extreme like Ted Cruz. I'm ready for a new face/name. Regarding 'values' - in the market place of ideas, many values are 'forced' on us to consider. Some we agree wt and some we don't. Some we end up living with when they become the 'law of the land' - whether we like it or not. I'll give Jeb the benefit of the doubt right now because I don't know much about him. He would be better than Cruz and that's not even open for debate. Cruz is the Bane of current American politics, and everything this country doesn't need. Jeb could be better than Rubio too. I had hope for Rubio when he took to the stage but for all his intelligence he's still become just another GOP candidate, no more original thoughts, he just toes the party line. Regarding values I know you understand what I'm saying. We protect people's right to worship and separate that from the government, we don't beat the bible down on them and force them to live how our interpretation of "our" religion sees fit. Have to agree with you about Rubio - it seems his 'flower has faded' over time and the rhetoric is becoming pretty routine. Maybe he was having a hard time finding his unique 'voice'. Cruz and Paul came along and started sucking all of the air out of the room. I understand what you are saying about values also. No issues.

I'm right there with ya. There were times where LP looked like a man amongst boys on a team that was crazy talented. The Fiesta Bowl run at 2:32 of that video was just incredible. Reminds me of THE RUN by Frasier later in the game.

I remember that play. - When a center or guard is leading the blocking around the end it reminds me of the good old days of the pipeline.

Because we wouldn't' want to help or fellow man now would we? I'm for anybody but a status quo GOP candidate who panders to the extremists. However I'm not dumb enough to think that will ever happen. Too many damn redneck idiots out there, and too many ignorant bible thumpers that want to force their "values" on me. Z - I agree wt the 1st part I highlighted in red. No more establishment candidates - Jeb Bush for example and also not one from the extreme like Ted Cruz. I'm ready for a new face/name. Regarding 'values' - in the market place of ideas, many values are 'forced' on us to consider. Some we agree wt and some we don't. Some we end up living with when they become the 'law of the land' - whether we like it or not.

Agree 100%.

A while back, I watched with my wife the John Adams HBO series based on David McCullough's book. The movie series has spurred me on to some excellent reading of the time period. One thing that has really stood out to me is that we've been fighting this battle of 'big govt vs small govt', states rights vs federal govt authority, centralization or de-centralization of power, individual freedom, etc for well over 200 years now. The things you and I talk about are really nothing new - just different applications of the same discussion which started so many years ago. In some ways, we are still, working with the founders, in creating a 'more perfect union'. When I look at our discussions from this perspective, I can hear more clearly & give more 'grace', to those who have contrary voices than my own (perhaps 80% on this board!). When we consider the 'bright lights' that have discussed similar topics and have tried to iron out their differences, I find it very humbling to know that these discussions are beyond me to resolve but yet are enlightening. I see things that each of you have said and see how it fits into this continuing dialogue. Reading about these men, has helped me to appreciate all that they have done on our behalf. It also gives me appreciation for each poster on here who continues the discussion. You are continuing in their tradition. Are you with Hamilton or with Jefferson? (a rhetorical question - you don't have to answer. I think there are parts of each of these men in each of our political heritage). It was their polar opposite positions that defined the era. Also, The friendship lost and re-found between Adams and Jefferson is a very interesting thread seen throughout the time period. If you get a chance to read any of the following, I highly recommend these titles. John Adams by David McCullough http://www.amazon.com/John-Adams-David-McCullough/dp/0743223136/ref=wl_mb_wl_huc_mrai_3_dp Founding Brothers - has some neat behind the scene stories that aren't often told. The author really gets into the Hamilton / Burr duel for example and gave a lot of great insight. http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-J-Ellis-Revolutionary-Generation/dp/B004FVZ04Q/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1428959356&sr=1-2&keywords=founding+brothers A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign -If you think the 2000 election was tense, it was a cake walk compared to 1800 - Excellent book http://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Catastrophe-Tumultuous-Election-Presidential/dp/0743293177 Madison and Jefferson - These 2 were partners in many ways. http://www.amazon.com/Madison-Jefferson-Andrew-Burstein/dp/0812979001/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1428959448&sr=1-1&keywords=jefferson+and+madison Alexander Hamilton, A life http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Willard-Sterne-Randall/dp/0060954663/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1428959793&sr=8-3&keywords=alexander+hamilton

Good to have you hear.

Have to agree. Of course those were my 'formative' years (or is that formula years- I guess I was off the baby food then). High school and college. While I was more mild rock (CSNY, Young, The Who, Guess Who, Eagles, America, 3 Dog Night) I occasionally got into Deep Purple and a few groups like that.

Interesting topic. Just so happens that I talked to a 2nd person this weekend who had worked at a particular funeral home here in Tulsa (the previous person who worked there told me the same story about 7 years ago). At said funeral home, pretty much all of the employees have seen a 'friendly' female (in her early 20s) 'ghost'. Both people claim she (the ghost) will move things on desks and is more 'active' early evening. Normally they just get a 'glimpse' of her - quick movement but often 'feel' her there. The person who told me this the other day has started doing the same think you are doing Redux. I think she described herself as a 'spiritual' person but not particularly 'religious'. The Tulsa paper did an article around Halloween (of course) on several places here in Tulsa in which the paranormal supposedly occurs. As a Christian, I do believe in a spiritual world, dimension that is beyond our physical world. How these experiences fit in and manifest themselves, that I'm not sure about.

Had to +1 this.

Related to the RB thread - Offensive line play. It has a lot to do in evaluating the backs. Unfortunately, I didn't think of it as much during the game. How do you think the OL did? I'd like to hear your thoughts - did you see any major blocking difference in technique, etc? There was a near "Cotton falls on butt" penalty in the 2nd half. The RT I believe looked like he was about to go over backwards but caught himself just in time for a 'normal 5 yard penalty. I think Bush was QB at the time.

I was most impressed by Darlington - surprised as it seems most talk was about Bush. I thought Bush showed some potential and has a good arm. Made some key interceptions though. Stanton: I was hopeful all of the Elite 11 hype was real and that he could transition his HS success to college. But it really looked 'bad'. If he wants to be a starting college QB, it will have to be someplace else. I wouldn't be surprised if Riley gets his kind of QB in here and the new guy will be starting in 2 years after TA's senior year. if he is a HS recruit. If JC recruit - the year after this coming season if he is a real top notch. (still hard to unseat a 3 year starter in TA at that point) - unless Darlington gives him reason be a full time starter. For all of the back up QB that we now have, I think Darlington is the closest to what Riley is looking for. Edit: TA still will remain the starter I believe and should be. My impression of Darlington was as one of the other guys - I don't see him replacing TA. TA still has rough edges but it is hard to replace experience - mostly winning experience as well TA should only get better under this coach. A JC recruit would only replace TA if he was the next Russel Wilson type of transfer.

Getting back to your original post, I'd have to say 'no' to this. Running a university is a balancing act that has to be struck somewhere between maintaining complete order in all things and letting the inmates run the asylum. American universities do a pretty fair job of maintaining an atmosphere conducive to free thinking while still providing an education to student who want one. This may be true to a very limited extent, but for good reason. Recall last month the OU students and their bawdy racist song? They were probably within their Constitutional First Amendment rights to sing that song. But no university could allow behavior like that to exist. It would quickly spiral out of hand, leading to prejudice and alienating a significant segment of students. See above. The reining in of free expression on U.S. campuses is de minimis, and for the most part, necessary. /JMHO Good post NUance. I had to laugh about the 'inmates run the asylum' comment. This is true - we could end up wt another 1960s Berkley situation. There does need to be a balance in free speech and admin constraints.

X - I for one don't want it to fall apart as I note above. I hope this interim haggling going on - claim and counter claim - will bring the best possible agreement. It won't bother me one bit if Obama/Kerry gets the credit. In fact, I liked the fact that Obama was speaking to Cuba this past weekend. While I don't like or support Castro in any way, how we can have China as our #1 trading partner (which still have on going civil rights issues probably greater than Cuba's) and yet keep Cuba at arms length over 1960s Soviet action? I do understand the power of the Cuban/American voting block in the important state of Florida- it is probably the real reason for non-action by any party during the past 30 years. If the power of democracy & liberty has the power to persuade than I think we should try it 90 miles away. It seems it takes a president who isn't running again & a vision of what "can be' to have the freedom to begin the liberalization of relationships between our 2 countries. You may be right on Weekly Standard article and B Kristal specifically. I know there are those who don't want any progress if it means the 'other side' gets credit.

Everyone's telling her she'll win it. Kinda hard to say no to being the 1st female president. Yes, it is easy to believe the press about ourselves when they are positive. It will be interesting to see how she works this campaign in comparison to how she ran 8 years ago (seems like so long ago in some ways)

Thanks Knapp for acknowledging that I'm not hostile. I'm also not a propagandist either - not any more than those less conservative are propagandists for the left. Now getting back on topic, An article discussing the tension between 'hate speech codes' and 'free speech': http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/codes.html There are compelling points on both sides of the argument The following are links from Fire - the organization I noted in an earlier post started by non-conservative Greg Lukianoff. These links provide info to the types of cases they are working on. There is much more detail on their website. They have done work on behalf of students and faculty crossing the full realm of the political/social spectrum in which, due process, conscience and religious liberty rights were violated. https://www.thefire.org/top-cases/ https://www.thefire.org/fire-brings-four-free-speech-lawsuits-in-one-day/ https://www.thefire.org/category/cases/freedom-of-conscience/ https://www.thefire.org/category/cases/due-process/ https://www.thefire.org/category/cases/religious-liberty/ Interview by John Stossel of Greg Lukianoff on the issue: http://stosselintheclassroom.org/videos/college_campuses_limiting_free_speech/ A couple examples to highlight the issue: http://www.kcchronicle.com/2015/01/23/federal-judge-rules-against-waubonsee-community-college-in-free-speech-lawsuit/av3c9ut/ http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/article/college_reaches_110k_free_speech_settlement_with_student This comment, from a lawyer representing a student summed it up this way: Colleges should be the marketplace of ideas,” said Senior Legal Counsel David Hacker. “Free speech should not be censored or limited to a ridiculously small area on campus, nor should students need permission to hand out fliers. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech for all students in the outdoor areas of campus, regardless of their religious or political beliefs.”

Knapp, we had our PM discussion and you know I've moderated since those earlier OP of mine. You also mentioned a couple of weeks ago that you were going to make an independent out of me yet as I was supporting you and others on some topic - can't remember the thread. We are going to disagree at times but that doesn't mean we can't agree to disagree. If you call causing dissent not pulling the left of center line that so many take on this board, then I would disagree with that characterization. It is called having an independent opinion. I've seen posters with conservative or religious views are often chided/ridiculed directly or indirectly for their views. That shouldn't be happening. People are characterized as tea baggers (the derogatory form) or nutso for believing in 'their invisible friend' or worse. -- taken from the 'If Stephen Fry met God' thread - which I guess isn't divisive or slanted since it agrees with your religious philosophy.

Is "Rand Paul a d-bag" an acceptable topic? It must be. I added posts to it but did not jump on the original poster just because he was attacking someone on the right. I wasn't there to defend RP either. But I could see how many might consider that a very divisive thread. But it appears to be an acceptable topic if you come from the left of center. I didn't see any labels placed on the OP as a shill. Have I called anyone a D-bag? No. I don't use the word 'liberal' in a derogatory way that others use 'tea party'.

Knapp, why all of the harshness? What is so divisive or far right of a post on free speech rights of students, left or right? It seems to me Knapp that your posts are becoming a caricature of what this discussion is all about - (no offense intended). It appears you are trying to 'sanitize' the board wt politically correct (or in your case acceptable) topics by attacking me the poster. Why the harsh tones? It seems by the reviews of the book, Unlearning Liberty by Greg Lukianoff, posted above - that this topic has no small merit and is based in reality and that it is not a left vs right issue.

I hope and want to believe so -- again even if it appears to be a bit muddy - maybe it will spur more talking and making it more concise and clear. Again movement in the right direction vs war. I want to believe so too. I just don't trust too many people who are involved to get all warm and fuzzy at this point. Talking is a good thing. Actions mean much more though. Amen on the action part

So, a "shill" is someone who goes into threads that are talking about a certain topic and act like they are debating an issue only to actually be diverting the discussion away from the real issue and painting the person making the argument on the other side as a wackjob. Ummm....isn't that what you basically just did in this thread? TG brought a discussion point to the board and created a thread. You then came in and instead of debating the issue, you immediately discredited him for even thinking of starting the thread and called him something that I'm sure he would prefer to not be. Thus....taking away from actually debating what he was wanting to talk about. You summed up my feelings BRB. Of course part of my problem in starting threads sometimes is that I don't always express myself the clearest to avoid a charge like Knapp's. I'll read something and in my enthusiasm in thinking that this might be a good discussion topic, I'll post the article when I haven't fully made up my mind on the article yet myself. Sometimes I won't make up my mind until I see and understand other people's thoughts on it and say 'yea that makes good sense'. However, I'll fail to say - I haven't made up my mind on this yet and someone may assume I agree wt every sentence of the article or the tone of the article. All I know is that this should be discussed. Since most of my reading comes from right of center sources that is where I get the topics from. Knapp knows I'm more center right then he but I've been moving from far right - so it is easy for him to assume (and I don't hold this against him - as my past strong right positions would give him that assumption) that I just am a shill for the right. However, I don't see the same label placed on those who bring consistently left of center topics and articles - are they shills for the liberal causes? Regarding this article in the OP, I don't agree wt the tone of the article. I do agree that too much speech is denied but I point out as a counter balance in my comments that it happens in conservative colleges as well.

Good points. What I would like to see more of is what BRB said about challenging his kids but only on the college level. Let me give a personal example, I took a sociology class way back in my undergrad days (1970s - yea I'm old) I wrote a pretty detailed paper, while strong grammatically and in structure was opposite the view the teacher took on the subject. At that time I could not be classified as a conservative (I voted for George McGovern for Senate and chose Hubert Humphrey as my major history subject), yet I was to the right of the teacher. She attacked me not on the merit of the paper but on the position of the paper. She did not challenge me with counter points or as BRB says a contrary position but solely on my position alone being the issue. I tell all of my students, that I'm looking for "thinking' in their paper. A thought process that is clear in regards to the subject is what I look for. They don't have to give me a long paper to earn a good grade, they can even be what would be generally considered to be 'wrong' on the subject, & they don't have to try to agree wt me. But simple, facts only answers without thought process won't garner a good grade. Critical thinking is one of the most important skills a student can learn during their college days. (Something I myself need to remember in the political forum - too easy to respond with emotion!! ) In some cases PC may be an institutional wide issue/philosophy but in many cases it may be more limited to departments and individual instructors. College should be like a good Husker Board exchange - in which opposing ideas are the desired goal, where the instructor leads by inspiring open discussion, and which the instructor's own views are somewhat veiled - can't nail him/her down because their goal isn't to make robots who think like them but rather students who think. Even though at times we many know what an instructor's position may be, he/she should facilitate the free expression of ideas without fear of retaliation if a student's paper or speech in contrary. Here is where I think the failure is at and BRB touched on it. Administrators have allowed instructors (most of the time tenured - thus untouchable) to act as little kings in their classrooms to the detriment of the student learning environment. The political extremes, both sides, can creep into the learning environment and can shut down speech/opinion and school administrations too often either look the other way, sanction it/lead it or are just indifferent to it. It is up to the admin to create the environment for critical thinking and free expression and the instructors to inspire it.

Understood and I am a firm believer in higher ed - I teach part time as I noted. I agree on the political extremes causing the failure - it seeps into college as well. The Failed part I was alluding to is not college as a whole but the free speech issue and as you note swings both ways.