TGHusker

From Knapp's original post: I thought they did a really good job updating the Bourne books into modern-day thrillers. Initially I didn't like Matt Damon as Jason Bourne, but by about midway through the first movie I was on board. Good stuff. I agree with this. It wasn't so much that I didn't like Matt Damon initially, it was more like - I'm surprised by him in the role and then it got to be - he is great in the role. Again I'll use my wife in this review. She isn't a history buff nor does she like 'violent' movies, however, she is so intrigue by the way Matt plays the role in all 3 movies that at the end of the 3rd movie when it shows that he is alive (like who would doubt) and he swims away (sorry if I spoiled it now ) she gives out a spontaneous cheer (sorry long grammatically incorrect sentence - I write like I think). The Bourne series is my favorite action series of all time. There have been times during the Christmas season when the whole family is over (2 sons and wives) were we'd watch the 1st movie, play games, watch the 2nd, play games, then watch the 3rd - an all day Bourne fest.

This may not fall in the usual genre of books to film that Knapp was looking for but my wife & I are currently watching the John Adams HBO series based on David McCullough's book. David is one of my favorite historians and all of this books are very well written and hold your interest. The HBO version does an excellent job of capturing the excitement, danger, political peril and intrigue of those days and is a good reflection of the book. For my wife to be interested in history, it must be done well. She has enjoyed the history and I enjoy seeing McCullough's John Adams book coming alive. It would be nice if they followed up wt a Truman movie based on David's Truman book.

No thank you. Which is different than us sponsoring Israel how? Semantics maybe? Israel has assassinated multiple Iranian scientists, blown up their facilities, and (with the help of the US) hacked into their computer systems. Congress does have the responsibility to advice and consent and approve treaties. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate. Perhaps the admin is going for a non-binding agreement?? http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/did-obama-go-non-binding-deal-iran-dodge-senate-state-dep-t-won-t Regarding Israel blowing up Iranian facilities: up to debate as to what lengths a country can go to in order to guarantee its survival. Israel sees the Iranian program as a direct threat - not to mention Iran's sponsorship of terror groups bent on Israel's destruction - not to mention #2 Iran leaders' stated desire to see Israel destroyed. What might the USA do if Cuba actually ended up wt Soviet missiles or if Venezuela (a known anti-USA govt) was developing terror groups or a missile program to attack the USA? We would act out of self preservation. I get your overall point however: terrorism of one kind breads perceived reactionary terrorist activity of another kind. Thus my point: What good is a peace agreement between the USA and Iran without Israel (and Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt - who basically with Iran represent the whole region) in the deal. Other than oil and our defense treaty with Israel, we have no skin in the game. The other countries have their survival in the game. Find me a case in the last 200 years of Congress going behind any President's back when there are conversations going on. Again, the points raised earlier were cases when the sitting President had refused to talk with those leaders at all. Strigori, regarding the bold, the assumption behind your statement is that negotiations are always preferable to not talking. This isn't always the case. Lets look at the 2 Reagan cases in the list above. 1. That time “liberal lion” Ted Kennedy proposed a secret alliance with the Soviet Union to defeat President Ronald Reagan A 1983 KGB memo uncovered after the fall of the Soviet Union described a meeting between former KGB officials and former Democratic Sen. John Tunney (Sen. Kennedy’s confidant) in Moscow. Tunney asked the KGB to convey a message to Yuri Andropov, the Soviet leader, proposing a campaign in which Kennedy would visit Moscow to offer talking points to Andropov and Soviet officials on how to attack Reagan’s policies to U.S. audiences. According to the memo, Kennedy, through the intermediary, offered to help facilitate a media tour in a proposed visit by Andropov to the U.S. Kennedy’s hope, as conveyed by the letter, was to hurt Reagan politically on foreign policy at a time when the economic recovery was working in his favor. In this case, we have a Senator inviting an enemy to interfer in US internal politics but it goes deeper than this. Reagan knew that the old negotiating methods & cold war policy (MAD) had to change. He recognized that the Soviet Union was a corrupt (evil) system that enslaves men. Maintaining status quo (negotiating arms deals that would be broken time and again wt the Soviets, deals that gave them more power) would not solve the greater problem of the Soviet system and its aggression. Reagan would not negotiate on the Soviet's terms. Thus his hawk like stance to break their system. He knew they were a house of cards and our arms deals should no longer prop up that house. Reagon also demonstrated that it is better to walk away from talks than to accept a bad deal - 1986 Reykjavík Summit. In the end a better agreement was created in 1987. 2. “Dear Comandante” In 1984, 10 Democratic lawmakers — including the then majority leader and House Intelligence Committee chairman – sent a letter to Nicaraguan Communist leader Daniel Ortega known as the “Dear Comandante” letter. In it, the lawmakers criticized Reagan’s policy toward Nicaragua and whitewashed the record of violence by the Sandinista communists. He we have Ortega, communist leader who is Soviet tool spreading his form of communism in Central America. Negotiations with this guy would gain nothing. Supporting the contras and the other opposition groups was the only way to bring change. The democratic lawmakers letter and visit by Kerry and i believe Harken undermined the strategy to stop the rise of communism in central America. One may be able to argue that the in the case of Iraq and Syria under both Bush admins, we were past the point of negotiation when the dems 'went over the president's head'. Regardless, I think negotiation should always be the 1st option if there is a chance of a fair and balanced agreement and in which 'liberty and freedom' is the winner in the long term. But there is a time, when negotiation is not always the best option and other tactics (not necessarily war - sanctions, economic pressures - Reagan's deal with the Saudi's to drive oil prices down crippled the Soviet's revenue stream at the same time Reagan was building up our military - the Soviets could not keep up)

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/10/not-everyone-is-in-tom-cotton-fan-club From Politico http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/tom-cotton-joe-biden-iran-letter-defense-115925.html So we have a guy who wants to end talks with Iran, he has said directly that he wants talks to fail, calls for new sanctions, and the mentality behind his anti-nuclear views with Iran is to do exactly what he wants, or military answers will be used. He has openly called for an increase in spending to give more weapons to Israel. The defense contractors are not inviting him anywhere because he's a funny and entertaining guy. They want things and he is open to giving it to them. And it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the end game. Good info and thanks. Like I said, I don't know his motive and I don't know his history - even if he is next door in Ark. If this is his motive - then the letter is off based (assumption being that this is the motive behind all of the other signatures on the letter - not a far stretch of the imagination there). I'm tired of the MIC running things and using US foreign policy to place suffering on others while padding the MIC's bottom line.

Here is a funny story -- Dawkins prays to 'God' https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Y9bR3zcAcDY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NDDC1-_e7hI

A couple of short videos. I also saw that Dawkins had a video like Fry's. Same argument. BTW: we won't be solving this problem on this forum. People much smarter than us have been arguing these points for centuries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=it7mhQ8fEq0#t=94 <iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/it7mhQ8fEq0?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

another person's post on the subject http://www.whypain.org/did_god_create_evil.html Did God Create Evil? Or Does Evil Prove God Does Not Exist? The following is a quote that appears on a number of atheist web sites. It has been in atheist literature for the forty years that this program we call “Does God Exist?” has been in existence: Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot …or he can but does not want to, …or he cannot and does not want to, …or lastly he can and wants to. If he wants to remove evil, and cannot, he is not omnipotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is not benevolent. If he neither can nor wants to, he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent; But if God can abolish evil and wants to, and if evil still exists, then God must not be God. God does not exist. How can God be benevolent and omnipotent and still allow evil to exist?There are many approaches to the subject of evil. Modern atheists not only deny the existence of God, but also the existence of evil. Richard Dawkins, perhaps the leading twenty-first century spokesman for atheism says: In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music. - Richard Dawkins, Out of Eden, page 133. Trying to deny the existence of evil does not eliminate it. It is like trying to convince a two-year-old about to get a shot that it is not going to hurt. The two-year-old knows better from experience, and trying to deny it will not make the pain go away. Most of us have had enough things happen in our lives that have convinced us, like the two year old, that evil is real. There is much that lies outside of DNA, and even DNA does not require mutations and alterations in it to make it automatically doomed to bring pain and suffering into the lives of human beings. The fact is that evil does exist. It is not a substance. You cannot take a pile of evil and measure it in any way. In fact it is not something God created. There is no passage in the Bible that says God created evil. Passages like Isaiah 45:7 were translated in the King James as "evil," but more modern translations use the more accurate rendering of the word, which is "disaster." A disaster is not intrinsically evil. The Nile River flooded every year for centuries. This was unquestionably a disaster for the people who lived in the Nile delta, but it was not evil. It made Egypt the bread basket of the ancient world as it fertilized and rejuvenated the soils of the area. Evil is not something God sat down and deliberately and maliciously created so that humans could experience pain and suffering. So if evil is not a product and creation of God, why does it exist and why does God allow it to exist? Why is evil not a proof that God is not really God but rather a creation of man. The problem is that atheists and many believers have never stopped to deal with the questions, “What is the purpose of man's existence?” “Why are we here?” “Why do we exist?” If you assume that man is a chance event, then you automatically deny there is a purpose in our existence. Huxley, representing the atheist view, said it well: We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to Earth, or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents. Julian Huxley, The Human Degree, J.B. Lippincott Co., 1976. The atheist view of man reduces man to an insignificant dot in the grand scheme of things -- just one of an infinite number of accidents that has no purpose and no reason to exist. The views of Huxley and Dawkins and their followers demean man and offer a very negative and pessimistic view of man with no hope and no value placed on human life above that of any other life on the planet. The biblical concept of man is just the opposite. Man is presented in the Bible as something created in the image of God. Man has the life force as do other living things, but man also has a component that sets us apart from every other thing on the planet -- both living and nonliving. This component allows man to be creative, and to be able to express that creativity in art, music, and worship of God. It also is what enables man to encounter evil. Evil results from our capacity to choose to reject good. When mankind ate of the forbidden fruit, a uniqueness was activated which enabled us to make choices. The fruit was not an apple, it was "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" (Genesis 2:9). I would not be so presumptuous as to pretend I understand all that this involves. Scientists have been trying to understand the unique characteristics of humans from the time of Adam, and we still do not understand all that makes us human. In biblical terms, however, it is simply man's capacity to make choices that affect other humans. Deciding whether to pull a weed out of your garden is not a decision that involves good or evil. Deciding whether to pull the trigger of a gun pointed at someone is. Evil involves making choices, and mankind has uniquely been given the capacity to make choices that involve good and evil. How we make these choices is a reflection of what we believe about ourselves and our relationship to everything in the cosmos. An atheist like Carl Sagan would limit what he believes about that relationship. Sagan was fond of saying: The cosmos is everything that is or was or ever will be. Carl Sagan, Cosmos, Random House, New York, 1980, page 257. That view excludes anything that is not a part of the universe we observe. It limits the effect of our choices to what we observe with our senses. That is the easy way out, but there is evidence from every discipline known to man that there is more to the cosmos and to our existence than what we perceive through our senses. In the Bible there are references to things beyond what our senses perceive. Ephesians 6: 12 says it best: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." We do not understand all of what those entities involve, but their existence and effect upon man is undeniable. The purpose of man's existence involves the battle Ephesians 6:12 describes. The book of Job gives us a spectator's view of man's existence and how one man's existence serves as a battle ground for the struggle between good and evil. Job was created for this purpose, and in Job 42:5 he rejoices in having come to an understanding of why he was created. This is quite a contrast to Job 3:3-11 where Job laments the fact that he was ever born. Each of us can take the name "Job" out of the book of Job and write our name in place of it. We are all Job! Virtually every science fiction story in existence focuses its message on the struggle between good and evil, and we all seem to understand and profit from such literature. Yet when we become the prime players in the same kind of struggle that science fiction describes, we seem to find the concept too hard to grasp. The atheist statement at the start of our article then radiates a failure to have any comprehension of why we exist. It is not that God is not omnipotent. It is not that He does not care. What God is focused on is His purpose in creating man. He will not compromise that purpose by interfering in the natural consequences of the choices that humans make. Sin leads to death, and God tells us that it is appointed unto man once to die (Hebrews 9:27). We are told that we will reap what we sow (Galatians 6:6-8). God can and will abolish evil. The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 makes it clear that a "great gulf" will be placed between good and evil across which nothing can pass. The greatest act of benevolence known to man is the fact that God promises that we will eventually be in a place where "there will be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Revelation 21:4). Claiming that the existence of evil is a proof that there is no God is an unfortunate demonstration of a lack of understanding of why we are here. The ultimate beauty of the picture the Bible gives us of God and the question of evil is that when God came to the Earth in a physical form and saw how much sin pains, and what agony humans suffer because of the consequences of sin, God burst into tears (John 11:35). We serve a God who cares. As the writer of Hebrews states it, "For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). - John N. Clayton

This is too big of a topic to answer with just a few posts. There are many excellent Christian resources that answer Mr Fry's basic assertion - that if there is a god, he is not worthy of my presence because of all of the suffering he has placed on man kind. One book I that I might suggest is Randy Alcorn's book - "If God is good ...." Timothy Keller's book - "The Reason for God". There are many more and also some coming from the deeper world of theology, philosophy or apologetics. A quick web search I found one person's answer - not exhaustive http://answers.org/theology/suffering.html If God Is Good, Why Is There So Much Suffering in the World? Bob and Gretchen Passantino, ©Copyright 1997Each of us has watched a loved one die, been the victim of a crime, lived among the poverty-stricken, or in some way been confronted with the reality of suffering. Human history sometimes seems like one long chronicle of suffering and despair. In the midst of suffering we cry out, Why is light given to those in misery, and life to the bitter of the soul, to those who long for death that does not come, who search for it more than for hidden treasure. . . . For sighing comes to me instead of food; my groans pour out like water. What I feared has come upon me; what I dreaded has happened to me. I have no peace, no quietness; I have no rest, but only turmoil. [Job 3:20-21, 24-26] Why is there suffering? Why are the innocent victimized? Is there purpose in pain? Is there any escape? For the Christian, who believes that God is all-good and all-powerful, answers to these questions are especially important. Skeptics frequently challenge Christians with the problem of a good God allowing suffering. Usually their argument says, “If God is all-powerful, he could prevent or eliminate suffering. If God is all-good, he would not want his creation to suffer. Since you say God is both, suffering should not exist. In fact, however, we see suffering all around us and experience it ourselves. Therefore, God doesn’t exist, or he’s not all-powerful, or he’s not all-good.” First, we need to distinguish between philosophical and personal engagement with suffering. When someone is in the midst of anguish, all the logic and truth in the world is incomplete without a demonstration of compassionate love. Answers are not merely conclusions of mental exercises, they should have consequences in our lives. Second, we need to consider the consequences of accepting the skeptic’s alternatives: Suffering proves that God does not exist, or He is not all-powerful, or He is not all-good. If God does not exist, then all of existence, including our suffering, has no enduring value, purpose, or goal. If God is not all-powerful, then we have no hope that suffering will ever be eliminated. If God is not all-good, then to pain and despair we must add the threat of immanent divine sadism. Each of these alternatives is at least as problematic as the Christian alternative, so the skeptic has merely exchanged one answer he doesn’t like for others equally unpleasant. The skeptic has not solved the problem of suffering merely by refusing to solve it. We should judge answers by truth, not emotion. Third, we need to understand that many problems with theology come from problems with personal world views and values. For example, the pleasure of helping someone who is needy has absolutely no value to the person to whom self-indulgence is the highest good. Many people struggle with the problem of God and suffering because they reject a Christian world view. Avoiding suffering has become preferable to learning patience; immediate gratification means more than self-discipline; self-gratification is more important than sharing; and physical pleasure is superior to spiritual joy. Fourth, the skeptic assumes parts of the Christian world view in order to indict the Christian God, but he is unwilling to acknowledge the other parts of the Christian world view that answer his indictments. He assumes a standard of “good” that is absolute and eternal (and, therefore, cannot have its source in changing, finite humans), but denies the existence of the absolute and eternal. In a non-theistic world where values are social conventions, survival mechanisms, majority opinions, or assertions of the most powerful, there can be no absolute, eternal values. “Good” as a social convention is merely what a society declares to be good; in one society it might be eating one’s enemies, in another it may be loving one’s enemies. “Good” as a survival mechanism could include killing off imperfect, non-productive members of the species, such those with less than average intelligence or poor eyesight, or restricting reproduction to the physical and mental elite; etc. If the skeptic wants to borrow the Christian definition of values as absolute and eternal, then he can’t reject the Christian explanation of suffering which is consistent with such values. If the Christian world view is considered, there are a variety of approaches to the question of God and suffering. Biblical convictions include (1) suffering does not originate with God and will be eliminated at some point; (2) God works good in the midst of suffering; (3) not all pain is suffering in the moral sense; (4) and physical, transient suffering and death are relatively inconsequential compared to spiritual, eternal suffering and death. God is all-powerful, meaning He can accomplish anything that can be accomplished with power. He cannot use power to do “non-power” kinds of things, such as the logically impossible. He cannot make two plus two equal five, violate His unchangeable nature, make Himself go out of existence and come back into existence, and He cannot make morally responsible persons without allowing for the possibility of those persons making wrong choices. The Bible says that suffering is the consequence of the wrong choice (sin) of morally responsible persons. If God always prevented people from sinning, or always prevented the consequences of sin, then human goodness would be mere programming, not true goodness. We do not pat a computer on its head when it executes its program -- it is a determined function, not an exercise of moral responsibility. Suffering, the consequence of human sin, is not caused by God, but by the sin of persons with moral responsibility. Also, God has not abandoned the world to eternally suffer the consequences of sin. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to provide ultimate freedom from the consequences of sin. It is wrong to indict God because suffering is not yet eliminated, just as it would be wrong to indict a doctor who treats a gunshot wound he didn’t cause, simply because the wound is not healed instantly. Our assurance that God will eliminate suffering is not the only comfort God gives us. While God did not cause suffering, he has given it purpose. It became the vehicle for our salvation when “Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame” (Hebrews 12:2). Complete avoidance of suffering is not an option for any of us. Our option is to waste our experience or realize God’s purposes in the midst of suffering. Through suffering we can learn patience, self-discipline, trust, and many other “virtues.” When we suffer we can experience the love, compassion, and self-denial of those who help us. When we help someone who is suffering, we find significance in our own lives as well. Not all pain is “bad” in the moral sense. God created us with nerve endings that use pain to protect us. Pain keeps us from burning our hands in a campfire, bending our legs back until the joint breaks, neglecting nourishment until we starve, etc. Suffering can also be a direct, just consequence of our own actions. Our sense of justice says that it is “good” when an exploiter loses his friends, even though loneliness is “painful.” It is good when a mugger is locked up, even though he “suffers” the loss of his freedom. All humans have a moral conscience, even corrupted by sin and often ignored. Our conscience should not rejoice in sin, suffering, and death. When we see innocents suffering, we should experience moral outrage and seek to rescue the sufferer. When we see someone suffer death, we should experience loss and sorrow. Sin, suffering, and death are not the destinies for which God created us. He created us to enjoy perfect, good, loving fellowship with Him for eternity. Despite our moral betrayal, he continues to offer eternal life. The skeptic has it partly right -- suffering should offend our sense of goodness and justice. Sadly, he misses the rest of the argument: Because suffering violates goodness and justice, there must be an all-good, all-powerful God whose remedy restores the perfection he created. This is the hope that the Christian offers in the midst of suffering: I consider the that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. [Romans 8:8] Suffering and death in this sinful world are not without remedy. The only reasonable response to the existence of suffering is confidence in God’s promises for eternity: Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. . . . Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. . . . Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [Matt. 5:3-10]

No thank you. Which is different than us sponsoring Israel how? Semantics maybe? Israel has assassinated multiple Iranian scientists, blown up their facilities, and (with the help of the US) hacked into their computer systems. Congress does have the responsibility to advice and consent and approve treaties. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate. Perhaps the admin is going for a non-binding agreement?? http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/did-obama-go-non-binding-deal-iran-dodge-senate-state-dep-t-won-t Regarding Israel blowing up Iranian facilities: up to debate as to what lengths a country can go to in order to guarantee its survival. Israel sees the Iranian program as a direct threat - not to mention Iran's sponsorship of terror groups bent on Israel's destruction - not to mention #2 Iran leaders' stated desire to see Israel destroyed. What might the USA do if Cuba actually ended up wt Soviet missiles or if Venezuela (a known anti-USA govt) was developing terror groups or a missile program to attack the USA? We would act out of self preservation. I get your overall point however: terrorism of one kind breads perceived reactionary terrorist activity of another kind. Thus my point: What good is a peace agreement between the USA and Iran without Israel (and Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt - who basically with Iran represent the whole region) in the deal. Other than oil and our defense treaty with Israel, we have no skin in the game. The other countries have their survival in the game.

Sadly, even the local news anymore is more about entertainment, culture, etc. Where have all of the hard investigators gone?

Strigori pretty much nailed it right there. For TGHusker: I love it. I have no issue with what Strigori said to a point IF Strigori's hypothesis is correct, that Cotton is in the hip of the MIC and is only doing this to further their agenda, then I would be in agreement. I'll look for his supporting evidence that this was the motive behind the letter and the signatures of all of the other Senators. I am not a fan of the MIC and their need for war. What if the motive for the letter was to avoid a 'peace agreement' that would fall far short by not including other parties in the region as well as advice from the Congress? Can we honestly say we can trust this Iranian leadership? They sponsor terrorism in the region. I think we can trust the Iranian people and if we were in negotiation wt a non-radical Islamic govt, I would have more confidence. I would like to see a more comprehensive agreement within the region. To be honest with you, I don't know the base motive of the letter. And each Senator may have their separate reasons for signing. Perhaps all political or perhaps philosophical differences. My post with the list, is just to point out that these actions cut both ways and have for years. Strigori says the dems' actions were all about peace. However, peace via concession to communism (as in 2 or 3 of the situations on the list) without the reduction of tyranny & the increase in individual liberty is not real peace in my book. Sometimes 'peace' is not the best route (don't quote me out of context here and accuse me of being pro-war) - Think Neville Chamberlain - Munich Agreement 1938. "I have returned from Germany with peace for our time." In the case of Iran, (talking blind here since we don't know the details), shouldn't any agreement be tied to improvement of human rights & liberty within Iran (remember the failed 2009 green revolt in Iran) and securing a trans-MidEast peace agreement by including others - including Israel. The admin could be accused of unilateralism - something GWB was accused of (and rightly so).

Gosh Darn - I like what MR has been doing with this staff. However, it makes me feel as though I've been cheated ever since Solich was fired. First we get BC who didn't understand the NU culture - where NU appeared to be 'just a job'. Then we get Bo, who, well we all know the story I think for the first time in a long time, I have confidence that our coaching staff can actually get us back to being relevant again and winning championships. Yes, it has to be proven on the field but I sure like the feel of this and it will be fun to watch this team develop

At this point, I'm ok wt Obama talking to Iran - which is a far cry from where I was 8 years ago. However, with a negotiation this important, I do believe that others need to be involved - besides several other countries in the MidEast, as I've mentioned in other posts, Congress should be involved. Unfortunately, The US doesn't have a good history since the 1953 British/American sponsor over throw of the elected leader of Iran - who nationalized the oil industry. Constant 'war' talk doesn't help here. Pat Buchanan had a good blog on the topic this week. http://buchanan.org/blog/does-iran-really-want-a-bomb-15711 Going As Knapp said, this has happened before. Here is an example of then Sen Kerry undermining Reagan not in a letter but by a personal visit - I guess he has a short memory of his own actions. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/senator-kerry-undermined-reagan-in-utter-disbelief-gop-senators-would-undermine-obama/ Sen Kennedy underminds Reagan wt the Soviets. San Fran Nan underminded Bush in Syria http://rare.us/story/remember-when-ted-kennedy-and-nancy-pelosi-undermined-the-foreign-policy-of-republican-presidents/ http://tomfernandez28.com/2015/03/11/5-times-democrats-undermined-republican-presidents-with-foreign-governments-but-sen-tom-cotton-is-the-bad-guy/ This link is summarizes - copied here: Monday, 47 Republican senators led by Tom Cotton, R-Ark., released an “open letter” to Iran’s leaders noting that any deal the regime signs with President Obama without the approval of Congress could be revoked by a future president or changed by Congress. The White House went into a tizzy trying to portray the move as somehow “unprecedented” — a view that has found a friendly audience with the media. Vice President Joe Biden claimed the letter “ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American president, whether democrat or republican, to negotiate with other nations on behalf of the United States.” The New York Daily News featured an editorial blasting the letter on its front page, with photos of the senators and the bold-faced headline “TRAITORS.” A more muted NBC roundup called the move “extraordinary — if not unprecedented.” In reality, whatever one’s view of the letter, to call it “unprecedented” is to ignore history. The reality is that on many occasions, Democrats have reached out to foreign leaders to undermine the foreign policy of a sitting Republican president. 1. That time “liberal lion” Ted Kennedy proposed a secret alliance with the Soviet Union to defeat President Ronald Reagan A 1983 KGB memo uncovered after the fall of the Soviet Union described a meeting between former KGB officials and former Democratic Sen. John Tunney (Sen. Kennedy’s confidant) in Moscow. Tunney asked the KGB to convey a message to Yuri Andropov, the Soviet leader, proposing a campaign in which Kennedy would visit Moscow to offer talking points to Andropov and Soviet officials on how to attack Reagan’s policies to U.S. audiences. According to the memo, Kennedy, through the intermediary, offered to help facilitate a media tour in a proposed visit by Andropov to the U.S. Kennedy’s hope, as conveyed by the letter, was to hurt Reagan politically on foreign policy at a time when the economic recovery was working in his favor. 2. “Dear Comandante” In 1984, 10 Democratic lawmakers — including the then majority leader and House Intelligence Committee chairman – sent a letter to Nicaraguan Communist leader Daniel Ortega known as the “Dear Comandante” letter. In it, the lawmakers criticized Reagan’s policy toward Nicaragua and whitewashed the record of violence by the Sandinista communists. 3. Pelosi visited Syrian ruler Bashar Assad In 2007, newly elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. As the Associated Press reported at the time, “The meeting was an attempt to push the Bush administration to open a direct dialogue with Syria, a step that the White House has rejected.” 4. Democrats visited Iraq to attack Bush’s policy As Stephen Hayes recounts: “In September 2002, David Bonior, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, flew to Baghdad in an attempt to undermine George W. Bush’s case for war in Iraq on a trip paid for by Saddam Hussein’s regime. Bonior, accompanied by Reps. Jim McDermott and Mike Thompson, actively propagandized for the Iraqi regime. McDermott, asked whether he found it acceptable to be used by the Iraqi regime, said he hoped the trip would end the suffering of children. ‘We don’t mind being used,’ he said.” 5. Jimmy Carter tried to sabotage George H.W. Bush at the U.N. On Nov. 20, 1990, as President George H.W. Bush gathered support to oppose Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait, the former Democratic President Jimmy Carter wrote a letter to nations who were in the U.N. Security Council trying to kill the administration’s efforts. As Douglas Brinkley explained, Carter’s letter was an attempt “to thwart the Bush administration’s request for U.N. authorization of hostilities against Iraq. President Bush’s criterion for proceeding with a war was the exhaustion of ‘good faith talks,’ and Carter placed his interpretation of that standard above the administration’s.”

Without repeating all of the comments above, I agree with Knapp's logic on this one. Actions and words have consequences. My freedoms end when I infringe on the rights of another. In this case, I believe OU acted in their best self-interest plus the interest of other students. Who knows what could have happened on campus if no action was taken - a mini Ferguson perhaps. In our current social/political environment, fast action was needed. BTW: David Boren was one of those dems that I have voted for in the past.

Guys, some of you have run wild with the OP. While this has evolved into a pro/anti Ron Brown discussion, it was never about Ron Brown. The post is about the whole team coaching change being an upgrade not specifically Ron Brown vs the new RB coach. As noted below, I'm a Ron Brown fan and think he was a great coach here. I just used Cross's comments to spring board the discussion about what I perceived to be a coaching upgrade as a whole for the team - coaches with total more years of experience at specific positions or as coordinators (I think we have 3 former experienced DCs on the D alone and one former experience OC on the O now). Cross, it appears, believes he is receiving better RB specific coaching from our new coach. This isn't a slam on Ron Brown. Quote OP: As much as I respect Ron Brown for his full body of work at NU, I think this article and comments by Cross is reflective of the affect the new coaching will have on the team as a whole. I think we will see the benefits in every area of the team.

Yea, I don't see it as a knock on Brown. Normally every position Brown touched improved. As mentioned, Brown benefited both AA and Rex. I take this as meaning, Brown may have been a jack of all trades ( I think he's coached WR, TE also) but the new coach is a specialist for RBs and it shows a life of work experience dealing wt RBs only.

As much as I respect Ron Brown for his full body of work at NU, I think this article and comments by Cross is reflective of the affect the new coaching will have on the team as a whole. I think we will see the benefits in every area of the team. http://nebraska.247sports.com/Bolt/Davis-commanding-respect-in-RB-room-36063944 Saturday’s practice was the first time Imani Cross and the rest of the running backs got to experience the hands on treatment Nebraska assistant Reggie Davis can bring to the position room. Davis coached with Mike Riley at Oregon State before heading over to the NFL to work with Jim Harbaugh. Now he’s back with Riley in Lincoln and Cross said he has complete command and respect from the running back room. “Knowledge is power,” Cross said. “He has a lot of knowledge. He knows a lot about the game. He loves the game. Those are qualities I feel like I have, so I’m glad coach Davis is here.” To Cross there’s a very distinct difference between Davis and his predecessor Ron Brown. “I think that coach Davis is a little more in tune with running back specifics,” Cross said. “With him being a professional and being around Frank Gore at the San Francisco 49ers, I think his knowledge is on another level." Overall the first day of actual practice with Davis went well. “It was fun to actually get on the field and do what we’ve been talking about for so long,” he said. “I had a blast today."

I expect, hope, he is the starting back after spring.

10-2 regular season - split CCG and BG - 11-3 Why: I think the upgrade coaching of the OL, QB will be the big difference. I don't expect the QB play to be Heisman quality, but I expect there will be more consistency, less pressure on the QB to make decisions on how to read the DE - hand off or tuck and run - thus fewer fumbles. The QB's job will be to hand off to the real runners or pass. They can focus on improving that part of their game. The OL cannot but get better. I look for improvement here to help all phases of the game. Without AA, we need the OL to step up. When you loose an all-American talent like Amer, you need good OL play. AA made up for some poor blocking fundamentals. However, with that said, I think we will get good production by the quality of RBs we do have coming back. I think A.T will step up in a big way and be a real nice surprise. The linebacker play, like the OL, can only get better. I think the article by the OWH pointed this out. We will have great play by the back half of the D, I think the D-Line play will actually be better - I like the attack mode that we will be in. This will set the D-line free to 'do their job'. I think it was too restrained in the past. So with better coaching of the LB, I see this unit improving greatly over last year. BC & Bo: After the 'its just another loss' comment by BC when we lost to ISU - last game that made us miss the bowl game, I knew BC was not a match for the NU tradition. I was glad that we had Zac Taylor at QB later to get us to the conf championship game - he was an 'on field coach' who made up for some of BC's lack. Bo: I wanted Paul Johnson to be hired as our coach - I liked the way he was running the option at Navy and what he was able to do wt the restraints he had on recruiting there. He's proven to be a very good coach at GT and should have won that conf championship game except for a couple of plays. I thought we needed an experience head coach. That was my thought going into the coaching search. Regarding Bo: After his hire, I thought he would bring back the NU mojo like the teams of the 1990s had. His first few years showed evidence of this - including 2010 - then it was like we hit a wall. I wasn't disappointed in Bo's hiring but was surprised as the years went by how much he micro-managed and how he seem to need less experienced coaches around him (maybe due to feeling threatened by someone with more experience??). In the end, very disappointed that we went from great potential to become a totally irrelevant team on the national scene. I was also surprised by his childish behavior and became embarrassed by it. I didn't expect it based on his stint as DC under Solich. In the end, I was shocked how we could end up wt a BC like D at the end of Bo's tenure here. I was expecting top 10 D rankings every year. I suspect the MR brings us back to respectability in the eyes of the national press and also and more importantly in the eyes of recruits and their families.

With all of the uncertainty in the air regarding the spring game, I believe it is time to fire Riley before we get embarrassed on TV once again.

I disagree completely. Pelini and his staff spent the last few years dwelling on negativity. Dirk reports things as they are...so his reporting reflected the same negativity. Then the clueless and butthurt Pelini fans blamed Dirk for pointing out their boy was a complete a****** and a poor coach. Great column. I'm psyched about Coach Riley and this staff. Finally we have adults and competent coaches running the show in Lincoln. Riley seems like a hell of a good guy. 1st this was a great article. 2nd, the more I read about Riley the more I like the guy. When he was 1st hired I said - "WHO?" now I have confidence that this will be a very good thing. Having adult coaches and the NU resources will lead to success. Next year will be interesting but I suspect year 3 & 4 we will see the fruit of the change. I do expect us to win the conf soon. I won't be a drinker after all of Bo's broken promises, but I'm finally optimistic again.

I was a 'mod' on another forum for a while. I truly can appreciate the difficult task that the mods/admin on this board face each day. I find this board to be fairly restrain in dealing with some of the posters and try to allow the flow of discussion to continue with a minimum of 'interference'. I find the variety of topic areas and the quality of posts on huskerboard to far exceed the quality of other boards/forums that I have participated in.

Maybe with this cold, snowy winter it is global cooling to be concerned about. In Tulsa at the beginning of March we look in the sky wondering about tornadoes not sleet/freezing rain/snow as we've had this week. Maybe Walter Cronkite was right http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2015/03/05/and-thats-way-it-was-1972-cronkite-warned-new-ice-age This weekend well be in the 70s so we'll be back to Global Warming Maybe we should just stick wt 'climate change' as that is what we are having this week!! (Ps: yes I know climate change is a long term atmospheric condition not the daily weekly weather)

The '10 season was a lot of fun in a lot of ways, too. Just the excitement of being a top 10 team through the first half of the season, running roughshod over Washington, Taylor's Heisman candidacy, Thursday night primetime against Kansas State, kicking the sh#t out of Missouri's best team ever, the Oklahoma State shootout. That season was only so bummy because of how good it felt and how fun it was at first. I was at that OSU shootout. Great game and I thought we were then primed to win the CC and an excellent bowl game. But then the let down.