LukeinNE

I wouldn't really agree with their assertion that MSU is a sure loss - we've arguably outplayed them 3 years in a row. I do agree with what they're getting at though: even in a great year, where everything comes together, it's highly unlikely that there won't be a stumble along the way. I'd personally nominate either the Wisconsin or Miami game.

Or we could....you know, let the justice system do its thing without declaring guilt and innocence based on nothing but our own biases...

Let's hope it was a stomach bug and not another shredded knee or bike theft.

'Runaway' has a very specific definition. It means it can't be stopped. To use 'runaway' is to state that global warming could have apocalyptic consequences, which it won't. It's used for a very specific purpose: to scare people. Scared people do things that rational people do not, which is what the shysters in the green industry want. Like I said, if you want to talk about consequences, talk about plausible consequences, don't insist the world will end if you don't get your way. Ice levels in both arctic regions are increasing, not decreasing. An ongoing problem in the environmental movement: there's the science, which is generally pretty good, and there's their predictions, which haven't been. Models are only as good as their inputs, and those are very tricky to predict so far out.

Should be good bulletin board material for our guys. I don't know what this season holds, but the maddening, yet captivating thing about Pelini's teams is that we know they're capable of almost anything, good or bad.

And this is what I mean by people claiming outrageous and incorrect things in science's name. The IPCC's most recent climate assessment report: If you want to have a debate over whether it's worth saving this or that sub-species of fish, that's fine, but the problem with this debate is that both sides operate well outside of scientific consensus on the issue (which is actually quite narrow). The world will not end if people keep driving Hummers. That's my point.

Conservative politicians that promote ignorance should be ashamed of themselves. Please don't confuse my criticism of one side with excusing the other. If I felt James Inhofe was being insufficiently condemned, I would say something, but the reality is that people like him get tons of flak for their idiocy, while Al Gore and co. are given a pass when the polar ice caps that they claimed would be gone by now aren't gone. The IPCC thinks that the sea level will rise 1-3 feet in the next 100 or so years, and that's really the crux of my position: consequences of climate change are so slow, I think it's nuts that we can't easily cope with any changes. It's a given that in a matter of decades, fossil fuels will be largely a thing of the past in the West as renewable technology becomes viable, so we're really talking about energy policy for the next probably 50 or so years. So really the argument is: will we do catastrophic damage by not completely reorganizing our coal/oil-based economies asap, that is, before the open market provides solutions on its own? I think, with good reason, the answer is "of course not." The earth has survived advanced human civilization for a few hundred years now and it can (and will have to) make it another 50 or so before our economies transition to different energy sources.

Overall, probably. The one good thing that could still come out of this adventure would be the start of a free, independent Kurdistan. Starting to redraw borders in ways that make sense ethnically, not according to colonial sensibilities would be a step in the right direction in that train wreck of a region. Hardly worth the cost of the Iraq War, but sunk costs are not recoverable.

No objections from me on this one.

KOCH BROTHERS (!!!) The only people who know or care who they are are Democratic hacks parroting Harry Reid. Newsflash: there are mega donors on both sides. Wind power is an impractical money hole and solar is incapable of delivering the volume we need. If you want to draw down on dirty sources of energy, then help crush the econuts blocking natural gas and nuclear power. The environmental movement has an enormous problem with reality. The goal should be the cleanest energy source that's feasible. When the only two options you put forward are simultaneously the most heavily subsidized energy sources in the country and responsible for about 3.5% of annual electric production, I have to assume you're either not in touch with reality, or intend to destroy life as we know it, because electric + solar is not and cannot deliver the quantities of energy that we need. If the alarmists are right (they aren't), none of this will matter. China and India's CO2 output increases are going to crush whatever reductions Europe and the US come up with. But sure, voluntary conservation is good, conservative even. I keep my house at 78 in the summer, recycle, and drive a Toyota Camry. I have no problem with steps to reduce energy use and cleaning up how we produce it. I do have a problem with wasting tax money on "green" measures that are completely impractical. I never said anything resembling that. I did say that environmental alarmists have been screeching about the leafy issue de jour and have a very bad track record with their predictions. You're asking people to inflict financial pain on themselves. The political will for THAT will only come if the alarmists' predictions come true (they won't), and would be too late in any case. Canada, Australia and Japan aren't in the EU, but are major economies, and are increasingly deciding that carbon taxes and the like aren't exactly economic boons. And again, none of this matters relative to China, India and the other developing economies.

The correct answer to all 5 questions is "Yes" Simply because you don't understand does not mean it should be ignored. Putting all our other disagreements aside, if you think the answer to #5 is 'yes,' you're in a deep, deep state of denial. There is zero political will in the United States, next to none in the rest of the western world, and less than zero in the developing world for the types of proposals put forward. Feasibility in this case contains two elements: one, could we do things to reverse global warming? Sure, there are plenty of ideas out there. Two, do any of these things have the slightest chance of being implemented? Not a snowball's chance in hell Copenhagen. There is no way you're ever going to convince people to give up their cars, A/C, computers, and pay more for literally everything, just to ward off some unspecified future threat after 50 years of false alarms from eco-radicals. Perhaps they should stick with the science instead of spewing easily falsifiable nonsense in science's name, then.

Charity Navigator is your friend. Religious charities linked to specific churches also tend to be pretty good, as are many umbrella charities, like the United Way.

Climate alarmists certainly are whenever a tornado wrecks a town somewhere. But sure, you can include future impacts, though that's highly speculative and wouldn't change my answer.

People fight the global warming issue on the wrong battlefield, the science part is just the beginning. The progression of debate should be: 1. Is global warming happening? 2. Are humans a significant factor? 3. Are there steps we can take to effectively curb/reverse warming? 4. Is this warming resulting in enough harm to be worth combating? 5. Are proposed fixes feasible? My answers would be yes, yes, maybe, no, and LOL.

Bad stuff. Prayers for him and his family. Hopefully he can whip it again.

I get that they're largely tickets that the visitors returned, but is anyone else a bit unnerved that the AD is still trying to unload single game tickets 3 weeks from opening kickoff? The "pick my seat" thing for McNeese State alone looks like there's several hundred tickets still needing to be purchased.

Is the LJS seriously 100% paywalled now? Yikes.

Maybe it's being a sourpuss . . . maybe it's being burned every time this coaching staff gets my hopes up . . . I don't know. One way or another we need a change. (Not necessarily meaning a coaching change.) Being a Husker skeptic in August is like being a drunk Santa swearing at crying kids in the mall on Christmas Eve, Carl. Now, cherry or fruit punch kool aid?

I agree that we have to travel to recruit. But it's funny that the author doesn't mention anything about long distance recruiting for a team like Oregon, ranked #9 on this list. They haven't handed out an instate scholarship since 2013. Zero instate Oregon recruits for 2014 LINK or the current 2015 class. LINK They actually travel more for recruits than we do. He does mention the recruiting factor for Notre Dame though. But he ties ND to Catholic high schools. Does Neuter Dame only recruit Catholics? You bring up good points! Real fast though, Catholic High Schools do not only admit Catholic kids...far from it. But there is still a huge draw to ND from a lot of those schools. For Oregon, it seems like they get a lot of kids from Cali. CA and Oregon may technically be border states, but in terms of actual distance, I guess I don't see a dramatic difference between Oregon pulling kids out of Los Angeles and us recruiting Texas or Ohio.

Home and home, and yes, you should. Iowa's season seems to track pretty nicely with the outcome of that game. If they beat the Cyclones, they've typically turned out to have decent to good teams the last 5 or so years. If they lose that game, they're sweating bullets over the 6 wins necessary to make a bowl. I suspect this is because Paul Rhodes does a very nice job of maintaining a perfectly mediocre team in Ames. His only big failure on paper was his 3-9 team last year...that went 1-5 in one score games. Iowa on the other hand jumps all over the place from good to crappy with no apparent reason, so the ISU game is usually a pretty good harbinger of how the season is going to go for them. Except for 2001 where ISU kept Iowa from having a shot at the National Title. I still can't believe we let down in the 2nd half and let them beat us like that. I'm confused on this comment. I didn't ever remember Iowa being that close to an NC so I went back and looked. In 2001, you ended up 7-5 and tied for 4th in the Big Ten. Are you talking about 2002? He must be, But if Iowa wins that game, Ohio State is still undefeated and I don't see a Iowa-Ohio State national title game. It would have been Miami again. 2002 was a nice year for them, but they got pantsed by (a really good) USC team in the Orange Bowl, so I guess I never really considered them a NC contender, loss to ISU or no.

Clay Travis is a notorious SEC homer. He's saying that Nebraska would be the tenth best job in the SEC. "Absurd on its face" is a pretty good way to describe this list.

I share your concern for special teams. Our punt return unit was a long, long way from being average last year, and that had every bit as much to do with our constantly terrible field position as 3 and outs and turnovers did. I'm inclined to give our offensive line the benefit of the doubt. Our 2 deep was almost completely taken out by injuries last year, and we still had a competent running game at season's end. Somewhat like the secondary, I feel like maybe we've gotten that unit figured out and we're at a place where we can call up the next guy and have that guy be serviceable. My other concern is quarterback, which I think is the question mark in the offense this year. No matter who it is, we need to have a legitimate passing threat who isn't a turnover machine. TA wasn't that next year, though I thought he did well considering the circumstances he was tossed into. He'll need to make a jump this year, though.

Pretty predictable. Just out of ignorance I pretty much choked on my coffee at the ACC Coastal Division. Duke co-favorites with VT? Man what a sad sack division that must be. I should be careful though, Miami's picked anywhere from 2-4 in that division.

I'm optimistic about the defense this year, but it's exceedingly important that they knock the rust off quickly (and that rust is the only issue). They can mess around and make mistakes against FAU and McNeese St, but then it's time to buckle down and play well for Fresno/Miami and then conference play. I think the Blackshirts will be very good this year, but a key issue happens early on: can they pick up more or less where they left off last year?

Frankly, had the Democrats proposed actual tax reform aimed at bringing Republicans to the table they probably would've had roughly winning the Powerball jackpot odds of getting something passed by the midterms. This proposal? No chance whatsoever. It's political theater and nothing more. In terms of actual governance, it's about as useful as a the 436th House vote to repeal Obamacare. As for the language of the bill, I don't care what they call it, as it isn't a serious proposal. Insulting voters' intelligence is what offends me. That said, such a bill could pass, if coupled with a carrot for the GOP. Say....ban federal contracts with inverted companies and....unionized companies? There's something I could get behind.