LukeinNE

If you're referring to my specific complaints, NCLB has been generally panned. Speaking from personal experience, upwards of half of my time in 5th-8th grade (I can't remember the years specifically) was spent preparing for the damned tests (though it did lead to some amusing acts of civil disobedience on the part of our teachers, up to and including giving the exact answers for the exact test we were about to take). The EPA attempting to regulate water on private farm is a classic case of overreach into a field the agency does not understand. Lincoln isn't perfect, but they at least know well enough to work with farm advocacy groups when crafting their regulations. Federal game wardens policing private and state land is just a clear redundancy, as the Nebraska Game and Parks guys already have that covered. Common sense and good stewardship of tax dollars requires that the government justify that redundancy, rather than the rest of us having to prove it's not necessary.

One annoyance I have with the debate over the tax code is the talking point that virtually any downward shift in rates is going to necessarily benefit wealthier people. This is true, of course, but only because the bottom 60% of the country pays very little in taxes. CBO: Well of course if we cut taxes, it's mostly going to benefit the wealthy. If you're in the bottom 40% there's simply not much left to cut.

Yeah, I don't remember the specifics, but we had the ball in a goal to go situation, had apparently put the game away with a touchdown pass, which was called back by holding....followed by more penalties and I think maybe a sack. How we managed to knock ourselves out of Alex Henery's range, I do not know. That's probably what infuriates me about that game. We had no business at all losing.

Well hang on, now. What are we talking about when we say "state's rights?" My position the matter is that I feel we should devolve as much authority as possible to the states, as I believe (and I think the evidence bears out) that the government closest to the people best serves those people's needs. That being said, there are certain powers that have to remain exclusively under the federal government's purview, mostly the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. That ought to substantially narrow the battleground that we're talking about, and I'm happy to engage on some of those points. Unfortunately, I feel like the left in this country is trying very hard to make the words "states rights" = advocating for a neo-confederate, AoC reorganization of how this nation is governed. A few wackadoodles from Mississippi aside, that's a complete straw man. Major gripes off the top of my head: (Department of Education (NCLB), EPA Clean Water Act overreach (regulating retaining ponds on farms and the like) US Fish and Wildlife Game Wardens harassing hunters on state and private land (redundant, NE Game and Parks does just fine)

I don't think the issue is so much speed, rather than acceleration. Martinez's top speed was fast, but not off the charts crazy fast. What made Martinez scary, and what TA lacks, is the ability to be at near top speed in (seemingly) 2-3 steps. If your linebackers aren't darn near perfect in assignment discipline, Martinez will hurt you. If you additionally lack safeties with speed and good intelligence with their angles, Martinez will f*cking murder you. TA lacks that home run threat. What we DO get with him, as has been mentioned, is shiftiness, being able to squeeze a couple of yards out of nothing. If it's 4th and 3, I want TA in there, not Martinez.

I was at the OU game . . . and also at the 2009 Holiday Bowl. Matty O was a beast in both games. He was making tackles in space like an All-American. That was probably the high point of the Pelini Era. (To date, at least.) It's really too bad that most people's memory of O'Hanlon is blowing that coverage against Virginia Tech in 2009 (I think that loss galls me more than any other in the Pelini Era, and I'm not sure why, it wasn't that important of a game). Anyway, that's a damned shame because O'Hanlon had a hell of a senior season after that game, the OU one being the crown jewel.

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.

I have to admit I didn't realize the graduation damage was that extensive. This really makes it an "Indy or Bust" year for Pelini, I think. If you think deep inside Jake Rudock is another budding Vince Young, just waiting to be unleashed by Greg Davis's magical coaching ways, then more power to you. The Suh-less 2010 defense finished 11th nationally in yards allowed and 10th in points allowed.

These two stories seem to belong together.

I was at that one. The KSU fans were in rare form. Luckily there was a Catholic church near the stadium that considered it their Christian duty to (for $5) provide parking and surveillance for the vehicles of the invading red horde.

I would separate pandering (which is what politics are all about) from clientelism, which is what I consider the Democrats to be disproportionately guilty of. Pandering is ideological. Clientelism is material. The distinction is that clientelistic relationship could be defined by a distinct, tangible, and exclusive benefit reaped on the part of the client, in exchange for votes. A person who doesn't want his taxes raised voting for the person who promises to not raise his taxes doesn't meet that test.

I'm not ready to give up on TA. He was largely serviceable as a freshman tossed unexpectedly to the wolves. That said, we need to see major improvement. 52% throwing isn't good enough, he needs to hit 60% or damned close to it. He needs to improve that TD/INT ratio. I'd like to see him get close to 2:1 but that's probably optimistic. I don't mind the YPC number, he has a knack for the option. If he looks like he did last year once we're playing Fresno or Miami, then I will be worried. Before that, though I want to see how much progress he's made with a full spring, summer, and fall to prepare as the more or less designated starting QB.

It's not huge in the epic sense, but I remember thoroughly enjoying the trials and tribulations of one Russell Bellomy in the second half of the 2012 Nebraska-Michigan game. 3/16, 38 yards, 0 TD's, 3 int's, QBR: 0.6

I think you're placing too much weight on his last years at Texas where their success (or lack of) is far more tied to the politics within the program than the actual product on the field. The fact that he did what he did over the decade before that can't be ignored though. I think he's a pretty solid coach, certainly in the top half when you look at some of the OCs in the B1G. Not exactly a notable bunch. It's still too early to tell how successful he will be at Iowa I think. Give it another year. We will wait and see to be sure, but I dunno man. Greg Davis' product went straight into the crapper the moment his Heisman candidate quarterback left. If he couldn't make an offense loaded with 4 and 5 star recruits hum without a super star QB anchoring things, I'm not sure how it's going to work with 2's and 3's at Iowa.

Can I ask why? I don't get why people are thinking Wisconsin isn't going to lay an egg this year. Sure. Favorable schedule, they're going to have an awesome running game, as usual, and Iowa's not going to win the division.

Can you expand a little more on this? The Democrats and the Republicans tend to build their majority coalitions in different ways. A very simple way of understanding the two parties is that the GOP is the party of the Haves and the Democrats are the party of the Have Nots (note: I am drawing a portrait of their voting coalitions, not trying to make a wider point about who/what they actually stand for, or anything). So, who votes Republican? Middle and upper class whites. Married people. Religious people. Do a Venn Diagram of those 3 groups and I'm betting the people you find in that overlapping region will be 75-80% Republican-voting. This constitutes the base of the Republican Party. It also happens to be a huge number of people, found in large numbers in nearly every rural and suburban area of the country. Why do they vote Republican? They'll give different reasons, ranging from abortion to taxes to immigration, but it typically always flows back to a single idea: life in America has been good to them, they don't want that life taken away or diminished. This base of voters alone will get the GOP into the 40s in a national election. The Democratic coalition looks much different. They do have a base of sorts of largely white, middle and upper class ideological liberals, but there aren't nearly enough of them to approach the numbers the GOP has in similar demographics. They make up this mathematical deficiency by dominating among America's various minority groups. Here's the problem: where the GOP's base is monolithic and fairly united in objectives, the Democrats' various voting blocs are anything but, and often their priorities are incompatible. The solution to this is pretty straightforward: more government spending or favorable laws, specific to those groups, coming their way when Democrats get elected. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I frankly detest the national entities of both parties. Republicans keep their voters in line with fear and the Democrats accomplish the same ends with class envy and bribery (and yes, both parties do borrow tactics once in awhile). Neither is helpful to the country.

I think I'm a fairly typical 20-something conservative: fiscally conservative, free market-leaning, socially liberal, hawkish on foreign policy (though Iraq cured me of my teenage nation-building neoconservatism fairly quickly). I am still technically a member of the Republican Party, but that's pretty much a function of my desire to weigh in on Republican primaries (ie the ones that matter) for state and local offices in Nebraska. For presidential elections, I'm pretty reliably Republican, for everything else, I'm pretty reliably unreliable.

I'm picking Wisconsin at this point. Iowa has a laughably favorable schedule, but I think they're going to be the third, if not 4th best team in the West this year. I'll go: 1. Wisconsin 10-2 (7-1) 2. Nebraska 9-3 (5-3) 3. Iowa 8-4 (5-3)

That's more or less where I am. I'm still registered as a Republican as a matter of convenience in Nebraska, but their performance as the opposition the last 6 years leaves a lot to be desired, to put it mildly. No unifying ideology, other than trying to sink Obama at all costs, collateral damage to the country be damned. Contrary to typical talking points, I don't think it's extremism on the part of the GOP, it's the lack of any core apart from trying to win elections, in fact I'd argue their intransigence is a sign of lack of confidence in their own ideas more than anything else. This isn't to say I'm going to up and join the Democrats, which are little more than a Christmas tree of political client groups, but at least they tried to govern. The GOP needs to reappraise what they're about as a party. Their soul searching thing after the 2012 was basically "we're losing x, x, and x groups, how can we win them back?" Wrong approach for the country and the party. Electorates reward good governance. Want to win the midwest? Maybe talk to Governors Brandstad, Walker, Snyder, and Kasich - all 2010-class governors in midwest purple to light blue states, all favored for re-election in November. Worried about Hispanics in the Southwest? Talk to Governors Sandoval and Martinez about their shoo-in re-election bids in Nevada and New Mexico. The GOP has a lot of political talent, and a lot of successful governance to look at and build on....but none of it is in evidence in Washington. Step One: nominate one of the people I listed above for the White House in 2016.

Yeah, sorry I kinda derailed the thread. The immigration one was another issue where I don't necessarily object to what she said, but I'd almost certainly disagree with the policies she'd put forth to realize that one sentence statement. Immigration is an important part of this country's legacy and present reality. We do need immigration reform. I strongly suspect any reform plan she might put out would be far too generous to people here illegally and far too lax on prevention measures for my liking, but until she says/does something to disagree with, that's kind of hard to address.

You bite your tongue! Swedish? Well your love of socialism is well established. How do you feel about lutefisk and assembly-required furniture?

But the Dusters are purple too! I actually never got into the Minden-Holdrege thing. Five years at SHP made it hard for me to hate my June home.....even if it is full of dirty Swedes. Edit - Gotcha. Hmmm....so Alma, Elwood, Loomis, Eustis-Farnam, Bertrand....Axtell is purple so not them....

Nah. But I've partied with (and occasionally still see) people that went to high school with him. Wrong part of the state for my cousins. Huh. No offense, but my imagined version of you was substantially (10-15) years older than me.

Here is another problem with this discussion. If we want every job to have a "living wage", where do we base that on? A "living wage" in Manhattan, NY is one hell of a lot more than in Minden Nebraska. Does the McDonalds owner in Minden Nebraska legally have to pay the burger flipper what it would take to live in NYC??? I grew up in Minden!

I look forward to being there in person to watch us break their hearts again.