khaake

Hopefully. I doubt it would be very stormy. It's so far out its pretty hard to tell one way or another - it might totally dissipate by then or pass us well off to the southeast. Just a little disconcerting that the NHC currently has it in the general area early next weekend.

Um... looks like the remnants of Tropical Storm Gordon could be in the area next Saturday. Because why not.

November 11th was originally called Armistice Day. On June 4, 1926, Congress passed a resolution that the “recurring anniversary of [November 11, 1918] should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations,” and that the president should issue an annual proclamation calling for the observance of Armistice Day. By that time, 27 state legislatures had made November 11 a legal holiday. An act approved May 13, 1938 made November 11 a legal Federal holiday, “dedicated to the cause of world peace and to be hereafter celebrated and known as ‘Armistice Day.'” Armistice Day was changed to Veterans Day in 1954, radically changing the original intent of the holiday. I can get behind the message of Armistice Day. I can get behind remembering those who have been killed in armed conflicts, are suffering because of them, or who are missing because of them. I can get behind remembering and reflecting on the civilians who have been killed due to armed conflicts, the children who were torn apart, the lives destroyed, the futures squandered. But I cannot say that God blesses it, as that plaque seems to imply. I wish the University was not a party in such things.

The unemployment gap, although lower, still exists if you extend the demographic out to the 25-34 age bracket. In any case, your initial claim of "superior job training" seems questionable when looked at through that lens.

Yes, for the 18-24 demographic the unemployment rate is 40% higher for veterans. It is 20% higher if you extend the demographic to 18-34. Source is from the VA: https://www.benefits.va.gov/benefits/docs/veteraneconomicopportunityreport2015.pdf

I'm personally fine with cutting out all advertising from the games, and I imagine that I'm not alone in that. As for the superior job training comment, considering that the unemployment rate for young vets is 40% higher than that of their peers who did not enlist, I question that assertion.

skersfan, I am sorry for what you had to go through - that must have been awful - and I am also sorry for the loss others must endure due to the military entanglements we find ourselves in. But it is a mistake to politicize that suffering, which many of these events do, and I wish the University wouldn't play a part in it.

Often uttered, but seldom questioned.

Yes, I have mentioned the militarism on display at University events (such as FB games) before, and I commented on this particular decision to have this new public display because it feeds into that pet peeve. In any case, I do think the things you mentioned do count as 'in-game' events, in that they are a part of the experience presented by and at the direction of the University. You can try to conflate that with a few individual decisions made by individual players to protest, but I personally think they are very different things.

The network (at least the games) are sponsored in part by the military. The in-game events add value to that sponsorship.

In the Deed, I disagree.

Again, the problem as I see it is that is this isn't in isolation. There are multiple events throughout the game, on the network, etc., every week. It's just too much, and a strange pairing. Let the game be the game.

I agree it would have taken a lot longer, but I do think it would have happened. Democracy was a concept whose time had come.

Yes, it's a nice gesture, but when added to an already large list, it is just too much.

Just a thought experiment, but what would have happened if the colonies did not revolt, if the United States was never anything but a British colony? Would we be free?

Yes, the stadium was originally named to honor Nebraskans who fought in the Civil War, the Spanish-Americans wars, and World War One, but perhaps the theme is growing a little old. In any case, I wish UNL would not deliberately inject more militarism into football games.

But the thing is, we're not really thanking the people who fought in WWII, at least not very many of them, because that war took place 75 years ago and nearly all who survived it have since died. We might be remembering them, but we are not thanking them. The stadium events (and commercials, etc.) are largely geared towards those who came after.

Yes, if only we honored all fighters throughout the history of the world more. You realize that that doesn't make much sense, right?

True, people have died by waging war. Our leaders saw to it that that was the case. But the link between that sad state of affairs and our freedom is rather tenuous. If these events were to lament what happened so that it would not happen again, I might be on board, but instead these events tend to Rah Rah Rah the whole business that got these people killed to begin with. I really wish UNL wouldn't be a party to it.

Nebraska 41 Akron 13 Rushing: 281 Passing: 209

It's just an observation. In my opinion the University is already promoting militarism way more than it should. I feel for those who have to bury loved ones, but a football game is not a good venue for something like this.

Quite frankly I think it likely will, at least somewhat. Between the frequent flyovers, pauses to honor various vets, anthem, military sponsorship of the games, etc., it's turning into a virtual war love-fest. It's nothing new - been a long time in the making - but this is just one more example. I'm sure this will be featured along with the others already featured. I just wish UNL would let the game be the game.

It's just another opportunity to insert gratuitous militarism into the game.