Husker_x

My concern with Tommy is related to the screen game, which per a few articles we're going to be featuring a lot more in this offense. He never looked especially crisp throwing laterally. But then it wasn't the focus of our offense, either.

Today the world became a slightly safer place to live (although I have serious doubts Iran ever wanted a bomb in the first place). NPR Click here for the major points of the deal agreed to by all interested parties.

He is absolutely an ego-driven guy and there's nothing especially "wrong" with Nebraska. Bo Peep doesn't want to accept that he lives in a world where if you go on a tirade about your ex in front of dozens of people, it's practically impossible to keep it under wraps. It's not 1980 anymore. I'm happy he's away from major college athletics. He doesn't have the temperament for it and it was obvious that he buckled under the pressure (many a time).

But what if the crane operator or the equipment operator or the truck driver smokes weed on Saturday afternoon, gets sober, operates the crane or the equipment or the truck on Monday morning, and then the following week on Tuesday, he's piss tested and subjected to discipline up to and including termination upon failing the test? Does that change anything? We're not talking about Randy toking up in the locker room before the big game, are we? Or did I miss something crucial here? You made a pretty blanket statement about all but one or two jobs not requiring drug testing. Now you're backing it off to a reasonable level. That would be the crucial thing you missed. I think we both agree that, in the scheme of the NFL, Marijuana use would not really matter. But there are many jobs where society is better served by erring on the side of safety. Until testing methods improve and we can differentiate if that crane operator toked it up right before his shift or 5 days ago, then it has to be treated like he is high on the job. The original post that spawned this part of the conversation said in no uncertain terms that smoking weed at any time for any reason anywhere was not tolerated. I'm not backing off. I'm trying to understand the relevance of your own examples to Gregory. Nobody has suggested Gregory was blowing bong smoke in the ref's face before getting back into his stance, so I don't see the connection. I'm also confused about the last part of your post. You seem to be saying that until we can develop methods to prove a crane operator is innocent, we must assume he is guilty. This seems problematic.

But what if the crane operator or the equipment operator or the truck driver smokes weed on Saturday afternoon, gets sober, operates the crane or the equipment or the truck on Monday morning, and then the following week on Tuesday, he's piss tested and subjected to discipline up to and including termination upon failing the test? Does that change anything? We're not talking about Randy toking up in the locker room before the big game, are we? Or did I miss something crucial here?

I don't think I'm saying that. If anything, it's the opposite. There's a moral reality that the institution(s) subvert to impose a false one on the entire conversation, and the tone of the rhetoric makes me feel, or seems to implicitly present––and correct me if I'm wrong here––a narrative wherein it is only appropriate to look on Randy Gregory like a loathsome fool squandering his life and potential, and that this slime of a worthless monster deserves whatever happens to him. For some reason I'm unable to make myself see it that way and not experience cognitive dissonance. Also, the system needs something from Randy. Or I assume it does or it wouldn't pay so many scouts so handsomly to fly to the metropolis of Lincoln, Nebraska and watch him run around and hit things. They need a several things, actually. Start with his body. The NFL will ask Randy to strap a few flimsy pieces of plastic on and subject himself to a pounding from some of the biggest, most powerful athletes on the planet several months a year for however many years he can take it until his body either gives out, or if he's lucky, he retires with it mostly intact. There's a good chance of chronic pain and other complications either way. Probably at that time he will use cannabis and other, more powerful drugs to numb the pain for . . . well . . . however long it lasts. And it could be forever. In the scheme of things it may look a little inconsequential how his failed drug test was perceived by media and fans. You know, all things considered.

It doesn't matter how dumb the rule is, or how much you or I or Randy Gregory disagree with it. The rule exists, he knew damned well it existed, and he violated it. Dumb rules are still rules, and they still have to be followed. There is literally no argument to be made here that Gregory is the victim. His was the choice, his the action, with knowledge aforethought what the consequence of discovery would be. Nothing was hidden from him, this isn't a surprise, it's common knowledge. The laws prohibiting marijuana use are stupid and should be repealed. The laws adversely impact a specific section of society. The laws are harmful. The laws are in place for dubious reasons. The laws are ineffective. The laws are losing favor amongst the populace. All of these are true. None of them are relevant in this conversation. I love this response. And I mean that. I'm not being sarcastic at all. I laughed out loud while reading those last couple of sentences. At first I couldn't figure even out why. Then I sort of combined them into one and it hit me. "The truth . . . is not relevant in this conversation." It's like a great line from The Thick of It. It's the most insightful thing I've read in five pages. That, really, is the truth, isn't it? I'm not saying he was duped or cheated or uninformed. That's not why he's the victim. Randy, you, me, and the rest of the stoners reading this are all in the same boat. We're all the victims of this institutional absurdity. I can say what he did wasn't smart, but I can't say he's an idiot. I can say what he did was against the rules, but I can't think of a single good reason to say it was wrong. Like really wrong. That to me is the only true thing worth hearing about a story that's otherwise completely trivial. The other thing that's not relevant to this conversation, since we're talking about it, is this conversation. Gregory is 'bout to get paid. One way or the other, third to fifth or first round to fourth round––he will be just fine. I hope he had a chill night.

You're right. I'm so terrible I was never even considered for a single position. Not one. Ever. But it matters to me. My favorite message board gets cluttered with nonsense. Media vultures descend on players year after year for a nonviolent personal choice. No one even attempts to "explain" why smoking weed is affecting the player's performance––let alone an existential threat to an NFL franchise––and yet I'm supposed to nod and go, "What a fool" if someone smokes a little reefer three weeks before the combine. I can't even imagine the kind of drug abuse and hedonism those guys are exposed to every single year. What I'm hearing is that Randy should have taken MDMA or methamphetamine so that it would have flushed out of his system faster and he could have spared himself this public shaming . The rule is stupid. It hurts the players and the owners. It hurts the sport. It hurts communities––especially if they're black communities. It hurts the country. To hell with it. Let's not blame the victim. And that's what Randy is right now. The victim. The system is the problem. Randy's behavior is not the problem. Using cannabis is not a sign that you have a moral defect, even if fleeting, artificial regulations set up by bureaucracies private and public prohibit it. He could be using it for medication. Hell, he could be using it for relaxation, and the guy has a lot to be stressed about. Some of the between-the-lines chatter from people who saw him in practice last year indicate something is not right with him. He has a right to take care of himself. I care more about that than the NFL. I don't think your performance at almost anything except binge eating will be improved by cannabis, although Gregory is on the thin side for his position. I suppose you could factor it in this time. I have a question....how is Gregory the "victim" for smoking pot? It was his decision and his alone to smoke it, now he will face the consequences. Now if you believe it should be legal that is another subject as I personally don't care if it is legal or not. But as of now it is illegal to smoke pot, and his hope is to be drafted into the NFL who also has a policy of making the smoking of pot illegal. So if he loses millions because he can't find a normal and legal way to relax, that is on him. If he is the "victim" of anything, it is the previous coaching staff who gave him his sense of entitlement and that he was above the law by refusing to give him a third drug test because they knew he would fail it. If they did give him the test, then they would be forced to kick him off the team. Randy knew that Bo needed him to have any chance at keeping his job at NU. So he did what he wanted and Bo wasn’t strong enough to do what he needed to do. A literally harmless choice is being used to attack his character, his livelihood, and, if he'd been unfortunate to have been caught, his freedom. He's a human being.

Unless you transport nuclear materials or respond to emergencies or like terrorism threats, your company sucks.

You're right. I'm so terrible I was never even considered for a single position. Not one. Ever. But it matters to me. My favorite message board gets cluttered with nonsense. Media vultures descend on players year after year for a nonviolent personal choice. No one even attempts to "explain" why smoking weed is affecting the player's performance––let alone an existential threat to an NFL franchise––and yet I'm supposed to nod and go, "What a fool" if someone smokes a little reefer three weeks before the combine. I can't even imagine the kind of drug abuse and hedonism those guys are exposed to every single year. What I'm hearing is that Randy should have taken MDMA or methamphetamine so that it would have flushed out of his system faster and he could have spared himself this public shaming . The rule is stupid. It hurts the players and the owners. It hurts the sport. It hurts communities––especially if they're black communities. It hurts the country. To hell with it. Let's not blame the victim. And that's what Randy is right now. The victim. The system is the problem. Randy's behavior is not the problem. Using cannabis is not a sign that you have a moral defect, even if fleeting, artificial regulations set up by bureaucracies private and public prohibit it. He could be using it for medication. Hell, he could be using it for relaxation, and the guy has a lot to be stressed about. Some of the between-the-lines chatter from people who saw him in practice last year indicate something is not right with him. He has a right to take care of himself. I care more about that than the NFL. I don't think your performance at almost anything except binge eating will be improved by cannabis, although Gregory is on the thin side for his position. I suppose you could factor it in this time.

To me this is just stupid. Not that Gregory smoked pot. That in 2015 anyone can muster the will to care . . . at all. No sane person would throw away his talent because he was consuming a non-lethal drug that's already legal in four states, and medicinally legal (which it sounds like might have been his reason for using it in the first place) in about half the country. Non-story. If I'm a GM, I don't drop his draft status one notch.

Money in politics. By this I mean the gargantuan (and now anonymous) sums of money can be spent on electing candidates; those candidates will statistically speaking almost never have to worry about losing their seat again; and should they miraculously lose their seat, the revolving door policy in Washington is well documented. You will be taken care of. Note: anyone who is not already exorbitantly wealthy need not apply. When you consider that the same cabal of donors that can direct unlimited sums of money towards elections can also purchase unchecked influence in the media, the problem gets worse. And when you consider the gridlock that can be imposed on the entire system by one radical, obstructionist wing of one party––to the point where we are either having or talking about government shutdowns on a regular basis––the problem becomes terrifying. We the People don't get a pass for this. I didn't vote in the midterms (I should have, and regret the choice, though it would have made no difference in my state). But the narrative of a disengaged, powerless electorate, while a self-fulfilling prophecy in one sense, is difficult to overcome when the system itself is so corrupt and unworthy of our hopes and dreams. It alters our entire thought process about citizenship. Instead of talking about introducing a more fluid democratic system that harnesses the power of the internet, for example, we are stuck with an endless stream of media-fed narratives that prey on baseless fears (like voter fraud being the real problem rather than our access to our representatives or polling places).

That's funny. I'm actually reading his book right now. That's funny. I'm actually reading his book right now. Biocentrism? Or does Russell Brand have a book I haven't heard of? I've been trying to get my hands on a copy of Biocentrism; weird that it came onto my radar from a number of different independent directions all at the same time. A new one that came out last year sometime. Revolution. Any good? Yeah. Only about a third of the way in. He's a very good writer, and there is a lot of thoughtfulness on a lot of levels that some casual glance style reviews don't appreciate. There is also a tendency to leapfrog around on a lot of heavy topics––making his treatment a little shallow in places––and a bit of 'god of the gaps' logic. He practices Transcendental Meditation––so take that for what it's worth. His take on celebrity is worth the read.

That's funny. I'm actually reading his book right now. That's funny. I'm actually reading his book right now. Biocentrism? Or does Russell Brand have a book I haven't heard of? I've been trying to get my hands on a copy of Biocentrism; weird that it came onto my radar from a number of different independent directions all at the same time. A new one that came out last year sometime. Revolution.

That's funny. I'm actually reading his book right now.

It's not the skeptic's job to "solve" the problem of suffering. Such language assumes that suffering is a philosophical problem in the first place; it's only a problem if you assume an all-loving god placed us here in this belching swamp of viruses, poisons, parasites, and predators. They're all relatively easy to explain––along with our relationship to them––if you don't take on that assumption. The Problem of Evil is unique to monotheistic religion (Fry's answer about the Greek gods already sort of addressed this point). Suffering does not prove that God does not exist. Suffering must be explained in light of God's existence. It may be that God is just a capricious dick. That would also answer the problem of suffering. Either way, the burden is on the theist to explain this problem with their supposedly benevolent deity. The skeptic just has to sit there and decide if their explanation holds water. I added my own bolded/italicized part which was actually the most interesting line in there to me. If I hadn't been paying attention, I could have sworn this person was talking about theology, what Thomas Paine called: "[T]he study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not any thing can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing. Instead then, of studying theology, as is now done, out of the Bible and Testament, the meanings of which books are always controverted and the authenticity of which is disproved . . ." There is also the point that even if good is a mere social convention, it is a useful––quite functional––social convention. When a society applies itself to preventing children from dying from the cancers God created, for example, or saving children from the parasites God intelligently designed to devour their eyes, there are certain standards that naturally emerge to guide you towards correct action and incorrect action in relation to those goals. No appeal to the supernatural is required. I don't understand what philosophical basis is necessary to remind you why you would want to cure cancer or kill parasites, or how introducing an unprovable supernatural being would help. So the child with leukemia or the blinding parasite are suffering consequences of sin? What possible choice could a three year-old make that would permit––let alone require––that kind of punishment to be carried out? If it is not a direct result of their "wrong choices," why would this silly God devise a system of punishment so cruel, so unusual, and so completely arbitrary? Am I to understand that the moral response to eating the wrong fruit is to carpet bomb humanity with horrific disease and violence for hundreds of thousands of years? If that's the company line, I have bad news. This God of yours is probably crazy. Do not trust him/her/it to save your soul, because there's a good chance it's also lying to you if this is what passes for "absolute morality" in its realm. But it would be correct to indict a doctor who shot me, blamed me for my gunshot wound, and then failed to treat it for––well––a seemingly unending period of time with no clear indication when or if he ever will (oh but you must understand, my doctor really loves me).

Will somebody else explain to me the Adam Taylor love? Look, I'd like to see all of our guys contribute immensely, and I feel we can do some good things with multiple backs but Terrell Newby has proven that he can at least play and stay healthy. Adam Taylor hasn't played a down of live college football. Not a single down. Imani will start with Newby coming off first. Terrell is the one who is not like the others, which will help him. Adam has a lot of ground to make when it comes to experience and trust. He doesn't get skinny very well and his cuts are slow. He runs straight up through the hole sometimes and gets stopped rather easily. Many believed he was hesitant because of his prior injury. He had moments right before he got injured. The best raw talent is Mikale. He doesn't have a glaring weakness and is the one who could jump them all. How do you discredit people from being optimistic about Taylor without him playing a single down, and then you give some authoritative assessment on how good of a runningback he is.....when he hasn't played a single down. you're right man, thats my bad. I was about to ask . . . I think this is one of the reasons the RB competitions is going to be one of the most hyped position battles. With the QB basically settled, whoever gets the nod at tailback is going to tell us a bit more about what kind of running game we can expect to see. I'm a Cross guy, myself, though it seems that the dominant factions are pretty clearly gathered around Newby and Taylor.

I recently watched Mark Levin give a speech at CPAC. I mean I guess it was a speech. Levin does what he––and Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity––already do on a daily basis: descend into fits of verbal madness and mudslinging about whatever they happen to be in frenzy about that day. This speech is incredible in its way. Being all hooked into the atheism/philosophy/religion/politics debate, normally people take some pains to provide evidence––or at least an example––that proves their point. Levin is cheerfully unencumbered in that way. Instead he stacks bald assertions on top of specious accusations on top of ​non sequitur on top of ad hominem. His speech isn't ​about the agenda. It is the agenda. Stewart is a different animal. He's clearly a progressive of some stripe (I can't picture him chaining himself to a tree to stop a bulldozer), but his show is not about pushing an agenda. He's a comic. His show is about absurdity. That's his agenda (with the added bonus of inviting guests with actual expertise instead of recycling "political strategists" over and over). If the right takes it on the chin more than the left, it's not an accident, but it's also not the intent. Nobody forces the Republican party to raise up figures of comedic gold like Ted Cruz, Herman Cain, or Sarah Palin. Nobody forces them to deny evolution, or climate change––going even to the Orwellian extreme of banning the use of the term when possible. Cable "news" outlets are what they are. Entertainment. Hype machines fighting a 24-hour ratings war. No story is too trivial for block lettering and Breaking News update––if it fits the needs of the broadcast and its paranoid viewers. Whatever Stewart is, he is not a part of that world. In fact he is one of its lonely critics.

Somebody explain the Newby love to me please.

I'm rooting for Cross, but it sounds more and more like I may not get my way. The guy has worked hard. Either way, I'm sure he'll get his carries.

So you know that question about what would you say to God if you met him at the pearly gates? Stephen Fry has a pretty cogent answer.

Back from a bit of a sabbatical . . . Found this story to be almost as unbelievable as the thread about Republican senators trying to deliberately torpedo ongoing peace talks with Iran. Link

I don't see a problem here.