Guy Chamberlin

Far Left Salon magazine?

I'm mostly speaking to the Goebbels-like brilliance of Make America Great Again. It speaks to a time of uncomplicated White Supremacy, but wraps it in generic nostalgia for a time that didn't really exist. That means people who truly believe they're good people, and take pride in how well they get along with the black lady running the HR department, can encourage a white supremacy movement. They've got nothing against the gays and the blacks and the Hispanics, but they don't want them in their face, or protesting on their street, or crossing their border. Life was simpler when you didn't have to think about this stuff. Why are the liberals making us think about this stuff?

Jake Tapper is a Leftist?

Trump's statement? Sure. I'm trying to be charitable because I'm struggling with people I care about saying horrible things. But the idea of good people being led astray by racists and reactionaries goes to your point. However you want to slice it, they are racists for enabling racists. But are they redeemable? We need to build a political off-ramp that makes it easier.

I actually agreed with Donald Trump's infamous "good people on both sides" statement in the aftermath of Charlottesville. There are many interesting and inspiring cases of former white supremacists and violent rightwing activists renouncing their beliefs and actions and working for change and understanding. One was the Nebraska Ku Klux Klan grand dragon who had his life turned around by the Lincoln Rabbi he'd been threatening. https://www.robertglazer.com/friday-forward/love-hate/ It doesn't mean both sides are right. It means the good people on the bad side still have to change sides.

Okay. I'll celebrate today. But I usually have this song running in the back of my head.

All roads lead through Rick Astley. Sorry.

Looks like Lincoln had twice the number of protestors at its capitol.

I think Biden's cabinet is looking better than Trump's.

Wan'dale chose Nebraska, where he became the single favorite tool in nationally heralded coach Scott Frost's offense two years running. Whether he was over-used or misused, Wan'dale's skills were on televised display every week, and promoted by every announcer covering the games. His NFL prospects have always been sketchy, but it's hard to imagine another team putting his talents on display like Nebraska did. Also hard to imagine he gets those touches with a better stable of talent. So from a football POV, it's hard to say Wan'dale made the wrong choice coming to Nebraska. His family should have been happy for him. But if I'm his mom watching Wan'dale getting hung out to dry on high passes on crossing routes, I'm gonna want him home for his own safety.

I'm going to need to see regular updates on how much time Wan'dale is actually spending with his mother.

Obviously Osborne ran a scheme that only a handful of teams employed, and borrowed its basics from Barry Switzer, but if you wanted an identity for Nebraska's offense and defense, it started with treating your down linemen as skill players. And with those guys in place, every other skill player was going to look a lot better. Nebraska won in the trenches. That was its identity.

In fairness to Offensive Identity, we run an offense very similar to those employed by the most successful teams in football. We just don't run it very well.

At year three they are a roster full of Frost recruits presumed to be better than Riley's leftovers. The transfers would all be chosen by Frost for immediate impact. Offense looks to be the bigger issue. Greg Bell left in a snit. Washington had character issues. Adrian Martinez has devolved from Heisman hopeful to constant QB controversy. JD Speilman had two years with Frost and was about to become the most prolific receiver in Nebraska history when he left. Frost apparently had no receiver or running back on the roster as good as Wan'dale Robinson, and now won't have him for his senior season. Cam Jurgens has two years running of high snaps that are huge liabilities and remain uncorrected. We have a whole thread of exciting Frost recruiting successes than never or rarely made the field. After three years, the Mike Riley's Bare Cupboard excuse loses a lot of steam. Can you name a Nebraska running back you're excited to see next year? I can't. First time in 50 years I can say that. Nice thing about reduced expectations is that I'm really, really open to being surprised next year.

My point: while he may be just guy, he was our best just guy. Our best guy in our coach's third year, who had the offense built around him despite being just guy. It doesn't hurt to lose him as much as it hurts that he was our best guy. And he wanted to leave. If the players we have couldn't outplay Wan'dale this season, I'm not sure why they would next season. But who knows. It's a vacuum. Someone will step up. I think. I just don't like s#!tting on players in order to pretend there's not a player development problem here. Recruits who have other choices are that much more likely to avoid Nebraska.

It works the other way, too. Guys who wouldn't see the field on other teams get to be the stars at Nebraska. And they still want to leave. Sorry, but this is a bad look for the program.

What's the deal with Kansas? Every time I check the Coronavirus Tracker, Kansas is way up there in cases and deaths, well ahead of much more populous states. I don't see any news stories mentioning this like they did the Dakotas. Does Nebraska media cover or explain the Kansas surge?

It plummeted to 52 degrees yesterday and I had to wear a light jacket to walk the dog. Although it did warm up enough for me to tie the jacket around my waist. But I will guarantee that our Northern California house is colder than your house in Nebraska, because there's nothing but single pane windows, zero insulation walls, and drafty garages to preserve the chill. The central heating just laughs at me. I wear a light jacket inside, too

If you're trying to discredit the credentials of Bill Kristol by pointing out his complicity in previously horrible Republican policies, you join many stalwart Progressives. You're moral consistency is appreciated, comrade. Either that or you're trying to dilute criticism of Trump with a passive/aggressive distraction. ( i.e. your memory is fine. You know exactly who Kristol is. You're on a first name basis with the man, after all.)

Economics shows that the cost of doing business in California is largely influenced by free market supply and demand. Taxes are definitely a consideration. Regulations less so, especially in tech. The main reason for relocating from California is the high housing costs that require you to pay higher employer salaries. Those high costs continue to be driven by the number of people who want to live in California. For 30 years they've sounded the death knell for California as business flees for cheaper pastures, but at the end of the day the state is still thriving, the sixth largest economy in the world, a diversified global leader in tech, agriculture, entertainment, and aerospace, generating the huge surpluses that make up for the whiny teat-sucking Red States. Believe me, California is far from idyllic. But for every citizen or company that abandons it, there's somebody to replace them. And when those next generation companies flee to other states, they still hire next generation employees who value social justice and community as much or more as their salary (that's a fact.) It's really a better model for living and shouldn't frighten you. Democrats still like money, and they're very good at earning it. Tell you what: I'll take the four bluest of blue states: California, New York, Illinois and Washington. You can have the remaining 46: including the low tax, regulation-hating, business-on-a-platter states and we'll see how the free market money flows. We can wait a couple years for Texas to join the party.

It would suggest the evolution to a business-friendly socially liberal America. Not such a bad place to be.

If big tech companies keep abandoning costly California for business friendly Texas, they could turn Texas blue in an election cycle or two.

Uhm....the people who made the bar graph and explained their methodology also went to the trouble of providing context and analysis. They understand this better than you or I and I think they were hoping people genuinely wanted to learn something. I think they chose the horse racing analogy because it's something even a child would understand: being the front runner generates a positive storyline, falling behind generates a negative storyline. In close races with lots of ebbs and flows it's no doubt harder to gauge. Gaffes, misstatements, and scandals always get play. If you're talking about Donald Trump, who broke all kinds of precedents, the media hated him. He's an unprincipled liar who attacks anyone who questions him -- which is what the free media is supposed to do. For many of us, the media showed too much restraint in calling him out,. Trump enjoyed a celebrity bias that gave him a huge advantage. If you'd like, I can make a bar graph that proves it.

You shared the article with the group,. Is it just because you liked their bar graph?