Guy Chamberlin

Yeah, there was something about 1980s-90s AM radio that sounded new and different to me, and it took its lead from Waco and the OKC bombing. That's where the rightwing messaging morphed into dark warnings of the coming civil war.

Well he comes from the same line that got you social security, two day weekends, child labor laws, and Veteran Benefits reform. He can also run circles around you explaining how the private sector actually works.

Sending a modest contingent of armed personnel to protect the deployment of civilian aid is the time-tested, UN-approved international response. If one side attacks them, they lose support from all sides.

So.......it's not the good or horrible things you do, it's your faith -- one might say "loyalty" -- to God. Well that describes the Trump dynamic pretty well.

There are politicians of all stripes who parlay a small local electorate into a larger role at the fancy state capitol, where they immediately get drunk on their ability to make life hard for people who are smarter and better than they are.

We would also have had a better idea of what was happening and who was stirring the pot if the World-Herald and Journal-Star had not been decimated of the reporters who once tracked this sort of thing. Like I said. Stupider and angrier. It actually is an agenda.

I know it might not matter to some folks, but this kind of thinking will drive good professors and researchers away from the University at a huge cost to the institution and the state. There's a movement out there to make America stupider and angrier, and it's going to backfire on everybody.

Not "single" parent, Archy. It's Children born out of wedlock coupled with median household income by race. If it's not a systemic racial issue, what's the point of the graph itself? Who knows? Since the author uses the phrase "out-of-wedlock" perhaps the graph is from 1890.

Yeah, I paraphrased this wrong. The Top 1% hold as much wealth as the bottom 90%, which doesn't exactly undermine the larger point. The 20% figure has been bandied around, but this same Princeton report says 15.7% is more accurate. I have a feeling the 8% claim will always have a whiff of urban myth, but when Warren Buffett says he has a lower tax rate than his secretary, I believe him. https://economics.princeton.edu/working-papers/top-wealth-in-america-new-estimates-under-heterogenous-returns/ Your suggestion for a more aggressive tax on billionaires is intriguing. Less government spending is good as long as it's smarter and considers the unintended consequences -- which it usually doesn't. We need to take a less partisan and contentious look at how government spending on everything from mental health services to education to social safety nets to health care affects the private sector. While one party likes to assume anything government funded takes away from our for-profit free enterprise, many of these programs directly and indirectly help U.S. companies do business.

Even the politically correct think Gemini has gone too far.

Well you basically reverse engineered a non-question into a point you were keen to make. But 46% sounds pretty good to me. I'd still recommend closing the biggest loopholes and pursuing the most egregious dodgers. Maybe bump a couple of those thresholds. Remember, "fair share" comes from percentage of income and ability to pay, not lump sum. That's the only way it really works. The reason the "fair share" argument gets so much play despite our progressive tax rates is the fact that the wealthiest 400 families in America -- all billionaires -- paid an average individual tax rate of just 8.2%, while the folks genuinely struggling paid around 14%. Huge corporations dodge a s#!t ton of taxes that small businesses can't. It's less galling to think of the 1% shouldering that 46% tax burden when you realize they hold 90% of the wealth in the U.S. That top 0.1% holds 20% all by themselves. And while that's wealth, not income, it's hardly like the two aren't related. Extreme wealth has paid for the perception that 46% is the number you should be watching, and that higher tax rates hurt business. There are decades of evidence suggesting otherwise.

It's true. The only way this happens is if you're unwittingly caught on a hot mike.

When I went to UNL in the glory days of football, the UNL Board of Regents were absolutely loaded with dimwits and s#!theads. But they generally didn't touch athletics.

Even at our most well-intentioned, it's hard to imagine the larger internet collective so overtly advising Ai to rewrite history, and that's not taking into account the half that actively prefers to whitewash things like slavery. But it's a damn interesting question.

You may have missed some of the early fireworks. Among the many stupid things Gemini AI has done is put Black people into historic photos, including pre-integration military units and sports teams. When users told Gemini that there were no Black players on the 1923 St. Louis Cardinals as Gemini depicted, Gemini gave them a little lecture on inclusivity, apparently having been programmed to favor diversity over historical accuracy. Stuff like that.

If you wanted to create the worst possible example of Wokeness Run Amok, it would be the Gemini ChatBot, and whoever programmed it. I don't know if you can call it a Democrat thing, but it's pretty embarrassing. In the spirit of machine learning, Gemini is in the process of correcting itself.

Careful. Pointing out an opportunity for Black people to overcome their out-of-wedlock economic situation comes dangerously close to admitting systemic racial issues still exist.

I don't know, Professor Goalposts. I don't think either of us are under the burden of solving fair taxation on Husker Bulletin Board. You made one of your odd sidesteps into a different proposition: figure out an arbitrary percentage of the American economy that the wealthiest should be responsible for and then.....what? Turn that into a dollar figure and divide by the number of people in the Top 1%, whose own wealth might vary by billions? Weird. If we're talking "fair share" -- which we are -- it makes more sense to consider the percentage of household income, right? The super wealthy can afford to pay a little more, maybe 40%, the over $400K class might fit that 37% number I threw out, bump a $200 - $400k bracket up a tick to 33%, keep the healthy middle class at the 24% they're at, and get that broad working middle of $50-$150K down a tick to 20%. As mentioned, this is not a slide into Tax the Rich class warfare, but actually a lower rate than the wealthy paid during several decades of American Greatness. The reason we're talking "fair share" in the first place is that regardless of the tax rate, high wealth individuals and corporations are often revealed to pay next to nothing in taxes, a "share" that does not seem "fair" to many hard-working Americans. And just because you insist you're okay doesn't mean I'm not worried about you.

Keen-eyed and less combative posters may have noticed I chose the words "racially-tinged" when addressing a graph detailing the preponderance of out-of-wedlock Black folk, and the political leanings of the guy who posted it on X. You don't need to put "racist" in quotes because I never used the word. Surely you know how weird it is to post information specifically measured by race, then accuse someone else of making it about race.

Only one of us actively posted a graph headlined Children born out of wedlock coupled with median household income by race in the American Utopia thread. Are you okay?

Do you realize that this page started 13 years ago?

So the answer is "no."

Rot is a pretty strong word. Coaches, ADs, administrators, and frankly people in every other profession will leave a company to join your company, then leave your company for another company that pays even better. Wait. He's leaving for the SAME money?

Every time God kicks an AD out the door, He opens a window for a new one. Who do you like?

It's already being reported by every reputable sports and Texas media source.