huskertim

No more contract extensions until they are earned. Does that hurt you with recruits? Maybe but probably not as much as having your a** handed to you on national TV.

Fast Eddie O isn't coming as a position coach. Though Frosty might. I have to say Moglia probably lacks the contacts to make a staff at this level, but I am very impressed with his initial success as a first time HC

I wonder why Orgeron's name isn't coming up. I realize his tenure at old miss sucked but I'm kind of surprised. This is a name that would have NU all over ESPN (and good or bad, we could use the press), great recruiter and seems to have learned from his mistakes. Also, no big buy out, no multi year contract, no NCAA sanctions. IMHO, it seems like if you want the up and comer coordinator, Frosty is the guy. If you want a name hire with experience, Orgeron does the trick.

We rely on high tech weapons, not nukes. China fears our army, navy and air force more than anything else. Nukes are the international counterbalance to American high tech weapon superiority. It was the threat of Russian nukes that disuaded the US not to aid Georgia in August of 2008. I'm no military strategist, but if I knew a single (or possibly 18) Ohio Class sub(s) could be sitting off my coast with 154 nuclear tip Tomahawk missles (or even a measley 14 Trident II s). I might be given reason to consider my next move. Technology is cool, but power is influence. I am not convinced that the US has a moral right to stop any country from obtaining the tools it deems neccessary to ensure it's ends, but I'm not sure we can afford not to. Certainly, by our inaction the US will encourage Iran to act in it's own self interest. The question is this: will Iran's developement of this weapon threaten US interests and, if so, are we willing to pay the price to act? Further, are we willing to pay the price of inaction?

I think the arguement usually given is splitting the state votes would actually have the opposite effect: If, for example, Nebraska would be about 60% Republican and 40% Democrat (don't know if those are the actual numbers, just an example), you would expect the Republican to get four votes to one for the Democrat (or 3-2 if you're splitting the senator's votes as well). Thus, it doesn't do them any good to campaign in Nebraska on the slim hope of getting one more vote than they would get without doing anything. However, if it's winner-take-all, swinging the vote either side of 50% would be a five vote swing, which could be worth putting some money into a campaign for. I disagree. Nebraska would almost always vote Republican and therefore neither side would have incentive to campaign in the state. At least with split electoral votes there is 1 or more votes up for grabs. In a winner take all Nebraska there would be no point in campaigning in the state. This would matter if the goal of an election where to ganer national attention instead of proper representation. The point of the electoral college (as I am sure most of you know) is to preserve the power of the states not the electorate. Changeing the number of senators would obviously provide for a more "fair" outcome if that is the way you view it. The men who wrote the US constitution clearly had no intention of allowing the federal seat of power to be manipulated by a majority of citizens to the detrement of the states. State power is a check on federal power as the legislature is to the executive or the judiciary to the other two (or at least that's what was clearly attempted). Sorry for the civics 101 but it often seems we look at the nuance of the quarrel and fail to see the larger picture. As to me, I like my disperpotionate representation thank you. I guess I would like a Nebraska vote to weigh the same as a Florida vote. Would you explain how equally weighing votes in a presidential election would threaten the power of the states? Carl, you are far to educated for me to indulge myself in a primer on simple federalism. Surely you understand the relationship between state and federal government as intended by those who wrote the constitution. Of others not so informed I would clearify (in breif) that indeed the state of Nebraska and the state of Florida where intended to have equal power. The Senate (directly apppointed at the time) and the electoral college were structured such as to ensure relative equally of power between states regardless of population. Make no mistake, this is not a direct democracy and it was never intended to be one.

We probably are... however it is usually the differences that get responded to. My wife is not a US citizen, she is a permanent resident. She pays taxes, knows more US history and government than most Americans, and would shame most english teachers with her knowledge of the language. I'm just curious, and if this is personal I apoligize but why is she not interested in becomeing a citizens of the coutry in which she now resides? To be clear, I'm certainly not implying anything, just kind of intrigued.

Carl on the left, JJ on the right. I would think that even as disparate as your personal views (and opinions of the C in C) are you might come together on the notion that a law empowering the administation to detain US citizens indefinately without trial is bad. Then again, I have been accused of missing the trees for the forrest on occassion. BTW, sorry guys my white, middle class, christian a$$ isn't counting on the staintly boys at the ALCU to protect me. I think I might just cling to my guns and religion like a good like hick.

I think the arguement usually given is splitting the state votes would actually have the opposite effect: If, for example, Nebraska would be about 60% Republican and 40% Democrat (don't know if those are the actual numbers, just an example), you would expect the Republican to get four votes to one for the Democrat (or 3-2 if you're splitting the senator's votes as well). Thus, it doesn't do them any good to campaign in Nebraska on the slim hope of getting one more vote than they would get without doing anything. However, if it's winner-take-all, swinging the vote either side of 50% would be a five vote swing, which could be worth putting some money into a campaign for. I disagree. Nebraska would almost always vote Republican and therefore neither side would have incentive to campaign in the state. At least with split electoral votes there is 1 or more votes up for grabs. In a winner take all Nebraska there would be no point in campaigning in the state. This would matter if the goal of an election where to ganer national attention instead of proper representation. The point of the electoral college (as I am sure most of you know) is to preserve the power of the states not the electorate. Changeing the number of senators would obviously provide for a more "fair" outcome if that is the way you view it. The men who wrote the US constitution clearly had no intention of allowing the federal seat of power to be manipulated by a majority of citizens to the detrement of the states. State power is a check on federal power as the legislature is to the executive or the judiciary to the other two (or at least that's what was clearly attempted). Sorry for the civics 101 but it often seems we look at the nuance of the quarrel and fail to see the larger picture. As to me, I like my disperpotionate representation thank you.

Nelson saw the writing on the wall. Democrats in this state will only enjoy broad support when they play against the party line. By supporting Obama care he further alienated the conservatives (not neccessarilly republican) who propably weren't that high on him after the last election. I myself voted for the guy in 2002, but after he essentially dismissed things like the VAT tax with asertions that clearly showed a disdain for any serious change to the tax code, I felt that he had ebraced a system that did not represent his constitunency. This election is propably lost for the Dems but by exiting early Ben preserved his image and prospects for future influence and after all, I kinda think Ben is all about Ben,

Carl, you do ask some thought provoking questions don't you? Free speech is no less laudable for the constraints placed upon it. Private property is the very right upon which most of our freedoms rest. But is not pride born of personal endeavor, or at least a collective one? I guess when I think of what actually brings me pride in my nation, it would be our militarys' phenomenal capacity to endlessly sacrifce to the betterment of a world that often hates us. In the face of ruthlessness, they show mercy, in a time of lawlessness they employ dicipline, surrounded by enemies they extend a hand of friendship, and upon victory, they make whole those they have vanquished. So, I guess our forefathers decision to subjugate our military to civilian authority and thus to temper such great might with greater character is my choice.

I caught some of this on TV but it was good to get the long version. This is a Democratic Black mayor in a firmly democratic town talking about personal responsibility in the black community. I hope he has a fallback career because this tack has certainly not worked for others.That said, I love this guy.

Alright, maybe she is a bit batsh&t crazy. Still, I'm willing to listen, after all, how sane can you be if you want this job. BTW sounds like alot of Iowans are listening to her too. "Two things I just can't stand. People who are intolerant of other peoples culture and the f'ing Dutch" -Nigel Powers

Sorry to nit pick but modern man (homo sapien) predates agriculture by tens of thousands of years. I understand you are probably implying that ag predates civilazation and hence the existence of specialists (IE Priests, poets, etc.) but the truth is that even in nomadic (hunter/gatherer) tribe we find evidence of specialization. Some gather fruits and berries, others hunt, still others cook and clean the carcasses, some tan hides, some make shelter and, yes, some are "holy" men. This is seen is virtually every tribal society. I wasn't all that clear, but yes, I meant that agriculture predates civilization on a scale large enough to have created structures like these, not that agriculture predates any kind of specialization. Yeah, I figured as much, I just thought I'd poke the bear a bit.

I don't endorse Bachman, but I sure don't marginalize her as some batsh*t nutjob. Paul is extreme nad often less than diplomatic, but is he wrong? As to Herman Cain,I hardly think he's the average Joe. How many many corporations has the average Joe run? How many of you have the eductional and business experience of a guy like that? IMO, Romney gets the nomination because he's safe. That also is why he loses in 2012 just like the last marshmellow the Pubs ran. For some reason the GOP seems to buy the notion that it has to cater to the oposition to win the "independent swing" vote. Fact is, those who oppose you will not vote for you and by kissing their A## you alienate those who would vote with you. I Pissed away my vote last time for McCain and felt like a traitor for it. I will not make that mistake again I will vote for the canidate that I think is best for this country regardless of party or perceived chance of victory, and frankly, at this point I'm leaning Cain.

Yes, let's absolutely discount an eminently well qualified man with intelligent, well reasoned positions because of a couple of sound bits that where clearly choosen to make the man look idiotic. Further let's assume a woman who has had success pushing conservative idiological ideas in a hostile environment is nuts because she might have said a couple of things I find odd. Obvioulsy a man who has served in congress long enough to know all it's dirty little secrets but is just crazy enough to tell people about them instead of profitting for himself could never be considered for the highest office in the land. This is precisely why we can't get quality people in the white house. Of course Romney will get the nomination. He's the most bland guy out there. God forbid we the people should elect someone who might want to upset the status quo that has served us so well lo these many years. Bottom line guys, your not going to get the perfect canidate, so, you might just set you sites on the best flawed human who exposes your same ideals (regardless of his or her percieved ability to win ) and stop comprimising with those who will not return the favor.

Sorry to nit pick but modern man (homo sapien) predates agriculture by tens of thousands of years. I understand you are probably implying that ag predates civilazation and hence the existence of specialists (IE Priests, poets, etc.) but the truth is that even in nomadic (hunter/gatherer) tribe we find evidence of specialization. Some gather fruits and berries, others hunt, still others cook and clean the carcasses, some tan hides, some make shelter and, yes, some are "holy" men. This is seen is virtually every tribal society.

It's just my 2cents, but it seems to me that the next election is like all others before it. It's about energizing the electorate. The fact is Obama should have a commanding advantage as an incumbant but much of his base is utterly disillusioned. It is up to him to blame the evil republicans for his failure to deliver the milk and honey paradise that so many of his adherants expected.Conversely, it is up to the republicans to blame Obama for all the ills of the world but after the masterful job the democrats (and the media) have done of painting Bush 2 as the anti-christ, they fair no better in public opinion. So, what to do? A third party? Even the enlighted Avant-garde of this board has pretty much dismissed the only viable grass roots movement since the Bull Moose party. So basically, we are left with the rather depressing notion of (what in my simple opinion) is a proven policy of failure and a compromise that may at best lead to moderate improvement in of a crumbling system. Sorry to be so bleak but honestly, it seems we are more focused on exposing the clay feet of our would be heros then promoting the ideals that once made us great.

The one thing I don't understand is how does a tax cut create a deficit? If you don't have the money, and you know you aren't going to have the money....how could you base your limit on money you don't have??? There may be a logical answer. To me it is similar to what I use to run into at a place I use to work. We were extremely busy for 6-8 months out of the year. The hourly group would suck up the overtime pay and buy cars and houses that they really shouldn't be buying. Those 3-4 months with no OT brought them to their knees. There was a fire sale on nice cars the same time every year. The idea of basing a deficit on money you didn't have is consistent with the concept of base line budgeting wherein one simply spends 5% more on a line item year over year and claims a cut becasue the presumed growth of spending is 10% (which of course is always inconsistent with actual GDP growth).Sure your spending more, but look how much you saved. I agree taxes should probably be raised where they won't effect economic growth (if such a thing exists) but the idea that we can sustain an economy that includes perpetually ascending debt is absolute insanity. Regardless of the outcome of debt ceiling talks, our nation will endure negative effects to our credit based on our demonstrated inability to resolve this debt. Alexander Hamilton started the U.S. Treasury with nothing, and that was the closest our country has ever been to being even. Will Rogers ptc

Not sure what your getting at here Malth but as a quasi government employee, I can tell you it's pretty tought to get fired. I know of many of my coworkers who have been walked off the job (escourted by armed agents mind you) for everything from sexual harassment to theft, whom have been repeatedly reinstated. I realize this is anecdotal but I too have worked in the real world and have never seen the level unaccountabilty I have with my agency. The truth is, most govenment employees I have encountered are just as consciencious about their jobs as their civilian counter parts but the true a-holes simply can't be fired.

So, I was very wrong. Sam Bradford has worked out pretty well given how badly my Rams sucked last year. I wonder if the Saint Louis Post Dispatch will refund the deposit I but down on an open ended obituary for him.

Sadly, I don't anticipate any changes except the names of the guys whose injuries will be used to excuse horrid offense after the non-conference season.

Does anyone know the status on Tom Rathman. After Singeltary's firing he might be available. Here's a guy that could coach RB and if Pellini chose to go to the run game/pass game coordinator split (like Beck experience under Mangino did at KU) TR would be more than capable. Further, I'm pretty sure Bo and Tom would be familiars with their niners connections.

Maybe I'm reading the tea leaves wrong here, but I get the feeling there's not a whoe lot of warm fuzzys between Bo and Gill.

I think it's pretty obvious that Bo would like to mirror that offense so, I suspect he would love to get a guy like Frost. On the other hand, with his limited experience I can't see him getting the OC gig and I'm not sure he'd be interested in a lateral move (IE replaceing Gilmore). I suspect that Bo would most likely go with Beck. Leach wouldn't seem to fit Bo's vision of this team. Bottom line though, Wats is the captian of this ship and it's certainly hit it's share of icebergs, for better of worse, i's time to make a change. GBR