Manhattan

I think the play against Penn State was hilarious. The way they run is so goofy.

I agree, but I wouldn't go as far as calling the people of Haiti "third world turds". There are a lot of Haitians where I live and I think they're all really cool people. Good music from Haiti.

Because not too long ago, when the government didn't care what the white majority did, the white majority denied the same rights (i.e., gun ownership in this case) to minorities. Minorities (then, it was Blacks and Jews) were at the mercy of an armed, white, Christian majority and were hunted down and lynched/tortured/executed left and right. We've come a long way. Now, when Muslims want to own weapons (their right to do so) and train with them (their right to do so), you complain about this. You are outraged that a minority population in this country feels threatened, but your solution is that they should take away their ability to defend themselves. I bet you don't care about similar training camps run by White Christian religious zealots. Now, before you label me as some pinko, consider that I enlisted for military service in the Marine Corps. I love this country and I will defend it to the last if a serious domestic threat arose on our soil. I, like you, am concerned about the growth of so-called radical Islam and its influence here in America. I agree that the government, just like they do with all extremist organizations, should keep a close watch on them and the appropriate measures should be taken if something develops. I do not think, however, that their rights should be taken away. That is dangerous. I love how some people complain about the "other party" taking away their rights/freedoms a la 1984 and Big Brother, yet the first things they turn to in an effort to try and solve problems are to limit the rights of others.

Adapt and Overcome So... Why would I want to visit a detention facility that is under construction? Hell, I couldn't give a good reason to visit a completed one.

So I am visiting Nebraska on Saturday the 13th. Anything I should make sure to see in particular that probably wouldn't be a campus tour?

How did the emphasis shift from Oklahoma to Missouri? The sheer polarity of the responses to the first question suggest that the Oklahoma rivalry is very important, yet not important enough to take a back-seat to Missouri?

It is annoying to me how the political climate (hah, pun) has become such that discussions about climate are in the political and religious discussion forum instead of general discussion forum. Soon the only things that won't be in this forum will be Porn and baby photos.

My sister goes to CU. CU is like Iran. They appear to be a nonsense program/fanbase on the outside, but actually have some good spirited fans on the inside. The general sentiment on campus was a frustrated but sportsmanlike attitude about being really bad currently. I didn't sense that they really hated any Big 12 team when I asked some people about it. Mostly everyone hated Colorado State and every other school was just "some Big 12 rival". It didn't seem to make a difference to them if they were playing TAMU or Nebraska, really.

I voted for one-tone turf. I don't like how the two-tone pretends to be cut. Then again, I don't like how turf pretends to be grass, but I think the quality of the playing surface is one concession I can make to players.

SSShhh... This is secretly an experiment of The Power of Context.

Don't you think that the best rivalries of all time start off as territorial rivalries? Michigan and Ohio State, Auburn and Alabama, USC and UCLA, Texas and Oklahoma, etc... I think that a decade after the year that Nebraska joins the Big Ten, if that happens at all, the rivalry with Iowa would be very passionate and fierce.

I know it is early in the poll, but I didn't expect to see a good number of people vote for Michigan.

T_O_B, I politely disagree. And I really don't like hookah lounges too much. Sometimes they are good if the owners aren't amateurs with hookah setup and charge extortionate prices for sub-par tobacco - which is usually washed at hookah lounges. Better and cheaper to do it yourself if you have the room. Hookah lounges also tend to attract a lot of the wrong kinds of people. People who think they are suddenly experts on hookah despite not owning any and only going to a hookah lounge like three times in their lives... It gets really annoying. Ask them some simple questions about hookah they will undoubtedly be unable to answer and they shut up or become bitter about it.

I am just curious to see what the HuskerBoard membership thinks Nebraska's most important rivalries are.

Resources are not evenly distributed around the world. Some locations are more desirable to live than others. I can think of a million other reasons why this utopia couldn't possibly work as he describes, but there is only one true way to bring about any world peace and I am kind of surprised that it is explicitly outlawed in your friend's idea of the perfect world. What way is this, you ask? MONEY Money isn't evil. It is really the only way we will live in peace. Free Trade = Peace, and unlike your friend's bullsh#t Utopian idea, this thinking is actually based on historical fact and trends. Let's say, oh, one thousand years ago, Civilization A hates Civilization B. They speak different languages, have different religions, different customs, and are separated only by a narrow body of water and both nations are both strategically important and rich in resources. A wants what B has and vice versa, and they figure that the easiest way they can "have it all" is to destroy each other and take over the other country's land. Lacking any significant trade, sometimes explicitly outlawed trade, and extortionately taxed trade, and horrible infrastructure and communication, war becomes the only way for them to settle their differences. A state of war exists between these nations for several hundred years. More than eight hundred years. As time progresses, the wars become less frequent and less prolonged. What were once prolonged conflicts ranging hundreds of years turned into smaller skirmishes over distant territory. Global infrastructure and trade also increases as time goes on. These trends are not coincidental. It is based on simple human principles: 1) People would rather have everything they want and not go to war than go to war and risk being destroyed and lose everything. 2) When people realize that they can be at peace and trade for the things they want, they will not go to war, because at the end of the day, Civilization A wants the furs from the forests of Civilization B, and Civilization B wants coal from the hills of Civilization A. They would rather not fight over it, and if an efficient way of trading these resources exists as to be profitable for both parties, both would rather trade than go to war. 3) Even though they come from radically different cultures, trading forces them to be at least tolerant of each others' differences so they can conduct business. Over time, they realize they are not so different and are both interested in continued profit and peace between them. 4) They will no longer want to go to war with each other because they will have become amiable and dependable trading powers and perhaps support each other in the future. Civilization A is England (Great Britain) and Civilization B is France. A similar situation exists today with the United States and China, and basically most civilized nations of the world. The more access to free trade and global infrastructure that exists to a people of a nation, the less likely they are to go to war. Why is North Korea so militant? Because they have no free trade, no trading history, and they are essentially stuck in the dark ages before the enlightened concepts of global trade. Their only way of acquiring what they want is through war or the threat of war, which is an outdated strategy. And they suffer for it. World governments are in a more stable state and on more stable standings than they have ever been in the history the world. This is largely due to the fact that all of these nations belong to such a globally interdependent society, where almost any war at all between a world power would lead to a far greater poverty than any possible gain. Why do you think all of the wars in the world happen in impoverished, backwards, or anti-capitalist nations?

Kornheiser wanted to go on vacation. ESPN says, "fine, but we need a way to get our ratings up before we go." Now Kornheiser is on vacation and more people tune into ESPN.

Well the draught ones are certainly light, but Schneider Aventinus is no joke! They have a lot of heavier stuff there, but not my frequent taste. Outside of the bierhalle, I like pretty much everything. I like stout ales, IPA's, brown ales, etc. I am always game for a microbrew. We have the Brooklyn Brewery here in NYC that came under the leadership of Garret Oliver - one of the most famous brewmasters in the US. His new recipes are great.

I basically live in a bierhaus that has all of the following fresh, on tap, by the litre, for TEN DOLLARS. They also have 2 taps that change usually every week. The same stuff in bottles at the supermarket has nothing on these: HOFBRAU - ORIGINAL PALE (pic) & DUNKEL PAULANER - HELLES LAGER (pic) SPATEN - ORIGINAL PREMIUM (pic) RADEBERGER - PILSNER WEIHENSTEPHANER - HEFEWEISS (pic) KOSTRITZER - SWCHWARZBIER (pic) Other beers that I really like that they have there (there are like 20 more...): Schneider Weisse Schneider Aventinus Schwelmer Alt Kulmbacher Eisbock Berliner Weisse

Currently, my sentiments are pretty even between Nebraska and Iowa, with Missouri being sort of a third wheel I guess. I really hope I get some insight when I visit the schools.

Anyone here play for Nebraska in the RFC? Rugby is something I'd be interested in being a part of in school.

After looking at the restaurants/bars of the downtowns of Iowa City, Lincoln, and Columbia, I have to come to the conclusion that they all pretty much offer the same things. I could probably learn a lot more when I actually visit them, but coming from NYC, I don't really see a much of a difference between them.

You are a hypocrite. You hate labels, but then you label everyone here. Do you mean to say that you only hate labels when they are applied to yourself? Secondly, regardless if you like labels or not - you think you are such an individual with your own unique views blah blah blah - no matter what you believe in individually, there is a spot on that chart that describes what you believe in. Every single possible political ideal/axis is represented. You label yourself just by providing any sort of opinion on anything you believe in.

Another question, UNL's smoking policy says that you can't smoke indoors on campus or near entrances to buildings or ventilation systems (understandable), but are there designated places that are located indoors where you can smoke? At Missouri, apparently there are designated locations where you can smoke (not entirely certain if this means these designated areas are indoors, but I think they are, since all outdoor locations are free to smoke in...). The reason I ask is because I really enjoy smoking hookah, and while it may be sort-of-feasible if not entirely enjoyable to smoke outside on a nice day, what am I supposed to do in the winter when I am stuck in the dorms? Perhaps people will let me bring it to off-campus parties or something, or if there are smoking lounges off-campus that I can use it. On the bright side, I'll just get an apartment sophomore year.

... The real drinking is after the game is over.

Surprised how many Libertarians there are so far. I have a political prediction to make: 1) See how our modern political debate, if displayed on that chart I made, goes in a diagonal line from the top-left (Left) to bottom-right (right)? Two-hundred years ago, the political debate was a mirror image. You were either an Anti-Federalist (bottom-left) or Federalist (top-right). It has since changed to its current arrangement. 2) I think this last election sealed the fate of the current Republican base. They are only going to get smaller over time while the amount of Libertarians and liberals increase. There are already far more self-described Libertarians now than even ten years ago. The Democratic Party will be in power until the Republican Party stops ostracizing the relative political moderates (Libertarians, Center-Rights) of its party and moves away from its antiquated base. 3) In about fifty years time, the political alignment will be on a top-left to bottom-left arrangement. There will be a new wave of social deregulation like in the 60s and 70s, and nobody will care about the government regulating recreational drugs, abortion, gay marriage, etc. Those things will be trivial compared to the problems our country faces in the future. We will also be a far less religious country.