Moiraine

Socialist aMErica. God help us all. What does anything in the link have to do with socialism? what does anything in that link have to do with common sense? Nothing. Why the hell are you asking that and how does it relate to my question?

Socialist aMErica. God help us all. What does anything in the link have to do with socialism?

Here's one very easy and specific example. Multiple studies have been done to show that when looking at job applications with the exact same resume and experience, employers are much more likely to hire someone with a white anglo-saxon sounding name compared to someone with a black sounding name. Look into socioeconomic status, and how important it is in a child's development. Low SES kids start off with less knowledge when they begin kindergarten because their parents are less likely to have graduated high school or college. I saw a study once that showed low SES children at the age of 2 know far less words than children of middle class parents. To see how this relates to the question: Another important thing is how our schools are funded. A large part of it is based on income in the area. So the $ spent on educating poor kids is a lot less than the $ spent on educating middle class and wealthy kids. And again, looking at the chart shows how it relates to some races not getting what "other races get." This is a vicious cycle because, since the kids start off on the wrong foot, and then they go to schools with a lot less funding, they themselves are less likely to graduate high school or go to college. Im not talking about outside of college. Im talking about in college. What are they not receiving that others are? Alot of colleges have standards, especially private ones. If you dont have the grades to get in then thats the way it is. The problem is at the elementary/high school level. Maybe so, but, kids need to learn from parents how to be disciplined to study outside of school hours. Teachers are only responsible to an extent. It's not the teachers fault when students decide to waste their time at home when it could be spent studying when they need it. Cooperating effort given by all parties involved is what makes it work. You can't have 2 out of 3 pieces and get it to work majority of the time. Unfortunately the people in their homes are more likely to be uneducated than their non minority counterparts. Uneducated parents are more likely to use yelling than logic to get their points across. There are also a lot more distractions when you're in poverty, such as not always having enough food. Another issue is if everyone in your neighborhood is poor and they didn't go to college and their parents were poor and their grandparents were poor and their great grandparents were poor, who are they going to look up to and see "oh, they did it. I can do it too." It was assumed from the time I was born I would go to college and it would be no issue, because that's what my parents did. I think this is much more about helping low SES kids than just focusing on minorities. It's just that minorities have bigger populations of low SES kids. None of this is easy to fix and I agree, teachers are blamed for way too many of the problems that exist in education. I just wish people wouldn't write these issues off (the ones that more often affect minorities) like they're nothing and keep continue to say everyone has an equal chance. Statistically, it's very rare to move to a higher SES than the one you're born into.

Here's one very easy and specific example. Multiple studies have been done to show that when looking at job applications with the exact same resume and experience, employers are much more likely to hire someone with a white anglo-saxon sounding name compared to someone with a black sounding name. Look into socioeconomic status, and how important it is in a child's development. Low SES kids start off with less knowledge when they begin kindergarten because their parents are less likely to have graduated high school or college. I saw a study once that showed low SES children at the age of 2 know far less words than children of middle class parents. To see how this relates to the question: Another important thing is how our schools are funded. A large part of it is based on income in the area. So the $ spent on educating poor kids is a lot less than the $ spent on educating middle class and wealthy kids. And again, looking at the chart shows how it relates to some races not getting what "other races get." This is a vicious cycle because, since the kids start off on the wrong foot, and then they go to schools with a lot less funding, they themselves are less likely to graduate high school or go to college. Im not talking about outside of college. Im talking about in college. What are they not receiving that others are? Alot of colleges have standards, especially private ones. If you dont have the grades to get in then thats the way it is. The problem is at the elementary/high school level. I don't know. I don't know whether they are often discriminated against or not, by the universities or by the people they go to college with. What I do know is that there are going to be people who imagine it or lie about it. On the other end of the spectrum, it annoys the crap out of me when people just assume that's what's happening and write everything off by saying "they're treated just as good as we are!" That isn't something we actually know. IMO many of the demands that are being made are for extra help (ex. the increased retention stuff) which I'm okay with because of what I posted about how a large % of minority populations start their lives off.

I'm not comfortable at all with lumping all Muslims together, but I don't necessarily align with you entirely either. I think of it the same way I think of the Greek system. I know way too many people who have been in frats or sororities who are great, great people that I love dearly, but at the same time, I'm pretty sure the Greek system is conducive to a certain kind of mindset or attractive to a certain kind of person that end up being really terrible. I know plenty of great Muslim people, and I know OF plenty more, but I also do not see this widespread, hellbent, "join us or die" sort of extremism coming out of any other faith systems at anywhere near the same influence or effect. That is scary to me. I would say it is an extremist problem, and a Muslim extremist problem. I think you're arguing a false equivalency. This isn't going to be put very eloquently because I don't know all that much about it, but I don't think it's specific to the religion. It's more to do with the fact that a much larger part of the population in the middle east is ignorant because the middle east still hasn't had an age of enlightenment, which most places had 300 years ago. Back then religion dominated everything, including science. I don't think it's something about Islam that causes this. It's more to do with the history of that area, where Islam just happens to be the main religion. This made me think of this video I watched recently. Interesting bit of perspective. Great (and scary) video. I can see us headed that way but this probably isn't the right topic to start that conversation.

The problem is these extremist Muslims are practicing the religion in a very straight-forward way. bin Laden, for instance, wasn't distorting the religion, he was practicing the fundamental ideas. Jihad and Martyrdom are mainstream, central ideas of Islam. We need to start speaking honestly about this. More importantly, moderate Muslims need to start speaking honestly about this. There needs to be reform within the religion itself. There's plenty of bad stuff in pretty much every religious text. The people need to be educated. I'm sure the people who lead these extremist causes are psychopaths but they're gathering lots of ignorant followers who believe whatever they're told. It doesn't help that some of the clerics who are leaders they look up to are batsh#t crazy.

I'm not comfortable at all with lumping all Muslims together, but I don't necessarily align with you entirely either. I think of it the same way I think of the Greek system. I know way too many people who have been in frats or sororities who are great, great people that I love dearly, but at the same time, I'm pretty sure the Greek system is conducive to a certain kind of mindset or attractive to a certain kind of person that end up being really terrible. I know plenty of great Muslim people, and I know OF plenty more, but I also do not see this widespread, hellbent, "join us or die" sort of extremism coming out of any other faith systems at anywhere near the same influence or effect. That is scary to me. I would say it is an extremist problem, and a Muslim extremist problem. I think you're arguing a false equivalency. This isn't going to be put very eloquently because I don't know all that much about it, but I don't think it's specific to the religion. It's more to do with the fact that a much larger part of the population in the middle east is ignorant because the middle east still hasn't had an age of enlightenment, which most places had 300 years ago. Back then religion dominated everything, including science. I don't think it's something about Islam that causes this. It's more to do with the history of that area, where Islam just happens to be the main religion.

Because the battle against hate, ignorance and stupidity starts at my front door. I'm sick of this political correctness BS. This line usually comes before or after something stupid is said by the person who's saying it.

If we started playing it at the end of the 3rd quarter every game then ya. But we don't. I do think it'd be funny if we played it at the end of every 3rd quarter that we're playing Wisconsin though.

Look into socioeconomic status, and how important it is in a child's development. Low SES kids start off with less knowledge when they begin kindergarten because their parents are less likely to have graduated high school or college. I saw a study once that showed low SES children at the age of 2 know far less words than children of middle class parents. To see how this relates to the question: Another important thing is how our schools are funded. A large part of it is based on income in the area. So the $ spent on educating poor kids is a lot less than the $ spent on educating middle class and wealthy kids. And again, looking at the chart shows how it relates to some races not getting what "other races get." This is a vicious cycle because, since the kids start off on the wrong foot, and then they go to schools with a lot less funding, they themselves are less likely to graduate high school or go to college.

I just looked back at the Missouri list of demands and one of them was for them to have a plan to "increase retention rates for marginalized students." I'm assuming by marginalized they mean poor or minority. I don't know anything about Missouri but I think Nebraska already does this. The problem is it still has to be up to the students to go in to get the assistance that's provided. If they make any of this required then they'll be accused of racism by only making the "marginalized" students do it. If they make something required for every body then it wouldn't meet the demand because it wouldn't focus on the marginalized students. Anyhow, I haven't seen anything about them complaining that bad grades = discrimination. But there are a lot more non-white students who are the first generation college students so there's nothing wrong with them asking for there to be something in place to help increase retention rates. Those students are at a disadvantage.

You grade on tests easier. Duh. Cuz bad grade = discrimination, you know. Are any of the protesters actually claiming this?

This. When we start to rationalize our losses.......... Only fair. We rationalize the wins. Yup. We only won because Cook was off. So it doesn't count.

People do know that the demonized "Washington" is a collection of representatives from all 50 states, right?

Money is not the only factor. I'm assuming you think it should be best of 3 or 5 or whatever. But the physical toll of football on the players is far far greater than playing 3-7 games of basketball or baseball. It'd be asking too much to tack on those extra games for that reason, imo. I guess I'm also not seeing how they'd decide which of these teams would be without a playoff.

Lol. Scheme? Or the sh**ty personnel? Sorry, but the corners have steadily gotten better while the safety play has been poor and steadily gotten worse. ...but by every stretch of the imagination, I certainly don't want you installing your philosophy. That's just dumb. Like being dead last in FBS pass defense is awesome. Or smart. Ironically, we get to Cook and he muffs pass, throwing the ball out of bounds and we win. Pressure works. Rushing 4 against 6 or telegraphing the blitz doesn't. Sh!tty personnel. Look at Gerrys stats from this year and last. He is almost identical. Oh, and his cratastic safety play? He now leads the D in 64 tackles.....It would also be the most solo and the most assists.....5 pass break ups and the only DB with a forced fumble......Its not the players. Its the scheme. It's probably both the scheme and the players. It's neither scheme nor players. It's growing pains. Accept it. Embrace it. Move on. It's too early to know that. Just like it's too early to fire everyone and their mom.

I'm not cautious in my optimism. I probably already said it in this thread and I'm too lazy to look but just seeing Leia, Han, and Luke in costume again will make the price of the ticket worth it for me.

I think we have a better chance of beating Iowa than beating Rutgers. I'll be thrilled if we beat Rutgers. It just feels like a trap game (if such a thing exists for a team that's 4-6).

Maybe they can help on the edge? Anyone know anything? Dunno. It's kinda shocking with our complete lack of a pass rusher that we don't have at least one great player clamoring to join the team.

The 1st quarter was particularly shocking. Cook may have finished with decent numbers, but he did not look like himself that 1st quarter. Whether it was all on him or his receivers, they were missing on some throws. And on his receiver's behalf, there were a couple drops early in the game that were well thrown balls but they couldn't catch. It was definitely Cook. It was something like six of his first seven incompletions were just flat out missing open guys. Not pressured. Not tough throws. Just totally missed them. Once he got going, they had four straight 70+ yard TD drives. The only thing that saved us was them going conservative with the run game to burn clock at the end. Result of MSU possessions: Downs, Punt, Punt, FG, TD, INT, TD, TD, TD, TD, Punt. Early on - first four possessions - when Cook was struggling, we could stop them. Then they scored TDs on five out of six possessions with the lone stop being another terrible Cook throw. We're assuming his performance in the first quarter had nothing to do with the environment and was solely on him just out of the blue being awful. Environment may have played a role, but he's also a senior QB, no? Dude has played in some tough places. I'd personally lean more towards him being off than it being anything environmental, but that's just me. I just have a problem blaming things on a player being off. It's a part of the game and it happens to Nebraska plenty. I don't like blaming a loss on when it happens to Nebraska and I don't like blaming a win on it happening to our opponents. I'm not saying you're saying that, but it's been implied quite a bit.

Undecided about whether Collins will stay, imo or go, imo. Everyone in this thread seems to be ignoring those 2 twin DTs who will be redshirt freshmen next year. Mayhaps they're good.

It won't be considered a showdown to Iowa. Until they're heading home with a loss. IMO this feels like 2010 Texas vs. Nebraska except we're Texas.

The 1st quarter was particularly shocking. Cook may have finished with decent numbers, but he did not look like himself that 1st quarter. Whether it was all on him or his receivers, they were missing on some throws. And on his receiver's behalf, there were a couple drops early in the game that were well thrown balls but they couldn't catch. It was definitely Cook. It was something like six of his first seven incompletions were just flat out missing open guys. Not pressured. Not tough throws. Just totally missed them. Once he got going, they had four straight 70+ yard TD drives. The only thing that saved us was them going conservative with the run game to burn clock at the end. Result of MSU possessions: Downs, Punt, Punt, FG, TD, INT, TD, TD, TD, TD, Punt. Early on - first four possessions - when Cook was struggling, we could stop them. Then they scored TDs on five out of six possessions with the lone stop being another terrible Cook throw. We're assuming his performance in the first quarter had nothing to do with the environment and was solely on him just out of the blue being awful.

Yea,, why should anyone express displeasure in a below average product? Just sit there and take it. But it's nice to know that the opinions of the fans ( many of whom are alumni) aren't wanted. Instead, maybe we should just end the sellout streak. Why should anyone give a coach more than 9 games before deciding whether to fire him, the athletic director, and the chancellor????!!!oneone