Member for

12 years 6 months
Points
2867.00

Recent Comments

Date Title Body
Pretty sure it has something…

Pretty sure it has something to do with UM football's NIL partnership with the Army National Guard. You can spot something similar in Harbaugh's office at the 4:35 mark of the video linked in this article.

It's the Sam Cassell "big…

It's the Sam Cassell "big balls" celebration. It means that you've got "big balls" for taking and hitting a clutch shot.

^ This.

I am an Ann Arbor…

^ This.

I am an Ann Arbor resident, born and raised. I have never lived outside of Ann Arbor, let alone the state of Michigan. I worked food service for much of my twenties before deciding that I wanted to attend college. I applied and was accepted to UM when I was 26. By that time, my parents had moved out of state but I was still living and working in AA. Because my parents no longer lived in MI, UM immediately classified me as out-of-state. I had to go through an appeal process that included a background check of all previous residences, W2s showing I was working full-time in AA, and a letter from my employer stating that I had been working in AA for years. After several months, UM finally granted me in-state status. They continued to classify me (then reclassified upon appeal) as out-of-state when I reapplied at 28 as a non-degree seeking student and 30 as a graduate student. Needless to say, UM is very stringent when it comes to establishing residency.

OP, here are UM's guidelines for establishing residency. Your nephew moving to AA/MI, working a job "normally held by a student", and attending the local community college is not going to cut it.

No one was making the…

No one was making the argument that Wagner should have been benched.

I am not suggesting that the…

I am not suggesting that the Franz shot was a bad look. As you and the poster below correctly pointed out, Franz presents multiple threats that Brown does not. That's a valid criticism of my post.

That said, Chaundee Brown is not Matt Vogrich. They have run screen and curl opportunities for him before (albeit far less frequently than Wagner). His body of work this season and at Wake Forest suggests that he can be utilized as more than just kick-out shooter. This team failed to make a basket over the last 5 minutes. Drawing up a screen and curl opportunity for your best catch and shoot player seems like a reasonable solution to consider, IMO. This is especially true on the last shot of the game. Using him as a vague decoy seemed like an underutilization of his greatest asset, IMO.  

The Smith stuff is valid, although I was referring to a much broader stretch of time (the last ~10 minutes - I can't remember when he checked back in) than the last minute. That was not clear from my post.

The TV angle on it wasn't…

The TV angle on it wasn't great, but it did seem like he was a little too far from the basket to try to put it back the way that he did.

They have run screen and…

They have run screen and curl opportunities for him this season, albeit not as frequently as with Franz. 

I also read that, but it's…

I also read that, but it's simply not true. The shots at 13 seconds and 6 seconds are very clearly drawn up for Wagner, with Brown just sitting in the corner. The 0.5 second is less clear, but it seems unlikely given Chaundee's position to the baseline and inbounder that they were trying to get the ball to him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcXLwUDIRts

https://www.reddit.com/r…

Try looking around Reddit.

The BG Spots is actually the…

The BG Spots is actually the original location. AA location was started ~1 year later.

What are you disagreeing…

What are you disagreeing with? It's a fact that both candidates won the popular vote. I never said either candidate won a majority. However, I agree with your larger point that plurality voting should decide elections. I'm a huge advocate of ranked choice voting.

I literally do not…

I literally do not understand this argument. No one complained about the electoral college under Clinton and Obama because both candidates won the popular vote. 

The issue is not the loss of…

The issue is not the loss of the filibuster. The issue is that the Senate majority leader will not hold himself to the BS extraconstitutional standards he set 4 years ago. I think Supreme Court justices should be nominated by the sitting president and that the Senate should hold hearings for that nominee. I thought that 4 years ago and I think that now. The Senate majority leader disagreed four years ago but agrees now.

A.) If you think Joe Biden…

A.) If you think Joe Biden is a socialist then you have no idea what the word means.

B.) Joe Biden is against defunding the police. Your talking point has been disproven time and again.

Look, we're all very…

Look, we're all very impressed that you took a 100-level econ course. However, it is not stringent socialism to prioritize allocation based on greatest need. That's how PPE distribution has worked throughout this pandemic. It's how vaccine distribution works. While this is certainly closer to the "socialism" end of the spectrum than the "free market" end, we make these sorts of tradeoffs all the time and have yet to morph into the USSR. Furthermore, you continue to accuse OP of a "flawed analysis" while making several unfounded conjectures yourself. I don't agree with OP that we need to prioritize food service workers, but it's annoying when people trot out the "because pure capitalism" argument without acknowledging that all economies are mixed to some degree.

Precisely.

Precisely.

Sorry, that's a fair point…

Sorry, that's a fair point. I was not necessarily trying to tie the comments about authoritarianism directly to the COVID response (though putting it at the end of a block of text about the COVID response certainly makes it look that way). What I was trying to highlight is that the university's COVID response has exacerbated existing tensions between faculty/students and admin/regents. The faculty in particular have felt increasingly voiceless over the years and the university's COVID response felt tone deaf to many. 

Still, OP posed the question as if there is little strife in Ann Arbor right now and that simply isn't true. We can argue about the scope or severity of that conflict, or how much pressure it actually exerts on Schlissel, but from the ground level there seems to be palpable dissatisfaction within the UM  and Ann Arbor communities. I do not believe any of this would influence some hypothetical revote, but to act like it doesn't exist just isn't true.  

The reasons that would cause…

The reasons that would cause Harbaugh & co. (e.g. players, AD/Big House staff) to march are certainly more tangible and personal than the reasons that might cause a fan to march. If the views expressed on this board are any indication, most fans are upset because they simply can't fathom spending a year without their favorite thing. There are much bigger things to mourn (and march for) right now than the loss of a 6-3 season.

While I'm not trying to lend…

While I'm not trying to lend credence to the idea that Schlissel will vote based on public pressure, there is undoubtedly a lot of unrest both on campus and within Ann Arbor due to UM's COVID plan, or a perceived lack thereof. Faculty and local government panned the university's COVID plan prior to the start of the school year. Grad students are on strike due in part to the university's COVID plan. There are rumors that a vote of "no confidence" in Schlissel might be coming from the faculty any day now. Personally, several faculty have expressed to me that they believe the university has become increasingly authoritarian under Schlissel's tenure, which jives with a recent Michigan Daily op-ed. These "fires" might not be visible to those outside of Ann Arbor/Washtenaw County, but they are certainly extant. 

Taking this story at face…

Taking this story at face value, I don't see how voting to play football would do anything other than add fuel to said "fires". 

Hey Devon, I was responding…

Hey Devon, I was responding to Ypsitucky, not your post. Sorry for the confusion.

Look, there are many reasons…

Look, there are many reasons one could choose not to support BLM in its entirety, but this "disrupting the nuclear family" argument is such a bad-faith one. One of the consequences of the mass incarceration practices that have disproportionately affected communities of color is single-parent households. What this BLM bullet point is asking is that we broaden our definition of family, stop stigmatizing single-parent households, and do our part to help those who have been victims of these practices. You can disagree with that if you'd like, but this idea that BLM is looking to break apart families and force them to work communal plots is a bit absurd. 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/28/ask-politifact-does-black-lives-matter-aim-destroy/

Okay, I hear you. So, what…

Okay, I hear you. So, what would be your preferred method of being asked to do your part to address racial inequities in this country, so that we as a nation can finally live up to the beliefs that those symbols of national unity represent?

Okay, I have. At worst, it's…

Okay, I have. At worst it's an inconvenience.

'Member that time you…

'Member that time you presented a continually discredited rumor as fact on MGoBlog?

I'm not sure how you came…

I'm not sure how you came away from my post thinking that "filibustered inaction" was the sole factor in the expansion of the executive. I think you're making a distinction without a difference. Part of the role of Congress is to check the power of the executive. They have consistently failed to do so - I would describe that as inaction. I admit that I did not explicitly state that in my original post.

Ignoring that it's far from settled fact that the "founders" deliberately designed the filibuster - there are some who believe it was created by "accident" - the filibuster was not exercised until the mid-1800s. That's to say nothing of the fact that it has never been the case, nor should it be, that a super-majority or near super-majority is required to pass any legislation. The frequency with which the filibuster has been used has exploded in the last several decades, giving the minority party a de facto absolute veto over legislation. It's pretty clear that the filibuster is being abused and I've yet to hear other compelling solutions to eliminating some of the legislative gridlock we are witnessing.

You can argue about the…

You can argue about the number and scope of the executive orders that have been issued, but surely you see the necessity for the existence of executive orders during a global pandemic or a large national security event? Also, if you are truly concerned about the expanding power of the executive, the first spot you should place blame is at the feet of those legislators you reference. Legislators have consistently favored inaction over tough decision making, have consistently voted to expand the power of the executive, and, in the age of extreme partisanship, have increasingly used the filibuster to block legislation that is unpopular with their base.

I'm not sure where to begin…

I'm not sure where to begin other than by stating that everything you just said can be easily refuted with a simple Google search. Masks cannot reduce transmission rates to zero, but they can seriously reduce rates of transmission. Both cases and deaths in MI peaked during the window you provided. Lastly, prior to seat belts being mandatory, I'm sure you could find plenty of people who went their whole lives without wearing a seat belt and lived to tell the tale. That doesn't change the fact that automobile deaths declined after seat belt mandates. I don't who/what/where you're getting your information from, but tell them to do better.

A couple of things. First,…

A couple of things. First, judging off previous reporting, I wouldn't take footballscoop.com as a particularly credible, unbiased source. Second, and more importantly, they are basing their numbers off, at most, 4 weeks of data. I brought this anecdote up the other day but it bears repeating. At the end of May, an ABC reporter tweeted out how ABC looked at 21 states that reopened at the beginning of May and saw no increases in % positivity, hospitalizations, or death rates. That tweet blew up, with many people citing it as a reason why shutdowns don't work and should end. However, by June-July, % positivity, hospitalizations, and deaths exploded in the majority of these states. Moral of the story, 4 weeks just simply isn't enough data.

I'm not saying that HS football will result in any "superspreader" events and I tend to agree that the mask mandate won't have much of an impact on spread, but I do think it's worth being cautious about drawing any big conclusions from 2-4 weeks of data.

As an aside, I appreciate you acknowledging that this is a step in the "right direction" for the "reopen" camp. I'm not sure how people can look at this as anything more nefarious than a compromise.

As far as abuse of power…

As far as abuse of power goes, requiring kids to wear masks while playing a contact sport in the middle of a global pandemic is pretty low on the list. 

Except the violence has been…

Except the violence has been broadly condemned. Furthermore, local authorities continue to confront the violent protestors. Some people are calling for the federal government to intervene, but the paper I cited suggests that the presence of the federal government has only increased violence, which is why you see governors telling the feds to stay away. The idea that violent protestors are running rampant while everyone says, "this is fine," just simply isn't a reality.

More importantly, it seems that your broader argument is that every single protest has to be 100% peaceful in order for the protestors to be listened to. This just simply isn't realistic, as any number of factors can cause a protest to become violent (outside bad actors, police violence, protester violence, etc). Furthermore, as Shop Smart astutely pointed out, demanding 100% peaceful protests has long been used as a tactic by those who want to ignore racial injustice and preserve the status quo. 

Thanks for sharing that…

Thanks for sharing that Cuomo quote, I did not know it existed. I acknowledge that I stand corrected. While I think it's clear he's using that line as a cheesy, cliché call to action, it still comes across as dumb. That said, I think it's pretty clear that the motivation for the shutdowns was to save thousands of lives, not one. Had COVID been responsible for a singular number of deaths, you would have seen zero buy-in and zero shutdowns.

However, I'm unclear where the hypocrisy is? Cuomo denounced violent protests all the way back in May. New York has repeatedly been criticized for having heavy-handed responses to non-violent protests. I'm not sure how you read that as a message of approval?

Lastly, you're changing your argument here. First your argument was that any violence means that any protest should be shut down (which would be a serious violation of 1A rights). Now, while completely ignoring your own hypocrisy, your argument is that you hate hypocrisy and cited an example of someone who has not been hypocritical. 

*Tucker Carlson has entered…

*Tucker Carlson has entered the chat*

Man, you're doing a great…

Man, you're doing a great job attacking an argument that no one was making. My point was not to dismiss the 7%, but instead to debunk the false narrative that these protests are saturated with violence/looting/rioting. While you're right that I cannot "pretend" that the 7% of violence isn't a problem, I can certainly "pretend" that 93% of these protests aren't a problem because they aren't.

I do not remember anyone (Twitter eggs and MGoBloggers excluded) making an earnest argument that "if it saves just one life, it's worth it," when it comes to COVID, but if you can point me to something that contradicts that I'm willing to listen. That said, it sounds like you think that any death/violence associated with these protests (however loosely associated it may be) is too much death/violence and that it delegitimizes these protests in their entirety. If that's the case - that simply one unnecessary death is one too many - then you must certainly believe that all cops are bad, for simply one illegitimate use of state-sanctioned violence is an indictment on the whole system, right? To be clear, I do not hold that position, but I am using it rhetorically to highlight the ridiculousness of your argument. 

Approximately 7% of all BLM…

Approximately 7% of all BLM protests have been violent or resulted in property destruction. Roughly 10% of protests have been met with "government intervention" and 5% have been met with police violence. But please, don't let that disrupt your narrative.

https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

I'd just like to push back…

I'd just like to push back on this idea of "inconsistencies" - a point which has been used to criticize Whitmer's various COVID-related executive orders stretching back to March. Whitmer has consistently taken input from various business advocacy groups when crafting her executive orders. I think if Whitmer had "her way", so to speak, far more businesses would have been shut down back in March. Business advocacy groups fought very hard to make sure the definition of a "essential business" was as broad as possible. I believe this tug and pull led to a lot of confusing "inconsistencies", like Coldstone being allowed to stay open while Home Depot had to shut down.

I realize that these inconsistencies were frustrating and confusing, but I think far too many people assume Whitmer looked at these inconsistencies and said, "Looks great! No problem, here," rather than realizing that these inconsistencies were the result of a complex bargaining process. 

I mean, that argument can…

I mean, that argument can very easily be turned around on you. One person citing 200K deaths isn't a political weapon, either. I believe the virus has been politicized, but I do not believe that politicization is one-sided, nor do I think it detracts from the seriousness of the virus. If you can claim to read my mind then I can claim to read yours - you cannot tell me that you are blind to the fact that second-guessing the numbers has become a "political weapon" for those who want to gloss over the fact that the United States has had, at best, a below average response to the greatest public health crisis of our lifetime. 

1.) You're right,…

1.) You're right, comorbidities are critical in contextualizing the dangers of COVID. That said, over 50% of US adults have at least one comorbidity. For those who do not, they frequently interact with those that have comorbidities. Protecting these people is a lot more difficult than simply telling grandma and grandpa to stay inside.

2.) I'm curious why you think citing nearly 200K deaths is a "political weapon" but questioning the validity of that number is not?

As a Kines grad, I also…

As a Kines grad, I also thought of the sports management program as most analogous to what rainingmaize described. That said, I know a lot athletes who were part of the sports management program at UM and it was unclear to me how much, if at all, they were allowed to use their sports experiences towards their degree. Additionally, the athletes that were part of the program were predominantly white and affluent. The same is true for the rest of the Kines programs, although sports management seemed to be the only one that had "prominent" (football and basketball scholarship) student-athletes in it.

During my time at UM, I most frequently encountered "prominent" student-athletes in large, 100-level lecture halls. They usually sat in back and slept, talked, or screwed around on computers/phones the entire class. It's a shame that the university has not found a way to channel the players' existing funds of knowledge towards a more sports-specific degree. At the very least, allow them to use their athletic experiences as some sort of upper-level or cognate elective. 

Upvoted for the Mika…

Upvoted for the Mika shoutout. His political theory course was one of the more fun, thought-provoking classes I took at UM.

You misunderstood my post…

You misunderstood my post. OP said it is moronic for someone to value the opinions of alums over non-alums regarding the direction of the school. I was questioning why OP thought that was moronic.

TL;DR: you and I are arguing the same point.

If the reputation of the…

If the reputation of the university matters to you because of your career, I assume you work for the university? If so, I absolutely agree that you are a major stakeholder in the university and that your opinion matters as much, if not more, than someone whose only relationship to the university is as a former student. That said, it was my interpretation based on OP's comment and WD's relationship to the university that OP was referring to people who are fans, not employees. 

It's a shame that the irony…

It's a shame that the irony of your username is lost on you.

I'm not here to take a…

I'm not here to take a stance on the issue of whether or not there should be a season, but I would like to push back on the idea that 4 weeks of data is somehow sufficient. If you'll remember, at the end of May ABC reporter (and Michigan alum) Eric Strauss sent out a tweet claiming ABC looked at 21 states that "reopened" 3-4 weeks earlier and found there were no major increases in hospitalizations, deaths, or % positivity. This tweet blew up, with people using it as evidence to claim that shutdowns don't work and that all states should reopen. Well, lo and behold, several weeks later the majority of these states saw an explosion in % positivity and, consequently, deaths.

I'm not suggesting that Utah is going to see a massive increase in cases and deaths due to football, but what I am suggesting is that it's premature to use 4 weeks of data to draw any firm conclusions. 

I am by no means interested…

I am by no means interested in disparaging WD or other non-alum fans, as I was a non-alum fan for nearly 30 years of my life. But, outside of the fact that UM is a state university and therefore subsidized in part by state taxes, can you explain to me why it is moronic for someone to believe that the opinions of alumni regarding the direction of their alma mater matters more than the opinions of someone who happens to like the university's sports teams?

"Got the scrawny legs but I…

"Got the scrawny legs but I move just like Lou Brock."

I didn't need to read his…

I didn't need to read his old posts to arrive at that conclusion.

Knows how to party.

Knows how to party.

I think you misunderstand…

I think you misunderstand what it means to be a "Karen".

I just thought he crushed a…

I just thought he crushed a lot?