This is maaaaybe premature there, ESPN. Maryland #1 FWIW.
blue in dc
- Member for
- 5 years 2 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|3 weeks 2 days ago||So - government has a role?||
Doesn"t your assertion that the proper ratio of private to public is 4 to 1 actually concede there is in fact a role for government?
|3 weeks 2 days ago||So where do we diverge?||
1. Do you think that greenhouse gases impact climate? If so, is C)2 an important greenhouse gas?
2. Do you think that CO2 levels are increasing?
3. If so, do you think that the increase in CO2 is largely due to burning fossil fuels?
4. If you do agree with the above, is the reason that you are not concerned about the increase because you think the impact that changes in CO2 can have is negligible?
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Tragedy of the Commons?||
Familiar with it? Generally suggests that, "the real world" I believe you are refering to doesn"t do the best job of valuing all things and that is in fact a big part of why we have government.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||And basketball, hockey etc.||
With that argument of yours, someone might accuse you of being a government accountant. Good luck
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Seemingly more nuanced than that||
Apparently economic geologists (who typically work for extractive industries) are among scientists most skeptical of climate change. The Geology Society of America on the other hand has a position statement consistent with humans being the largest contributor to recent climate change.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Don"t need military, clean air, roads||
Or the myriad of other things that government is involved in?
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Your post however deserves a huge sigh||
Oh yes, it"s cold in January - global warming can"t be real. just a big hoax.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||It may be an american right||
But in and of itself, it does nothing to make government better and generally makes it worse because it furthers the attitude that it can"t in fact be made better.
Ultimately, shitting on your own government alone is just shitting on yourself.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||All for improving things||
But all I see is someone making incredibly broad generalizations about politics on a sports blog - not sure how that is improving things. Further, the person I am responding to has called all government "parasites" that does not really suggest someone in the construcive, "how do we fix things" mode.
Suggesting that all things government are a total disaster seems to ignore the fact that the public-private partnership in the US has done some amazing things and that if you want to try to change things a slightly more nuanced view looking at where things work and don"t might be useful.
Making government work is really hard. Lots of people are coming from lots of different viewpoints and interests. Trying to find workable solutions that satisfy those often competing interests is hard work that is often failed at, that doesn't mean we should just call it a disaster and give up.
By the way - red herrings are widely accepted as "shitty logic" - I"ve re-read my post multiple times and tried to figure out where I said - we should just shut our mouths and not try to improve things.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||But neither makes either place better||
it"s easy to take a shit, cleaning up the mess is harder and is generally the job that comes to government (And by that, I mean countless men and women who work as career employeess at all levels of government not politicians). And I'll sit here all day defending that part of government.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Anyone||
Who can make such sweeping generalizations about "government" might want to try some alternatives for a while. Russia, China, much of the middle east. While our government has problems, there are plenty of governments that are more of a disaster
|3 weeks 2 days ago||All parasites?||
People in the military who risk their lives to defend our country, people at NIH who devote their lives to curing disease, first responders to disasters - yes, certainly all parasites. While our government clearly has room to improve, I"m not sure you"d be thrilled with the way the country would look without it at all.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Insightful||
|3 weeks 3 days ago||not the only close-minded one?||
While I don't know either UM Proud or Humen, it is not a huge leap to think that UM Proud"s joke just might say something about his political leanings as Humen suggested. On a U of M sports blog an easy and clearly non-contreversial joke might have been, "the owner of that station must have gone to MSU (or OSU)'. If not and you picked another target for your joke (in this case, government, but could just as easily have been some of the wonderful accounting on Wall Street where both the little guy and the greater economy have been screwed while some guy who sits at a desk and doesn"t actually make anything makes billions), it might say something about your political leanings.
I recognize that both of those negative descriptions are stereotypes that do not fairly represent tbe majority of the hardworking americans that work either in government or on Wall Street. On the other hand if someone chooses to make a joke about questionable accounting and used either example, I would in fact think that the underlying example might say that something about their politics.
This is not to suggest that both examples don"t have truth to them or present opportunities to make changes that could benefit all americans.
I will also note in Humen"s defense that he didn"t make the more political statement until asked for the clarification and that while Bernie Sanders might point out inefficincies in our health care budget his solution does not seem to suggest that he believes the federal government as a whole is incompetent while the two leading candidates in the other party have made no secret that they feel much of it is (as is their right as an American and as is the right of anyone that agrees with them) and as I believe Humen quite factually pointed out.
I aopoligize if this reply is "close-minded", because I think that there in fact could be some more than subtle political undertones to UM Proud"s original post, but certainly respect (but disagree with those who don't).
|24 weeks 6 days ago||Call me a homer, but 7-6 would be a disapoointment||
5-1 seems like the least we should expect against:
1-2 at home against
1-2 away against
Even if all of those losses were close, I'd be disappointed
|28 weeks 1 hour ago||Am I the only one that would||
Am I the only one that would love to see us play Arizona in a bowl game?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
|28 weeks 2 hours ago||You realize that Brandon was||
You realize that Brandon was only the AD for his last year? It surprises me how much hate there is for Brandon and Carr when Bill Martin gets a free pass. More than anyone, Martin had the ability to make that transition work smoother. He bumbled the search, I personally suspect he bumbled stuff with Carr and he definately bumbled providing Rich Rod real support. Who hires someone for the most high profile job in his organization and then doesn't try to help him win.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
|28 weeks 2 hours ago||Yes, not everyone liked you but||
those people are not resposible for the fact that
1. You couldn't bring in a spread quarterback in your first year - apparently other coaches can come in, evaluate holes on their roster and find ways to fill them.
2. You couldn't run a good defense. If it is because you weren't given enough salary room, maybe you should have negotiated better
3. You couldn't beat Toledo
|1 year 10 weeks ago||One of the corallary descendants of||
RR idolization is believing that just because JU Bacon wrote it in a book, it must be the whole story. FYI - it is possible to not hate either RR or JU Bacon, believe that while Ruch Rod got some bad breaks, he also made plenty of mistakes, and believe that when all the key players did not want to be interviewed, JUB might not have gotten the full story on the Carr to Rich Rod transition.
|1 year 10 weeks ago||They lost to Toledo||
That seems like underachieving. I think there are many coaches who could have done better than 3 wins with that team.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||Did he lose it, "fair and square"?||
It seems like Miller practiced exclusively at center while Glasgow spent much more time at guard. If the coaches decided that center was the weakest link, and Glasgow focused there, I wonder if he'd catch up?
|1 year 23 weeks ago||Fun question||
And tough (for very different reasons on offense and defense)
On offense, I'd like to go with Butt, however, my sense is that it takes more than a year to really recover from ACL surgery and while he'll be good, he won't be great. On the o-line, I am really hoping for competence from the starting 5, but with Magnuson just off shoulder surgery, Kalis with back trouble, Memories of Miller being blown back last year and not being ready to be fulled by the Braden hype two years running, My only hope for at least honorable mention all big ten calliber play is Glasgow. I am thinking solid running back by committee, so I can't pick one of them. That leaves reciever. My gut tells me that behind Funchess we will have a number of very solid recievers who will split catches, but since I have to pick a aecond, I am gonna go with Canteen.
Defense is hard because I think we'll have a bunch of very good players, but I'm gonna say both Henry and Jordan end up second team all big ten.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||Hekps explain why our best lineman||
Is an econ major (and academic all big ten). He may have done one thing pretty stupid off the field, but he is apparently a smart guy.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||If Kalis is healthy||
I think you might be right, but if the coaches believed that, I suspect that Magnuson would have spent more time at tackle. While I know we don't know about what happened in every practice, Magnuson at guard seemed to be a constant. If he was really tge presumed starter for game 2 and beyond, I suspect he would have spent more time playing it in practice.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||How much of Kalis's problem is injuries||
And not lack of development. Given that Kalis seems to have been nagged by on and off i juries and Magnuson was injured and then had sirgery, I suspect that healthy, they'd be much further along in their development.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||Brandon can be blamed for a lot of things||
But tbe o-line recruiting? I guess you could suggest that with a quicker transition, Hoke could have recruited better, but if you count Glasgow, there were actually four o-line,en in the 2011 class. The much bigger problem was the one offensive lineman in a class of 27 in 2010. (Has anyone else ever put together a class of 27 that only included one offensive loneman?). One competent o-lineman in that class would have made a huge difference.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||The odd thing about Glasgow being so raw when he came in||
Is that it actually appears as if Funk was capable of coaching him up. The other thing that I find interesting is that the shortcomings of Magnuson and Miller seem to have more to do with strength than technique, something that is not really on Funk.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||Other than right guard||
How much shuffling as there been in the last couple weeks?
|1 year 24 weeks ago||How much shuffling has there really been?||
It seems like Cole, Magnuson, Miller and Braden have spent the vast majority of fall practice in the starting five. While there has been shuffling at right guard, that seems to have a great deal to do with Glasgow not being able to play the opener and Kalis being hurt. Not sure you can blame that on Hoke.
|1 year 25 weeks ago||This is a really interesting and relevent write-up||
For the time examined only 21.5 percent of third year players are solid big ten performers. So if one of Magnuson, Kalis or Braden i s solid the four man 2011 recruiting class hits the mark.
Looking at some of the historic recruiting classes (see 1997, 1999, 2005 and to a lesser extent, 2004 and 2008), there have been a number of 4 plus player recruiting claases with multiple 4 and 5 stars that did not pan out .