Well since I have to settle for an academically lower tier school, I would try to minimize that by picking MIT or Harvard. I choose Harvard since their football team is better than the Beavers.
1. Where the academic rigors would be virtually nonexistent so I could concentrate on my game.
2. That has great facilities and swag, popular cachet/status, and an absence of climbing Mountain F'ing Strawberry everyday. After all these years, I still hate that hill. (Might be a Bowelsman/Stern Hall thing).
3. That is overrun with hot members of the opposite sex that really love football players, even if some are virtually paid to do so.
4. With NIL deals that support my high cost, new lifestyle.
OMG, I just described nearly every CFP contending school and others that aren't this year, but usually are.
I had to laugh at #2 because at UC Santa Cruz we had something similar to "Mountain F'ing Strawberry". We called it Cardiac Hill. Mrs. Slug climbed it nearly every day when she lived on campus. Anyone who lived at Crown College or Merrill College knows that hill VERY well.
Podcast that, while it pretentiously attempts to make a "prima facie" case about who dunnit', actually gives a good background on how things came to be- for better or worse.
I recommend it. An easy, entertaining, insightful, and informative listen.
What's going on today? Only 22 comments at 12:21 Pacific time from a combined seven people. Yesterday there were 53 comments. A week ago today 74. Maybe the afternoon crew will provide some content.
Perhaps we could declare one big holiday from the weekend before Thanksgiving thru the weekend after New Years Day? Oh, wait, work still has to get done. Bother.
People seeking fame remind me of sitting in the barber chair with mirrors in front and behind, while thinking I was somehow seeing infinity, with myself at the center, of course.
Registering lobbyists is a shield that serves no one. The only thing it does is identify the players with means. It does not prevent them from carrying out their assigned tasks, which is to influence members of Congress on legislation before either house or, worse, help write legislation.
I also share the sentiment that lobbying should end. PROBLEM: The Citizens United ruling says that money is speech with regards to elections. How does one restrict or eliminate lobbying if SCOTUS has ruled that money = speech and you can't restrict it in an election environment? Any restriction requires legislation that challenges the ruling on a constitutional basis. I imagine that Congress would have to find that money DOES NOT EQUAL speech.
Well, registered or not, the loopholes and workarounds are where the money greases the palms of relatives, where the inside information gets traded and passed along, and where quid pro quo deals are made without paper or digital trails.
Money for campaigns, apart from ridiculous staff salaries that conceal payoffs, would mean nothing if we, the voters, had not allowed ourselves to become mesmerized captives of shallow media blurbs, half truths, and platitudes. Congress should work in bipartisan earnest to end the influence of money in elections. But that's like asking the Rothschilds to give up their fortune for the good of the World. It will never happen.
We are betwixt two extremes, absolutist government and corporate oligarchy, both of which result in a captured, controlled electorate.
How would groups with a need or an interest advance their issues and ideas? What "lobbying" is actually meant to do?
I feel people like to complain about the function when what they are really doing is rightfully complaining (which in itself is lobbying) about misuse and abuse of it.
IF YOU WERE THE TOP HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL PLAYER IN THE COUNTRY AND YOU COULD GO TO ANY SCHOOL EXCEPT CAL, WHERE WOULD YOU GO?
Maybe not either of these schools right now but Michigan or Colorado
Well since I have to settle for an academically lower tier school, I would try to minimize that by picking MIT or Harvard. I choose Harvard since their football team is better than the Beavers.
Probably Michigan although I'd consider Wisconsin, Virginia and Oregon.
Somewhere:
1. Where the academic rigors would be virtually nonexistent so I could concentrate on my game.
2. That has great facilities and swag, popular cachet/status, and an absence of climbing Mountain F'ing Strawberry everyday. After all these years, I still hate that hill. (Might be a Bowelsman/Stern Hall thing).
3. That is overrun with hot members of the opposite sex that really love football players, even if some are virtually paid to do so.
4. With NIL deals that support my high cost, new lifestyle.
OMG, I just described nearly every CFP contending school and others that aren't this year, but usually are.
Hmmm....
I had to laugh at #2 because at UC Santa Cruz we had something similar to "Mountain F'ing Strawberry". We called it Cardiac Hill. Mrs. Slug climbed it nearly every day when she lived on campus. Anyone who lived at Crown College or Merrill College knows that hill VERY well.
Must stretch to Scotts Valley.
Welp, it's good exercise but I can live without the challenge.
Ohio State
DBD AV CLUB
"Who KIlled College Football?"
Podcast that, while it pretentiously attempts to make a "prima facie" case about who dunnit', actually gives a good background on how things came to be- for better or worse.
I recommend it. An easy, entertaining, insightful, and informative listen.
ELSEWHERE IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
CAL
Go Bears!!!
What's going on today? Only 22 comments at 12:21 Pacific time from a combined seven people. Yesterday there were 53 comments. A week ago today 74. Maybe the afternoon crew will provide some content.
Been a little busy doing actual work...
Perhaps we could declare one big holiday from the weekend before Thanksgiving thru the weekend after New Years Day? Oh, wait, work still has to get done. Bother.
People seeking fame remind me of sitting in the barber chair with mirrors in front and behind, while thinking I was somehow seeing infinity, with myself at the center, of course.
HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ON YOUR XMAS SHOPPING LIST?
POLITICAL BANTER
For those of you that are political, how important will lobbying be in next year's US Congress?
I would love to see the end of lobbying. Period.
I would also love to see the end of people entering politics with modest means and, somehow, emerging millionaires. See "Lobbying" reference above.
Agreed. Politics should not be a way to get rich. If it weren't we weed a lot of bad people out of it.
But participating in public service and public discourse should also not be a sentence to poverty because you aren't allowed to make a living.
Registering lobbyists is a shield that serves no one. The only thing it does is identify the players with means. It does not prevent them from carrying out their assigned tasks, which is to influence members of Congress on legislation before either house or, worse, help write legislation.
I also share the sentiment that lobbying should end. PROBLEM: The Citizens United ruling says that money is speech with regards to elections. How does one restrict or eliminate lobbying if SCOTUS has ruled that money = speech and you can't restrict it in an election environment? Any restriction requires legislation that challenges the ruling on a constitutional basis. I imagine that Congress would have to find that money DOES NOT EQUAL speech.
Well, registered or not, the loopholes and workarounds are where the money greases the palms of relatives, where the inside information gets traded and passed along, and where quid pro quo deals are made without paper or digital trails.
Money for campaigns, apart from ridiculous staff salaries that conceal payoffs, would mean nothing if we, the voters, had not allowed ourselves to become mesmerized captives of shallow media blurbs, half truths, and platitudes. Congress should work in bipartisan earnest to end the influence of money in elections. But that's like asking the Rothschilds to give up their fortune for the good of the World. It will never happen.
We are betwixt two extremes, absolutist government and corporate oligarchy, both of which result in a captured, controlled electorate.
The challenge is to find a balance, and checks on veering to far one way or another.
How would groups with a need or an interest advance their issues and ideas? What "lobbying" is actually meant to do?
I feel people like to complain about the function when what they are really doing is rightfully complaining (which in itself is lobbying) about misuse and abuse of it.
PROFESSIONAL