By all means, please keep hold of that indignation. I was just hoping to help you focus it more constructively. If you would like to be indignant about Wisconsin, just take a look at how soft their schedule has become.
To be fair, Wisconsin gets us after our bye week too. I'd say our byes are situated quite nicely for our schedule.
"Well, somebody has to pick up Rutgers, so why not Wisconsin? We already have them penciled in for the Championship game, so no need to add one the of better East teams when they might just play them again in a couple of weeks."
Here are some proposals inspired by your insights. I'm open to negotiation on the specifics.
New standard for signing up for GIA:
Provide copy of high school or college transcript showing GPA of 2.0 or higher.
Requirement before posting:
Take a breathalyzer test, must have BA level of .0799 or lower.
I find it hard to believe that players currently on the team would be talking about it with guys who haven't even signed. If Doyle was talked about that openly with recruits, this all would have come to light a long time ago. The only way the silence was broken was by one brave young man deciding it was time to speak up on behalf of himself and others who had been silent for years.
Since his decommitment was in early May, I don't think Doyle had anything to do with that. It was weeks later when the Doyle allegations started to come out.
It's entirely possible that the handling of the incident by Kirk and the way the players banded together was an influence on his recommitment, though.
When he decommitted, I got the feeling we were still his leader. I'm surprised at how soon he made his new commitment, but am not surprised to see he chose Iowa again.
His salary figures are public, but public money didn't pay for his salary. Plenty of us did pay for his salary through support of Iowa Athletics, but it wasn't tax dollars.
Yes, a lot of the same rules apply. The difference is that there aren't marked lanes (usually) or much traffic control on the water.
Personal watercraft (PWC) are very dangerous for those without proper experience/training. Especially on busy waterways. The best way to avoid an incident is vigilance and maintaining safe distances. Having been on both sides of things (driving a boat and a PWC), I can say that it's everyone's responsibility to pay attention, but it sometimes only takes one person's mistake to cause a major problem.
I'm not even certain he's been on campus yet.
I read elsewhere that he and his family drove to Iowa City and looked around, though obviously couldn't really meet anyone. That was apparently good enough, since he made his commitment without being able to even do a normal "unofficial" visit.
Your grandmother (and many of our grandparents) are probably good examples of this.
From another perspective, benevolent racism/prejudice is a real thing and is not reserved to assholes.
Serious question: Are you also against anything else that can bring out the worst in people? Off the cuff, I'm thinking of these things as examples (in no particular order):
Fanaticism (for any of the above, plus other things, like sports)
When we give fallible humans access to something that can be used for good or ill, you can bet that it will be used for ill at some point, probably almost immediately.
For the record, I dislike Twitter in general, but do see that it can serve a very good purpose when used properly.
I get what you're saying, but a person can be a racist, an asshole, both, or neither. Just because he's shown a propensity for shitting on others doesn't mean his racist comments are less racist. If all the reports were about how he demeaned players by picking on intelligence, work ethic, timeliness, luck with the ladies, general appearance, etc., then I'd be comfortable saying he's just an asshole. But when you bring racially charged language to the table, you've gone to a place that most of us here probably don't even understand (myself included).
I see this as coming from one of two (or both) places:
1. Those expressing support are forgiving of what they see as bumps in the road for a program that they love. They knew of the abuse and felt that the positives far outweigh the negatives.
2. Those expressing support were never the direct or indirect targets of the reported abuse. I have to believe that everyone would have at least heard about it at some point, but maybe thought that the targets were picked because they were in the figurative doghouse.
Regardless of the reason(s), a desire by most players to keep the staff in place doesn't mean that some change/improvement isn't warranted. If even one current or former player felt abused or treated unequally and either didn't report it out of fear or didn't feel it was addressed properly after being reported, then there is a problem to be addressed.
He may not think it's necessary, but he clearly seems to believe it is not a major offense to "motivate" young men that way.
You weren't wrong. You did post that before learning of the updated, but it was a valid reaction to the original plan.
While you're correct, I would stipulate that getting buy in from 5 million Americans would be harder than the 5 million Kiwis. I would hold that belief whether it was a random selection from across the country or maybe a choice of a single state of similar size (say Alabama or Minnesota, which are quite different culturally).
Coromandel, you can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the sociopolitical environment there in NZ is fairly different from what we would be used to in the US. I'm assuming that difference, along with strong and decisive leadership, made your situation work.
Unfortunately, I think the US has blown its window of time in which to act aggressively enough to get case numbers close to zero.
I don't know that there was any way to ever get enough buy-in from the US populace to act as aggressively as New Zealand, but I do agree that the response could/should have been much better.
I don't know if you've noticed, but China (at least "officially") had the most effective response of any country. Even if they are under-reporting (which I believe they are), they managed the crisis very well compared to pretty much every other country. So I don't believe he's claiming China is one of the right wing governments referenced.
As far as Iran goes, I think you'd have to consider it pretty conservative, right? It's run by the clergy, after all. It may not be as conservative as Saudi Arabia, but you'd better toe the religious line there. And if it's not exactly authoritarian, it's pretty close.
I stand partially corrected on Sweden. A quote from the chief epidemiologist, "If we were to run into the same disease, knowing exactly what we know about it today, I think we would end up doing something in between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world has done."
No one knew in advance exactly how this would go, but Sweden, on the other side of the response spectrum, admits they did not do as well as they could have. I appreciate the conversation, but stand by the substance of my previous post.
Even if Americans are capable of making appropriate decisions on an individual basis, human nature (or herd mentality) is going to take effect when you look at the country as a whole. That's why authorities have to make such harsh restraints a reality. Without them, way too many people would just ignore suggestions by the authorities. The very thing we are most proud of, individual civil liberties, is a significant detriment in this environment, especially when some folks feel they are not threatened by the illness.
It's certainly a difficult topic, and I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. I have family and friends with mental illness histories as well, so I'm sympathetic. There isn't an easy or a good answer. My only objection was to the "at all costs" statement. You have explained your position on the balance between risk due to the virus versus risk to mental health, which I can understand. You believe that the cost of reopening is less than the cost of stayed closed. The "at all costs" statement communicates a willingness to resume normalcy regardless of the costs to anyone else, which I don't believe represents what you actually believe.
What's the value/cost of a human life? I'm not expecting you to have an answer, but that is essentially at the root of this. Sweden's government has admitted that their more open response to COVID was a mistake. We'll never know how much worse things would have been in the US without the quarantines and shutdowns, but it hit us harder than many other developed nations even with the shutdowns. I firmly believe that at least some of the spread since March has been due to folks not taking the guidelines seriously (or just openly flouting them). Much like we'll never know how it would have gone with no restrictions, we'll never know how much better it might have been if everyone had decided to completely follow the CDC recommendations.
To conclude, I have to tell you that saying normalcy is needed immediately "at all costs" is either short-sighted or blind to the reality of what a lot of people in this world have been through this year.
Young people are not as susceptible to infection, or at least to suffering major symptoms if they are carrying the virus. So without widespread testing, looking to hospitalization rates among college students as a proxy for overall spread is not really going to help. This may not have been what you were saying, though. However, the majority of those spring breakers who traveled to FL were surely not Florida residents. So any infections they picked up there would have been brought back home to spread among their own communities. I wouldn't expect Florida hospitals to be overrun any more or less than the hospitals in the states of residency of the spring break travelers.
Having said this, I'm hopeful that the reopened southern states you mention all see declines in infections and that we can find ourselves on the far end of the crisis. I'm still of the "wait and see" attitude at this point, which you appear to be as well.
I find myself lamenting that if Bob hadn't been hurt so much, he was on track to a HOF career. However, I remind myself that the very playing style that gave him his accolades was the same style that made him susceptible to injury. Fortunately, Bob seems to have made the right choice to retire before he had any debilitating injuries. Though obviously time will tell as he gets older.