The headlines write themselves...

Lester has to really explore the idea of getting another QB that fits what he wants to do this spring portal season at least add depth and have healthy competition. It's a no brainer right... That room does not impress at all right now!

I don't mind some advertising here and there but the ads are starting to get ridiculous and take up a quarter of the screen. TIA.

I see lot of unimportant crap on here about politics and religion and war in the Middle East, and not a lot about really important stuff like this that impacts our daily existence. Personally I can count on one hand the number of times I have used the fly.

Chatter continues that the next schools in will be TAMU and ND.
UNC and UVA are also targets for down the road.

Login to view embedded media

Good article. Not behind paywall. Some suggestions at the end.

You remember this guy. He filled in late in the year and had some great success and stats. The Hawk Dee shut him down somewhat but the hawk Dee also shutdown JJ Mac and Mich last year.

Sullivan from jNW has a lot of tape of his play and he seems to be decent with Big 10 starting experience. He would be a good add.

But there might still be a few other qbs in or going into the portal who have good passing skills and some experience.

Go get one. I also hope Marco keeps improving a lot by August.

If you caught the scathing takedown of the book “White Rural Rage” in The Atlantic, then you’re aware of how intellectually dishonest it is to single out rural voters for special contempt. It’s also politically foolish, as a new poll by Rural Democracy Initiative, which will be released to the public in May, illustrates.

The group, which supports a network of progressive organizers in rural areas, commissioned the poll to help its members shape their messages in the most effective way. The survey, which was answered by 1,713 likely voters from rural areas and small towns in 10 battleground states, suggests that rural voters tend to be economic populists who would overwhelmingly support parts of the Democratic Party’s agenda — as long as the right messenger knocked on their doors.

Some 74 percent of rural voters who answered the poll agreed that decisions around abortion should be made by women and their doctors, not politicians or the government. That high figure helps explain why efforts to preserve abortion rights in Kansas, Ohio and other places have been so successful.

But it’s not just abortion. The survey found overwhelming support for leaders who fight to raise the minimum wage, to protect the right to form a union and to make quality child care more affordable — policy descriptions that seem ripped from President Biden’s campaign speeches.
The trouble is that a significant number of the respondents didn’t associate these policies with Democrats. In fact, once that partisan affiliation was added, support dropped significantly. Nonetheless, 47 percent of respondents said they would prefer to vote for a Democrat who grew up in a rural area and shared their values over a Republican business executive from the East Coast.
But perhaps the biggest problem the survey uncovered was that large numbers of respondents — especially young voters and people of color — reported that no one from the Democratic Party had reached out to them to offer information or ask for their support.
“It’s really clear that Democrats have a significant work to do to rebuild their brand in rural America, but that investment could pay dividends for Democrats, not just in the future but this year,” Patrick Toomey, a partner at Breakthrough Campaigns, which conducted the survey, told me.
In an election in which a few thousand votes could decide who wins the presidency or controls the Senate, it’s foolish to write off rural America.

Login to view embedded media
This has to be the most jaw dropping Presidential press conference I have ever watched live.

I reached out to Amazon via chat about a missing refund. I'm not quite certain how to take their responses. It's a bit over the top.

I am really very sorry to hear that you have not got the refund yet
please do not worry I am here to help you in this with the best .

I'm sorry for the inconvenience you've experienced in this case.
Please do accept my sincere apologies for the inconvenience caused to you.

I will do my best to help you with the possible way I can.
I completely understand your concern, I would have reacted the same if this happened with me.
Don´t worry, I will try my level best to sort it out. Kindly be rest assured regarding the same.

Let me check this for you

I responded to all that blabbering with "Okay" and "No Problem"

Next response?

I really appreciate your kind nature and understanding and
the beauty of cleverness you have.

It's my pleasure to assist you.

I value this you are right at your place
I will help you as a friend this can be solve I can fix this .

Login to view embedded media

It is great to be an Iowa Wrestling fan.

Go Hawks!

If so what and do you have mad skillz?

Login to view embedded media
Get a little bit of money and buys watches and jewelry? Who is educated these young guys on how to handle money?

This is also a like thread.

Explaining why Hill likely left the program, what options Iowa has at quarterback in the transfer portal, where Cooper DeJean could go in the NFL Draft, and who else could get drafted from Iowa.

PODCAST:

Evidently it has bipartisan support and the White House is supporting it. I'm ambivalent and I think social media in general is a big part of the reason Democracies around the world are in trouble although I would be lying if I didn't get in a doom scrolling cycle when they pop up on Facebook or YouTube (although those are shorts and not actually TikToks....unless they were ripped from TikTok) However, it sure would be nice if someone explained some specifics about the dangers they are worried about other than "the Chinese government can get access to your information". If it is so dangerous it requires a ban they ought to be able to present some real examples of what they are talking about.

Why do these yards that have Ukraine flags also not have an Israel flag?

Several migrants suspected of attacking 2 NYPD officers reportedly arrested in Arizona​

The Biden Administration sought to block government funding for school shooting courses, such as hunting and archery, but the House voted against it this week by a landslide.

The Protecting Hunting Heritage and Education Act was passed in a 424-1 vote after it was discovered this summer that the Department of Education was restricting the funding for hunting and archery teaching in schools.

“Hunters and fishers are the best conservationists,” Rep. Mark Green (R-TN) stated.

“Hunting, whether it be with a firearm or bow, is one of the most effective ways to control wildlife populations, protect our beautiful lands, and connect with nature. My Protecting Hunting Heritage and Education Act is critical for our children.”

Green also said students ought to “participate in enriching athletic activities that foster an appreciation for nature and the ability to focus on a goal.”

Green said that in Tennessee alone, the funding restriction by the Biden Administration would have affected over 50,000 kids.

It was revealed in July that the Education Department told hunting education leaders that school programs would be losing all federal funding, referring to last year’s Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) as the reason for the cut.

They also stated that hunting and archery courses make use of “technically dangerous weapons,” which therefore “may not be funded under” the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965.

Some advocates have highlighted that the courses have already been removed from many schools as a result of government pressure.

“The Department of Education and Secretary Cardona are blatantly misconstruing the law to withhold funding from schools that choose to teach beneficial courses like hunter safety and archery,” said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

“Congress must hold Secretary Cardona and the department accountable for violating the letter and spirit of the law to unilaterally deny America’s students access to these valuable programs as part of the Administration’s continued attacks on the Second Amendment,” Keane went on.

The president of the National Archery in the Schools Program, Tommy Floyd, stated that his program impacts well over 1 million students in nearly every state.

The Department of Education, however, has strongly stood ground in that it would take legislative measures for them to change their mind on the funding.
BSCA was a bill many believed to be a “gun control” bill, that was advertised as a way to create “safer, more inclusive and positive” schools, and was signed off by Biden in the summer of 2022.

Federal funding for any hunting or archery courses were cut as a result of the bill passing.

BSCA Senate sponsors John Cornyn, Thom Tillis, and Kyrsten Sinema brought in companion legislation to the bill in the beginning of September, however.

“The Biden administration’s misinterpretation of these provisions has jeopardized educational enrichment programs like hunting and archery, which play a critical role in our next generation’s development and well-being,” Cornyn stated following the House voting this week.

“This legislation would ensure these programs remain available in schools across the nation, and I urge the Senate to pass it as soon as possible.”

Biden’s people think they’re “entitled.” The Times says “they’re not being realistic.”

When news broke one Saturday night in March 2023 that President Joe Biden’s nominee to lead the Federal Aviation Administration was withdrawing, Mark Walker was the reporter on duty in the New York Times Washington bureau. Assigned to write up the news, Walker asked the White House for a comment just before midnight. Assistant press secretary Abdullah Hasan was still up and emailed a quote blaming the withdrawal on a barrage of “unfounded Republican attacks.” After going through edits, Walker’s 502-word story was posted on the Times’ website in the wee hours Sunday morning.
Then all hell broke loose.


Hasan, who has since left the White House, had offered the quote to Walker on background sourced to “an administration official.” Walker, not a member of the Times’ White House team, was unfamiliar with the protocol and had made an unintended mistake and attributed the quote to Hasan. When officials in the press shop called him Sunday morning about the mistake, they asked to speak with his editor, Elizabeth Kennedy. But the number he gave them was the cell phone of Elisabeth Bumiller, the Times Washington bureau chief.

Bumiller, who was away from Washington visiting family, received a call from Emilie Simons, a White House deputy press secretary who had actually written the statement. According to three people familiar with the conversation, Simons asked that Hasan’s name be removed and the quote attributed to a nameless official. Bumiller, who expressed dismay that the issue had been escalated to her level, was reluctant to alter a story that had already been online for over 12 hours.

Both parties later told colleagues the call ended on a sour note. Two Times staffers recalled Bumiller grumbling, as she occasionally does, about how she’d been spoken to. Aides in the press shop recalled hearing that the bureau chief had been surprisingly defensive and that when Simons tried to bring up another concern with Walker’s story, Bumiller just hung up. The following day principal deputy press secretary Olivia Dalton emailed Bumiller asking the Times to reaffirm its commitment to abide by the administration’s rules about information given on background. For Dalton, Simons and others, it was about ensuring fairness with embargoed information so that all news organizations could be on a level playing field. But the Times’ bureau chief never replied. In response, the White House removed all Times’ reporters from its “tier one” email list for background information about various briefings and other materials, a situation that wasn’t resolved for 11 months.
The seemingly minor incident over sourcing might not have escalated or triggered such emotional responses on both sides if not for tensions between the White House and the Times that had been bubbling beneath the surface for at least the last five years. Biden’s closest aides had come to see the Times as arrogant, intent on setting its own rules and unwilling to give Biden his due. Inside the paper’s D.C. bureau, the punitive response seemed to typify a press operation that was overly sensitive and determined to control coverage of the president.

After a quote mistakenly attributed to then-assistant press secretary Abdullah Hasan (left) published in a Times story in March 2023, deputy press secretary Emilie Simons (right) asked that Hasan’s name be removed and the quote attributed to a nameless official. | Francis Chung/POLITICO

According to interviews with two dozen people on both sides who were granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive subject, the relationship between the Democratic president and the country’s newspaper of record — for years the epitome of a liberal press in the eyes of conservatives — remains remarkably tense, beset by misunderstandings, grudges and a general lack of trust. Complaints that were long kept private are even spilling into public view, with campaign aides in Wilmington going further than their colleagues in the White House and routinely blasting the paper’s coverage in emails, posts on social media and memos.

The state of New Jersey is offering a tax incentive for residents to sue New York — and Connecticut may be next. It all stems from a New York tax law that says workers have to pay income tax to the Empire state if their employer is located there, even if they work from home in another state like New Jersey or Connecticut, except under limited circumstances where it’s required by an employer.


During the pandemic, tax attorney Open Weaver Banks worked from her New Jersey home but still paid income taxes to New York, where her firm was. The rates are similar, and she said she didn’t think too much of it at the time.


Now she’s appealing her New York tax assessment, saying she had to work from home. If she succeeds, New Jersey would ordinarily collect those taxes itself. But under the new policy, taxpayers get to keep half.


“This is the first time there’s really been an incentive for a New Jersey resident to say, ‘New Jersey should have really had a right to these tax dollars,'” she said. “And I’m going to try to go get it so that I can keep half of it.”


Connecticut lawmakers are considering a similar policy, with hundreds of millions in revenue at stake.

​

That could put pressure on New York to change its law, said Jared Walczak, vice president of state projects at the Tax Foundation.


“And maybe to eventually set the groundwork for a larger legal challenge,” he said.


Walczak said the increase in flexible work raises constitutional questions about liability for taxes in multiple states.