What ya got?
I have a mini tomato plant banging out fruit in my aerogarden and am looking for some recipes to make use of the product.
I know this is a dangerous topic on an Iowa board after seeing how you like your pizza, but there are lots of sane people here too.

1-0 baby. All alone at the top of the B10! I’m going to just sit here and bask in the glory for a bit. It’s been awhile.

Possibly

Quad Cities has to be the clear leader in the country. So many! /csb

Went to the Dermatologist today and the result is a NEW AV just for y’all!
Another head shot….didn’t want to see a plastic surgeon this time, so “a partial close” was performed and a longer recoup period is guaranteed..
But nothing is too good for you…my people!

My low tire sensor came on last night. I called AAA and they came out and said my tire pressure was normal and it's likely a faulty sensor.

I'm going to take my car to my mechanic tomorrow afternoon/evening. In the meantime, I have to drive about 50 miles.

I'll pray my car tires don't pop in the meantime. I have a nubby spare donut tire in my trunk.

Anyone have car tire problems in cold weather?

First Underwood, now they are in line to flip 5* OT Ty Haywood, and picked up another 4* flip from Auburn.

On Dec. 5, 1994, Ukraine had signed a set of political agreements that would guarantee the country's sovereignty and independence in return for accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

Signed in Budapest, the memorandum would lay grounds for Ukraine to dispose of its nuclear arsenal in return for the U.S., the U.K. and Russia to guarantee to not use economic and military means to attack the country.

Twenty years after signing the agreement, Russia launched a war against Ukraine, occupying Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine. Thirty years in, Russia is actively conducting a full-scale offensive against Ukraine, burning the cities and killing the people it once promised to protect.

The shadow of the events of 1994 haunts Ukraine today.

Despite the agreements, Ukraine did not receive the main benefit of giving up the world's third-largest nuclear potential — security. Many in Kyiv believe the country was pressured into an unequal agreement by the parties that had no intention to abide by what they had signed.

"Today, the Budapest Memorandum is a monument to short-sightedness in strategic security decision-making," Ukraine's Foreign Ministry's statement read ahead of the 30th anniversary of the agreement.

"It should serve as a reminder to the current leaders of the Euro-Atlantic community that building a European security architecture at the expense of Ukraine's interests, rather than taking them into consideration, is destined to failure."

How Ukraine lost everything​

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was left with 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles, including 130 liquid-fueled SS-19 Stiletto and 46 solid-fueled SS-24 Scalpel, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI). Ukraine also had between 1,514 and 2,156 strategic nuclear warheads and 2,800 to 4,200 tactical nuclear warheads in its arsenal.

Yet, Ukraine was not destined to keep its nuclear arsenal.

The provision on non-nuclear status was enshrined in the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, adopted by the Ukrainian parliament on July 16, 1990. The provisions on the future nuclear status were also confirmed when Ukraine gained independence in 1991.

Within less than a year, Leonid Kravchuk, the first president of independent Ukraine, approved the Lisbon Protocol. The protocol supplemented the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) signed between the Soviet Union and the U.S. in 1984. The U.S., Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan also became signatories to the protocol.

According to the Lisbon Protocol, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan pledged to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), thereby renouncing their nuclear status.

On Dec. 5, 1994, Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum. According to the document, the signatory countries — the U.K., Russia, and the U.S. — pledged to be guarantors of Ukraine's independence, as well as sovereignty, and refrained from using weapons or economic pressure against Ukraine. In exchange, Ukraine renounced its nuclear status.

Anton Liagusha, the academic director of the master's program in Memory Studies and Public History at the Kyiv School of Economics (KSE), says that Ukraine agreed to a non-nuclear status under enormous pressure.

"Russia used the Budapest Memorandum very cunningly. To be more precise, it encouraged and coerced the West to pressure Ukraine to sign the memorandum. At the same time, Russia positioned it as 'a noble act of global geopolitics,'" Liagusha said.
"Russia promoted the narrative that Ukraine is a failed state, a non-existent state, and non-existent means uncontrolled. And in a non-existent uncontrolled state, nuclear weapons are the worst possible option. Unfortunately, this cunning and sneaky diplomacy and propaganda reached their goals."

"Russia promoted the narrative that Ukraine is a failed state, a non-existent state, and non-existent means uncontrolled."

Ukraine entirely fulfilled its agreements in 1996: all nuclear warheads were transferred to Russia for destruction, and classified strategic bases were converted to non-military use. The guarantors, on the other hand, did not fulfill their obligations.

The historian described this step as a mistake because he firmly believes that today, nuclear weapons are still a guarantee of non-aggression and a certain guarantee of protecting one's sovereignty.


"At the time of signing the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine was not able to ensure its sovereignty in the event of direct military aggression by Russia or some other states," Liagusha told the Kyiv Independent.

"This means that giving up nuclear weapons is a ridiculous story. And I am sure the politicians who signed this memorandum understood this."

Other experts interviewed by the Kyiv Independent noted that disarmament had some positive aspects.

Ukraine did not have access to the launch codes, but Russia did. Therefore, Ukraine could only store the weapons and not use them, but the storage also required a lot of resources.

"You need to keep constant security personnel at the sites, make sure that the warheads and missiles remain stable, and that there are no issues with them," Fabian Hoffmann, a defense expert and doctoral research fellow at the University of Oslo, told the Kyiv Independent.


"Ukraine would have paid substantial amounts for something it cannot use. So, it would not have been very smart (to keep the weapons)."

According to Hoffman, Ukraine also risked becoming an international pariah like Iran or North Korea if it kept its nuclear warheads. Liviu Horovitz, a nuclear deterrence specialist at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, shared the same opinion.

"Everybody wanted Ukraine to give up those nuclear weapons, including the U.S. and all Western European powers. And hence, Ukraine basically would have had to take this decision against everybody else's will," Horovitz told the Kyiv Independent.

In exchange for giving up nuclear weapons, Ukraine also received economic benefits in the form of fuel for nuclear power plants. In the early 1990s, Ukraine was experiencing a financial crisis, and rolling blackouts were occurring nationwide. Thus, by giving up strategic bombers, Ukraine partially paid off its gas debts.


However, Horovitz agreed with Liagusha, saying that in the event of a full-scale invasion, nuclear weapons could help Ukraine in its defense against Russia.

"It is not like you acquire one lonely nuclear weapon, and suddenly, all foreign threats vanish. But historically, nuclear powers have better deterred their adversaries. Given Ukraine's conflict with the Russian Federation, probably it would not have been a bad idea, from a Ukrainian perspective, to own a nuclear arsenal," Horovitz said.

However, both Horovitz and Hoffman said that they do not see any short-term solutions for Ukraine, adding that the Ukrainian nuclear arsenal is the story of the past with no prospects in the future.

Stay warm with Ukrainian traditions this winter. Shop our seasonal merch collection.

I'll update these weekly during the season:

rankings: WIN / Intermat / Flo / AWN
125: --/#31/#32/-- Kale Petersen
133: 9/9/7/6 Drake Ayala
141: --/32/--/-- Ryder Block
149: 4/4/4/3 Kyle Parco
157: 1/1/1/1 Jacori Teemer
165: 2/2/2/2 Michael Caliendo
174: 7/10/8/9 Nelson Brands
184: 7/8/6/8 Gabe Arnold
197: 1/2/1/1 Stephen Buchanan
285: 16/12/12/16 Ben Kueter

Team Tournament Rankings

Intermat: 2
WIN: 2
Flo: 2

Penn State is #1, unsurprisingly.

Team Dual Rankings

Intermat: 2

Penn State is also #1 here.

How???

LOL

Login to view embedded media

The 2025 recruiting class is in the books for Iowa and the secondary is set to feature a trio of new faces. Iowa added three players in this year's class who currently project to the secondary, providing new options for Phil Parker to utilize in the Hawkeyes' last line of defense.

We'll look at how each player can make an impact for Iowa, their respective best fits in the secondary, which players have the most upside, and more.

READ MORE:

Early signing day is here for the Class of 2025.

We'll be updating this thread all day as Iowa's verbal commits for '25 make those commitments official.

Outside of this thread, our Signing Day Central post will be the best way to keep track of all our recruiting coverage today and this week.

Add another.
Login to view embedded media

Not sure if the time has been posted previously. ESPN on Sunday at 11:00 CDT

It is great to be an Iowa Wrestling fan.

I know it's still early, but Jan made it a point when she was first hired to say one of the things she wanted to do was add a full-court press. Through eight games, I haven't seen it, so I'm wondering if that's still in the works and, if so, if it's something she plans to save for the BIG season. Any comments, insights, or observations?

It is moronic that we are aware:

The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to directly advertise prescription drugs to the public:

We are paying to advertise the things we need to purchase. Cycle of idiocy

Hey Eliot
First, thanks for all the coverage and work on the singing day lead up and actually day. Appreciate all the info.

Curious where you think Iowa will put the butter for the bread from the portal? Figure out needs are QB, DB, DL and receivers never hurt. So curious on your thoughts.

Thanks again for all the hard work

It has been exactly one month since Donald Trump was elected president again, and he appears to be on the verge of something historically dubious: seeing two of his picks for marquee Cabinet posts go down in flames. This despite them needing only Republican votes.
Defense secretary pick Pete Hegseth appears to be severely endangered as Republicans, including Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), have balked at him. Hegseth, a former Fox News host, faces allegations of alcohol abuse, abusing women and financial mismanagement. Hegseth has denied these allegations, and allies have cited the anonymous sources behind many of them. But the situation is such that the Trump team is considering alternatives.


ADVERTISING



If Hegseth’s pick is withdrawn, it would mark a second high-profile loss for Trump, after his attorney general pick, former congressman Matt Gaetz (R-Florida), lasted just eight days.
🏛️
Follow Politics
That would be highly unusual. The emerging question is what that says about Trump’s political capital, with still a month and a half until he’s actually sworn in.
Trump came into office triumphant and claiming a huge mandate to do drastic things, and already we’re seeing his agenda thwarted by his own party in high-profile ways.
Let’s start with the precedents. Newly elected presidents have seen their Cabinet picks fail, but generally not for two marquee posts, and generally not this quickly.

President Joe Biden lost his pick to run the Office of Management and Budget in 2021, and Trump and George W. Bush lost labor secretary nominees early on. Barack Obama also saw two separate picks for commerce secretary withdrawn (one of them over political differences rather than scandal), as well as a withdrawn pick for health and human services secretary. But none of these posts are on par with attorney general or defense secretary.


To get close to what we’re witnessing today, you’d have to go all the way back to 1993, when two of Bill Clinton’s initial picks for attorney general withdrew. (Both, as it happens, withdrew over something that might seem rather quaint today: hiring undocumented workers).
And then in 1989, George H.W. Bush’s pick for defense secretary lost an actual floor vote, amid allegations eerily similar to some of those leveled against Hegseth.

Of the withdrawn nominees mentioned above, only two were out before the incoming president took office.
Which brings us to what this means. There is no doubt that having his top Cabinet picks struggle — and be resisted by his own party — is a bad sign for Trump, but the question is how bad?
Trump clearly challenged his party with unorthodox early picks, perhaps reasoning that if they didn’t work out, they could be quickly and simply replaced. He promptly substituted former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi (R) for Gaetz. Perhaps the play here is to shoot for the moon and see what he can get, and then fall back on more-confirmable picks if need be.



And perhaps he doesn’t care about the momentary bad news; Trump, after all, has bulldozed through a multitude of controversies, scandals and failures and remained his party’s dominant force. He’s also term-limited, so future campaigns aren’t part of the calculus.
But Trump also has his political capital to mind at a crucial juncture.
He’s coming off a supposedly momentous victory (which wasn’t actually as large as advertised), and some in his party have argued that means Republicans should do pretty much whatever he wants (checks and balances be darned, apparently). Trump’s plans are extensive and in some cases extreme, but the GOP’s majorities are small — especially in the House — meaning there is precious little margin for error.

That means there was and is a premium on bringing his party to heel. What’s transpired during Trump’s first big challenges to congressional Republicans has thus far has been anything but.


To this point, a sufficient number of Senate Republicans are demonstrating that they can stand up to Trump and apparently don’t fear the consequences too much. And you could forgive them for feeling emboldened to do it more going forward.
That could certainly change in the weeks to come, particularly if Trump and his allies start truly going to war against Republicans who don’t fall in line behind his picks. Senate Republicans are also often using careful, judicious and coded language to express their discontent rather than thumbing their noses at Trump.

But there is a tone being set right now. And it’s not a great one for a president-elect just a month after his triumphant rise to power.

Judge scolds President Biden for trying to 'rewrite history' in Hunter Biden pardon​

U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi wrote that "nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history."​