Bill Moos, AD at Nebraska

As I sit and ponder what has happened at Nebraska and how far Husker Nation has slid and why recent movement in personnel within the Athletic Department give me hope for the future.

We still have what Perlman did with his personal distaste for Bo Pelini, a winner but a difficult man to have a long-term relationship. That was the second occurrence during Perlman tenure that Nebraska terminated a winning coach and put Husker Nation in a downward spiral since Dr. Tom Osborne retired from coaching football creating a situation where any decent coach would be a fool to come to Lincoln. Yet, we have enjoyed Mediocrity from Callahan and now Riley in the time after reaching nine-win seasons under Solich and Pelini.

Perlman also hired an athletic director Shawn Eichorst that did not have a long-term record of running a $100M athletic department and based his decision on Barry Alvarez’s recommendation excluding Dr. Tom and others in Husker Nation. It was obvious that Eichorst was told that he had to remove all vampires from the athletic department per Perlman demand.

Husker Nation was doomed to mediocrity by Perlman by his decisions based on what he thought was best for Husker Nation rather than what was best for Husker Nation.

When Dr. Perlman retired and Dr. Hank Bounds and Dr. Ronnie Green arrived on campus it became apparent that the athletic department was at best letting down Husker Nation with the football program stuck with financial support but on field leadership in the form of coaching.

After two years struggling with mediocre defense that was not improving with recruits that are capable of providing the level of talent to live up to the Blackshirt tradition Mike Riley did the right thing and reached out and hired Bob Diaco with solid credentials as a defensive coordinator at Notre Dame and other schools.

There was the belief that the offense was going to be able to compete with Danny Langsdorf would be able to get his offensive scheme to work regardless of his lifelong record of mediocrity with Riley at Oregon State and the NFL.

The last three years have proven once again that no matter how much money you throw at mediocrity, mediocrity will prevail and settle into place once again. At this point in the 2017 Husker football season, I honestly do not see how the Huskers can win another game this season. The only potential is if Diaco can turn the Blackshirts that have been devastated via injury and win with the Blackshirts.

Please note that I have included Randy York’s comments:

Moos Doesn’t Tolerate Mediocrity, Embraces Entire State

By Randy York

 | 10/16/2017

Bill Moos Named Nebraska’s Athletic Director

Moos Introductory Press Conference Transcript

Bill Moos a ‘Perfect Fit’ to Lead the Huskers 

Take this from a former University of Nebraska at Kearney athletics director who also was an assistant football coach at Missouri and an associate athletics director at Washington State – Bill Moos, Nebraska’s new director of athletics, is the real deal.

A ground-breaker for 12 years as athletics director at Oregon, Moos became a pioneer for seven years as A.D. at Washington State and on Sunday, he became a high expectation trendsetter for the University of Nebraska, one of the nation’s top four winning college football programs.

The Huskers, however, have gone almost two decades without winning a conference championship, and that is precisely why new leadership is so vital.

“I knew Bill when we were at Washington State together,” former Kearney A.D. Dick Beechner told me Sunday. “I was an associate athletic director with Bill when we were both under athletic director Sam Jankovich. I’ve known Bill for a long time at WSU and have followed his career not only at Washington State but also at Montana. He did a good job.”

I Know This: Bill Doesn’t Tolerate Mediocrity; He Wants People to Be the Best They Know How

“I’ve always respected Bill, and we’ve always gotten along very well,” Beechner said. “I know this – Bill doesn’t tolerate mediocrity. He wants people to do the best that they know how. He has integrity. He likes people and as I listened to his press conference today on, you can bet Bill will embrace Nebraska and will definitely reach out to the entire state.”

Why does Beechner, who made the Nebraska High School Sports Hall of Fame Foundation a prominent gemstone that features Husker legend Tom Osborne, know what others do not know?

With all that said regarding Bill Moos what do we evaluate to understand Moos. He was at Montana as AD and then Oregon during their climb in the BCS and finally at Washington State (Wazzou) improving each and every athletic department along with building strong football programs at each university.

How does his history relate to what Husker Nation needs at this time?

Nebraska has an athletic department budget that exceeds $100M. Moos has moved upward over his career to where his tenure at Oregon had a budget about $40M where he developed sponsors and built booster groups providing long-term support for the Ducks.

He then retired to his ranch in Washington until he and his wife determined that it was best he move back to his passion and he was hired at Wazzou, where he played football and began his career in the athletic department. The last seven years he improved Wazzou’s athletic programs and has hired coaches that fit into Wazzou’s environment and culture. He made a wise decision for Wazzou hire with Mike Leach as their head coach for football. We all know Mike Leach from Texas Tech and his high-powered offense. Mike Leach is a good football coach but honestly is only a step-up from Mike Riley not having an 80%-win coaching career like Husker Nation demands and needs for success.

As we analyze what Husker Football is and how we can rise to the top of B1G football we have to look at what does best in the league and what has to be done to climb back into a Top-10 football program on an annual basis.

Option football has evolved and become what is known now as a spread formation. It is much like what my father played back in the 40s when he played college football in Nebraska. To be successful there has to be a strong running attack that is complemented by passing the football. The QB must be a solid runner as well as a capable passer.

The offensive line must be strong enough and mean enough to push the opposing defense around like Milt Tenopir’s lines did under Dr. Tom’s teams. At that time there was depth enough so that the third string linemen were nearly as talented as the first string. That was a constant development using the walk-on program that was refined over the years under Dr. Tom to the point where Nebraska talent that started dreaming about playing for the Husker Nation while watching the Huskers walked onto the field and battled daily smashing their way onto the field as often as they could to prove themselves and push the scholarship players forcing them to work to maintain their position on the field.

The Walk-ons went out and played smash mouth football as the game is a game of controlled collisions that cannot be finessed by the current coaching methodologies used in Lincoln.

One of the announcers mentioned during Ohio State’s shellacking of the Huskers last week that Urban Meyer told his defensive backs they were not mean enough earlier this season and they needed to get mean. With the Huskers, all the players need to start getting mean so that there are collisions on the field and the Huskers begin to earn some respect again starting first in the B1G and then in the Nation.

During many discussions with former players, alumni, Nebraskans and Husker fans that are not Nebraskans it is clear that the present team is being coached to play football the Husker Way. They are not mean enough to even be able to be on the same football field as the 1997 Husker Football team.

We have slipped downward and have little to look forward to except letting Mike Riley go back to Oregon State and continue his mediocre career there. We need a head coach that can recruit in Texas and California along with developing the talent of the recruits and walk-ons from the proud state of Nebraska.

With Moos comes the opportunity to get back on track to win conference championships and national championships like the fans and the football program has the resources to do.

What we have been missing is the coaching staff that can get the job done. Everything is in place to be successful with some hard work and strong football coaching.

With Moos we have hope. Thank you Drs. Brands and Green.


Leave a comment

Filed under Blackshirts, Husker Nation, Offensive Signs

Reader’s Response to: Bill Moos, AD at Nebraska

Very thoughtful and insightful comments and perspective as always! But, as Lee Corso famously says, Not So Fast! I would respectively disagree with your “pro Frank and Bo” points. I would politely suggest that you are biased and selectively cherry picking a few positives and overlooking their negatives. To wit I would offer my perspective, which is biased by my own cynical nature! Much of what follows includes many points made by you and we would be in agreement. It’s the Pro Bo and Frank perspective that I would depart into a different perspective. The following of course are only my opinions and do not have verified sources! Two major factors in the decline of Husker football:

  1. Tom Osborne should not have retired. He regretted caving into Frank Solich’s pressure to retire because in a weak moment, Tom said he would retire at 60 and Frank would be head coach. And we all know Tom is a man of his word.
    • This became problematic for several reasons;
      • Tom still had many more years of good coaching left
      • Why should Tom get to pick his successor? Not too many employees get to do that. There may have been other, more qualified and deserving candidates.
      • To add to this possible mistake, Tom insisted to Frank that he keep all of his assistants. Again, what employee ever gets to do that. On any coaching staff there are personality conflicts and tension and many of the carryover staff didn’t respect or like Frank or thought they should have been considered and it created a bad culture and chemistry that Frank attempted to correct with arguable success in his last season.
      • I believe there were some personal issues with coaches that caused some distractions and loss of focus in the year they were blitzed by Colorado 62-36. A sign of the decline of the Big Red Machine.
      • Frank was not a big name coach and recruiting suffered under his leadership.
  2. Harvey Perlman. I agree with your comments here. He single-handedly, in addition to the steps by Tom mentioned above, drove the Big  Red football express into the ditch with his series of unilateral, bonehead decisions.
    • Steve Pederson was hired. No input from anyone.
      • Colossal mistake. He had a big ego and was a micro manager that caused considerable tension in the AD.
      • He and Frank Solich had bad blood between them going back to their days when Pederson was a graduate assistant and Frank an assistant coach. I don’t know any other details, I think Frank was superior to Steve and then when the roles were reversed, Steve was inclined to want to get payback.
      • When the personal issues materialized, Steve was determined to fire Frank as he thought the integrity of the Husker brand on and off the field was being tarnished.
      • Frank is fired and Steve has no coach hired.
      • Bill Callahan hired in desperation.
      • Pederson alienated many boosters and fans with his arrogant, do it my way style. He acted like everything was under control and it wasn’t.
    • Pederson fired.  The big bad witch is dead.
    • In comes the white knight, Tom Osborne. Best decision by Perlman.
      • Osborne fires Callahan. Hard to argue, need to right the ship.
      • Tom hires Bo Pelini over his longtime player and friend Turner Gill!
        • I don’t think there was much input here as well. Pelini was not a hot commodity and the pundits gave it a C grade.
        • Okay, he had 9 win seasons but he was fortunate to have some pretty good talent. A Callahan recruit name Suh wasn’t too bad. And Bo continued the blowout loss pattern in big games that began with Solich. He was 50% against teams with winning records. He had some very lucky close wins against average teams. McNeese State would have beat Nebraska if not for Abdullah saving the day. And the hail Mary win over Northwestern was a huge lucky win.
        • Biggest jerk ever to media and fans. Pelini was a real embarrassment to Nebraska.
        • Pelini cooked his own goose. If he was a good coach than be a good person as well. He was a cult like figure that instilled an “Us against the World” mentality in his players. This is a negative style and relies on him brainwashing his players into thinking he’s their only friend, supporter and advocate. Again, classic Demagoguery 101.
    • Eichorst hired. No input from anyone. Questionable hire on many levels.
      • Pelini fired. I don’t think he handled this too well. Should have fired him the year before after the Iowa game but he created stress on Pelini that probably contributed to his meltdowns at times. Hard to do your job with a boss that doesn’t give you encouragement or support. But, shame on Bo, he wasn’t going to be subordinate to anyone and he certainly wasn’t going to fire any coaches that were under performing.
      • Riley hired. No input from anyone. He was the anti-Bo coach and I think Eichorst thought his long tenure and occasional success at a school like Oregon State would translate to great things at a school like Nebraska. I was neutral on the hire. I wouldn’t have hired him but I wanted to give him a chance and liked his style with regard to the media, Husker tradition and even doing some innovative things with technology and trends.
        • I think he has a great staff with the exception of Cavanaugh and I’m not sure about Langsdorf.
        • Riley/Langsdorf have lost several games due to poor clock management and play calling. Excessive penalties and poor execution. Not something I would expect with such a seasoned coach.
        • Back to Bo, Riley inherited a really poor cupboard of talent. The best players on the team are Riley recruits.
        • Still don’t understand the lack of fire and intensity by the Huskers.

So, I hate to say it and it’s blasphemy, but Tom Osborne could arguably be the cause of several decisions that contributed to our current situation.

We all care for our Huskers and are passionate about our team. Unfortunately, coaches matter as we’ve seen in other programs that have turned their downtrend around. We’ve had 3 maybe 4 if you include Frank, of coaches that aren’t in the same level as Bob Devaney and Tom Osborne and other name brand coaches like Nick Saban and Urban Meyer. But, “we all stick together, in all kinds of weather, at dear old Nebraska U!”

Best Regards,


Leave a comment

Filed under Blackshirts, Bo Pelini, Husker Nation, Offensive Signs

Former Nebraska assistant Jim Walden says Bill Moos hire ‘not good’ for Mike Riley

Nebraska coach Mike Riley and new Cornhuskers athletic director Bill Moos have mutual respect, but will that save Riley’s job?
Mike McGinnis/Getty Images

On one hand, the dots are so damn easy to connect. A couple of old war horses. A pair of Pac-12 veterans. Smiles all around. Mike Riley and Bill Moos, Butch and Sundance.

On the other hand …

“It’s not good for Riley,” Jim Walden, the former Washington State football coach/radio analyst and Nebraska Cornhuskers assistant, told Land of 10 this week. “Absolutely not. Nothing’s good for Riley.

“His team got beat 56-14 [by Ohio State]. They were [crushed] at home for another ballgame … In my opinion, nothing Bill Moos is going to do is going to make it nice for Riley.”

Walden, 79, watched from the Pacific Northwest last Saturday night as the Buckeyes handed Nebraska its worst home loss in a conference tilt since 1949. The coach-turned-radio personality has a foot in both Cornhuskers and Cougars camps: Walden was a graduate assistant in Lincoln under Bob Devaney in 1969 and 1970 and an assistant under Devaney in 1971 and 1972. He joined the Washington State staff as an assistant 1977 and coached Wazzu from 1978 to 1986.

“Scott Frost is going to have to make a decision. It’ll be him or Chip Kelly,” Walden continued. “I’m sorry to be the voice of doom for Mike Riley, which I hate, because I happen to think the world of him.”

And he’s been there, several times over. But 3-4 is 3-4. And 11-10 — Riley’s record in the Big Ten — is 11-10.

When Huskers fans are leaving at halftime, as chunks did on Saturday, Big Red fans have already voted with their feet. And hearts.

“Make no bones about it,” Walden said. “[When] the new A.D. gets the job, one of the requirements of the new job is, ‘When you come here, will you fire the coach?’ And the answer better be, ‘Yes,’ or he’s not going there.”

Riley coached at Oregon State when his new boss was the athletic director at Oregon (1995 to 2007) and Washington State (2010-17). There are mutual friends and mutual respect. But Walden, who’s known Moos for more than three decades, says the Huskers’ newest athletic director won’t shy away from making tough decisions — cold decisions — when the bottom line is at stake.

‘Scott Frost is going to have to make a decision. It’ll be him or Chip Kelly … I’m sorry to be the voice of doom for Mike Riley, which I hate, because I happen to think the world of him.’

— Former Nebraska assistant coach and Washington State football coach Jim Walden on the future of Cornhuskers football

“They’ll expect a guy that’s full of back-patting,” said Walden, who was removed from Cougars football broadcasts by Moos in May 2012 after 11 seasons in the booth. “He’s got a good line of gab. He’s personable … he’s a P.R. guy.

“He’s not Tom Osborne, by any stretch of the imagination. There are parts of him that are more Bob Devaney-ish. But nothing about him is Tom Osborne, period.

“Overall, you’ve got to give him credit. It’s hard to separate the A.D. at Oregon versus the Nike guy [Phil Knight]. I’ll give him credit for everything he got done in Oregon, but it’s kind of hard to separate the two. And he came [to Washington State] and he did some nice things. Jim Sterk, the former athletic director, had already started the plans — he doesn’t get enough credit. But Bill Moos needs to get credit for finishing the job. Albeit that we’re 11 million in debt.

There is that. And there’s also an ESPN report at the start of the week intimating feelings of “growing friction” between Moos and new Wazzu president Kirk Schultz, and that the two weren’t always on the same page, let alone the same script.

“I do feel bad [for Huskers fans],” Walden said. “When Bo [Pelini] was doing some good things, I couldn’t understand why he was always so sensitive about the crowd.

“But it does bother me, because some of the best years of my life [were in Lincoln]. I thought, ‘Hell, winning’s easy.’ I really did, because when Warren Powers, Monte Kiffin, me, you look at all of us that were there — it’s an adjustment, when you win as many games as we won. Then you find out it’s harder than you think when you’re with someone else.”

‘Mike Riley is in the exact same situation I was in at Iowa State in 1994. And I would give him the same advice I gave myself: “These people deserve better.” ‘

— Former Nebraska assistant coach and Washington State coach Jim Walden

Walden found that out the hard way as the coach at Iowa State, where he was matched up against the Huskers annually from 1987 to 1994, losing seven of eight meetings with his old pal Osborne.

“Mike Riley is in the exact same situation I was in at Iowa State in 1994,” said Walden, who hosts a weekly radio talk show on KGA-AM (1510) in Spokane, Wash. “And I would give him the same advice I gave myself: ‘These people deserve better.’

“And there is one difference in this whole thing — I’d been there eight years, he’s been there, what, three? In some ways, he hasn’t been given enough time. But again, we’re talking about Nebraska.

“When they’ve turned on you and start leaving the stadium and they start doing things that traditionally they’ve ever done … [You tell Nebraska] ‘I’m sorry, but if we can work out an agreement, I’ll step away four weeks from now.’ …

“And that’s what I can tell him. Because it’s a foregone conclusion. They didn’t fire the A.D. at Nebraska so the coach could stay on. They probably fired him because he wouldn’t fire Riley. It’s not rocket science.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Blackshirts, Husker Nation, Offensive Signs

The American Right: Its Deep Story

by Arlie Russell Hochschild, University of California, Berkeley, USA

As in much of Europe, India, China and Russia, the American political right is on the move. In some ways, America’s leftward cultural shift – a first black president, a potential female one, gay marriage – may obscure this rise. But it’s there. Over the last few decades, conservative voices have grown louder: the most popular cable TV channel and the most popular daily talk radio show lean strongly right. Both houses of the federal Congress in Washington D.C. are in Republican hands. Republicans also control far more state legislative chambers than do Democrats, and more state governorships. In 23 of the nation’s 50 states, Republicans control both houses of the state legislature and the governorship; the corresponding number for Democrats is seven. Some twenty percent of Americans – 45 million people – now support the avidly anti-tax Tea Party movement, and in recent months the populist nativist Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump won the most Republican primary votes in history.

What distinguishes the American right from its counterparts elsewhere is hatred of the federal government. The right calls for cuts in government benefits: unemployment insurance, Medicaid, college financial aid, school lunch and far more. Prominent Republican leaders have called for elimination of entire departments of federal government – Education, Energy, Commerce and Interior. In 2015, 58 House Republicans voted to abolish the Internal Revenue Service. Some have even called for abolishing all public schools.

Grassroots supporters of these leaders feel frustrated and angry at the government. The big question which prompted me to begin a five-year ethnographic study in Louisiana – part of the heartland of the American Right – was, why? As I began interviews for my book, Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right[1], the puzzle only grew. The country’s second-poorest state, Louisiana has proportionately more failing schools, more sick and obese residents, than nearly any state in the nation. So it needed – and received – federal help; 44 percent of its state budget came from the federal government. So why, I wondered, were so many Tea Party supporters angry? And how does anger – or any emotion – underlie politics?

While many analysts address these questions from outside the personal experience of right-wing individuals, I wanted to understand that experience from inside. So I attended meetings of Republican Women of Southwest Louisiana, church services, and political campaign rallies. I asked people to show me where they’d grown up, gone to school, where their parents were buried. I perused high school yearbooks of my new Louisiana friends, played cards and went fishing with them. Overall I interviewed 60 people – 40 of them white, older, Christian supporters of the Tea Party. I gathered over 4,600 pages of transcribed interviews and field notes.

I also struck upon a method. First I listened. Then I drew up a metaphorical representation of their experience, stripped of judgment and of facts, a feels-as-if account which I call a “deep story.” Underlying all our political beliefs, I believe, lies such a story. In this case, it goes like this:

You are patiently standing in a middle of a long line leading up a hill, as in a pilgrimage. Others beside you seem like you – white, older, Christian, predominantly male. Just over the brow of the hill is the American Dream, the goal of everyone in line. Then, look! Suddenly you see people cutting in line ahead of you! As they cut in, you seem to be being moved back. How can they just do that? Who are they?

Many are black. Through federal affirmative action plans, they are given preference for places in colleges and universities, apprenticeships, jobs, welfare payments, and free lunch programs. Others are cutting ahead too – uppity women seeking formerly all-male jobs, immigrants, refugees, and an expanding number of high-earning public sector workers, paid with your tax dollars. Where will it end?

As you wait in this unmoving line, you’re asked to feel sorry for them all. People complain: Racism, Discrimination, Sexism. You hear stories of oppressed blacks, dominated women, weary immigrants, closeted gays, desperate refugees. But at some point, you say to yourself, you have to close the borders to human sympathy – especially if there are some among them who might bring harm.

You’re a compassionate person. But now you’ve been asked to extend your sympathy to all the people who have cut in front of you. You’ve suffered a good deal yourself, but you aren’t complaining about it or asking for help, you’re proud to say. You believe in equal rights. But how about your own rights? Don’t they count too? It’s unfair.

Then you see a black president with the middle name Hussein, waving to the line cutters. He’s on their side, not yours. He’s their president, not yours. And isn’t he a line-cutter too? How could the son of a struggling single mother pay for Columbia and Harvard? Maybe something has gone on in secret. And aren’t the president and his liberal backers using your money to help themselves? You want to turn off the machine – the federal government – which he and liberals are using to push you back in line.

I returned to my respondents to ask if this deep story described their feelings. While some altered the story here or there (“so we get in another line…” or “that’s our money he’s giving out…”), they all claimed the story as their own. One told me “I live your metaphor.” Another said, “You read my mind.”

What has happened to make this story ring true? In a word, a loss of honor. Tea Party supporters I met were generally not poor, but many had grown up in poverty, and had seen family and friends sink back into it. But wealth was not the only source of wellbeing and honor. As white, heterosexual Christians, many also described their fears of a demographic decline (“There are fewer people like us,” one woman told me), or of becoming a religious minority (“People aren’t churched anymore,” “You can’t say Merry Christmas; you have to say Happy Holidays”). Some felt like a cultural minority (“We’re the clean-living people, people who go by the rules, but we’re seen as sexist, homophobic, racist, ignorant – all the labels the liberals have for us”). If they turned for honor to their beloved home, often in the rural mid-west or South, some felt disparaged as “rednecks.” Behind the deep story, then, was their loss of honor from many quarters – an honor squeeze.

A deep story describes pain (others cut ahead of you). It describes blame (an ill-intentioned government). And it points to rescue (Tea Party politics). It also provides an emotional accounting system, establishing how much sympathy is due those waiting or cutting in line, how much distrust is owed the government, or how much government beneficiaries should be shamed. This system becomes a foundation for feeling rules[2] – which establish what we believe we “should and shouldn’t” feel – now a key target of heated political battle. Explicitly or implicitly, most service jobs require workers to abide by feeling rules (“It’s wrong to get mad at the customer; he’s always right”). Workers learn how to manage their feelings in training, and supervisors monitor how well they do it. Similarly, political ideologies carry feeling rules. Leaders guide sympathy, suspicion, blame, shame, and talk radio hosts and newscasters spread the word, which local and electronic communities monitor through commentary.

Left and right abide by ever-more divergent sets of feeling rules. In general, the left calls for sympathy for underprivileged groups, who are seen as deserving government help; the right does not. The left calls for trust in this part of government, the right suspects and reviles it. The left attaches dignity and entitlement to the receipt of government help, the right attaches great shame to it.

In the cultural battle between these two codes, the Tea Party supporters I studied felt dominated by the feeling rules of the left and resented it bitterly. “We’ve had enough P.C. [Political Correctness]” Donald Trump has often yelled, echoing a sentiment adamantly held on the right. One man told me, “Liberals want us to feel sorry for immigrants and refugees. But mostly I see a bunch of people saying poor me, poor me, poor me…” Another said, “Liberals get something from the government and we don’t – and I’m glad not to take if I’m not in need. But they want us to feel grateful for what they’re getting.” And many attached great shame to getting government help, and felt utter contempt for cheaters. “I know guys who put in for unemployment during hunting season.” Or, “A lot of people in that trailer park got on disability by claiming to have seizures. I don’t know how they hold their heads high. But they do, and the government encourages it.” Most Tea Party supporters strongly resisted the idea that anyone should feel sympathy with line cutters, gratitude toward government, or release from the shame of getting a “government hand-out.”

But not everyone I spoke to agreed. Indeed, it was as if two factions of those I interviewed heard different endings to the deep story. Traditional Tea Party supporters wanted to cut both the practice of cutting in line, and government rewards for doing so. Followers of Donald Trump, on the other hand, wanted to keep government benefits and remove shame from the act of receiving them – but restrict those benefits, implicitly, to native-born Americans, preferably white.

Trump’s pronouncements have been vague and shifting, but pundits have noted that he has not called for cuts to Medicaid. Rather he plans, he says, to replace Obamacare, which extends medical coverage to the uninsured, with a new program that will be “terrific.” Significant, too, is Trump’s distribution of shame. Though he has disparaged ex-POW hero John McCain, a disabled journalist, a female Fox News commentator, undocumented Mexicans, an American-born judge of Mexican heritage, all Muslims, and all his Republican adversaries, he has never shamed recipients of Medicaid or food stamps.

But in order to legitimize welfare for white men, Trump had to masculinize the act of receiving it. This may be a secret and potent source of Trump’s appeal. He applauds men who brawl, own guns, stand tough, act macho. Most welfare recipients are women, children and men of color. But there are many poor, or almost poor or afraid-of-becoming poor white men. If such a man needs it, Trump intimates, getting a government benefit can be a guy’s thing to do. You can slap a gun decal on your pick-up, start brawls, be macho, Trump implies, and also apply for unemployment or food stamps – stigma-free.

Importantly, many of Trump’s blue-collar white male followers face the same grim economic fate earlier visited on blacks: disappearing jobs, low wages, evidence of despair. Among such men, there are proportionately more single dads than among their richer white male counterparts, more split marriages, more children, and harder times. If they aren’t on Medicaid now, they might be in the future – and so they face the contradiction of needing the very government help which the right, and they themselves, have long disparaged. Detachment from welfare was a key status marker, distinguishing “real men” from the “real bottom.” In my interviews with Louisiana Trump supporters, talk of his support for government benefits did not arise, at least at first. But, asked about his view of a safety net for “regular people,” one auto mechanic noted, “Trump’s not against that. If you use food stamps because you’re working a low-wage job, you don’t want someone looking down their nose at you.”

Trump tacitly absolves blue-collar white men from shame, but not non-native or non-white men. Indeed, responding to the deep story, Trump has created a movement much like the anti-immigrant but pro-welfare state right-wing populism on the rise in Great Britain, Germany, France, Austria and much of Eastern Europe. All these right-wing movements are, I believe, based on variations of the deep story, the feelings it evokes, and the strong beliefs that protect it.

Direct all correspondence to Arlie Hochschild <>

[1] Arlie Hochschild (2016) Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. New York: New Press.

[2] See Arlie Hochschild (1983) The Managed Heart: the Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley and Los Angeles: The University of California Press.

Leave a comment

Filed under Left - Off Base, Politics from Just Right of Center - I want Balance!, Right - too Religous for me

Media Hide Facts, Call Everyone Else a Liar

Ann Coulter Letter

Ann Coulter  | Wednesday Jul 1, 2015 4:59 PM

Media Hide Facts, Call Everyone Else a Liar

When Donald Trump said something not exuberantly enthusiastic about Mexican immigrants, the media’s response was to boycott him. One thing they didn’t do was produce any facts showing he was wrong.

Trump said: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

The first thing a news fact-checker would have noticed is: THE GOVERNMENT WON’T TELL US HOW MANY IMMIGRANTS ARE COMMITTING CRIMES IN AMERICA.

Wouldn’t that make any person of average intelligence suspicious? Not our media. They’re in on the cover-up.

A curious media might also wonder why any immigrants are committing crimes in America. A nation’s immigration policy, like any other government policy, ought to be used to help the people already here — including the immigrants, incidentally.

It’s bad enough that immigrants, both legal and illegal, are accessing government benefits at far above the native rate, but why would any country be taking another country’s criminals? We have our own criminals! No one asked for more.

Instead of counting the immigrant stock filling up our prisons, the government issues a series of comical reports claiming to tally immigrant crime. The Department of Justice relies on immigrants’ self-reports of their citizenship. The U.S. census simply guesses the immigration status of inmates. The Government Accounting Office conducts its own analysis of Bureau of Prisons data.

In other words, the government hasn’t the first idea how many prisoners are legal immigrants, illegal immigrants or anchor babies.

But there are clues! Only about a quarter of California inmates are white, according to a major investigative piece in The Atlantic last year — and that includes criminals convicted in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, when the vast majority of California’s population was either black or white.

Do immigration enthusiasts imagine that more than 75 percent of the recent convicts are African-American? Blacks have high crime rates, but they make up only about 6 percent of California’s entire population.

A casual perusal of the “Most Wanted” lists also suggests that the government may not have our best interests in mind when deciding who gets to live in America.

Here is the Los Angeles Police Department’s list of “Most Wanted” criminal suspects:

– Jesse Enrique Monarrez (murder),

– Cesar Augusto Nistal (child molestation),

– Jose A. Padilla (murder),

– Demecio Carlos Perez (murder),

– Ramon Reyes (robbery and murder),

– Victor Vargas (murder),

– Ruben Villa (murder)

The full “Most Wanted” list doesn’t get any better.

There aren’t a lot of Mexicans in New York state — half of all Mexican immigrants in the U.S. live in either Texas or California — and yet there are more Mexican prisoners in New York than there are inmates from all of Western Europe.

As for the crime of rape specifically, different groups have different criminal proclivities, and no one takes a backseat to Hispanics in terms of sex crimes.

The rate of rape in Mexico is even higher than in India, according to Professor Carlos Javier Echarri Canovas of El Colegio de Mexico. A report from the Inter-American Children’s Institute explains that in Latin America, women and children are “seen as objects instead of human beings with rights and freedoms.”

All peasant cultures have non-progressive views on women, but Latin America happens to have the peasant culture that’s closest to the United States.

The only reason our newspapers aren’t chockablock with reports of Latino sexual predators is that they are too busy broadcasting hoax news stories about non-existent gang-rapes by white men: the Duke lacrosse team (Crystal Gail Mangum), University of Virginia fraternity members (Jackie Coakley) and military contractors in Iraq (Jamie Leigh Jones).

In fact, the main way we find out about Hispanic rapists is when the media report on dead or missing girls — hoping against hope that the case will never be solved or the perp will turn out to look like the rapists on “Law and Order.” When it turns out to be another Latino rapist, that fact is aggressively suppressed by the media.

New Yorkers were horrified by the case of “Baby Hope,” a 4-year-old girl whose raped and murdered body turned up in an Igloo cooler off of the Henry Hudson Parkway in 1991. After a 20-year investigation, the police finally captured her rapist/murderer in 2003. It was Conrado Juarez, an illegal alien from Mexico, who disposed of the girl’s body with the help of his illegal alien sister.

New York City is the nation’s media capital. But only The New York Post reported that the child rapist was a Mexican.

In 2001, the media were fixated on the case of Chandra Levy, a congressional intern who had gone missing. All eyes were on her boss and romantic partner, Democratic congressman Gary Condit. Then it turned out she was assaulted and murdered while jogging in Rock Creek Park by Ingmar Guandique — an illegal alien from El Salvador.

There was a lot of press when three Cleveland women went missing a decade ago. By the time they escaped in 2013 from the sick sexual pervert who’d been holding them captive, it was too late for the media to ignore the story. The girls hadn’t been kidnapped by the Duke lacrosse team, but by Ariel Castro.

Now, get this: While investigating Castro, the police discovered that he wasn’t the only Hispanic raping young girls on his block. (All in all, it wasn’t a great street for trick-or-treating.)

Castro’s erstwhile neighbor, Elias Acevedo, had spent years raping, among many others, his own daughters when they were little girls. The New York Times’ entire coverage of that case consisted of a tiny item on page A-18: “Ohio: Life Sentence in Murders and Rapes.”

The media knew from the beginning that the monstrous gang-rape and murder of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, in Houston in 1993 was instigated by Jose Ernesto Medellin, an illegal immigrant from Mexico. But over the next decade, with more than a thousand news stories on that case, the fact that the lead rapist was a Mexican was not mentioned once, according to the Nexus archives.

Only when Medellin’s Mexican-ness was used to try to overturn his death sentence did American news consumers finally find out he was an illegal alien from Mexico. (After years of wasted judicial resources and taxpayer money being spent on Medellin’s appeals, he will now be spending eternity way, way south of the border.)

Who is this media cover-up helping? Not the American girls getting raped. But also not the Latina immigrants who came to the U.S., thinking they were escaping the Latin American rape culture. So as not to hurt the feelings of immigrant rapists, the media are willing to put all girls living here at risk.

No wonder the media is sputtering at Trump. He broke the embargo on unpleasant facts about what our brilliant immigration policies are doing to the country.

 Steve Benson for 7/1/2015

Leave a comment

Filed under Left - Off Base, Politics from Just Right of Center - I want Balance!, Right - too Religous for me

Michelle Obama speaks of emotional toll of being first black first lady

May 09, 2015, 06:25 pm

By Elise Viebeck

Michelle Obama gave a candid view Saturday of the challenges and emotional toll of being the country’s first black first lady.

Obama, speaking to graduates at Tuskegee University in Alabama, described insensitive media questions and derogatory remarks from political pundits that she said have kept her up at night.

“You might remember the on-stage celebratory fist bump between me and my husband after a primary win that was referred to as a ‘terrorist fist jab,’ ” she said.

“And over the years, folks have used plenty of interesting words to describe me. One said I exhibited ‘a little bit of uppity-ism.’ Another noted that I was one of my husband’s ‘cronies of color.’ Cable news once charmingly referred to me as ‘Obama’s Baby Mama.’ ” 

Obama said she was subjected to a different set of expectations on the campaign trail in 2008 compared with other candidates’ wives.

“‘What kind of First Lady would I be? What kinds of issues would I take on?’ … The truth is, those same questions would have been posed to any candidate’s spouse,” she said.

“But, as potentially the first African-American First Lady, I was also the focus of another set of questions and speculations; conversations sometimes rooted in the fears and misperceptions of others. Was I too loud, or too angry, or too emasculating? Or was I too soft, too much of a mom, not enough of a career woman?”

In the end, she said, she realized all the negativity was just “noise.”

Obama encouraged the graduates of Tuskegee, a historically black university, to overcome adversity and discrimination by staying “true to the most real, most sincere, most authentic parts of yourselves.”  

People “will make assumptions about who they think you are based on their limited notion of the world,” she said. “My husband and I know how frustrating that experience can be.  We’ve both felt the sting of those daily slights throughout our entire lives. … And all of that is going to be a heavy burden to carry.”

“But,” she said, “those feelings are not an excuse to just throw up our hands and give up. They are not an excuse to lose hope.  To succumb to feelings of despair and anger only means that in the end, we lose.”

Notes from the Noosphere:

I am constantly amazed at what Blacks in America think is bias against them. I can honestly say that I do not care one way or another about even putting down a person for their color, gender or sexual preference. But it is an easy and thus the shortest path to take to say that every one is out to get you because you are colored, female or LGBT and blame it on the other people.

So people take the easiest path and blame others for their shortcomings and failings. When Hillary was First Wife she blamed the media for portraying her as an evil woman that did not care about her or the Right-Wing Conservative for constantly placing blame on the Clintons and their failing in the White House. Now that she is running for President she is attempting to recreate her image as a worldly stateswomen that accomplished so much during her time as Secretary of State. Now we have “What does it matter?” as a n0rmal background for the upcoming presidential race until the Democrats come up with a candidate that will outshine Hillary as happened in the last election Hillary was chosen as the early favorite for the Democrats.

I admire those of the above mentioned minority communities that do not want to be victims and conduct themselves as contributing members of society. Dignity is more difficult task to take on but the work results in earning respect from members of society.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics from Just Right of Center - I want Balance!

The Tire Pressure Revolution, by Jan Heine

The Tire Pressure Revolution – By Jan Heine

In recent years, there has been a trend toward wider tires and lower tire pressures. We now hear from many sources that wider tires can roll faster than narrower ones, which contradicts what most of us used to believe. In the past, cyclists thought that higher tire pressures decreased the tires’ rolling resistance.


What has changed?

At Bicycle Quarterly, we’ve been researching tire performance for the last eight years, and the most revolutionary finding is this: Tire pressure has almost no effect on a tire’s speed. We did not believe it at first, either, so we’ve tested it numerous times. It’s been confirmed time and again, with different methodologies. Below is only one dataset, click here for more data…


If it all looks confusing, that’s because it’s not as simple as we thought. Rolling resistance does vary slightly with tire pressure, but it’s not linear, and it depends on the surface. On smooth surfaces like the one used in the tests shown above, moderately high tire pressure – say 100-110 psi for a 25 mm tire – actually rolls slower than either a lower pressure (80 psi) or a higher pressure (130 psi). On rough surfaces, higher pressures roll significantly slower.

Tire Pressure Doesn’t Matter for Performance

The variations are much smaller and hard to predict – they depend on the tire as much as on the road surface – so the take-home message is that tire pressure doesn’t matter enough to worry about it. Inflate your tires enough that they don’t collapse when you corner at speed, and you have found the optimum pressure for your tires. It’s that simple.

A detailed explanation of why this happens is beyond the scope of this article, but basically, on a bike, the resistance of tires consists of two types of energy losses. One is from deformation of the tire, and higher pressures reduce that deformation. The second loss occurs from the vibrations of the bike, and those increase with higher pressures. The two effects roughly cancel each other, which is why tire pressure doesn’t have a big effect on rolling resistance. In the past, researchers focused only on the tire deformation and overlooked the losses due to vibrations, hence the belief that higher pressures rolled faster.

New Tire Design

The real revolution brought about by this new research is not how you use your pump, but rather how tires are constructed. It’s not an overstatement that it has revolutionized our understanding of tires.

Again, in the past, we all believed that higher tire pressures made tires roll faster. We also knew that supple casings made tires faster. However, supple casings don’t handle high pressure well, so the only way to combine high pressures and supple casings is to make the tire narrow. For wider tires, you had two choices, and neither was good:

1)  Beef up the casing, which makes the tire less supple and slower.

2)  Lower the pressure, which we thought made the tire slower.

No matter which route you took, the science of the day predicted that your wider tire would be slower. It was a Catch-22, and for the best performance, you stuck with narrow tires, where you could have a supple casing and high pressure at the same time.

You can see where this is heading. If lower pressures don’t make tires slower, then you can create wide tires with supple casings. You run them at lower pressures, and you don’t give up any performance on smooth roads. On rough roads, you actually gain speed, because the tire (and you) bounce less. And on all roads, you are more comfortable. Instead of a Catch-22, you have a win-win-win situation.

It took a while for this research to become accepted, but once the professional cycling teams started testing tires with power meters on the road, they found that the wider tires, run at lower pressures, were as fast, or faster, than the narrower tires they had been running. Add to that the better cornering grip – more rubber on the road, less bouncing that can break traction – and it didn’t take long for the pros to go from 23 to 25 mm tires.

23 to 25 mm may not sound like much – less than 10% wider. But when you look at the air volume – the area of a circle goes up with the square of the radius – you get 18% more air volume. That is significant.

On smooth roads, 25s are about as fast you get – our research indicates that 28s and 32s aren’t slower, but neither are they any faster (that includes air resistance at speeds of about 18 mph). That means that if your bike can handle wider tires, you can get more comfort and better cornering with wider tires, without losing any speed.

On the average backroad, wider tires make your cycling much more enjoyable: the significant additional air volume they allow makes for a more comfortable ride, and they better handle the bumps and related vibrations, in effect smoothing out the ride. Additional good news is that when they are made right, these wider tires aren’t any slower than narrower ones.


Supple Casings

To get the most benefit out of these lower pressures, you need supple tires. A stiff sidewall takes more energy to flex, so the tire will be slower. It also will vibrate more, so you lose more energy that way, too. You could call it a “lose-lose” situation.

The second most important thing our research found was that tires can make a larger difference in your bike’s performance than any other component. At moderately high speeds of 18-20 mph, a supple tire can make you 8-10% faster than a stiffer, but otherwise similar tire. That is far more than the difference a set of aero wheels makes (1-2%).

Professional racers have known this all along: As much as their equipment has changed over time, they’ve always ridden supple tires. They usually ride hand-made tubulars. There also are very fast-rolling racing clincher tires, but if you rode on rougher backroads and needed wider tires, you were out of luck: Most wide tires were either intended for city bikes and have stiff casings and puncture-proof belts, or they were designed for high pressures, which also requires stiff casings. Either way, these tires were slow and uncomfortable.

When we saw the results of our studies on tire performance, we realized that wide tires could be as fast as narrow ones, while offering more comfort and the ability to tackle rougher surfaces and even gravel.


We decided to take matters into our own hands to create wide tires that roll as fast as narrow ones. We worked with Panaracer and developed tires that use the same casings as high-end tubulars, but in much wider widths, and as clincher tires. We started Compass Bicycles, a sister company to Bicycle Quarterly, to develop components based on the findings of our research, including Compass tires, which are available in widths between 26 and 42 mm, and in several wheel sizes. RBR’s Coach Fred Matheny has reviewed both our Stampede Pass 700 x 32 Tires and our Barlow Pass Extralight 700 x 38 Tires.


Tire pressure does not significantly affect your bike’s rolling resistance, but the casing construction of your tires does. This means that you can ride lower pressures without going slower, and that wide tires are no slower than narrow ones – as long as they have similar casings. The fastest tires have supple casings that consume less energy when they flex, and transmit fewer vibrations, creating a win-win situation. These tires roll super-fast no matter at what pressure you run them.

Jan Heine is the editor of Bicycle Quarterly, a magazine about the culture, technology and history of cycling. After racing for a decade, he now enjoys randonneuring and cycling off the beaten path. His blog is at

Leave a comment

Filed under Biking