Well, that’s awful, but inevitable in our vast-asset-disparity world. Private Equity is ruining a LOT of things because all that money has to go somewhere.
Yeah, that was basically my point. If soccer never gets big at US colleges (with scholarships on offer), then it will be slowed down in becoming the main USA sport. Because parents are going to point their kids in the direction of the scholarships.
Is this true? I would assume that most people’s kids are involved in sports for health, exercise, fun, peer pressure (from other kids, other parents, and schools), and gendered expectations. I would imagine the number of people getting their kids into sports for an ultimate financial payoff is a pretty thin minority. There’s a lot of college scholarships, but many are fairly minor and wouldn’t even cover the investment. So we’re talking about full-ride college scholarships, and a pro sports career. Are there really so many of these that parents do this?
It’s true that most parents of student athletes aren’t expecting, or investing in, a remunerative pro sports career for them. But for families where it’s assumed that the kids are college-bound anyway but financing college is a major household expense, even a minor scholarship can make a significant difference in financial feasibility.
When we’re talking about pre-tween kids, sure, they’re mostly doing it for fun, and/or if their parents want to make sure that they’re getting exercise.
But, IME, when a kid shows significant athletic prowess at a young age (e.g., by around age 10 or so), many (certainly not all) parents will become willing to invest time and money into getting the child coaching and opportunities to play at a high level (for their age group). These are the kids who go to out-of-town tournaments, join travel teams / club teams (rather than playing on school teams, if such teams are even available for their sports), go to summer camps for their sports, etc.
Yeah, some parents probably have stars in their eyes, and are far too optimistic about their kids’ chances to make it to the pros/Olympics/whatever, but there is absolutely serious scholarship money available for many sports (even if not a “full ride”), even those beyond football and basketball, and that is the “payday” that I was really talking about.
So is that one vote per household, conferring an electoral advantage to DINKS and single crazy cat ladies (or lonely dog-luving blokes too) over god-feerin’ christ-yun folk doin’ the Lord’s work with half a dozen kids?
Or is that, in maintaining equality of voting—one person, one vote, all members of the house vote en bloc with the household head? How would that be enforced? Vale secret voting. And is there any evidence that the household head would vote the household consensus, or that they would for expediency vote their personal conscience?
“We were suspicious when we noticed that he had two legs, just like the suspect, but then we saw that he also had two arms, and that pretty much sealed the deal.”
I lived in Moscow for a number of years (went to school there) and Doug Wilson and his fucked up church are taking over the town, as well as others in the area. I strongly recommend listening to the second season of the Extremely American podcast. It goes over the Christian nationalism being promoted by Wilson. Scary stuff.
The Tan One claimed it was sent to the White House. He could be lying about that but it’d be a dumb thing to lie about, since it starts the clock. So it could go either way.
The Constitution in Article 1 Section 7 gives him 10 days, not including Sundays, to approve or return (veto) the bill or else it is treated as though it were signed.
Of course, it passed by large margins in both houses, so there is a significant risk of taking a big L if his veto is overruled, so he’s throwing a tantrum instead.
It seems likely that this is the guiding principle, here.
He doesn’t care about housing, and probably realizes by now that the fate of the housing bill provides him NO leverage in getting his vote-suppression bill passed.
So his #1 concern is to avoid looking like a Loser (by seeing a veto overturned by Congress).
The Trump administration on Friday moved to open the habitats of imperiled animals to farming, drilling, mining, real estate development and other activities in what environmentalists characterized as the most severe erosion of protections for wildlife in half a century.
It did so by recasting a single word, “harm.”
For more than 50 years, the federal government has used a broader definition of harm to animals under the Endangered Species Act, a bedrock environmental law. It included any significant “modification or degradation” of habitat that kills or injures animals by impairing their ability to eat, shelter or breed.
The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation in 1995, ruling against property owners who argued that harm should only mean directly killing or injuring an endangered animal.
But on Friday, the Interior Department and the Commerce Department announced a final rule that rescinded this longstanding interpretation. Under the rule, destroying an endangered species’ nest or habitat would no longer be considered illegal.
…
