Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1496.5 | 4.7 | 0.32% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2741.8 | 18.8 | 0.69% |
| Oil (WTI) | 96.22 | 0.3 | 0.28% |
| LIBOR | 0.301 | 0.000 | 0.00% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 79.73 | -0.217 | -0.27% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.91% | 0.07% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 192.5 | 0.4 |
US stock index futures are higher this morning on the back of a sell-off in bond futures. The sell-off began around 4:00 am, and I don’t see any single economic story in Europe that would explain it. German confidence was higher than expected, and the Euro banks plan on paying off the ECB loans earlier than expected. Could be a big asset allocation switch, but why do you do it at the opening of Europe? Strange. The 10-year now yields 1.91%, and is flirting with resistance around the 1.91 – 1.92 level. MBS are weaker this morning as well.
The theme of Radar Logic’s November 2012 monthly report is: It is still too early to call a housing recovery. Radar Logic has consistently been more bearish on the outlook for housing than Case-Schiller or the government. In their view, the strength in 2012 was due more to easy comparables from a lousy 2011 than any true organic growth. The typical seasonal drop in prices this year has been much lower than in the past. In addition, the increase in house prices has been driven more by a drop in distressed sales than an increase in the value of individual properties. Finally, they note that housing demand has been driven primarily by institutional investors, who’s demand may be temporary.
Chart: Radar Logic 20 City Composite:
Another monetary milestone: The Fed’s balance sheet breaks the $3 trillion barrier.
Its baaaack… The San Bernardino Eminent Domain debate returns with a public meeting. The eminent domain route is fraught with legal roadblocks and will probably not work. Yet Mortgage Resolution Partners is committed to covering the legal costs and would be willing to take the case to the Supreme Court. The payoff for them if it works is decent, but I don’t see how their limited partners are willing to accept this risk / reward.
Is the “D” the new Phoenix? Yes, house prices have gotten demolished, but the population of Detroit has been shrinking since the 1950s. Completely opposite of the Southwest. I guess a $500 house is a $500 house and any investment becomes attractive if it gets cheap enough.
Will Jack Lew’s tenure at Citi cause problems for his nomination to Treasury Secretary? Richard Cordray will undoubtedly have some opposition in the Senate. I have not heard much in the way of opposition to Mary Jo White for SEC.
Carl Icahn has entered the Herbalife fray. Let’s just say there is no love lost between Carl and Ackman.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
Worth a read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/25/exclusive-geithners-private-farewell-to-obama-and-treasury-staff/?hpid=z3
LikeLike
Brent,
Thanks for the update on San Bernadino. I thought that had gone away.
There’s a funny quote from Icahn in the link:
“You don’t go out and get a room full of people to badmouth the company,” Icahn said. “If you want to be in that business, why don’t you join the SEC.”
Sheila Bair has a funny column in CNN/Fortune/Money:
LikeLike
FL AG Bondi and the FL lege leaders look to want to tackle the foreclosure problem.
LikeLike
Here’s an ATiM evergreen topic.
LikeLike
YJ, UCLA and UT, two very prestigious scitech schools [as is your alma mater, of course], have the typical [among big state scitech programs] huge lectures, and TAs in the lab and tutorial sections who have limited English.
However, both have extensive student mentoring available, which gives the student who is stuck on something in multivariate calculus access to someone who completely understood that point a year earlier. It seems the effective way to offset the huge lecture/bad English problem, and I think it would also work to overcome any problems in mass video lectures. In 2003, I was led to believe that Penn, an Ivy, in all of its courses, offered 24 hour student mentoring by phone, and 12 hour mentoring in person! DK if it was true.
Student mentoring may be “cheaping out”, but so what, if it works?
LikeLike
This should prove interesting:
LikeLike
JNC, interesting, indeed.
LikeLike
Icahn vs Ackman right now on CNBC. It’s been on for probably 15 minutes alraedy, but it goes on and on. If there is any chance to see the whole thing somewhere online, watch it. Best TV I’ve seen in a long time.
Icahn saying “bullshit” several times. Great stuff.
LikeLike
A usefull reminder to every advocate of unilateral solutions to the debt ceiling like the 14th Amendment or the $1 trillion platinum coin.
LikeLike
Mark/JNC:
It’s going to have to go to SCOTUS (or at least en banc) — the decision is in tension with an 11th C opinion on intrasession recess appointments.
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/25/dc-circuit-strikes-down-president-obamas-recess-appointments/
Edit More at SCOTUSblog:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/01/presidents-appointment-power-curbed/#more-158459
LikeLike
Banned pointed that out at PL as well. I’ll have to check it out.
LikeLike
jnc:
Here’s the link.
LikeLike
A bit of a drive-by post, but I think most people here will find something to like and dislike about this article using Phil Mickelson and Mitt Romney to talk about tax reform.
LikeLike
ashot:
The author of that piece says several stupid things on his way (like that “certain of the working poor, many of them single parents, who are being taxed at rates approaching 90% as they lose benefits attempting to better themselves”), but somehow, miraculously, he ends up at the right place:
We should be taxing the act of spending, not the socially beneficial ones of work and savings.
LikeLike
More idiotic feel-goodism at other people’s expense.
LikeLike
This appears to be the actual fight link
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?play=1&video=3000143709#eyJ2aWQiOiIzMDAwMTQzNTkxIiwiZW5jVmlkIjoiVk9lU2FRN0NOWUhLWFMrdzkwRnN6dz09IiwidlRhYiI6InRyYW5zY3JpcHQiLCJ2UGFnZSI6IiIsImdOYXYiOlsiwqBMYXRlc3QgVmlkZW8iXSwiZ1NlY3QiOiJBTEwiLCJnUGFnZSI6IjEiLCJzeW0iOiIiLCJzZWFyY2giOiIifQ==
LikeLike
It is a sad sign of the selfishness prevalent in our society that some people want to deny kids with disabilities the opportunity to compete with other kids.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2013/01/because_they_deserve_to.shtml
LikeLike
Indeed. Some consider it “idiotic” to decide we cannot collectively deny the opportunity to compete to an entire class of kids.
LikeLike
okie:
Some consider it “idiotic” to decide we cannot collectively deny the opportunity to compete to an entire class of kids.
No, what I think is idiotic is the impulse to force others to pay for soothing the collectivist conscience.
The routine perversion of reality that takes place in the collectivist mind is also somewhat troubling. The failure of a particular school district to provide sports programs catering to the special needs of a particular demographic is not an example of “denying” them anything. A kid that can’t make the school basketball team because he can’t walk and is in a wheelchair has no more been “denied” an opportunity to compete by the school than has the kid who can’t make the basketball team because he can’t dribble a basketball. It is his handicap that is denying him opportunities, not those who fail to make special compensations for that handicap.
LikeLike
Scott, I agree that some common sense is required but think you are railing against something that has not happened. It is my understanding that the emphasis is on “reasonable modifications,” such as providing a visual start cue for a track athlete who is hearing impaired or an exception to the two-hand touch finish for a swimmer who only has one hand.
Beyond that, “[t]he failure of a particular school district to provide sports programs catering to the special needs of a particular demographic is not an example of “denying” them anything” is simply false and demonstrates ignorance of the importance of extracurricular activities to the cognitive and social development of children with special needs. I am reminded of all the similar rhetoric thrown around when I was in college and Title IX and women’s athletics were going to bankrupt the system and undermine men’s athletics to the point of extinction.
LikeLike
okie:
Scott, I agree that some common sense is required but think you are railing against something that has not happened.
I am railing against the federal government, and specifically the chief executive (who’s job, BTW, is to enforce, not write, law), imposing its judgement about what schools can, can’t, and must provide on local communities that may have contrary judgements. And that, undeniably, has just happened.
It is my understanding that the emphasis is on “reasonable modifications,”…
It is up to individual school districts, or at most states governments, not anyone in DC, to determine what is and is not “reasonable”. I don’t need or want some clown in the White House, or people in Oklahoma, telling me what I must provide to kids in my local school district.
Beyond that, “[t]he failure of a particular school district to provide sports programs catering to the special needs of a particular demographic is not an example of “denying” them anything” is simply false…
No it isn’t. To “deny” something to someone is to actively prevent them from having something that, in the absence of your interference, they would otherwise be able to have. The failure to proactively provide something is not an example of “denying” that something. The only reason people use the language like “denial” in these instances to make their own desire to force something on someone else appear justified as a defense of freedom rather than what it actually is, a denial of freedom to others.
…demonstrates ignorance of the importance of extracurricular activities to the cognitive and social development of children with special needs.
The relative importance of something to someone has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a failure to provide that something to that someone can be accurately characterized as a “denial” of that something.
I am reminded of all the similar rhetoric thrown around when I was in college and Title IX and women’s athletics were going to bankrupt the system and undermine men’s athletics to the point of extinction.
Title IX, too, was/is another good example of this dictatorial impulse that I mentioned earlier.
LikeLike
bsimon:
It is a sad sign of the selfishness prevalent in our society that some people want to deny kids with disabilities the opportunity to compete with other kids.
Actually it is self-righteous assholes like Obama and those who support top-down dictates such as this that are the truly “selfish” ones, displaying no regard for anyone but themselves and their own, precious sensitivities. Obama is the only one here who is quite literally denying anyone anything, namely the ability of local communities to make their own judgement about what is both morally proper and practically affordable in terms of accommodating the individual circumstances of handicapped kids.
This is just another example of how collectivists will brook no disagreement, and their selfish and dictatorial impulse to force their own preferences on anyone and everyone who happens to have different preferences.
LikeLike
There is a reasonable discussion to be had about whether the policy is a good one. I’m not convinced that everyone is capable of participating in such, is it requires being reasonable.
LikeLike
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/ut-stanford-research-foresees-an-hiv-treatment-wit/nT7F7/
LikeLike
Caveat – Brian and I had a private discussion about this.
I see several issues that surface here.
1] the question of who provides public education, and who demands standards, and on what basis.
2] the role of public education in physical education.
3] the place for competitive sports, within the framework of public education.
4] the nature of opportunities for disabled children.
1-A. In Texas, and in most states, compulsory public ed is mandated by the state constitution. Thus primary responsibility here and in most places falls upon the State. Variation above state standards falls upon the community. Some variations on the obligations have been posed by the federal government, most notably, special education, for this discussion. Scott has suggested that “what ought to be” is different from “what is”, most notably in term of federal impositions of obligation on public schools. I am sympathetic to Scott’s views about limiting federal mandates and intervention in public schools, but I recognize that integration would not have been achieved without it, and that when we were producing huge surplus foods the school lunch program of USDA was a masterstroke of creating something from waste. So let’s say I have mixed feelings, leave it at that, and let me modestly deal with the existing general reality. In the current reality, I would vote for my school district to provide PE for all and be willing to pay the additional few dollars in my school tax bill. All would include the disabled. I would not want a statewide mandate because of the potential costs to districts forced to prioritize between the classroom and the gym.
2-A. The role of public education in PE should, IMO, be left to the district, because I think physical training and exercise and sports are readily available outside the confines of school while “book larnin'” ain’t.
3-A. Competitive sports are beloved in most communities. Again, a local enrichment issue, I think. There should be no attempt to force the disabled into competitive sports, but no limitation on their trying out.
4-A. The school which has gym/pool facilities should offer them either to none of the students outside the varsity/jayvees or to all of them. Including the disabled. In my school district, I would want PE and intramurals aimed at the disabled, and I would talk and vote for it. Your mileage may vary.
I would be opposed to statewide or federal standards here.
LikeLike
Mark, without addressing all of your points, I certainly agree that the role of PE (and I would add competitive sports) in public education should be a local decision and hopefully would not be prioritized at the expense of the classroom. But I believe if those activities are made available to any, they should be available to all, within reason. I think this is where Scott and I differ.
LikeLike
okie:
I think this is where Scott and I differ.
No. We differ in our desire to impose our own sense of “reasonable” on others by force of the federal government. I am happy to allow others to decide for themselves what is reasonable for them, even if I disagree. You, it seems, are not.
LikeLike
Correct, Scott, regarding public education I am not willing to call a local decision to exclude one, and only one, group as “reasonable.” OTOH, your local decision can be to not provide that activity to any student. The federal government is not mandating the provision of athletics in public schools.
Edit for clarification: I think the federal government does have a valid role to play in equality in public education.
LikeLike
okie:
Correct, Scott, regarding public education I am not willing to call a local decision to exclude one, and only one, group as “reasonable.”
Again the issue is not what you do or do not consider reasonable, much as you seem to want to make it the issue. The issue is your desire to impose your judgment of what is or is not reasonable on others. I may think you are wholly unreasonable about a lot of things, but I would not use force to impose my sense on you. I am willing to allow you to make and live by your own judgments. You are not willing to give me or anyone else the same courtesy.
LikeLike
You’re a libertarian and I’m not. We disagree. Shocking, huh?
LikeLike
okie:
You’re a libertarian and I’m not.
Which is to say that I value freedom more than you do. Shocker indeed.
LikeLike
Which is to say that I value freedom more than you do.
Now that is just offensive and uncalled for. Do not take further lack of response to mean you have “won” the argument.
LikeLike
okie:
Now that is just offensive and uncalled for.
You are far too easily offended, if indeed you really are.
In any event, I have no doubt that you value your own freedom as much as I value mine. But it is a simple and demonstrable fact that you do not value the freedom of others as much as I do. The fact that you happily advocate for the use of federal force to impose your preferences/values on others who might hold different preferences preferences/values is proof enough. I don’t know why I or anyone should pretend that your statist inclinations aren’t what they are.
LikeLike
Okie wrote:
Edit for clarification: I think the federal government does have a valid role to play in equality in public education.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
…
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
If there is any authority in Congress or a court to play a role in equality of public education it derives from this cited language from the 14th Amendment. I don’t think there can be another source. If there is any source for the executive branch to play a role in equality of public education it comes from congressional legislation in support of the 14th Amendment. I don’t think there can be another source.
I would have to look at the statute under which the executive purported to act, and any case history about that statute, to actually understand if this directive is a stretch too far. My offhand instinct is to think that it is, but I temporarily concede that it may not be, until I have read more.
Not every good idea is one within the power of the executive branch to address. I have gently restated Scott’s thesis, I hope in a way that causes you to look at this a little more skeptically, Okie.
LikeLike
Mark, I was expressing a philosophical sentiment. But the “guidance” was issued under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. So I think it is not the executive branch creating law. I’m interested in your take on it.
LikeLike
Later, Okie! I’m going to the twins 4th b’day party now!
LikeLike
Back from party. Going to nap before looking at 504 and the ADA, Okie.
Trashed your short comment to Scott that was outside the rules of engagement.
You understand, I’m sure.
I see Scott’s comment earlier that triggered yours. Not quite as bad, but outside the rules as well, IMO.
I also see that Scott rejects any explanation of liberty interests that does not agree with Scott’s assignment of them.
Scott, using “statist” and “collectivist” as descriptives suits your narrative but it does not comply with your correspondents’ views of themselves at all, nor would a Marxist think any of them or us were anything but filthy capitalist pigs.
LikeLike
Mark, I understand completely. But perhaps it should stand so it can be cited later.
LikeLike
Okie, I can’t resist: cited for reckless driving?
LikeLike
mark@3:18: I don’t know what you’re talking about.
LikeLike
mark@3:18: I don’t know what you’re talking about.
LikeLike
mark:
Only just seeing your additional remarks on this one now.
Not quite as bad, but outside the rules as well, IMO.
Which comment do you think is outside the rules?
Scott, using “statist” and “collectivist” as descriptives suits your narrative but it does not comply with your correspondents’ views of themselves at all…
Yes, I know. I think their self-assessment is wrong and should be reconsidered.
I think policy positions can be objectively analyzed and determined to be more statist/collectivist than alternative policy positions, don’t you? I also think a person can have statist/collectivist inclinations without being an out-and-out Marxist, don’t you?
LikeLike
Okie – this is Sec. 504:
No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 7(20) shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is published in the United States Code at 29 U.S.C. §794.
The Section is clearly within Congress’ power under the 14th amendment. The executive implements under a statutory authorization. How does this affect your local public school? The threat of funding withdrawal is the connection. What federal funds are received by your local school? The school lunch program. Perhaps some special ed funding. So the directive is within the POTUS’ legal capacity and the state or locality that does not want to comply [only] risks losing something of monetary value.
As in employment law, the issue is whether someone is being excluded solely because of disability or because she cannot perform the required function, even given a reasonable [in practice, modest and not costly] accommodation. The “visual cue” for the deaf sprinter is such an accommodation. That distinction must always be kept in mind.
LikeLike
bsimon:
There is a reasonable discussion to be had about whether the policy is a good one.
The issue is not whether the policy is a good one, but who should be deciding whether or not it is a good one. I think individual communities should be able to decide for themselves what policy they will adopt, and I have no problem with different communities deciding differently. It is not the place of whatever buffoon happens to be sitting in the Oval Office, or even a majority of people across the nation, to dictate to those communities what they must do. And this disgusting impulse to impose one’s own will on the entire nation, and to deny local communities the ability to make their own judgments, is both destructive of freedom and contrary to the very purpose of the government structure enshrined in the constitution.
LikeLike
Interesting:
LikeLike
Great link, jnc. I found Obama’s unilateral action re Libya quite troublesome at the time and have not changed that opinion. But my fear at the time was if he took it to Congress for authorization that it would actually become bigger, i.e., boots on the ground (see McCain, John). I’m not especially familiar with War Powers, but is there a legal distinction between bombing only and boots on the ground?
I have always been ambivalent about Kerry. I do not think this is a good omen for how he would operate as Sec of State but neither do I see it as an automatic disqualifier. It’s just more of the same.
LikeLike
For example, having a reasonable discussion would start with representing the program accurately. From the Times article linked above:
LikeLike
bsimon:
For example, having a reasonable discussion would start with representing the program accurately.
I think a reasonable discussion must begin with a recognition of what is actually in dispute, which is not the merits of the program itself but rather whether or not Obama (or the federal government in general) should be involved determining the policy in the first place.
LikeLike
I am reminded of all the similar rhetoric thrown around when I was in college and Title IX and women’s athletics were going to bankrupt the system and undermine men’s athletics to the point of extinction.
Actually, Title IX kind of did, at least to the non-revenue producing sports like men’s track, gymnastics, wrestling, etc..
LikeLike
Brent@9:17am: Do you have support for that statement? I’m interested. (The rhetoric at the time revolved around men’s football and basketball.)
LikeLike
okie:
If you are truly interested in what Title IX has done to college sports, you should read this book.
LikeLike
okie:
One example of how the application of Title IX has had pernicious effects.
BTW, it seems to me the real problem isn’t so much Title IX itself as it is the fact that the federal government is so involved in doling out funds to universities. If universities had not become such huge suckers on the government teat, the Feds would have no leverage with which to compel universities to do anything, since it is the threat of withdrawing federal funds from the university that gives Title IX its force.
LikeLike
Another article from US News and World Report on the effects of Title IX.
In fact, in 2007, the College Sports Council (now the American Sports Council) conducted a comprehensive analysis of NCAA data over 25 years (1981-2005), which revealed that, after controlling for the growth in the number of NCAA schools, the number of female athletes per school increased by 34 percent and the number of women’s teams also increased by 34 percent. During the same time period, male athletes per school fell by 6 percent and men’s teams by 17 percent.
The problem with Title IX isn’t the law itself, which simply outlaws discrimination based on sex in academia, but how it’s enforced. The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights created three paths to demonstrate compliance with Title IX, but only one inoculates a college from potentially costly lawsuits: showing that athletic participation for each gender is “substantially proportionate” to their respective enrollments.
Making the numbers add up has become a real challenge since women increasingly outnumber men on campus, earning an estimated 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees. Colleges pursuing “proportionality” can try to increase the number of female athletes so that women account for 57 percent of athletes, or—the more surefire and less costly path—eliminate male athletes from the roster.
LikeLike
If you go to the Drudge report right now there is a hilarious picture of Biden with the phrase ‘MENTAL HEALTH CHECK’ underneath it.
http://drudgereport.com/
Makes me wanna say, “Stand up Chuck.”
LikeLike
A ridiculously photoshopped photo at drudge is not hilarious to all.
LikeLike
Is Biden photoshopped? I’m pretty sure that’s just Biden, you know, Obama’s first important decision. But, even if photoshopped, the expression’s his.
LikeLike
“it is a simple and demonstrable fact that you do not value the freedom of others as much as I do. ”
Perhaps the difference is in how that freedom is defined. One perspective is that allowing local school districts to deny disabled kids the freedom to participate in extracurricular sports open to able-bodied kids is offensive. What Scott calls a simple and demonstrable fact is not a fact but a value judgement.
LikeLike
bsimon:
Perhaps the difference is in how that freedom is defined.
Perhaps. As I have stated innumerable times here, when I speak of freedom, I mean the absence of initiated coercion. With that in mind, it is obvious that some people here value freedom less than others, given their desire to initiate coercion against others and compel them to do things they would not do voluntarily.
One perspective is that allowing local school districts to deny disabled kids the freedom…
I have already addressed this false characterization of the situation under discussion. No such denial of freedom, as defined above, is occurring. The only denial of freedom is Obama’s denial of freedom to those he would force to do things they do not voluntarily do.
What Scott calls a simple and demonstrable fact is not a fact but a value judgement.
Incorrect. Given the definition of freedom that I have provided, what I have said is indeed a simple and demonstrable fact.
LikeLike
Mark:
I would have to look at the statute under which the executive purported to act, and any case history about that statute, to actually understand if this directive is a stretch too far.
Probably falls under Title II of the ADA as well. That’s definitely a 14th A issue.
LikeLike
Scott:
it is obvious that some people here value freedom less than others, given their desire to initiate coercion against others and compel them to do things they would not do voluntarily
I’m totally good with the 13th, 14th, and 19th Amendments. But by your definition (“the absence of initiated coercion”), you are not.
LikeLike
Mike:
I’m totally good with the 13th, 14th, and 19th Amendments. But by your definition (“the absence of initiated coercion”), you are not.
Incorrect.
The 13th amendment abolishes slavery. Slavery cannot exist in the absence of initiated coercion. Indeed, slavery is the very antithesis of freedom (ie the absence of initiated coercion), so to suggest that opposition to initiated coercion implies opposition to the abolition of slavery is absurd.
The 14th amendment disallows a state government from initiating coercion (enforcing laws) against its citizens in order to deprive them of the rights, privileges and immunities of US citizenship. To oppose the initiation of coercion as a matter of principle cannot possibly imply opposition to a law which itself disallows the initiation of coercion.
The 19th amendment is simply a rule governing participation in the political process itself. It has nothing to do with initiating coercion against citizens.
LikeLike
Huh. My voting place is in the basement of a local church. Is there an absence of initiated coercion when they don’t provide an elevator for wheelchair users? That is a bizarre way of thinking.
LikeLike
bsimon:
My voting place is in the basement of a local church. Is there an absence of initiated coercion when they don’t provide an elevator for wheelchair users?
Correct, the failure to provide an elevator is not an instance of initiated coercion. Are you saying that you think the failure to put an elevator in the church is an instance of applied coercion?
LikeLike
No, Scott. I think its an example of how your simplistic definition falls short.
LikeLike
bsimon:
No, Scott. I think its an example of how your simplistic definition falls short.
Falls short of what? I made a statement in which I used the word freedom, and then explained what I meant by the word. If you still think my statement is wrong within the context of what I meant by the term, then please explain how/why it is wrong within that context. Otherwise, I don’t know what your objection is.
LikeLike
Scott, I have to admit that I don’t get what point you’re trying to make with that excerpt from that article. The number of women’s teams/athletes increased under Title IX, and the number of men’s fell, but by half or less than half. If your argument is that Title IX is such a horrible thing, shouldn’t that be reversed?
And, yes, I’m a Title IX girl. If it hadn’t been for a couple of sports scholarships I wouldn’t have been able to pay my way through MSU.
LikeLike
Mich:
I have to admit that I don’t get what point you’re trying to make with that excerpt from that article.
okie asked for evidence that Title IX has had deleterious effects on non-revenue producing men’s sports. I was just trying to provide some.
LikeLike
The then director of athletics at Georgia Tech told a local alumni group to never expect a varsity lacrosse team in part because it was too hard to fund a matching women’s team to keep Title IX in balance. Mostly I think Title IX is an excuse for budget cuts which would have happened anyways. Maryland has drastically cut back all its non-revenue sports because of financial mismanagement. That is why they are jumping ship for the big bucks of the Big 10 (11? 12? 13?). I doubt it’s the women’s teams which bankrupted them.
LikeLike
I doubt it’s the women’s teams which bankrupted them.
No, it’s more the men’s football and basketball teams, which have most (if not all) of their athletes on scholarship, thus soaking up the majority of men’s athletic scholarships at Division I schools.
This is from what I believe is the original report cited in Scott’s link up above:
NCAA President Brand said the Association’s legislative bodies have developed scholarship limits based on total opportunities for men and women. In comments about Title IX for the Double-A Zone, the NCAA’s official blog, NCAA President Brand said football presents the biggest challenge. “There’s nothing equivalent to football on the women’s side,” Brand said. “But athletics departments make decisions about what they want to emphasize and universities make decisions about what they want to spend. Every coach would like to see more scholarships.”
Brand is disturbed by Title IX being blamed for a reduction in opportunities for male student-athletes.
“Title IX has made a radical and positive difference in college athletics. I’m not happy with the fact that some schools have come out and blamed Title IX for the cutting of sports,” he said. “They’ve made a decision about how they want to use their resources and that’s their prerogative. Title IX doesn’t require you to cut men’s sports. The DOE made it clear that cutting men’s sports is a disfavored way to comply with Title IX.”
Emphasis mine.
LikeLike
Mich:
No, it’s more the men’s football and basketball teams, which have most (if not all) of their athletes on scholarship, thus soaking up the majority of men’s athletic scholarships at Division I schools.
The example I provided earlier, Providence College, hasn’t had a football team since 1941.
LikeLike
“The DOE made it clear that cutting men’s sports is a disfavored way to comply with Title IX.””
It’s always unfortunate to policymakers when the real world effects of their policies don’t work out the way that they intended.
For those who haven’t seen it, this is the classic essay on negative vs positive liberty by Isaiah Berlin.
Click to access Berlin_twoconceptsofliberty.pdf
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
LikeLike
jnc:
It’s always unfortunate to policymakers when the real world effects of their policies don’t work out the way that they intended.
And, remarkably, always a surprise to them.
LikeLike
Scott:
We’ll let them be the exception that proves the rule, then.
LikeLike
Mich:
We’ll let them be the exception that proves the rule, then.
I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to assume it is an exception. If a school without a football program is eliminating men’s sports in order to protect itself from claims of discrimination under Title IX, I don’t see why the existence of a football program would suggest that the school is not doing the same thing. In fact, if the football program is actually a revenue producer, as it is at many schools, rather than an expense item, it actually makes much more sense that any elimination of other men’s sports programs is due to protection from Title IX claims than from decisions about the use of resources, since the football program doesn’t actually use resources, but instead generates them.
LikeLike
An interesting study which supports what most people already know intuitively: males have more innate interest in sports than females.
LikeLike
A report on the economics of college athletics. Apparently somewhere between 50% and 60% of all D1 football and basketball programs are net revenue producers for their universities. It seems to me that, with regard to Title IX gender-equity quotas, at least these revenue producing programs should not count towards a university’s scholarship allocation.
LikeLike
It seems to me that, with regard to Title IX gender-equity quotas, at least these revenue producing programs should not count towards a university’s scholarship allocation.
You wouldn’t get an argument from me. I’m not entirely sure that most of the starting players should count as students.
LikeLike
Mich:
I’m not entirely sure that most of the starting players should count as students.
Good point.
LikeLike
Obama gives an interview to The New Republic. What a complete tool.
LikeLike
In what way is he a tool? He came off as a pragmatist who selects his battles very carefully.
LikeLike
yello, you are intentionally starting a “discussion” with the resident pedant???
LikeLike
He came off as a pragmatist who selects his battles very carefully.
Mainly agree.
LikeLike
yello:
He came off as a pragmatist who selects his battles very carefully.
Two points. First, I can’t think of any president who, in a softball interview with a friendly reporter, has come across as a wild-eyed ideologue. They understandably and inevitably present themselves as reasonable men of the people with a balanced approach.
Second, if by pragmatic you mean that he understands there is some limit to how much of his ideological agenda he can push through and is therefore careful about what he pushes for and how he goes about pushing for it, then sure, he’s pragmatic. But that doesn’t make him any less of a tool.
If, however, by pragmatic you mean that he lacks any ideology and is just trying to do “what works” for the nation, which is how he was portrayed (both by his supporters and the media) for much of his first term and is what liberals tend to mean when they speak of themselves as “pragmatic”, then I think you’ve drunk a little too much kool-aid.
LikeLike
I was hoping you would define what Obama has done that would make him a ‘tool’. Just to make sure I was being precise, I looked up the word in Urban Dictionary which defines it as:
Now when I think of ‘tools’, the politician who come immediately to mind is Paul Ryan for whom I have a great deal of contempt. He is a man working outside his mental capacities in service of people using his penchant for objectivist ideology to their own ends.
And looking at the ‘lack of mental capacity’ end of it immediately brings to mind George W. Bush who rightly or wrongly was always seen as beholden to Dick Cheney and by extension the resources extraction industries.
For Obama to be a tool, he needs to be mentally deficient, which I don’t think he is in the least, and the unwitting patsy of others. Who those others are, I can’t discern unless one lumps all progressive causes together. He has been accused of being too cozy with the financial industry but I see that as pragmatism in that he does not want to rock the boat too hard in ways that would damage the economy even if that means that some malfeasance on their part goes unpunished.
You speak of pragmatism disparagingly and I think I’m safe to assert that you place a high premium on philosophical rigor. Not everybody does. Results are more important than purity. You, of course, are welcome to disagree.
LikeLike
yello:
From the same link that you provided:
Someone whose ego FAR exceeds his talent, intelligence, and likeability. But, of course, he is clueless regarding that fact. He erroneously thinks he is THE MAN!
Sounds like Obama to me. I realize there is a constituency out there that has the same over-inflated opinion of his intelligence and talents that he does, and thinks he is indeed THE MAN!, so they are unlikely to agree.
You speak of pragmatism disparagingly…
No I don’t. What I speak of disparagingly is the pretense that Obama is a pragmatist as opposed to being an ideologue. Pragmatism is certainly a useful thing, even for, perhaps especially for, ideologues. I myself am pragmatic, which is why I vote for Republicans instead of third-party fringe candidates who share more of my principles but have no chance of winning elections.
I’m shocked you take umbrage at the term.
I’m shocked you think it wasn’t intended as an insult (if indeed you do). If I thought my concern for precision was “excessive”, I’d display less concern.
BTW, I think we need a word for a person who is excessively unconcerned with formalism and precision.
LikeLike
I took the point of “pedant” to be that you, Scott, are usually capable of and often demanding of precision, yet you employed the word “tool” as a description of a relatively complex person after a softball interview (in which I for one only caught one completely deceptive response). “Tool” was a seeming sophomoric criticism coming from you.
LikeLike
mark:
“Tool” was a seeming sophomoric criticism coming from you.
That is probably true. But I confess I have lost my patience for feigning respect for this president who wants to take my money and diminish my freedom. I have nothing but contempt for him and his statist ideology.
LikeLike
Hey, I agree with Obama, the media is trying to be “fair” with false Equivalance!
LikeLike
McWing:
Hey, I agree with Obama, the media is trying to be “fair” with false Equivalance!
Yeah, that was a rich one, wasn’t it? This seems to be the latest progressive talking point with regard to the media. Despite the general media’s obvious leftward tilt, they claim it is still biased towards the right by not treating it with open contempt.
Obama the unifier!
LikeLike
What a complete tool.
Scott, I don’t think that this is really worthy of ATiM. Do you?
I thought the purpose of this site was to be able to discuss politics and issues as adults, rather than insulting people gratuitously.
LikeLike
Mich:
Scott, I don’t think that this is really worthy of ATiM. Do you?
Of course I do, otherwise I wouldn’t have posted it. I actually censored myself somewhat, toning it down from what I really think of this asshole that’s been elected president. (Whoops.) Besides, if Taibbi isn’t too much for ATiM, then pretty much anything goes, no?
Obama shows me no respect, so why should I show him any?
(BTW, is calling someone who isn’t here a “tool” worse than calling someone who is here a “pedant”? Just curious.)
LikeLike
BTW, is calling someone who isn’t here a “tool” worse than calling someone who is here a “pedant”? Just curious.
Going back to definitions:
Pedant:
As someone who regularly provides links to obscure political philosophers and frequently debates the meanings of words at a very technical level, I’m shocked you take umbrage at the term.
LikeLike
If I thought my concern for precision was “excessive”, I’d display less concern.
So the word within the definition you have trouble with is ‘excessive’? Let’s put it on a more parametric footing. I know of no one with a greater zeal for formalism and precision than you. On that basis, nobody is a pedant and nearly everybody would qualify for your yet-to-be-coined term for people insufficiently concerned.
But I confess I have lost my patience for feigning respect for this president
I was unaware you had ever shown the least bit of respect for Obama, feigned or otherwise.
LikeLike
yello:
So the word within the definition you have trouble with is ‘excessive’?
I don’t have trouble with it, but it is essential to the definition, and is precisely what gives the word a negative connotation.
LikeLike
Jeebus, in arguing with someone who’s philosophical worldview is very different, doesn’t it make sense that there is agreement on terms? So, because someone’s assumptions may be different, their understanding of things may be different, hence the need for, you know, precision?
I’ll give you an example, in many ways I reject Keynesianism. So, if your assumption is that I could support a stimulus, if it went to, say, defense spending, since it would go to a sector I would purportedly align with and produce a mutually desired result, ie government spending to stimulate the economy, you’d be wrong. I am not a believer in using government spending as a stimulus, I don’t beleive it works, even in a sector of the economy I might be more sympathetic to, like defense over fairy dust, er “green energy.”
LikeLike
I have self censored in my reference to Obama as well. I keep thinking that Insty was right, the Carter years were the best case scenario.
LikeLike