Bobref

I wonder how many people weighing in on this subject have ever read - much less understood - the Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade. Here’s what the Court said, in a nutshell: Previous cases have established the existence of a constitutional right of privacy, and the Court ruled that allowing a woman to control her own body, including the decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, falls within this right of privacy. Therefore, until the point where the fetus could not survive outside the womb, i.e., “viability,” the mother’s right of privacy trumps any other decision. However, once viability is established, the state’s interest in safeguarding the well-being of its citizens, including its unborn citizens, starts to become more important, and more restrictions on the mother’s decision-making process are justified. I don’t expect the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, I look for them to reaffirm the basic principle. But as always, the devil will be in the details. Technological advances since Roe have pushed the threshold of “viability” back. I expect this conservative court to give states a little more leeway in determining when the state’s interest trumps the mother’s. But that’s all.

About time that someone made the point that legality and morality are not the same thing. The legal availability of abortion is not the same thing as compelling people to undergo them. You can personally believe that abortion is wrong without attempting to impose your belief system upon others.

If you do the right thing, but for the wrong reason, does it matter?

So, what’s the point that you’re trying to make? That women should only be allowed to have abortions if they have a good reason? If that were the case, my guess is the people who decide whether a reason is good enough are those same old white men sitting around the table.

Exactly.

Not if you’ve actually been paying attention to the playoff qualification debate.

I know, everyone thinks of this as Star Wars Day (“May the 4th be with you.) But this date commemorates something much more significant. Never forget.

No doubt that the numbers of teenagers getting TJS these days dwarfs the number 2 decades ago. And no doubt a lot of that is due to overuse of undeveloped arms. But that’s not the only reason. Techniques for TJS have improved significantly since Dr. Frank Jobe invented the procedure for Tommy John in 1974. This is a procedure now taught in hand/shoulder fellowships. There is much less risk associated with the procedure these days. On the other side of the equation, the greater level of skill and refinement of techniques have combined to make the results of the procedure consistently better. So the risk/reward ratio has been reversed, and there are many more surgeons trained in the procedure. The combination of these developments results in a much greater number of surgeries.

Frankly, the judges I know have to listen to so much crap, if I were them I’d be hitting Happy Hour every day.

I read the article in the Indiana Lawyer. But regardless of where they had been before the incident, I don't understand why you have a problem with this. Now, if they went out to some bars and charged that to the taxpayers, I would have a problem with that. But as long as they were doing what they were supposed to be doing during the day, i.e., judicial continuing education, who cares what they were doing on their own time? Not everyone who goes "out on the town" drinks so much that they are impaired the next day. I'd be more concerned about the possible gastric consequences of late night White Castles.

Yeah, because judges aren't human beings. They're not entitled to any free time. And seriously, does "out on the town" include White Castle? Maybe in Frankfort ...

This used to be the case. I heard that some referees would manipulate the clock by being very deliberate about marking the ball ready for play and thus delaying the start of the 25 second play clock ... although I never did that myself. 😉 But that’s no longer possible with the advent of the 40 second clock.

This is long overdue, and totally consistent with the philosophy of “risk minimization “ that permeates the rules making process these days. Most of these games that I have seen are the result of physical mismatches, whether the result of a team having low numbers, lots of injuries, or a big school vs. small school matchup. This makes injuries more likely. Take the decision out of the coaches’ hands, so he doesn’t have to justify the decision to throw in the towel to his players, the fans or parents.

Conventional wisdom has been that no one becomes an official to make $$. Most years I was happy to break even on out of pocket expenses. But that conventional wisdom may no longer be true.

I’m not so sure. It’s a different generation of people we’re recruiting now. I suspect some of the old “truths” no longer apply.

Because of the type of work I do, I spend a lot of time in hospitals and physicians’ offices. I confess, i don’t understand how, on the one hand, health care providers complain loudly over the niggardly reimbursement system of Medicare -and the insurers who take their lead from it - while on the other hand, every hospital I see has got significant construction underway, is building freestanding outpatient centers in the community, is buying up physician practices, etc. They’re obviously making money somehow.

That’s an easy one. Leave it up to each school to decide. Do away with the IHSAA rule altogether.

Yeah, but he’d have that prized Alabama diploma. [insert sarcasm emoticon here].

I addressed your statement that, if you don’t like the travel rule, try to get it changed and, failing that, either leave with it or get out of the IHSAA.. You responded by attacking me personally, e.g., “shiesty,” which means “unscrupulous.” It’s the very definition of an ad hominem argument. And it’s noteworthy that you still haven’t actually addressed the issue under discussion. My post was a fair characterization of your position, as expressed. If you didn’t express what you really meant, that’s your fault, not mine.

Ad hominem, last refuge of the intellectually weak.

That is true academically and across the entire spectrum of extracurricular activities, including athletics. What’s the point?

No one’s arguing that. The discussion is about whether the travel restriction represents a wise policy. Things like you mentioned are definitely factors to be considered ... on the local level, not the one-size-fits-all approach the IHSAA rule currently imposes. And frankly, your “IHSAA, love it or leave it” approach adds nothing to a reasoned discussion of the subject.

Enforced mediocrity. And it’s even a poor way to accomplish that. Some schools can afford better weight rooms than others. Will we begin regulating that soon? I look forward to someone demonstrating how the ability to have those kinds of experiences translates to an unfair competitive advantage on the field. After all, there are all kinds of things that give one school an advantage over another, but they’re not unfair.

And some are. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcook/2019/04/22/the-issue-with-hiring-youth-sports-referees-may-be-that-the-pay-stinks/#232881902380