Bobref

Or maybe not. https://fightingirishwire.usatoday.com/2022/05/16/report-notre-dame-in-great-position-to-land-5-star-quarterback-moore/ On the other hand, this might just be cheerleading.

Hypothetical scenarios are a way to test someone’s position for logical consistency. It does not surprise me that you are unwilling to venture down that path, and risk exposure.

Here’s one: An unvaccinated woman becomes pregnant. Her doctor tells her that her unvaccinated status presents a threat to the viability of the fetus. If she contracts the virus while pregnant there is a significantly enhanced risk of stillbirth. She refuses to be vaccinated. Her doctor contacts Child Protective Services, who ultimately files a lawsuit against the woman to require her to be vaccinated in order to protect the fetus. How does Judge Swordfish rule?

You vastly overrate the ability of people to: Plan a conspiracy that will actually work; and Keep it a secret once they’ve done it. On the other hand, it does fit with your usual, tiresome narrative.

Unsurprisingly, the constitution does not mention abortion. Do you think that ends the debate?

I’m trying to manage expectations … primarily my own. 😅

An interesting slant on the debate, The author contends that, to date, the abortion debate has largely ignored important economic issues. https://michaelleppert.com/the-economics-of-roe-arent-being-discussed-enough/ THE ECONOMICS OF ROE AREN’T BEING DISCUSSED ENOUGH by Michael Leppert | May 13, 2022 | Politics/Government, Pop/Life I regularly tell my students these days, just like I used to regularly tell my clients, if you have an idea for a policy change in America, be prepared to successfully make your case purely on economic terms. In other words, trying to convince policy makers the change that is being proposed is simply the right thing to do usually won’t get the effort very far. Proponents for change need to show them the money. When government and politics in America get disconnected from this unwritten virtue, bad decisions are often made. We love to talk about our loyalty to freedom, the flag and the Constitution, but when it comes to change, real change, the dollar is king. This is how it should be. It is this component of public policy debates that make most issues, and virtually every newsworthy one, relevant to all of us. The abortion debate should be no different. There is plenty of data. It is easy to understand. But the loudness of the passions have prevented a rational economic dialogue from having the prominence it deserves. Oh, and one other big thing is keeping this discussion on the back burner: the court doesn’t care. Sheelah Kohatkar succinctly wrote about it on Wednesday in the New Yorker. “Whether and under what circumstances to become a mother is the single most economically important decision most women will make in their lifetimes,” says Caitlin Myers, an economist at Middlebury College, widely recognized as a leading scholar on this issue. But during oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court last December in the Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the discussion of the economic impact was cut off by Chief Justice John Roberts so he could discuss the fifteen-week deadline for an abortion, in which he seems so interested. The State of Mississippi makes the argument that the Roe v. Wade decision and the subsequent decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood are no longer relevant. It argues that access to contraception, availability of child care, and the existence of family leave laws are the things that make the economics of the issue different today than they were fifty years ago. Myers and 153 other economists filed a brief in the case obliterating that shallow perspective. On contraception, in a 2019 report, the Guttmacher Institute reports that 45% of all pregnancies in America are unintended. This is in an era of great available and advanced contraception to which Mississippi refers. Most of those pregnancies were “wanted later,” while only 18% were unwanted. 42% of those pregnancies end in abortion. I’m sorry Justice Roberts and Mississippi, but that is “relevant.” The moral debate on the issue leaves few Americans without an opinion on the matter. But what parent is oblivious to the cost of their children? When 49% of abortions today are being performed on women at or below the poverty level, and an additional 26% being just above that line, the cost of those children to all of us is obvious and beyond debate. But the economic impact of and outlook on those women is the thing rarely discussed. Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, explained it in simple terms this week. Emily Peck reports for Axios that Yellen said eliminating a woman’s right to seek an abortion would have “very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades.” The proponents of these extreme bans in many of the states, including Indiana, lose the economic argument. They have had much of their success because the intensity of the moral debate has provided their vacuous economic one an inordinate amount of cover. The court is a great venue for this void–the court often doesn’t do economics. As much as we think politicians generally, and legislative bodies specifically, ignore the broad implications of their policies, they are designed to account for these things. The public often fails to hold them to account, but that’s just one of many failings for which we have no one else to blame. What the leaked opinion that was written by Justice Samuel Alito was predictably light on was the impact of his proposed decision. I’m betting that if pressed about it, the five justices who apparently support the overturning of Roe and Casey would give an answer that could easily be interpreted as “it’s not our responsibility.” It is a near-perfect storm of devastating consequences being made on behalf of the moral and political whims of the minority of Americans. It appears those who think it doesn’t matter to them are going to have to suffer until it does.

It’s very, very early. Let’s total this up after early signing day, Dec. 21, 2022. It doesn’t mean much until the ink is on the paper.

Things are changing. Adapt, improvise, overcome.

I guess this is one kid we don’t have to worry about de-committing. Here’s the tattoo Andrean’s Drayk Bowen just got.

I wonder if Mr. Davies takes his aluminum foil helmet off when he goes to bed at night.

He’s screwed the pooch for the last time.

So, what is a school like IU to do? First, they have to decide what they want to be. You can’t draw a road map without a destination. Then, they have to decide how to get there. 10, or even 5 years ago, it would have seemed an insurmountable task to get them to a spot where they can play in a bowl game every year. That takes players, and IU’s recruiting limitations have been well documented on these pages. But this is today, and there is a weapon that can allow a school like IU to compete on equal footing for recruits: NIL. it is increasingly all about the money at the player level when it comes to recruiting. Get out there and recruit donors before you recruit players. Start with Mark Cuban. Build a great big war chest of $$ and entice recruits with NIL deals. Start getting some 4 stars who could go to OSU or Penn State or Michigan, but are lured to IU by big $$. Have a couple of good years in a row, and recruiting momentum builds. It’s a difficult process, but it starts with making the decision to be competitive.

I think parents/fans getting out of hand at a youth game is an issue that should be handled at a league administrative level. In high school, it’s game management, usually an AD or assistant AD. In my experience, they are very willing to assume responsibility for addressing those matters.

That is not the purpose of a sideline warning in football, and it shouldn’t be used “off label” in that fashion. A sideline warning is given when the coach is out of his designated position: either in the restricted area when the ball is dead, or behind the restraining line when it’s alive. A coach coming on to the field to argue a call is one of the specific instances of unsportsmanlike conduct by a nonplayer found in the rule book. When I was wearing the white hat, they could bark all they wanted (within reason) as long as they stayed where they were supposed to be. Crossing the sideline to complain, however, was dealt with swiftly and decisively.

I don’t think your understanding of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech is accurate. At least, it does not appear so from your post.

How much better is it to wear that white hat and stay out in the middle of the field, pretending you don’t hear the asinine comments, and trying not to laugh? 😂🤣😆

I have to ask, what on earth is “presenting the ball?”

One of the drivers behind the officiating shortage is the unreasonable behavior of fans toward sports officials. Many of those “fans” are actually parents or other relatives of players. If they act that way, in public, toward officials, I can only imagine how they act toward coaches when Little Johnny is riding the pines, or Little Suzy is batting 8th instead of cleanup. I’m sure @Impartial_Observercan share on that subject, as can many others.

Having two schools in one state is no guarantee of mediocrity (see Michigan and MSU), nor is a single school state a guarantee of success (see Minnesota). There’s a lot more to it than that. But once again, I never said anything about Coach Allen.

I never said anything about firing Allen. But more generally, all improvement comes because someone refused to accept the status quo. What obstacles prevent IU football from becoming Wisconsin? Is that an unrealistic goal?

“Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?” - Robert Browning

The very definition of an “outlier.” Probably the greatest non-human athlete in history. At the Belmont, they couldn’t even get the 2nd place finisher in the camera shot on the stretch.

Does the GID keep stats on, for example, the earliest in a poster’s GID career to have a post removed? Asking for a friend. 😆

Or, perhaps the uproar over the Smith/Rock incident caused security folks to reevaluate how they handle such incidents. Some people are capable of learning. And some people are “hypervigilant” for purported disparate treatment.