yes, im very familiar with the 3 points of Title IX
The problem with the third one that you point out is that its based on judgment. One may see a school as meeting needs of all women athletes, while another may be bitching that there is no women's ice hockey team.
Cal's athletic department lost 5.2Million last year. So, while I said that money is not an issue, the department is being pushed to reduce operating deficit, at the same time, our women student athletes have been pushed to an all-time high. The sports that we have for women do cost money and are scholarship driven....well...most of em. But to suggest that football and women's field hockey should receive the same financial backing oppurtunities is insane. Income-producing sports should be exempt. then you would see more accurate and realistic equality.
Title IX originally was never enforced, the Supreme Court ruled that it applied only to programs that directly received federal funds. But then Congress changed that in the Civil rights Restoration Act.
After that, the number of women rose slightly while the number of men athletes dropped to an all time low in 1990. coincidence? i think not. Then women started sueing schools for inequality and started winning and schools felt forced into meeting the first requirement.....percentage of female athletes. Schools that could afford to massively increase women's teams did. Texas spent 3 million alone. But other schools cant afford that and just made cuts.....but not to revenue sports...how nice.
and now many schools are reaching a point where there is more women's teams and athletes then there really is demand.....is women's crew really that popular out here in the west that our team has 60+ women? hell no, they take just about anyone and as a result inflate our women athlete numbers. meanwhile if the baseball team wants one extra recruit or even walk-on its restricted.
women's athletics here contributes just 15.3% to our total athletic department revenue. yet we are forced to equallly fund all women's programs. does that make sense? is that even financially smart? in 2000 the women's programs expense for the year was 33%, and looking at the previous years, it has increased about 2 percentage points each year which would put it at around 38 or 39 % now.....for 15.3% revenue.
Colleges find the first of the three goals easiest to achieve since the other ones are very detailed and as I said judgmental. you make it seem like part 3 is a piece of cake to prove and achieve......to meet that part the school needs to meet 11 program areas such as equal travel expenses, equipment and supplies, scheduling, tutoring, coaching staffs, locker rooms, practice facilities, medical facilities, housing, recruitment, etc....... many of which completing WOULD cost a lot of money and may be unneccessary.
Damn. That'll teach me to cross a mod.
I'll admit, I'm not that familiar with the particulars of Cal's athletic spending. Just out of curiousity, how are those revenue figures derived? Is it some percentage of tuition?
After signing thisbill, even if Bush screwed up everything else I would still vote for him. Abortion isn't about women. It's about children and it's about the future. Partial birth abortion was thinly veiled infanticide and the excuses to defend are little more than was used when Romans left babies outside the city walls to die.
Partial birth abortion was thinly veiled infanticide and the excuses to defend are little more than was used when Romans left babies outside the city walls to die.
What if a pregnant woman has a late-term baby with severe hydrocephalus, the doctors have determined that the baby can't live (e.g., there is no brain), and the woman can't have a c-section (e.g., allergic to all available anesthetics)? Any other procedure might leave the woman unable to ever have children again. Those might be a rare set of circumstances, but if it's even possible, this law should be thrown out.
Remember, the debate here is over whether there should be an exclusion for "extreme health consequences such as permanent disability." That's what Clinton said he would sign, and that's what the amendments that were voted down have said.
Santorum and the other politicians who have pushed this say that there are no situations in which this procedure would be necessary to protect the health of the mother. If that's true, then what would be the harm in passing such an amendment?
IMO, this was all politics. They could have had a law 7 years ago that Clinton would have signed, they knew they couldn't override a veto, and they knew that a law with a health exemption would at least have stopped some of what they wanted to stop.
Furthermore, this law will almost certainly be struck down by the Supreme Court, whereas the ones Clinton would have signed would not have been. So why wouldn't they pass it? Pure politics. They don't give a damn about this particular procedure, they just see it as a fundraising opportunity for their political campaigns.
Applenut, I think you owe it to yourself (as a mod) to close this thread for hijacking it with football discussion. Or.....get back to the topic?
I can´t remember seeing anything that states that it is against any rule to let a thread derail. Threads that go another way than they start is one of the charms here...
I can´t remember seeing anything that states that it is against any rule to let a thread derail. Threads that go another way than they start is one of the charms here...
Mild derailing are charming.
However those who complain that Applenut derailed this thread, just continue to do so.
Even worse, how can we on the exterior know for sure whether a fetus is self-aware? Does the lack of outward cognitive response tell us something *is not* self-aware?
As for child-adoption...it's really too bad the system in place sucks a fatty.
About self-awareness :
I'm sure if more money towards research in this area a test could be developed ( maybe just by measuring brain activity ). If it's this important an issue it's worth it to know.
and how many posts have YOU taken this thread off topic for?
good job.....and keep it up.
wow, you're a dumbass. i was contributing to this thread until you came in spouting your crap about Berkeley football and the rest of you're sporting programs. if you're gonna talk about football, do it in the other thread, and talk about a decent program.
Comments
Originally posted by applenut
yes, im very familiar with the 3 points of Title IX
The problem with the third one that you point out is that its based on judgment. One may see a school as meeting needs of all women athletes, while another may be bitching that there is no women's ice hockey team.
Cal's athletic department lost 5.2Million last year. So, while I said that money is not an issue, the department is being pushed to reduce operating deficit, at the same time, our women student athletes have been pushed to an all-time high. The sports that we have for women do cost money and are scholarship driven....well...most of em. But to suggest that football and women's field hockey should receive the same financial backing oppurtunities is insane. Income-producing sports should be exempt. then you would see more accurate and realistic equality.
Title IX originally was never enforced, the Supreme Court ruled that it applied only to programs that directly received federal funds. But then Congress changed that in the Civil rights Restoration Act.
After that, the number of women rose slightly while the number of men athletes dropped to an all time low in 1990. coincidence? i think not. Then women started sueing schools for inequality and started winning and schools felt forced into meeting the first requirement.....percentage of female athletes. Schools that could afford to massively increase women's teams did. Texas spent 3 million alone. But other schools cant afford that and just made cuts.....but not to revenue sports...how nice.
and now many schools are reaching a point where there is more women's teams and athletes then there really is demand.....is women's crew really that popular out here in the west that our team has 60+ women? hell no, they take just about anyone and as a result inflate our women athlete numbers. meanwhile if the baseball team wants one extra recruit or even walk-on its restricted.
women's athletics here contributes just 15.3% to our total athletic department revenue. yet we are forced to equallly fund all women's programs. does that make sense? is that even financially smart? in 2000 the women's programs expense for the year was 33%, and looking at the previous years, it has increased about 2 percentage points each year which would put it at around 38 or 39 % now.....for 15.3% revenue.
Colleges find the first of the three goals easiest to achieve since the other ones are very detailed and as I said judgmental. you make it seem like part 3 is a piece of cake to prove and achieve......to meet that part the school needs to meet 11 program areas such as equal travel expenses, equipment and supplies, scheduling, tutoring, coaching staffs, locker rooms, practice facilities, medical facilities, housing, recruitment, etc....... many of which completing WOULD cost a lot of money and may be unneccessary.
Damn. That'll teach me to cross a mod.
I'll admit, I'm not that familiar with the particulars of Cal's athletic spending. Just out of curiousity, how are those revenue figures derived? Is it some percentage of tuition?
Originally posted by Akumulator
Applenut, I think you owe it to yourself (as a mod) to close this thread for hijacking it with football discussion. Or.....get back to the topic?
and closing it would do what? end all discussion?
want to discuss the topic.....discuss it, by posting you just added another unrelated post.
sorry, for taking it off topic, im done
P.S. Title IX is evil8)
Title IX used to fund partial birth abortions! Football team demands equal access to controversy! AAAAHHHHGGGGG!!!
Originally posted by applenut
and closing it would do what? end all discussion?
want to discuss the topic.....discuss it, by posting you just added another unrelated post.
sorry, for taking it off topic, im done
P.S. Title IX is evil8)
how about erasing all that crap you were spewing to start? no one in this thread cares about how football relates to abortion.
Originally posted by Fangorn
Partial birth abortion was thinly veiled infanticide and the excuses to defend are little more than was used when Romans left babies outside the city walls to die.
What if a pregnant woman has a late-term baby with severe hydrocephalus, the doctors have determined that the baby can't live (e.g., there is no brain), and the woman can't have a c-section (e.g., allergic to all available anesthetics)? Any other procedure might leave the woman unable to ever have children again. Those might be a rare set of circumstances, but if it's even possible, this law should be thrown out.
Remember, the debate here is over whether there should be an exclusion for "extreme health consequences such as permanent disability." That's what Clinton said he would sign, and that's what the amendments that were voted down have said.
Santorum and the other politicians who have pushed this say that there are no situations in which this procedure would be necessary to protect the health of the mother. If that's true, then what would be the harm in passing such an amendment?
IMO, this was all politics. They could have had a law 7 years ago that Clinton would have signed, they knew they couldn't override a veto, and they knew that a law with a health exemption would at least have stopped some of what they wanted to stop.
Furthermore, this law will almost certainly be struck down by the Supreme Court, whereas the ones Clinton would have signed would not have been. So why wouldn't they pass it? Pure politics. They don't give a damn about this particular procedure, they just see it as a fundraising opportunity for their political campaigns.
Uh, rant over.
Originally posted by _ alliance _
how about erasing all that crap you were spewing to start? no one in this thread cares about how football relates to abortion.
how about....no?
Originally posted by applenut
how about....no?
can we impeach you?
Originally posted by Akumulator
Applenut, I think you owe it to yourself (as a mod) to close this thread for hijacking it with football discussion. Or.....get back to the topic?
I can´t remember seeing anything that states that it is against any rule to let a thread derail. Threads that go another way than they start is one of the charms here...
Originally posted by Anders
I can´t remember seeing anything that states that it is against any rule to let a thread derail. Threads that go another way than they start is one of the charms here...
Mild derailing are charming.
However those who complain that Applenut derailed this thread, just continue to do so.
And my self too
Originally posted by _ alliance _
can we impeach you?
and how many posts have YOU taken this thread off topic for?
good job.....and keep it up.
Originally posted by Eugene
Even worse, how can we on the exterior know for sure whether a fetus is self-aware? Does the lack of outward cognitive response tell us something *is not* self-aware?
As for child-adoption...it's really too bad the system in place sucks a fatty.
About self-awareness :
I'm sure if more money towards research in this area a test could be developed ( maybe just by measuring brain activity ). If it's this important an issue it's worth it to know.
Originally posted by applenut
and how many posts have YOU taken this thread off topic for?
good job.....and keep it up.
wow, you're a dumbass. i was contributing to this thread until you came in spouting your crap about Berkeley football and the rest of you're sporting programs. if you're gonna talk about football, do it in the other thread, and talk about a decent program.
Once the votes are tallied, the decision is final. The person voted out will be asked to leave the tribal council area immediately.
First vote: _ alliance _
</MarkBurnett>
Originally posted by Eugene
<MarkBurnett>
Once the votes are tallied, the decision is final. The person voted out will be asked to leave the tribal council area immediately.
First vote: _ alliance _
</MarkBurnett>
screw you.
Originally posted by _ alliance _
screw you.
Originally posted by Eugene
you like that kind of thing? kinky...