Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    39362
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Well, I think we need to differentiate between ineffectual, like UIL may be and NCAA often was, and legally enjoined from enforcing amateurism based rules as the NCAA currently is. As CTJ notes, college athletics has always been corrupt to one degree or another. Now what was once considered corrupt is above-board and out in the open. Removing the taint of "illegality" reduces the stench, but I'm not sure it eliminates it. As he also notes, it is the illusion of amateurism that in large part drives the revenue of college sports. Amateurism is now pretty much legally dead and the illusion is fracturing. It will be interesting to see where it ends up.
  2. Well, that first thing she's pissed about is actually illegal, and probably rightfully so. The rest of it is not illegal, so is probably irrelevant. I don't recall a case where sexual activity was clearly consensual, but a certain act was not. Maybe the more common "making out" but not fucking cases are analogous. But if consent means anything at all, this was a non-consensual assault. Is it somewhat less culpable than a no-consent at all rape? I don't know.
  3. Was it here that @G650 posted the article about free speech? It said something that took me aback for a minute, but I think is accurate. And that was that the First Amendment, a lot like the Second Amendment, was kind of a dead letter until approximately the 20th century, when "liberals" began to use it to protect "minority viewpoints" and civil liberties in constitutional litigation. I have observed that "conservatives" have turned that constitutional litigation tactic on its ear, so to speak, including with the "activist judges" trope. Now they employ their own activist judges to curtail the freedoms sought by "liberals" in favor of other freedoms, usually those associated with the historical majority, e.g. white "Christian" heterosexual males. I can't say that "liberals" were wrong to employ that tactic, or that the courts were wrong to "indulge" it. But God Almighty has it had some unintended consequences. We have so maximized freedom that various freedoms are now in direct conflict with each other. And, as is the nature of court cases, many of the underlying disputes are extreme or fringey that they make good political fodder for the "too liberal." For example, all the "trans talk" that dominated the 2024 election stemmed from a court case. https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/trans-gender-affirming-care-prison-inmates-landmark-case-trump-eo-halt/ Anyway, this is something decades in the making that gets identified, rightly or wrongly, with the Democratic Party and is something that must be dealt with somehow. I don't know what is the solution, or if there even is one. Just scattershooting/Sherrod.
  4. To my point, the ultimate backstop on this is court rulings that decide what is and is not discrimination, or unlawful discrimination. That won't immediately protect people from adverse actions by or at the behest of the government, but it might give them a remedy. And that might mean that all this fictitious discrimination shit becomes performative, only, to the extent it is not already.
  5. Ok. I'm just interested in teasing out criticism of amateurism. I think, by itself, it is a worthwhile thing. Perhaps not legally an adequate justification for complete denial of revenue sharing, but probably should have been regarded as adequate to support some regulation of financial incentives in college sports. The big tell here is that only a relative handful of college athletics programs actually generate significant revenue: the "big-time" programs by size or reputation or wealthy boosters. That belies the notion that the "labor" is what provides the value. They do provide value, but not to the extent the court decisions seemed to credit it with. If you reduce this to absurdity, organizations like UIL will be disbanded or de-fanged like the NCAA because high schools and the sports infrastructure generates revenue for certain high schools.
  6. Well, Maalik, among many others, seemingly has sought to "maximize his value" by trying to find the highest bidder in a pretty mercenary fashion. He hasn't seemed to be an uber-douchebag about it like Immaleavin. I try to hate the game and not the playa, but sometimes it's hard.
  7. Well wait a minute. If "amateurism" was an idiotic pursuit, then college athletics should have been a thunderdome arms race, with attendant corruption, from jump. Or is there some other justification for withholding revenue sharing from the "labor" that I'm missing. And I presume that it is the thunderdome arms race that you object to when you say it's headed for pro boxing.
  8. Just an observation. Most mental health pros consider therapy for any condition, other than substance abuse, for an active substance abuser to be mostly a waste of time. Variants of mindfulness are present in AA and other therapies for substance abuse, not usually per se, though. "One day at a time" is a mindfulness principle.
  9. Ran out of time to edit. Or, maybe he didn't have NDAs at the ready, or advice from Alabama, or agents, but he was taking his cues from a certain person sometimes referred to as the leader of the free world.
  10. Well, if one is going to hook up with cleat-chasers, I can certainly see agents advising NDAs for anything other than the most normal of relationships. Not defending Alabama, or Bond, or anyone else. First advice should be "stay away from hoes." Next advice is "if you mess with hoes, get NDAs." Note that by using "hoe," I am not saying this chick asked for it. Or that that in any way absolves Bond for trying to stick it in her ass without consent. Also, note that NDAs usually have a nefarious purpose, but if you make the reasonable assumption that cleat-chasers are looking for an advantage from or over the athletes they chase, an NDA, along with birth control, is one way to blunt that advantage.
  11. Fuck you man. That's not what that post said at all. Trump either blindly stumbles or is advised to find interstices in the law.
  12. They're going to try to pretend that they didn't 100% arrange for this guy to be shipped to CECOT, like Bukele made an extradition request or some shit. I'm sure they very intentionally selected some guy at State that knows jackshit about this whole thing, so as far as he knows, he made a diplomatic inquiry to the government of ES about an ES citizen. So, this Kozak fella is actually a long-time State civil servant, going back 20 plus years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kozak
  13. I disliked most if not all of his characters. So that probably means he was a damn good actor. RIP.
  14. Different CEO signed the letter and retired.
  15. Generally probably not. And, I don't think this is "with" the government. It's government-approved stuff. I'm sure the firms figure they can game or slightly adjust existing pro Bono efforts to satisfy the Administration. I'm not so sure about that.I suspect the administration is going to insist on some homophobes that don't want to bake cakes for teh gheys and shit like that. But this whole thing is geared to chill biglaw from suing the government, lest they get on some shitlist. I did read some apologia from capitulating firm chairmen. They apparently had clients threatening to flee because they didn't feel like the firm could represent their interests before the Trump administration. I suppose that's potentially valid, but I doubt that capitulation much improves the attitude of the administration if the firm comes up against the government or agency. And also that other firms were exacerbating this fear among potential clients in an effort to steal them. Still, the refusal to fight something so clearly morally and legally wrong and unconstitutional should reflect very poorly on the firms.
  16. Can we put the influencers in there with them?
  17. Good question. Is it exercising sovereignty over its own citizens? Is it acting as a contractor to the US Government for incarceration services? That they are being paid tends to indicate the latter rather than the former. And the former has no application with respect to non-ES citizens.
  18. Unlike the Venezuelans, there is a level of difficulty here that he has been returned to his home country. The Venezuelans may have a better case here. Nevertheless, the "you put him there, you get him back" makes an awful lot of sense. in the first instance, this is an exercise of executive power over immigration that is not an inherent power, only delegated by Congress. It is not an initio either a foreign affairs or national security matter. That is something arbitrarily engrafted onto it by Trump. And even then, he acts pursuant to an act of Congress, the Alien Enemies Act. At some point, though, the agreement or treaty with ES to take unlawful immigrants comes into play, and some of that may be covered by executive privilege. In a criminal prosecution of a citizen, that privilege would yield to the rights of the accused (US v. Nixon). Here, in a civil or quasi-criminal proceeding against a non-citizen, I'm not so sure. One would have to think that the agreement itself would have to come into evidence, if not the negotiations that led to it. And one might think that such an agreement might constitute a treaty, invalid without the advice and consent of the Senate. It's a messy thing.
  19. Seems rather miraculous that this isn't far more common. It's getting harder to believe that college football involves any sort of personal loyalty or school pride, if it ever did.
  20. Well, I can certainly buy that we need to do something other than incarcerate people in Thunderdomes for excessive terms. Also, the article notes that the BJS statistics quoted include both arrest (without conviction) and probation/parole violations as recidivism. Given the environment into which most long-term sentenced are released and their no-doubt marvelously developed social skills, it's a wonder the numbers are as low as they are.
  21. Checking the dates, the original Easton aluminum bat came out in 1978. The Black Magics were newfangled at the time, but we had em, both in school bat bags and as personal bats. So, I guess they were getting pretty long in the tooth by the mid 80s, which was our time, certainly my time. And yeah, the couple two or three that broke did so right above the handle. I would later learn as an engineer that aluminum is highly subject to fatgue and cracking, especially if a tiny defect or a stress riser--like where diameter starts to change rather abruptly.
  22. I used to call him The Donald. It was a term of contempt derived from Ivana's pidgin references to him.
×
×
  • Create New...