Last night, Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski conceded something that had been obvious for a week: She won't be her party's nominee this fall. She lost her primary for being insufficiently anti-abortion. (Here's what that means for a Republican in Alaska: She and her opponent both endorsed a parental notification ballot measure, but he endorsed it harder.) Because there's no more important issue, and nothing worse, than teenagers having sex.
Also this week, Alaska's most famous birth control eschewer, Bristol Palin, told People magazine how excited she was to be joining Dancing with the Stars.
"I see this as something that's fun and that's positive and I'm going to be able to show my work ethic to people out there."
Bristol's mother, Aimee Semple McFacebook, had thrown her support behind Murkowski's opponent, and cited his position on abortion- - really, really against it -- as the reason.
So, here's Alaska's position as of today: Unwed, pregnant teenagers getting abortions? Bad. Unwed pregnant teenagers doing the Cha-cha-cha? Good.
Got it.
The Republicans do have a jobs plan. And it's all babysitters.
But here's the part where I get confused. The pressure group behind Alaska's new parental notification law said it was a good idea because
34 states have laws that require parental consent or notice before abortion, and these laws have led to fewer abortions, lower rates of teen pregnancy and more responsible behavior among teenagers.
(This is a crazy lie, of course. While there are notification laws in 34 states, there's a study from exactly one that ever even tried to connect them to an increase in "responsible behavior rates." Whatever the fuck that that could possibly mean.)
Let's say this nonsense statement of tricked-out casuistry and wishful thinking could possibly be true. And let's say Alaska's voters had a compelling interest in making sure that other people's children either acted right or carried their unwanted grandchildren to term, under penalty of law. Let's say that was true too.
Rather than discourage teenage sex with a law against abortion, why not discourage it with a law against Dancing with the Stars?
Isn't the Palin family sort of profiting from Bristol's irresponsibility? Wouldn't it send a clearer message to teens if she wasn't on TV?
Listen, obviously I don't think that's going to happen. There's money involved, and Sarah and Todd Palin would kill anyone, including each other, for a free meal at Outback. And obviously, the new Alaska parental notification law doesn't have anything to do with discouraging anything; it was just a sweetener to get Jesus freaks to the polls.
(It's not just unconstitutional; it's actually demented. You know which teenage girls don't need a note from their parents to get an abortion? The married ones. Because then, clearly, their parents don't own them anymore; their husbands do. I swear I'm not making that up.)
This was never really about "life." Sarah Palin had a hard-on for Lisa Murkowski over some personal slight so ancient and trivial it makes Achilles' snit fit about Briseis look like good government. And the way Sarah Palin fixes you, in a close election in Alaska, is by saying you're soft on abortion. She said the mayor of Wasilla was pro-life and beat him with 616 votes. Not a margin of 616 votes. 616 votes was what she got, total.
To be an anti-abortion mayor.
Why shouldn't she use the same trick to take down Lisa Murkowski? Couldn't happen to a nicer person. I can't even pretend to feel sorry for Lisa Murkowski.
But I do feel sorry for all the other women in Alaska.
I don't think I'll be watching Bristol Palin on Dancing with the Stars. As a dad, it kind of gets me down. Even though she won't, in People's words, be "stepping into any of the show's skimpy costumes."
"I think I will be the most dressed [contestant and have] the most modest outfits for sure because that's who I am," she told PEOPLE Monday night in Los Angeles at the announcement of the show's new cast.
How did Yeats put it in To a Child Dancing in the Wind? (Oh, look, I have it right here.)
O you will take whatever's offered.
Despite raking in billions of dollars in television, ticket, and licensing revenues, all but 14 of the 106 schools in the NCAA’s top athletic division (FBS, formerly IA) lost money in 2009. The median loss was over $10 million.
Jon Soloman of the Birmingham News summarizes the results:
new NCAA report that shows fewer schools are making a profit on college sports during a down economy and increased spending. The result: Athletics departments rely more than ever on institutional subsidies.
The NCAA reports only 14 athletics departments from the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) made more money than they spent in 2008-09, down from 25 in each of the previous two years. The average institutional subsidy for athletics in the FBS rose from $8 million in 2007-08 to $10.2 million in 2008-09, the most currently available year of data.
The NCAA study shows that the growth of average revenue generated directly by FBS athletics departments slowed to nearly 6 percent from 2008 to 2009, down from 17 percent growth from 2007 to 2008. Meanwhile, the growth of total athletics expenses ballooned to 11 percent from 2008 to 2009, nearly double from the previous year.
The gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” continues to grow considerably. The highest athletic revenue produced by one school was $138.5 million, yet the average FBS school produced $32.3 million. Similarly, the most money spent by one school was $127.7 million, compared to the average of $45.9 million.
The state of Alabama has at least four FBS programs: Alabama, Auburn, UAB, and Troy. South Alabama is trying to join them. Only Alabama is making money.
Given the ridiculous amounts of money football and basketball generate, how are these people managing to lose money? Basically, they’re spending it faster than they can bring it in:
Another view:
How are they spending so much? The chart on page 21 of the report, too large and detailed to usefully reproduce here, gives some insights. 34.2% is going to salaries, 17.9% to coaches and 15.6% administrators. Scholarships are 16.1%. Game expenses account for another 20.5%. Facilities management, 15.0%.
In terms of revenues, a whopping 45.8% is generated by football and 13.3% from men’s and women’s basketball, combined. Men’s sports generate a median $22.56 million; women’s sports, $836,000.
The numbers are staggering.
eric seiger
Bad press for Saudi growth denounced - Arab <b>News</b>
By MUHAMMAD HUMAIDAN | ARAB NEWS. Published: Sep 11, 2010 23:52 Updated: Sep 11, 2010 23:52. JEDDAH: Makkah Gov. Prince Khaled Al-Faisal has strongly criticized what he called the “negative coverage” by the world media of the progress ...
Small Business <b>News</b>: The Twitter Revolution
Think Twitter is only a fad and not very important in the operation of your small business? PLEASE reconsider. The world's most popular microblogging platform.
Katie Price's photographer son – Entertainment <b>News</b> Bloginity.com
Katie Price's son is obsessed with camera phones. The former glamour model says her eldest son, eight-year-old Harvey - who is partially blind and has learning difficulties - loves taking pictures and throws tantrums if people don't ...
No comments:
Post a Comment