This is a board for all bush fans who feel set upon by others. A poster felt that if he wrote about what he believed bush had done right, he and his views would be maligned. I would like to ask that  this board be
available for say...24 hours for comments on what this administration has done that has turned out well.  Only facts, and the words "Clinton", "Kerry", "Gore", "liberals" and all that other diversions and speculations be excluded from the post.  Just what policies this administration has done right, and why.

1. Life was pure Hell of Iraqies, regardless of Bush's intentions, he will be credited eventually for taking that Hell away from them. 

2. Bush was the first president to seriously take a look at the original intention of Title IX and the ways inwhich it has gone against it's original intention in the past 35 years. He as of late hasn't followed  through with his intentions to rewrite Title IX so it now will do what it has intended to do, and not be about proportionality alone.  I'm not happy about that, but he is the first President  to acknowledge that he gives a crap about, 60 dropped men's gymnastics teams(DIVISION I ALONE), 120 dropped men's swimming teams(DI-DII-DIII), 395 dropped men's wrestling teams(DI-DII-DIII-NAIA-NJCAA), countless dropped men's swimming teams, among dropped men's golf teams and dropped men's baseball teams.  For every 25 men's dropped teams, only one women's team gets added.  I could go on and on and on about this, but Title IX's original intention is an awesome thing, that I support full heartedly, but the ways inwhich Title IX has been operating throughout the past 35 years is injust and plain wrong.  Bush at LEAST knows this, and doesn't pretend like there isn't a problem.

3. Bush is telling people to quit relying on social security. I, like the liberals, see this as something that is't right or fair, but let me take a liberal standpoint against the liberals and justify what Bush is doing here.  Right and fair, have nothing to do with the way the world is or is going to work.  So in the long run Bush is convincing people to start investing there money in retirement funds, saving accounts and other places of safe storage.  Even now, social security doesn't hardly pay for jack squat, Bush is eliminating us relying upon a failing system and causing us to take initiative into taking care of ourselves.  Let me take another liberal jab and say, I'd like it if it didn't have to be this way, but name me on joe or jane that is living completely comfortably without financial hardship that is relying upon social security alone.

Before anyone comments I would like to reiterate that this topic was entered so that those who
support bushs administration could have 24 hours to  make their case unmolested, and the bush
supporters hold to the guidelines.

Um um um um....gimme another minute. And then another.  And then...
;)

Personally, I do not care much about Bush, one way or the other.

However, I do not like to see anybody "bashed".  If you do not like somebody because of their party/affiliation/politics, that is gine, and within your right.  But to then make them the scapegoat for everything in the world is not fair, accurate, nor is it healthy.

I both agreed, and disagreed with a lot of things President Clinton did/believed.  However, I did not blame him for everything that I saw as bad in the world.  He was from another party, fine.  I can live with that (and I expect to live with it).  I supported him in Yugoslavia and Somalia, and felt frustration with Republicans that attacked him for it.

To me, the world is a complex place, full of a great many differing dynamics.  Whenever somebody tries to over-simplify something and make somebody a scapegoat, I get frustrated.

President Bush is not a great President.  He is also not a bad President.  For the most part, he is Average.  If not for 9/11, he would probably have gone down in history, and ultimately be as remembered as Benjamin Harrison.

However, he was President when both the worst terrorist attack, and the worst natrual disaster occured in the US.  Neither of them was his fault, and he has done the best job he can in coping with them.  But nobody is perfect, and I do feel he has done the best job that anybody can expect of anybody.

I do not let politics affect how I view the world.  And in the end run, the President really has very little influence in the course of the world.  But he is a figurehead that people rally behind (or rally against).

Im not a fan of Bush, but I will admit that he handled the imediate post-9-11 well.

I also dont have much problems with him before the Iraq war started

Um, let's see, that little dog seems to like him pretty good!
:)

However, he was President when both the worst terrorist attack, and the worst natrual disaster occured in the US.  Neither of them was his fault, and he has done the best job he can in coping with them.  But nobody is perfect, and I do feel he has done the best job that anybody can expect of anybody.



When I entered this topic I asked for just a couple of concessions on both sides. This is how your last post should have read to keep within the spirit of that.

Im not a fan of Bush, but I will admit that he handled the imediate post-9-11 well.

I also dont have much problems with him before the Iraq war started



I agree with you on that Billy.  I mean, he is by all means, NOT my favorite person in the world...but I don't hate him either.  Yes, he's done a lot of stupid things...but during the time of 9-11...I felt the same way.


Erin :)

When I entered this topic I asked for just a couple of concessions on both sides. This is how your last post should have read to keep within the spirit of that.


Yes Madam censor.

Yes Madam censor.


To censor is to delete, I didn't delete the post, it is there for anyone. with minimal effort, to read.  I did show an edited version, Cliff Notes as it were.  It would help if there was a bit more editing and a lot less wind.

I waited 24 hours. Now I am going to comment.



1. Life was pure Hell of Iraqies, regardless of Bush's intentions, he will be credited eventually for taking that Hell away from them. 

2. Bush was the first president to seriously take a look at the original intention of Title IX and the ways inwhich it has gone against it's original intention in the past 35 years. He as of late hasn't followed  through with his intentions to rewrite Title IX so it now will do what it has intended to do, and not be about proportionality alone.  I'm not happy about that, but he is the first President  to acknowledge that he gives a crap about, 60 dropped men's gymnastics teams(DIVISION I ALONE), 120 dropped men's swimming teams(DI-DII-DIII), 395 dropped men's wrestling teams(DI-DII-DIII-NAIA-NJCAA), countless dropped men's swimming teams, among dropped men's golf teams and dropped men's baseball teams.  For every 25 men's dropped teams, only one women's team gets added.  I could go on and on and on about this, but Title IX's original intention is an awesome thing, that I support full heartedly, but the ways inwhich Title IX has been operating throughout the past 35 years is injust and plain wrong.  Bush at LEAST knows this, and doesn't pretend like there isn't a problem.

3. Bush is telling people to quit relying on social security. I, like the liberals, see this as something that is't right or fair, but let me take a liberal standpoint against the liberals and justify what Bush is doing here.  Right and fair, have nothing to do with the way the world is or is going to work.  So in the long run Bush is convincing people to start investing there money in retirement funds, saving accounts and other places of safe storage.  Even now, social security doesn't hardly pay for jack squat, Bush is eliminating us relying upon a failing system and causing us to take initiative into taking care of ourselves.  Let me take another liberal jab and say, I'd like it if it didn't have to be this way, but name me on joe or jane that is living completely comfortably without financial hardship that is relying upon social security alone.







I am very glad that you answered this question because this was the same question I had asked you in another thread that you didn't answer. So, I appriecate you answering here. I must admit that I am not familar with Title IX so I will not comment on that one way or the other. I disagree with you on your other two points but I respect your opinion.




Cat

2. Bush was the first president to seriously take a look at the original intention of Title IX and the ways inwhich it has gone against it's original intention in the past 35 years. He as of late hasn't followed  through with his intentions to rewrite Title IX so it now will do what it has intended to do, and not be about proportionality alone.  I'm not happy about that, but he is the first President  to acknowledge that he gives a crap about, 60 dropped men's gymnastics teams(DIVISION I ALONE), 120 dropped men's swimming teams(DI-DII-DIII), 395 dropped men's wrestling teams(DI-DII-DIII-NAIA-NJCAA), countless dropped men's swimming teams, among dropped men's golf teams and dropped men's baseball teams.  For every 25 men's dropped teams, only one women's team gets added.  I could go on and on and on about this, but Title IX's original intention is an awesome thing, that I support full heartedly, but the ways inwhich Title IX has been operating throughout the past 35 years is injust and plain wrong.  Bush at LEAST knows this, and doesn't pretend like there isn't a problem.

3. Bush is telling people to quit relying on social security. I, like the liberals, see this as something that is't right or fair, but let me take a liberal standpoint against the liberals and justify what Bush is doing here.  Right and fair, have nothing to do with the way the world is or is going to work.  So in the long run Bush is convincing people to start investing there money in retirement funds, saving accounts and other places of safe storage.  Even now, social security doesn't hardly pay for jack squat, Bush is eliminating us relying upon a failing system and causing us to take initiative into taking care of ourselves.  Let me take another liberal jab and say, I'd like it if it didn't have to be this way, but name me on joe or jane that is living completely comfortably without financial hardship that is relying upon social security alone.






The goal of Title IX is to create funding equity between men's and women's sports in public schools. Men's sports, especially football are much more expensive than women's sports, so many schools, in order to keep their football teams and comply were forced to drop other sports that are less popular and make less $$$ (at the college level).  My point is that the macro ststs quoted don't tell the whole story by a long shot.

While it is true that it is very difficult to live on Soc Sec, and it would be nice if everyone could save for retirement, tell that to the typical 60 year old hiugh school grad with a blue collar job.  as to the way the world works, right now it works so that Soc Sec provides a basic floor that protects people from dire poverty.  Its supposed problems could easilly be fixed by removing the cap on the SS tax.  "Fixing" it by depriving it of $$$ is not a solution but a destruction, which is what is intended.

On these issues you need to study up on the facts.

As to Iraq, it all depends on your view of the role of the US in world affairs.  Are we to  be the arbitor of other nations' fates, the world policeman?  If yes, than Bush's war was/is justified.  If no, then it is not.

However, he was President when both the worst terrorist attack, and the worst natrual disaster occured in the US.  Neither of them was his fault, and he has done the best job he can in coping with them.  But nobody is perfect, and I do feel he has done the best job that anybody can expect of anybody.

I do not let politics affect how I view the world.  And in the end run, the President really has very little influence in the course of the world.  But he is a figurehead that people rally behind (or rally against).


Bush was responsible for neither 9/11 nor Katrina but in the former case he was responsible for acting on intelligance that was available to him, and for making sure that the intelligance community was on the stick.  He was also reponsible for maintaining FEMA's readiness.  In both cases he was warned of approaching danger and in both cases he fell down on the job. 

Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said "The Buck Stops Here"  for Bush it reads "Look Elsewhere".  The president is the most powerful man in the world, and HAS the ability to get things done if he is on top of them.  Bush makes sure he isn't.  He doesn't read the newspapers, he hires cronies like"Brownie" to fill sensitive positions, his aids are, reportedly, affraid to give him bad news.  He is, apparently, lazy, insulated, and unaware.

The goal of Title IX is to create funding equity between men's and women's sports in public schools. Men's sports, especially football are much more expensive than women's sports, so many schools, in order to keep their football teams and comply were forced to drop other sports that are less popular and make less $$$ (at the college level).  My point is that the macro ststs quoted don't tell the whole story by a long shot.

While it is true that it is very difficult to live on Soc Sec, and it would be nice if everyone could save for retirement, tell that to the typical 60 year old hiugh school grad with a blue collar job.  as to the way the world works, right now it works so that Soc Sec provides a basic floor that protects people from dire poverty.  Its supposed problems could easilly be fixed by removing the cap on the SS tax.  "Fixing" it by depriving it of $$$ is not a solution but a destruction, which is what is intended.

On these issues you need to study up on the facts.

As to Iraq, it all depends on your view of the role of the US in world affairs.  Are we to  be the arbitor of other nations' fates, the world policeman?  If yes, than Bush's war was/is justified.  If no, then it is not.



Study up on the facts?  Don Carlos, you don't have a clue. 

“No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aide.”    Word for word, what Title IX says.  35 years ago, things in colleges weren't fair to women. Today, they aren't fair to men.  Especially on the playing field.

Now don't get me Wrong Don Carlos, for the original intent, I'm for Title IX 100%.  Since it’s creation in 1972  it has brought about many wonderful changes. At one time the University  Oregon would not allow girls to run cross country. Thanks to Title IX, they are now allowed to do so. Back in the 1950’s up until 1972 only 294,015 girls played sports in high school compared to 3.7 million boys. Nancy Hogshead-Maker, A winner of 4 Olympic medals at the 1984 games. She said, “I would not have become a world class swimmer without opportunity as an eleven year old to be in a swimming program in my community. I would of not of earned a full scholarship without the school offering me one.”  Don Carlos, take my word for it, stories like these are very heart warming, I love them.

Since Title IX’s creation 392 men’s wrestling teams and 87 Men's gymnastic's teams have been dropped because of Title IX.  I suppose you don't believe me, and that's only my opinion.

You can find the rest of my "opinion" at http://www.thewrestlingmall.com/specialinterests/simplycommonsense/dropped.asp

Don't try and make me out to be an idiot about Title IX. I guarantee you this is the one issue I know more about than you. I've been studying it left and right deeply since I got a flyer at a wrestling camp about it back in 7th grade, I'm a sophomore in college now. This isn't something I look at once in a while, it's something I look at weekly.  Liberal supporters want to place all blame on Football and Basketball. They have there points, good points.  Point to Notre Dame University who after the 1992 wrestling season dropped the program, after threats from Title IX.  Money was not an issue at Notre Dame, but the athletic director who was a huge football supporter, eliminated wrestling.  Therefore coming to equality in proportionality.  Seeing that Money was not an issue at Notre Dame it could have been just as easy for the AD to add a women's sports team, but rather than do that he decided to elminate wrestling instead, so the $$ that once went to wrestling, would now go to football.  You have the same story for the most part at UCLA, only change wrestling to men's swimming, and football to the men's basketball program, and you once again can stand by your liberal views on Title IX.

That's one reason, one of many, not one of one.  Proportionality is the majority of stories when it comes to Title IX.  Now I'm sure that you know what porportionality is, but I know a there has to be a few others who are going to take a look at this message and not know for sure what I'm talking about.  I'll explain.  For example say that 50 percent of the full-time students on a college campus are females, then 50 percent of the student-athletes must be women. So if their are 40 available  roster spots each for softball and baseball, but only 20 girls try out for the softball team and 40 boys try out for the baseball team, then the school would be forced to eliminate 20 male baseball players in order to maintain gender equality.

Title IX is thence killing the male walk on athlete.  For those who aren't sure what a walk on athlete is.  Walk on athlete = Non recruited individual who is getting NO scholarship money, who walks into practice because he/she wants to be a part of the team out of the love of the sport.    These kids deserve as much right to play as those who had the natural talent in high school to be recruited and awarded scholarship money.  I can name a lot of football, basketball, baseball, track, golf, and soccer successful walk on athletes, including a high list of All Americans.  If you want me to name wrestler walk on All Americans, be prepared to see a crap load of names.  At the DI, DII and NAIA levels where scholarhips are offered it's very difficult to find women walk on athletes. The fact of the matter is that in order to get women to go out for sports in college you have to provide them with scholarships.  Women don't have the love for sports that men do, and that isn't easy for me to say having a good friend who made All American Status in Track and field without a scholarship.  Eight out of ten intramural athlete’s are men.  It's a sad fact, but women and men view sports differently. 

From 1992 to 1997 20,000 men’s roster sports wee cut compared to only 5,800 women’s sports added.  That's 71% of men's sports teams being dropped for No reason. 71% of young men's life's falling apart and dreams being broken for no reason.  I'm looking forward to how you justify this and tell me that it is fair and right.


“I think I’m trying to enforce Title IX, because it says don’t discriminate on the basis of sex. Well, when your telling males to clean out their lockers because they are males... boy, if that’s not discrimination on the basis of sex, I don’t know what is.”  University of Chicago Head Wrestling Coach Lee Kocher.


If you care to elaborate how much more I don't know about Title IX, feel free.  I'll be more than happy to show you all of which I don't know.

Study up on the facts?  Don Carlos, you don't have a clue. 



This is a quote from you that prompted this thread. 

"You for one might.  But let me rest assure you that with what I write down, either I'll be told why I'm wrong, and how what I think is good is actually bad OR you won't have any idea what I'm talking about altogether."

This is a quote from you that prompted this thread. 

"You for one might.  But let me rest assure you that with what I write down, either I'll be told why I'm wrong, and how what I think is good is actually bad OR you won't have any idea what I'm talking about altogether."


Well, I was write wasn't I.  Do you honestly think that Don Carlos wasnt' going to tell me that I was wrong, even if I hadn't of said that?

Harmonica. I'm asking this question, becuase I am from another country, and don't have a lot of knowledge when it comes to title IX.

But Carlos brought up a pretty good point. Are a majority of the schools that are dropping men's programs big "Football" schools? Because from i've been able to gather, these schools make more money off of college football than they do say wrestling, water polo, or even mens gymnastics.

The way i've seen it, it's the universities that are to blame in all of this, not title IX. But like I said, that's just what i've been led to understand.

Bush was responsible for neither 9/11 nor Katrina but in the former case he was responsible for acting on intelligance that was available to him, and for making sure that the intelligance community was on the stick. 


Yes, and Bill Clinton had the same intelligence, and did not do anything meaningfull with it.

There was intelligence that pointed to the attack on the USS Cole ahead of time, it was not reacted on fast enough.

FDR also had intelligence on the impending attack on Pearl Harbor, and nothing was done with it.  In fact, decisions were made that made the attack even worse.

One thing you have to understand is the sheer volume of intelligence that comes in.  I used to work with our Battalion S-2 (Intelligence) section.  Even for an Infantry Battalion, there is a lot to digest and sort through.  And 90% of what is recieved is incorrect, outdated, or conflicting.  I had to learn about the "Alphabet Soup" of mid-eastern terrorist groups in the mid-1980's, and there were a ton of them.  Some were working together, some opposed each other, some were multiple names for the same organization (Abu Nidal was a master of that).  This all helped to make the intelligence cloudy, and hard to decipher.

And there is an old saying:  The best used intelligence is that in which you never know it was used.  ENIGMA and MAGIC are great examples.  We had the codes for both Germany and Japan suring WWII, but a lot of it could not be used.  If we had used some of it (or used it to often), it would become known that their codes had been broken.  They would simply change the codes, and we would be in the same spot we were in before.

And in addition, we had broken the Japanese Diplomatic Codes.  In fact, out intelligence community knew of the attack on Pearl Harbor before the Japanese Ambasidor did!  But they could not use that information, because it would tip the hand.

Intelligence is a shell game.  And very rarely is the intelligence so complete, that it can be used to totally stop something.

And in the case of 9/11, what could they have done?  Until the moment came to take over the planes, there had been no crimes comitted.  At most, they could have picked up a handfull of them for Immigration violations.  This was a very closed cell, with very little outside communication.  Even if they got a tip saying "19 hijackers are going to take over these 4 flights on this date", there is not much they could have done about it.

If they had arrested them, what proof was there?  People would be screaming at "Bush The Dictator", for arresting "19 innocent people without cause".  If the flights were cancelled, they just would have done it on another date.  They carried nothing illegal with them, they did not violate any laws until they actually took over the planes.  And by then, it was to late to do anything about it.

Harmonica. I'm asking this question, becuase I am from another country, and don't have a lot of knowledge when it comes to title IX.

But Carlos brought up a pretty good point. Are a majority of the schools that are dropping men's programs big "Football" schools? Because from i've been able to gather, these schools make more money off of college football than they do say wrestling, water polo, or even mens gymnastics.


In the US, Football and Basketball are the only sports that anybody seems to care about.

I myself look at it as more of the fans that the colleges themselves.  It is the fans that dictate the popularity of a school.  And unlike Baseball, good college players of Football and Basketball have a chance to go immediately to the "Big Leagues".  Baseball has a very different system of training and promoting players, and even the most tallented ones play2-5+ years in "Semi-pro" teams before they are promoted to the "Big Leagues".

Michael Jordon went to school initially on a Baseball scholarship.  When he graduated, he had to make a choice between Basketball and Baseball, and choose Basketball.  He tried to make a go at Baseball years later, but never made it past a 3rd rate franchise team. 

Harmonica. I'm asking this question, becuase I am from another country, and don't have a lot of knowledge when it comes to title IX.

But Carlos brought up a pretty good point. Are a majority of the schools that are dropping men's programs big "Football" schools? Because from i've been able to gather, these schools make more money off of college football than they do say wrestling, water polo, or even mens gymnastics.

The way i've seen it, it's the universities that are to blame in all of this, not title IX. But like I said, that's just what i've been led to understand.


Don Carlos brings up an excellent point, for some cases. For example as I pointed out with The University of Notre Dame.  As far as the majority of of the schools being big "Football" Schools, the answer to the question as far as the overall men's olympic sports teams dropped the answer is no.  Football and Men's basketball programs at any school take up the majority of the money.  The reasons are very obvious.  Football and men's basketball are the highest revenue sports, because of there extreme popularity.  No doubt in my mind when The University of Alabama dropped it's wrestling program in 1987, the AD had no problem coming to terms with Title IX and  axing the wrestling program so more money could be put into the football program.  I know fact for fact this happened at Notre dame.   However as far as the majority goes, the answer is no.  Especially when it comes to wrestling.  Go to this site http://www.thewrestlingmall.com/specialinterests/simplycommonsense/dropped.asp  and you'll see a lot of schools on the list who are not known for football or Men's basketball.

Unversities and the way the spend there money are a part of why men's programs are being axed left and right.  However, it is plain foolish to undermind the effect of Title IX.  Title IX and it's gender quota's with exceptional emphasis on proportionality are, no way around it, the #1 reason why teams are being dropped.

Title IX needs to realize that you can't use proportionality because women's interest in sports isn't anywhere near as large as men's.  It's not fair to elminate baseball for 45 players who love the game and want to play strongly because the softball coach simply can not round up enough girls who want to play softball for a team.

In this country there are girls,  on partial all the way up to full scholarship, for a varsity sport who never even heard of the sport until they enrolled in the University and were asked if they want to go out for the team.  University of Iowa for example have women on full ride scholarships to be a part of the Women's varsity rowing team, who never once participated in the event before being offered a scholarship.  

That's just one extreme men's olympic sport's at the college level supporters will go to to help save them.


P.S.  this really surprises me that you ask for my knowledge on something.  I'm used to "different" responses.

In the US, Football and Basketball are the only sports that anybody seems to care about.

I myself look at it as more of the fans that the colleges themselves.  It is the fans that dictate the popularity of a school.  And unlike Baseball, good college players of Football and Basketball have a chance to go immediately to the "Big Leagues".  Baseball has a very different system of training and promoting players, and even the most tallented ones play2-5+ years in "Semi-pro" teams before they are promoted to the "Big Leagues".

Michael Jordon went to school initially on a Baseball scholarship.  When he graduated, he had to make a choice between Basketball and Baseball, and choose Basketball.  He tried to make a go at Baseball years later, but never made it past a 3rd rate franchise team. 


Football and Basketball are the a$$kickers when it comes to fan base and high revenue intake no doubt about it.  Many reasons and theories behind this. 

I see this as television.  Football and basetball at the NCAA Division I level can be watched on TV pretty much at any given time during there seasons.  If it's on people are going to watch it.  Take Division I wrestling, baseball, lacrosse, and gymnastics.  Only the finals of the NCAA National championship tournament will you get to see them on regular television.  It's already being proved that the popularity for a sport goes up dramatically by 5% increases the more and more it's exposed on television.  The new CSTV(College sports Television) is proving that by the week with it's viewings of Water polo, women's volleyball, women's field hockey, men's wrestling, men's swimming, and men's gymastics.

I also see this as professional.  Football and Basketball are two sports that have a professional area. The NFL and the NBA.  The really funny thing here is that hockey and baseball have professional areas too,  the MLB and the NHL.  (Then I hope that no one thinks that wrestling has it's professional field with the WWE and NWA/TNA.  If anyone doesn't know that ther is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between Professional wrestling and amateur wrestling, please please IM me, I'll be more than happy to explain.) But let me tell you why I believe that baseball and hockey don't have the grip that basektball and football do.  First and foremost it's because of the arrogance of our country.  The United States of America is the football powerhouse.  No other country cares for as deeply and passionately about football as the United States. We want to be bigger and badder and better than everyone else and in football we are.  The same with Basketball, American's believe gaining team medals almost every olympics(not Gold last time..ha ha ha ha!) that we can kick everyone's but in Basketball.

This doesn't happen in other sports.  Japanese kick our butt in ping pong.  Chinese kill us in gymnastics.  The South Koreans make us look like our sharpshooters don't have an iota of how to shoot a rifle.  The Russians, Cubans, and Iranians hand losses to the best wrestlers we have to offer.  American's can't handle defeat.  Football and basketball, have little to no defeat.

These of course are just hypothesis based on what I see.

Football and Basketball are the a$$kickers when it comes to fan base and high revenue intake no doubt about it.  Many reasons and theories behind this. 

I see this as television. 


Actually, this started long before TV came about.  The Rose Bowl started in 1902, and was very popular.  The Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl started in 1935.  The Sun Bowl started in 1936.  The Cotton Bowl started in 1937.  The Gator Bowl, Tangerine Bowl (now the Capitol One Bowl),  and Hula Bowl started in 1946.  The "North Vs. South" Seniors Bowl started in 1950.

So before the advent of TV (or in some cases radio), bowl games already had a history in this country.  In areas where there is no major league sports teams (like Alabama and Idaho), all there is to watch is college games.  Out here, everybody is either an Auburn fan, or an Alabama fan (except for me, I still chear for Boise State University).

Study up on the facts?  Don Carlos, you don't have a clue. 

“No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aide.”    Word for word, what Title IX says.  35 years ago, things in colleges weren't fair to women. Today, they aren't fair to men.  Especially on the playing field.

Now don't get me Wrong Don Carlos, for the original intent, I'm for Title IX 100%.  Since it’s creation in 1972  it has brought about many wonderful changes. At one time the University  Oregon would not allow girls to run cross country. Thanks to Title IX, they are now allowed to do so. Back in the 1950’s up until 1972 only 294,015 girls played sports in high school compared to 3.7 million boys. Nancy Hogshead-Maker, A winner of 4 Olympic medals at the 1984 games. She said, “I would not have become a world class swimmer without opportunity as an eleven year old to be in a swimming program in my community. I would of not of earned a full scholarship without the school offering me one.”  Don Carlos, take my word for it, stories like these are very heart warming, I love them.

Since Title IX’s creation 392 men’s wrestling teams and 87 Men's gymnastic's teams have been dropped because of Title IX.  I suppose you don't believe me, and that's only my opinion.

You can find the rest of my "opinion" at http://www.thewrestlingmall.com/specialinterests/simplycommonsense/dropped.asp

Don't try and make me out to be an idiot about Title IX. I guarantee you this is the one issue I know more about than you. I've been studying it left and right deeply since I got a flyer at a wrestling camp about it back in 7th grade, I'm a sophomore in college now. This isn't something I look at once in a while, it's something I look at weekly.  Liberal supporters want to place all blame on Football and Basketball. They have there points, good points.  Point to Notre Dame University who after the 1992 wrestling season dropped the program, after threats from Title IX.  Money was not an issue at Notre Dame, but the athletic director who was a huge football supporter, eliminated wrestling.  Therefore coming to equality in proportionality.  Seeing that Money was not an issue at Notre Dame it could have been just as easy for the AD to add a women's sports team, but rather than do that he decided to elminate wrestling instead, so the $$ that once went to wrestling, would now go to football.  You have the same story for the most part at UCLA, only change wrestling to men's swimming, and football to the men's basketball program, and you once again can stand by your liberal views on Title IX.

That's one reason, one of many, not one of one.  Proportionality is the majority of stories when it comes to Title IX.  Now I'm sure that you know what porportionality is, but I know a there has to be a few others who are going to take a look at this message and not know for sure what I'm talking about.  I'll explain.  For example say that 50 percent of the full-time students on a college campus are females, then 50 percent of the student-athletes must be women. So if their are 40 available  roster spots each for softball and baseball, but only 20 girls try out for the softball team and 40 boys try out for the baseball team, then the school would be forced to eliminate 20 male baseball players in order to maintain gender equality.

Title IX is thence killing the male walk on athlete.  For those who aren't sure what a walk on athlete is.  Walk on athlete = Non recruited individual who is getting NO scholarship money, who walks into practice because he/she wants to be a part of the team out of the love of the sport.    These kids deserve as much right to play as those who had the natural talent in high school to be recruited and awarded scholarship money.  I can name a lot of football, basketball, baseball, track, golf, and soccer successful walk on athletes, including a high list of All Americans.  If you want me to name wrestler walk on All Americans, be prepared to see a crap load of names.  At the DI, DII and NAIA levels where scholarhips are offered it's very difficult to find women walk on athletes. The fact of the matter is that in order to get women to go out for sports in college you have to provide them with scholarships.  Women don't have the love for sports that men do, and that isn't easy for me to say having a good friend who made All American Status in Track and field without a scholarship.  Eight out of ten intramural athlete’s are men.  It's a sad fact, but women and men view sports differently. 

From 1992 to 1997 20,000 men’s roster sports wee cut compared to only 5,800 women’s sports added.  That's 71% of men's sports teams being dropped for No reason. 71% of young men's life's falling apart and dreams being broken for no reason.  I'm looking forward to how you justify this and tell me that it is fair and right.


“I think I’m trying to enforce Title IX, because it says don’t discriminate on the basis of sex. Well, when your telling males to clean out their lockers because they are males... boy, if that’s not discrimination on the basis of sex, I don’t know what is.”  University of Chicago Head Wrestling Coach Lee Kocher.


If you care to elaborate how much more I don't know about Title IX, feel free.  I'll be more than happy to show you all of which I don't know.




My dear H, I am quite willing to acknowlegde that you are more up on Title IX than I am, and I'm sorry if you took my comments as an affront.  That was not the intent.  Nor did I mean to suggest that you held sexist attitudes re women's sports.  My point was that overall, (gross) statistics can be misleading and that athletic directors make choices, as your Notre Dame example demonstrates.  At Castleton, (where I still teach part time) for every man's team we have a woman's team (no football) and the woman's teams often do better in our league than the men.  Nor do we at Castleton offer athletic scholarships - thank the Higher power - nor should any  school. 

What I'm suggesting is that you need to ask additional questions re how and why so many men's sports were dropped and so few woman's sports added.  The numbers are suggestive, but they are macro numbers which could very well conceal as much as they reveal.  I don't know your major, but if it in the Physical Education area you might take on a detailed analysis of thos macro numbers as a senior thesis.  After all, the devil is in the details, so there just might be a reason why so many mem's sports have been dropped and so few women's added that has to do with the intent of Title IX.

I'm not sure what you mean by Quoting coach Kocher, but it sounds like he is saying that male athletes shouldn't have to be responsible for their personal space - by implication is he saying "let tyhe cleaning lady do it"?

As I said above, I'm sure you know a good deal more than I do about title IX (although last year a student of mine wrote a term paper applauding its akcomplishments).  What I was saying is that there is much more than macro stats to be considered. 

note bene

Your response was filled with anger and indignation, as many of your responses are.  Is that really how you want to project yourself, especially as your avitar is one depiction of the "prince of peace"?  You need not assume that everyone who raises issues with you for debate and discussion is your enemy.

(1.) Yes, and Bill Clinton had the same intelligence, and did not do anything meaningfull with it.

(2)There was intelligence that pointed to the attack on the USS Cole ahead of time, it was not reacted on fast enough.

(3) FDR also had intelligence on the impending attack on Pearl Harbor, and nothing was done with it.  In fact, decisions were made that made the attack even worse.

(4) One thing you have to understand is the sheer volume of intelligence that comes in.  I used to work with our Battalion S-2 (Intelligence) section.  Even for an Infantry Battalion, there is a lot to digest and sort through.  And 90% of what is recieved is incorrect, outdated, or conflicting.  I had to learn about the "Alphabet Soup" of mid-eastern terrorist groups in the mid-1980's, and there were a ton of them.  Some were working together, some opposed each other, some were multiple names for the same organization (Abu Nidal was a master of that).  This all helped to make the intelligence cloudy, and hard to decipher.

And there is an old saying:  The best used intelligence is that in which you never know it was used.  ENIGMA and MAGIC are great examples.  We had the codes for both Germany and Japan suring WWII, but a lot of it could not be used.  If we had used some of it (or used it to often), it would become known that their codes had been broken.  They would simply change the codes, and we would be in the same spot we were in before.

And in addition, we had broken the Japanese Diplomatic Codes.  In fact, out intelligence community knew of the attack on Pearl Harbor before the Japanese Ambasidor did!  But they could not use that information, because it would tip the hand.

Intelligence is a shell game.  And very rarely is the intelligence so complete, that it can be used to totally stop something.

(5)And in the case of 9/11, what could they have done?  Until the moment came to take over the planes, there had been no crimes comitted.  At most, they could have picked up a handfull of them for Immigration violations.  This was a very closed cell, with very little outside communication.  Even if they got a tip saying "19 hijackers are going to take over these 4 flights on this date", there is not much they could have done about it.

If they had arrested them, what proof was there?  People would be screaming at "Bush The Dictator", for arresting "19 innocent people without cause".  If the flights were cancelled, they just would have done it on another date.  They carried nothing illegal with them, they did not violate any laws until they actually took over the planes.  And by then, it was to late to do anything about it.


I added the numbers.

(1 & 2) Yes, we can conculde that Clinton had whatever intelligance was available at the time, and could very well have missed a boat or 2 (or rather his advisors etc could have).  But 9/11 happened on Georgie's watch, HE was warned (according to Condie testifying to the 9/11 Commission) of an imminant threat involving commercial jets, and it still happened. As to the Cole, "fast enough"?  Obviously not, you can't win them all, buyt was it acted upon?  Jesus H Christ man, I'm no terrorist expert, but given such a warning I would have taken any number of steps (I know, I know, the president is powerless - you say that all the time).  And why do you conservatives always bring up Clinton?  This thread is about BUSH!

(3) As to FDR and Pearl Harbor, there was a congressional investigation and many studies done on just how intelligence failed.  Admiral Kimmal and General Short (Comm Pacific Fleet & Comm Hawaii) both screwed up, as did intelligance in Washington, where the Japanese diplomatic code was decifered and translated, according to Special Investigator for the Sec of War (we were honest in those days) Henry C. Clausen in Pearl Harbor, Final Judgement (1992).

(4) I am not suggesting that sorting through and analysing the tons of stuff that comes through the intelligence community is an easy task, but thats the job they  are paid for.  Let me also point out that there are allegations out there that Mohammed Atta had been identified as a terrorist and Al Quida years before 9/11.  Clinton's team may also have dropped the ball.

(5) Give me a break.  Ted Kennedy was detained, Cat Stevans was denied entry (admittedly, after 9/11), but before 9/11 I know people who were subjected to thorough searches, and even if there were know charges to bring, just keeping those 15 men off those planes would have averted trajedy, even if they went scot free, and since they were not US nationals, and some had overstayed their visas (another slip-up) they could have been deported without criminal charges. 

All this aside, and I don't propose to debate it any further, it seems to me you are too willing to overlook the potential failings of this administration, or excuse them by diverting attention to the supposed failings of Clinton - of which there were many,. but not to the point.

My dear H, I am quite willing to acknowlegde that you are more up on Title IX than I am, and I'm sorry if you took my comments as an affront.  That was not the intent.  Nor did I mean to suggest that you held sexist attitudes re women's sports.  My point was that overall, (gross) statistics can be misleading and that athletic directors make choices, as your Notre Dame example demonstrates.  At Castleton, (where I still teach part time) for every man's team we have a woman's team (no football) and the woman's teams often do better in our league than the men.  Nor do we at Castleton offer athletic scholarships - thank the Higher power - nor should any  school. 

What I'm suggesting is that you need to ask additional questions re how and why so many men's sports were dropped and so few woman's sports added.  The numbers are suggestive, but they are macro numbers which could very well conceal as much as they reveal.  I don't know your major, but if it in the Physical Education area you might take on a detailed analysis of thos macro numbers as a senior thesis.  After all, the devil is in the details, so there just might be a reason why so many mem's sports have been dropped and so few women's added that has to do with the intent of Title IX.

I'm not sure what you mean by Quoting coach Kocher, but it sounds like he is saying that male athletes shouldn't have to be responsible for their personal space - by implication is he saying "let tyhe cleaning lady do it"?

As I said above, I'm sure you know a good deal more than I do about title IX (although last year a student of mine wrote a term paper applauding its akcomplishments).  What I was saying is that there is much more than macro stats to be considered. 

note bene

Your response was filled with anger and indignation, as many of your responses are.  Is that really how you want to project yourself, especially as your avitar is one depiction of the "prince of peace"?  You need not assume that everyone who raises issues with you for debate and discussion is your enemy.


Don Carlos, I'm not angry here at all.  You read me all wrong.  I'm just going based off of your "study up on your facts" quote. I"m just making it absolutley positively clarified that I know a lot about Title IX.  On the same hand that those on opposing issues, I need to learn are not my enimies, you have to learn that there is a difference between clarity of getting a point across and getting pi$$ed off.

I'll write another response to this message of yours later, I'm getting ready to attend a storytelling show.  I want you to know that I'm not angry or mad here.  When we read, we add our own emotion to the words, but if you were to hear me say these words you'd here more laughter and straight to the point, than you would shouting and angry lines.

If you want to take this as what Bush has done right? I would only add what I know HE has done that is favorable:

1.Inflation is LOW

2. Unemployment is LOWER than MOST of the Clinton years

3. Home ownership is at an ALL TIME HIGH

4.Tax cuts have HELPED ...even Kennedy said it has had a Benificial Impact- even the Washington Times called it 'Well timed'

YES?NO? :o

If you want to take this as what Bush has done right? I would only add what I know HE has done that is favorable:

1.Inflation is LOW

2. Unemployment is LOWER than MOST of the Clinton years

3. Home ownership is at an ALL TIME HIGH

4.Tax cuts have HELPED ...even Kennedy said it has had a Benificial Impact- even the Washington Times called it 'Well timed'

YES?NO? :o



NO, NO, NO, NO.  But this is the dun-rite thread so I'm not gonna rain on yer parade.

He caught himself a big one!