TitleIX is ripe for reform

Have school (or other gubmint) officials ever tried to silence your support of wrestling by getting you in trouble? Reassuringly, this new (still evolving) U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case is your potential friend... First, an interesting article about it: https://reason.com/2023/10/16/supreme-court-will-hear-this-texas-womans-challenge-to-a-politically-motivated-arrest/ Next, the filings at the U.S. Supreme Court (which will likely decide this case in early to mid 2024): https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-trevino/ And finally, some perspective from the main lawyer fighting against such encroachments on our freedom of speech: https://fedsoc.org/events/litigation-update-gonzalez-v-trevino-when-the-courts-wrestle-with-qualified-immunity What if the case had been available for heroes of ours who advocated for (politically incorrect) reforms (to Title IX's having morphed into a quota) and eventually got ejected based on puzzling purported justifications?

Actually I've never felt inclined to see any redeeming qualities in Joran Van der Sloot. Can you believe the nerve of him, offering to give murder details to the grieving mother in exchange for payment? It's hard to think of anything lower than that. But I don't presently understand why he confessed to killing Natalie Holloway. Maybe to get a lighter sentence? I guess a murder trial might have gotten underway if he hadn't. There's not a statute of limitations for murder... unless one's killed a college wrestling team. That's happened all too often, with impunity. At least they won't be able to cling to Title IX as an "excuse" as much as they traditionally have. Let 'em provide other reasons too, like ODU's athletic director did. (Lack of other wrestling programs in the sports conference; lack of fans; lack of donors, etc.) I wish the Monarchs would add a club program though: http://www.ncwa.net/teams . Then H.S. Coach Steve Martin could channel wrestlers from the area there and maybe an NCAA program could re-emerge, like Fresno State's did (only with more sound budgetary principles so re-elimination wouldn't be necessary).

There's a saying, though, that many problems are on the road ahead, but some will roll into the ditch before you reach 'em.

Courts can help keep others policed year 'round. So can the media. So can boycotting groups. That said, legislatures sometimes let good legislative bills die because time runs out, and it's disappointing. But nobody's safe when the legislature's in session. It's relatively good to have time away from that threat so one can focus on being productive. It's not a perfect system though, admittedly.

Entrepreneurs prefer not to have to keep watching their backs for changing legislation on a weekly basis. They have enough to worry about. It's part of why so many have left California (where the state legislature meets year 'round) for states where the state legislature meets just a few months every year, or even every other year (such as Virginia or Texas). If there's a sudden need for new legislation on something, a special session can be called. The lobbying class likes for the legislature always to be in session, though. Washington D.C.'s chock full of beltway bandits, eager to collude with the Uniparty (as Matt Gaetz calls 'em).

I'm skeptical of Lauren Boebert's re-election prospects though... and the GOP's lead in the House is already even more thin than her willingness to behave discreetly. I'm not really referring to her theater behavior, either. It's the walking out on four kids after the family helped her get where she is antic that particularly rubs me the wrong way. And the theater antics admittedly didn't help them or her ex. https://www.businessinsider.com/lauren-boebert-adam-frisch-fundraising-millions-colorado-rematch-2023-10

There are some good folks behind this disruption, and I'm cheering for 'em. I'm not disagreeing with the gist of anyone's posts on this thread thus far, by the way. Instead I'm happy that folks are taking seriously the importance of electing leaders of the House (etc.) who have a vision that's far better than merely going along to get along. Republican V.P. candidate Paul Ryan disappointed the heck out of me, and millions of other fiscal conservatives. He talked a big game and then flip-flopped. The U.S.A. can't afford more of it.

That's not very woke of either of you to respond like that. Anyhow, back to wrestling...

So was he. https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime/black-man-wrongful-conviction-killed-traffic-stop/

I've never belittled the loss of Yeardley Love. Nor do I think she'd deny, if asked, having slept with Huguely's lacrosse rival from UNC and boasting about it to her ex George Huguely (I vaguely recall having read, a decade ago). She had lots of potential which was lost. You're wrong to assert that I don't appreciate the amount of societal loss that her untimely (and painful) death represents. You know it full good & well, but you wanted more henpecked points. Well you got 'em. As for spousal rape, there are a lot of tempers lost in the marital setting. That false rape allegations would be among them is a risk of which I took the time to warn folks reading this forum. You belittled that too. But at least you acknowledge something that's important: >>> The CAPABILITY for women to lie? Something that I don't think one person is disputing. <<< Men have that capability (to lie) as well. I therefore urge precaution. That said, a good night to you, gnats.

You don't know if Jordan Holm is guilty or not. He appears to have shown reasonable doubt with his alibi, but the judge conceivably feared the hoards of screamers which might revolt if he didn't earn enough henpecked points by clubbing Jordan with an axe.

2,500 days is a lot, as Jordan Holm can confirm. More than you've served in prison, presumably. And yet you're saying tax dollars would get spent regardless so why not make the potentially innocent help enrich the prison industrial complex since they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and the accusations stuck. This woman was far more harmful than former wrestler Jordan Holm allegedly was, and yet she only served less than half the time he was forced to: https://sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/why-did-annie-dookhan-lie/ Why the double-standard against the male gender? Hey, you know what? Here's your chance to score more henpecked points. "Oh she was so traumatized whereas Annie Dookhan's victims weren't really that harmed (oh?), nor were the taxpayers that were harmed by her (oh?)." Have at it.

Here's a new article on the continuing growth of wrestling in Arkansas: https://armoneyandpolitics.com/greg-hatcher-arkansas-wrestling/

>>>Ahh, so you are hearing from the moderators about your lunacy and that is the reason you want to stop. But not before issuing one more fantasy.<<< No. But I have experience running forums over the past decades and I can't help but feel for those who kindly provide these for the wrestling community. It's not fun reading gnats' predatory posts attacking those who mean well and want to help wrestling survive and grow. My heart goes out to the moderators here.

There are other categories that seem to lean more towards Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, such as Education & Social Services. A seemingly growing quantity of school kids live with their grandparents, after all. Some states directly subsidize such intergenerational residence-sharing. So mainly in the interest of separating the categories where feasible, I personally don't think of Veteran's Affairs when thinking of national defense. But your point's well taken.

That's an interesting point. I hope you're wrong regarding it. Democracies don't go to war with one another. Or so the United Nations said before Russia's invasions of Ukraine. Either way, wars seem wasteful compared to other endeavors. But necessary at times, I guess. Might you be surprised to see that in the US federal budget, defense only gets 14% of the national budget? Other programs get more: https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/budget_function

"When he started to stand up, Holm testified the woman looked at him and reached up for him, grabbing his head with her hands in an attempt to pull him on to the bed." Is NOT the same as "she screamed because he denied her advances." The former at least potentially conveys that she wanted to catch him so Bradley (her "boyfriend") could help deal with the guy who just saw his pristine "girlfriend" nude. She felt deflowered and less, you know, virginal and such and she didn't want him getting away. That's a far cry from she wanted to embrace him on her bed, devouring his manly essence as part of her womanly one. (OMG, there really are trashy books teeming with such prose. I've never read an excerpt from any but I've heard about 'em and my grandmother apparently used to read 'em now and then, judging by the cover of the shirtless males hugging damsels who eagerly reciprocate.) That said, why don't we give the moderators a rest and just ignore each other for a while? The best response to this post is no response. The moderators have bills to pay and the advertising revenue-related clicks and impressions we generate might not be "earning our keep". A small handful of folks here seems eager to insult for insulting's sake. That's not what wrestling's about, and this is a wrestling forum. But if Jordan Holm cares to weigh-in within this thread, it'd be fascinating. I think there's a significant chance that he was innocent. And the small band of insulting gnats pursuing me here think there's a significant chance that I am ignunt. Let's show the world that ignunce is bliss and just ignore one another for a while, resuming our focus on helping our sport. Trashing Jordan Holm for life doesn't seem like the way to go but at any rate, ta ta. The queen of ta-tas appears to agree, right Dolly?

I'm not an avowed expert on this case, nor have I pretended to be. That said, I read the text in the previous post differently from how you apparently do. And when challenged, you turn to flinging insults. Did that work for you on the wrestling mat? Then why do you do it now and here?

You consider that the same as the following? she screamed because he denied her advances

The appellate court's link? I don't remember seeing that assertion by Jordan there.

He didn't get to use such a system, but a subsequent appellate opinion says his having opted for the judge instead of the jury was willful and intentional so I guess that's the luck of the dice.

I wasn't aware of his self-reported drinking problem, or the timing of his reporting. I did not comment on his potentially saying that stuff when already facing decades in prison. But it may have been his way of showing he didn't soberly intend to kill her. As for your comment on Jordan, if you're asserting that I wrote she screamed beause he denied her advances, you're mistaken. Perhaps you merely mentioned the possibility that that could happen, while making a point by way of analogy & hyperbole. Nowadays Jordan deserves for the wrestling family to encourage him to achieve his remaining potential in life. Personally I remain unconvinced that his alibi is inaccurate. That's not to say I believe his alibi, though. But reasonable doubt doesn't seem to be out of the question.

Here's Stanford wrestling's team page: https://gostanford.com/sports/wrestling Who are the assistant coaches? This page doesn't seem to have been updated for a while: https://gostanford.com/sports/wrestling/coaches

I'm glad whenever I see anyone putting thought into the post-Chevron deference opportunity, for better or for worse. By being aware of the potential pitfalls and hurdles before they emerge, we can fine-tune our strategies for wrestling's and society's benefit. Yes, with increased freedom there will be more waves getting made. Returning some authority back to the provinces will lead to differences in opinion (also known as "circuit splits"). Those can be managed, especially if enough thought's put into them. Meanwhile federal laws can be updated in ways that we could not previously force due to bureaucrats' having seized so much power (and money) for themselves. As for centralized bureaucrats' purported expertise, sometimes they're just plain sold-out, nonresponsive and (of course) biased. Folks in the college wrestling community typically don't miss the (unelected) Ed. Department's Norma Cantu, for example. It hasn't helped wrestling to have the Chevron deference doctrine intact since circa 1984. We had far more wrestling teams before then. Title IX went into effect over a decade beforehand. I've not seen a graph of the drop in programs correlated with those two years. @Wrestleknownothing might be intrigued (or not). There may be some other years that seem worth potentially keeping in mind for such a possible graph, too. Losing Chevron deference wouldn't solve all of college wrestling's elimination risks, but it would open new doors for us as we strive to address them in novel, potentially more impactful ways.

How are things going with Stanford wrestling nowadays? I understand that Coach Grant Leeth has left and is now the head coach of an NCWA program at an NCAA D1 school in Texas, Tarleton State U. I wish him well and I look forward to seeing more news at http://www.ncwa.net/teams