Jump to content

Return of Aztec

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

246 profile views
  1. I've had the pleasure of spending a little bit of time with both of these men and think the world of both of them. I wish they could both have a shot at Olympic gold this year. While my heart can't choose between them, with a gun to my head I'd bet on Cox. My rationale is that he'll be strong enough to not be overpowered by Snyder, and that he will have a speed, sweat, and flexibility advantage that will help him win.
  2. Of course not. But I understand that the government can't cater to what I, or any other single individual, considers to be the greater good. I support arts and athletics at the high school and college level. As such, I am comfortable with a portion of my tax dollars going to these endeavors. If I think funds are going to an illegitimate cause, I am free to write letters, call, vote for people I think will spend money better, run for office, etc. If I feel powerless to help change things for the better, I can accept it or live in bitterness. Would you support eliminating all government support of all artistic, cultural, and athletic programs? Is there any level (school, city, county, state, federal) where you would be okay with the powers-that-be allocating funds for those purposes?
  3. In terms of high school, taxes are forcibly taken from all of us and used by the government in a variety of ways, many of which each individual will never benefit from. Just talking about the high school context, yes, I support tax payer money going to programs that will allow high school students to have athletic and artistic fun. Within reason, of course. I'm not advocating for unlimited budgets and support of every sport or art form under the sun. In terms of college, no one forces anyone to go to college. For those that do, a portion of the tuition (and taxpayer money for public schools) goes to support all sorts of things that that individual may never benefit from. Why should tuition go towards a student union or clubs that an individual that a student will never join? Why should students be forced to pay fees towards a rec center that they will never set foot in? Why should a portion of their tuition go towards the academic departments that have nothing to do with the student? Colleges are communities and communities are made up of a lot of different things. There are some specialized colleges that focus on a narrow set of academic subjects and have little to no arts or athletics. People that prefer that environment are free to support those institutions. I don't want wasted tax-payer money or wasted tuition anymore than anyone else, but I also do think that a university campus should be a lot bigger than one individual's narrow set of interests.
  4. Do you extend the same thought to arts and academic departments? Do you extend the same thought to high schools? Schools are diverse environments. I think it's healthy when a school support arts, athletics, a variety of academic departments, and so on. The tuition or taxpayer money of a particular individual helps support all these things, even though they may not care for sports, arts, many academic departments, etc. That doesn't mean that every sport or art or subject should be in every school, but I think it is healthy when these things are part of a school culture.
  5. Wrestling in a junior college tournament at Lassen College in California in 1998-99 season. In the middle of the tournament when all the mats were going, the power goes out in the gym and everything goes black. The wrestlers and refs all pause. After a few stunned seconds, people in the crowd started yelling all sorts of funny stuff. "Shoot! Shoot!" "That's two, ref! That's two!" "Are you blind, ref? He's pinned!" Everyone in the crowd was busting up laughing. It was an awesome moment of spontaneous unified levity. The power outage didn't last long and the tournament resumed. The end.
  6. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. My inclination is the same as yours but this example illustrates to me how much is out of anyone's control. Los Angeles and Orange counties are very similar to each other in the grand scheme. From the outside looking in, they hardly seem different at all. And yet, there are differences. Both counties have high density and poor areas, but LA county has a much larger high-density and poor area than Orange County, as you mentioned. For the countries that have had "success," what does that mean? As I understand it, in the long run flattening the curve won't change the area under the curve so whether a country manages a slower, flatter pandemic or a faster, higher pandemic, what is the real difference? I understand that if things happen too fast there can be a lot of collateral damage (overwhelmed health care system, etc) and no fair-minded person wants that. From what I can tell, we haven't had that happen here in the US. But there is collateral damage on the other side too for keeping things locked down longer. The more time passes, the more I think a faster, higher pandemic is better than a slow, flat pandemic. People are resilient, but the collateral damage of essentially shutting down huge swaths of our society until a vaccine arrives (or whatever the goal is now, but that's where it looks like it's headed) is unfathomable.
  7. There is no clear direction from anyone because no one really knows what to do. Everyone is fumbling in the dark. We are smart enough to put a man on the moon, but this pandemic has confirmed to me that in a lot of ways we are clueless. Where I live (Los Angeles county), I feel like there has generally been a very aggressive response since day 1 (mid-March) in terms of locking down, wearing masks, social distancing, etc. The local leaders have taken it very seriously. And yet, LA county has been hit very hard. I hear a lot of people locally complain about people in Orange County (our neighbor) where there has been much more "civil disobedience" in the form of filling the beaches, parks, complaining about masks, etc. And yet, compared to Orange County, LA county has had a higher infection rate and death rate since the beginning. Would LA county have been better off had they exhibited more "civil disobedience" like Orange County? Would Orange County have been doing even better than LA County than they already are had they not been as disobedient to the mask and distancing recommendations? I don't think there is any way to answer these questions. I've heard many times how horrible the US has done at handling the pandemic. But I haven't heard exactly what it is we were supposed to do differently to be in a better position. Maybe we should be more like China. On the John Hopkins coronavirus map, they show China at 4,700 deaths compared to the 168,000 in the US. China must really know how to control a pandemic! Why don't they tell everyone their secret so the world can handle the pandemic as well as they have?
  8. Here's one of my favorite displays of wrestling sportsmanship. Dave Schultz in the corner of Kenny Monday, the man who beat him out for the Olympic spot, in the Olympic finals. After Kenny wins in overtime, Dave carries him around the mat on his shoulders (at 6:15 in the video). Which of our current guys could you see doing something like this?
  9. Oh, I totally agree. I live in California. Over 800 schools and 1 division makes it incredibly difficult to win state. I have a ton of respect for anyone who makes the podium in California. But I still don't think someone like Lou Roselli would feel confident he could sell the idea of Zahid to the powers-that-be on his campus right now.
  10. Put me in the "Cael to ASU, no way does Zahid leaveTempe" camp. I just don't see it happening. Monster Garage has incredibly strong ties to ASU/Sunkist Kids. It would be astounding if Zahid left that environment. Plus, given his recent suspension, I think it would be difficult for any college program to go to bat for him to their administration. "We want to bring in Zahid." "You mean the guy who just got popped?" "Yeah, but if we get him, I think we can get his younger brother." "How good is is his younger brother?" "Well, he took second in California twice."
  11. I'm in favor of a step-out and criteria for folk style. But I think the last point (as opposed to the first point) should gain the advantage in criteria. In any close match, there will always be someone protecting a lead. But if a guy is up 2 with 30 seconds left and gets taken down, I feel like the person who earned that takedown is more deserving of the win. Plus, I think it will be far easier for the audience to keep track of "last score wins" rather than "first score wins" (even if there are underlines on the scoreboard). How would criteria resolve a 0-0 match? I've thought about this. I personally don't like shot clocks to force scoring. I'd like to see an experiment with something like this: if no points are scored in the 2nd and 3rd period, the person with choice that period is penalized and the other person is given a point. Chose top and ride him out but no points are scored in the period? Penalty to the top man, point to the bottom man. Choose bottom and don't escape? Penalty to the bottom man, point to the top man. Choose bottom and get penalized for stalling on bottom? No penalty because a point was scored in the period. Choose neutral and no points are scored? Penalty to the person who chose neutral, point to the other wrestler.
  12. While that may be true for enrollment purposes, as far as I am aware, a student in that situation would not be allowed to compete in HS athletics in California if they did not meet the age requirements for the CIF. If he was born in 1987, he would have been too old to compete in the 2008-09 season regardless, but he did (took 3rd at state).
  13. He graduated high school in 2009. He couldn't have been born in 87.
  • Create New...