So Brave: This University of Michigan Kid Selected ‘His Majesty’ as Personal Pronoun

2 Comments

KingA student has taken advantage of the opportunity afforded by University of Michigan's new pronoun policy, which allows students to list their chosen pronouns on the official bios that are sent out to their teachers.

The student, Grant Stroble, has listed his pronoun as "His Majesty."

He is stunning and brave. Applaud his courage. Weep openly, if you must.

Are you finished? Still reading? It's quite a moving story, I know.

Stroble's heroism will no doubt be celebrated by the university, which recently gave students the option of selecting their own pronouns in order to foster "an environment of inclusiveness." According to the university:

Students can designate pronouns in Wolverine Access through the new Gender Identity tab within the Campus Personal Information section. This page can be used to enter, update or delete pronoun information.

Designated pronouns will automatically populate on all class rosters accessed through Wolverine Access. Rosters pulled from other systems will not have designated pronouns listed. If a student does not designate a pronoun, none will be listed.

In other words, when professors receive the list of students enrolled in their classes, there will be a designated pronoun next to their names. Strobles's is "His Majesty."

Stroble—a conservative student and member of Young Americans for Freedom's Board of Governors—told The College Fix that he has no problem with students asking to be identified in the manner that makes them most comfortable. But he found the university's new policy to be absurd:

In an interview with The College Fix, Strobl said that "I have no problem with students asking to be identified a certain way, almost like someone named Richard who would like to be called Dick. It is respectful to make a reasonable effort to refer to students in the way that they prefer."

However, he added that he does have a problem when the university institutionalizes the use of pronouns that are completely arbitrary and may possibly sanction people for referring to someone different than their preference.

Strobl continued, "So, I henceforth shall be referred to as: His Majesty, Grant Strobl. I encourage all U-M students to go onto Wolverine Access, and insert the identity of their dreams."

If this isn't the feel-good story of the year, I don't know what is.

Read the whole story
ProbablyWrong
1 day ago
reply
He may as well tattoo "L" on his forehead.
freeAgent
1 day ago
reply
I like it.
Los Angeles, CA
Share this story
Delete

The economic decline of bowling the culture that was America

1 Comment and 3 Shares

Bowling alone and for peanuts too:

In 1964, “bowling legend” Don Carter was the first athlete in any sport to receive a $1 million endorsement deal ($7.6 million today). In return, bowling manufacturing company Ebonite got the rights to release the bowler’s signature model ball. At the time, the offer was 200x what professional golfer Arnold Palmer got for his endorsement with Wilson, and 100x what football star Joe Namath got from his deal with Schick razor. Additionally, Carter was already making $100,000 ($750,000) per year through tournaments, exhibitions, television appearances, and other endorsements, including Miller, Viceroys, and Wonder Bread.

…Of the 300 bowlers who competed in PBA events during the 2012-2013 season, a select few did surprisingly well. The average yearly salary of the top ten competitors was just below $155,000, with Sean Rash topping the list at $248,317. Even so, in the 1960s, top bowlers made twice as much as top football stars — today, as the highest grossing professional bowler in the world, Sean Rash makes significantly less than a rookie NFL player’s minimum base salary of $375,000.

In 1982, the bowler ranked 20th on the PBA’s money list made $51,690; today, the bowler ranked 20th earns $26,645.

The article, by Zachary Crockett, suggests numerous hypotheses for the economic decline of bowling, but ultimately the answer is not clear to me.  I would suggest the null of “non-bowling is better and now it is better yet.”  A more subtle point is that perhaps bowling had Baumol’s “cost disease,” but under some assumptions about elasticities a cost disease sector can shrink rather than ballooning as a share of gdp.

For the pointer I thank Mike Donohoo.

The post The economic decline of bowling the culture that was America appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Read the whole story
ProbablyWrong
13 days ago
reply
Indoor smoking bans have anything to do with this?
stefanetal
13 days ago
Don' t think the timing works for that...this seem more like a decline of the pre-60s working class culture thing. Rock'n Roll + hippies + college culture. But the causality isn't clear. There is still a working class with discretionary spending on guns, boats and ATVs. Or fishing (or is fishing in decline too?). I hear actual hunting is suffering too...but that may be regional. Not my culture and I'm out of touch...vague memories of bowling in the greater culture as a kid in the early 70s. Now it's a every 5 year event like minigulf (i.e. not real sport). I'd blame TV and videogames before smoking bans. You can still bowl and drink/eat.
duerig
13 days ago
It is odd to me that the author brings up the 'Baumol Cost Disease' argument. It seems like the sport has become much more automated and less labor intensive than any other sport. Robot referees hand their judgements to robot scorekeepers. Robot caddies replace the pins and return your ball. Robot announcers pop up fancy animation when you get a strike. And at the end of the day, robot sweepers clean and re-oil the lanes. The only thing that requires human employees any more is the front desk, the concession stand, and management. Compare this to golf or football at any organized level which requires protective gear.
stefanetal
13 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

United States inflation fact of the day

1 Comment and 4 Shares

…just as the bulk of the growth in employment can be attributed to a few sectors where productivity is either low or unmeasurable, a whopping 88 per cent of the total rise in the price level boils down to four sectors of the US economy…

How did you guess it was health care, higher education, real estate, and prescription drugs?

…In January 1990, those four product categories only accounted for 30 per cent of the money spent on consumption by the average American. (Housing was about half that.) Even after more than a quarter-century in which prices of these goods and services rose significantly faster than everything else, these four sectors still account for less than 40 per cent of total consumer spending.

Within health care, dentistry has seen the highest rate of price inflation.  Televisions, however, have been falling in price at the rate of about 12 percent a year since 1990.  Luggage, “dishes and flatware,” and household linens are all down in price dramatically, as are telephone and communication services.  Durable goods are down in price by about a third.

That is from Matthew C. Klein at FT Alphaville.

The post United States inflation fact of the day appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Read the whole story
ProbablyWrong
16 days ago
reply
Some people need to meet Baumol.
bibliogrrl
16 days ago
reply
Chicago!
freeAgent
18 days ago
reply
Los Angeles, CA
Share this story
Delete

My Foster Daughter's Been Trapped in the Foster Care System for Four Years — with No End in Sight

2 Comments
My Foster Daughter's Been Trapped in the Foster Care System for Four Years — with No End in Sight:...
Read the whole story
ProbablyWrong
17 days ago
reply
My foster kids are at 25 months
bibliogrrl
18 days ago
reply
READ THIS
Chicago!
Share this story
Delete

Teen birth rate low but Bible remains a concern

1 Comment and 2 Shares
I'm no Bible expert, and this could all be a total coincidence, but I think some real research on it might be pretty interesting. Continue reading









Read the whole story
ProbablyWrong
17 days ago
reply
I so very much want to see my facebook feed explode when i share this ...
stefanetal
19 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Be Prepared

2 Comments
(Don Boudreaux)

Here’s a letter to the Washington Post:

The top headline this morning at WashingtonPost.com reads “How Donald Trump retooled his charity to spend other people’s money.”

Give the man credit, for he’s preparing himself in advance to excel at one of the chief missions of the successful politician: spending other people’s money.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA  22030

Of course, it’s also true – as a Facebook friend points out – that politicians excel also at taking other people’s money.

Read the whole story
ProbablyWrong
18 days ago
reply
Last I checked it is the purpose of every business, for-profit or otherwise.
freeAgent
19 days ago
reply
Is this not also the purpose of the Clinton Foundation/Clinton Global Initiative?
Los Angeles, CA
duerig
17 days ago
The difference is that the Clintons have given a lot of their own money to their own foundation. Trump has apparently not given money to his donation for a long time and frequently uses it as a way to purchase things for himself (like a giant self-portrait) and has used it to illegally donate to an attorney general which was considering whether to investigate his fraudulent 'university'. Relevant link: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/donald-trumps-charitable-foundation-sure-dubious-affair
freeAgent
17 days ago
duerig, given the relative size of the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton's have not given much money at all to it, either. I would not be surprised if Trump has donated a larger percentage of his charity's funding than the Clintons have theirs. I'm not saying this to defend Trump, and I have big problems with the way he's spent his charity's and campaign's money to enrich himself, but the primary criticism here (the headline of the article) is really drummed up and silly. You could write the exact same article about the Clintons' charities. It smacks of lazy and biased journalism. That's especially ridiculous given what you've noted about how there are substantive complaints to be made about Trump's "charity".
duerig
17 days ago
I agree that a bigger issue is how the money has been misspent. But given the relative sizes of their claimed wealth, the fact that Trump has donated zero dollars to his own charity in the last eight years is still striking. Trump claims to be a philanthropist, but he can't even muster the equivalent of pocket change towards doing it.
freeAgent
17 days ago
I'm honestly not bothered by a charity that does good work even if it is named after and directed by someone who has little to no personal investment (at least monetarily) in that charity. The headline, and the stories, should rather be about Trump's abuse of charitable tax exemptions to enrich himself and aid his business interests rather than truly helping people in need.
duerig
17 days ago
It does take a certain amount of chutzpah for a billionaire to go on national TV, personally promise a charitable donation, then use other people's money to actually donate. But in the end, I still agree that the bigger scandal is what the foundation does with the money much more than about where the money comes from.
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories