"Given what we know in 2015, the question is whether anybody is really 'playing' football."

"Are high schoolers risking their lives for a chance out of poverty or a sense of elevated status really 'playing'? Are those who take the field in the NCAA, exploited for billions of dollars in television revenue while working in a state of indentured servitude, 'playing'? Are the NFL athletes who have to treat every single play as a potential threat to their brains, and get an average of three and a half years on the field, 'playing'? The only people 'playing' in this scenario are egomaniacal coaches and parents, craven NCAA thought leaders, and NFL executives, all preaching intensity and sacrifice, but really just playing with the lives of others. They are the sports equivalent of the Bush-era chickenhawks. Note how many big-time basketball coaches have kids who play hoops and note how few football coaches can say the same."

That's Dave Zirin in The Nation: "Why Does Anybody Play Football Anymore?/Football has never been more popular. And it has never felt less like a game."

Yes, that's a bit extreme and over-politicized, but I'm interested in the precedence given to "play," the different meanings of "play," and the work/play distinction.

There seems to be an assumption that if something is a game, it should be play and not work. You should be having fun, not striving and struggling, not using it as a way to get money. But what's bad about having a serious, hard-working mindset in sports? There's no corresponding assumption that those of us who are doing jobs that are not games shouldn't feel that we are at play, having fun, feeling joy that's disconnected from the money we're making.

"For the second time in three weeks, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination wiped millions of dollars off the value of an industry."

Clinton tweeted: "We need to end private prisons. Protecting public safety...should never be outsourced or left to unaccountable corporations."

Corrections Corp. of America fell more than 6 percent, lopping off approximately $200 million in value, while GEO Group Inc. dropped 4.2 percent, losing about $100 million.

"Are you a comic-book version of a moderator?"

From my son John's live-blog of last night's debate:

8:26 — Moderator John Harwood lists what he apparently considers to be some of Trump's more ridiculous proposals, including that he'd "make Americans better off because your greatness would replace the stupidity and incompetence of others." Trump agrees with that last point: "Right!" Then Harwood asks if this is "a comic-book version of a presidential campaign." Trump says: "It's not a comic book, and it's not a very nicely asked question." [VIDEO.]...

9:39 — Rubio is asked about an analysis by the (conservative) Tax Foundation, which said his tax plan saves twice as much for people at the high end than the low end. Rubio denies it and says the opposite. [Added later:] On Twitter, Harwood had said he was "CORRECTING" his "earlier tweet" about the Tax Foundation's analysis of Rubio's tax plan. Harwood's correction said: "Tax Foundation says Rubio benefits lowest 10% proportionally more (55.9) than top 1% (27.9%)." Then Harwood asked Rubio a question that said the opposite of that correction, and when Rubio correctly pointed out that Harwood's incorrect post had to be corrected, Harwood flatly denied it! I asked Harwood on Twitter:

Are you a comic-book version of a moderator?

I took a screen shot:



ADDED: Here's the relevant material from the debate transcript:
Click for more »

China ends the one-child policy.

But maybe it's too late. The Chinese government had already started allowing 2 children to couples where the father or mother had been an only child, but many of them declined, "citing the expense and pressures of raising children in a highly competitive society."

A professor of demography at Peking University, Mu Guangzong, explained:

“I don’t think a lot of parents would act on [the new policy] because the economic pressure of raising children is very high in China. The birth rate in China is low and its population is aging quickly, so from the policy point of view, it’s a good thing as it will help combat a shortage of labor force in the future. But many parents simply don’t have the economic conditions to raise more children.”

Bernie Sanders made "a Kinsley gaffe—where a politician accidentally reveals a truth he did not intend to admit."

Says Katherine Mangu-Ward at Reason.com. What Sanders said was: "Every other major country on Earth, every one, including some small countries, say that when a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby."

Does Mangu-Ward mean that Sanders actually thinks the mother should stay home with the baby or did she mean to say it's actually true that the mother should stay home with the baby? If she only meant the former, didn't she make a Kinsley gaffe?

"First rule of conceal carry is don't talk about conceal carry."

"I do the same. I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

"I don't care if they make a law that says death penalty for anyone caught with a gun. I WILL BE ARMED! My life is more import than any law, rule, policy or ban."

Presented for discussion. I'm not commenting on that one way or another. Those are comments at Facebook on this image:



ADDED: Meanwhile, in Texas:

Economics professor emeritus Daniel Hamermesh will withdraw from his position next fall, citing concerns with campus carry legislation. The law will allow the concealed carry of guns in campus buildings beginning Aug. 1, 2016. Hamermesh said he is not comfortable with the risk of having a student shoot at him in class. 

Does that make sense? It will still be against the law to shoot at him in class. I guess the argument is that the decision to carry a gun into class is more deliberate. You plan ahead, and might be more rational in making the decision whether to break any laws. But the decision to pull out your gun and shoot the professor is more impulsive and thus less susceptible to contemplation of the legal consequences. So the ban on carrying a gun was protecting Hamermesh in ways that the ban on shooting the professor does not.

“My guess is somebody thinking about coming to Texas is going to think twice about being a professor here,” Hamermesh said. “It’s going to make it more difficult for Texas to compete in the market for faculty.”

Spoken like an economics professor.

"MOOCs may soon become a prominent factor in admissions decisions at selective colleges..."

"... a way for students who may not do well on traditional measures like the SAT to prove they can hack it."

That’s the argument by officials at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which on Wednesday announced a plan to create what it calls an "inverted admissions" process, starting with a pilot project within a master’s program in supply-chain management.

... Students who come to the program after first taking the MOOCs will then essentially place out of the first half of the coursework, so they can finish the degree in a semester rather than an academic year. That effectively makes the master’s program half the usual price.

ADDED: With so much hanging on success in the MOOCs, how will MIT deal with cheating? Here's an article from last month in the MIT News: "Study identifies new cheating method in MOOCs/Research from MIT and Harvard shows how to exploit and protect MOOC certification":

In this [new] method of cheating, a user creates multiple accounts, one of which is the primary account that will ultimately earn a certificate. The other accounts are used to find or “harvest” the correct answers to assessment questions for the master account.

"You have to ignore many variables to think women are paid less than men. California is happy to try."

Writes Sarah Ketterer in The Wall Street Journal in "The ‘Wage Gap’ Myth That Won’t Die" (which you can get to without subscribing if you Google some of the text).

 The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) notes that its analysis of wages by gender does “not control for many factors that can be significant in explaining earnings differences.”

What factors?... Men are significantly more likely than women to work longer hours...

Career choice is another factor.... [W]omen flock to college majors that lead to lower-paying careers.... [O]f the 10 highest-paying majors... only one, “pharmacy sciences and administration,” is majority female. Eight of the remaining nine are more than 70% male.

If the pay were equalized, wouldn't that only exaggerate the sex difference in the career choices, with even fewer women motivated to go into computers and science? I doubt if men avoid low-paying majors like "drama and theater arts" and "counseling psychology" only because of the pay. But I'm not stating an opinion about whether it's bad that there are gendered differences in career choices. Maybe that's just fine, and it's a shame that women doing what they like includes lower pay. It's just one of the many factors you have to take into account when you want to do with your life (including whether you want to spend more time with your family). But for those who think there's a problem that there aren't enough women in the STEM fields, removing the economic incentive won't help.