There has been a lot of discussion since Athens about foreign swimmers training in the United States. Most of them attend U.S. Universities, receive athletic scholarships, and compete at NCAA's. Some notable examples include Duje Draganja (Cal), Fred Bousquet and Kirsty Coventry (Auburn), Markus Rogan (Stanford), and the South African sprinters (Arizona). Some train in the U.S., but don't compete for a university (Inge de Bruijn). All of these athletes benefit from U.S. coaching, from training with U.S. swimmers, and in some cases, from financial support provided by U.S. entities (athletic scholarships). They all turn around and then win medals for other countries.
A couple questions: 1) What do you think about this arrangement generally? 2) Is it of benefit or detriment to U.S. swimming to have these foreign athletes training and competing here? 3) Should we be giving athletic scholarships, which are a scarce resource in swimming, to foreign athletes who will represent their own countries internationally instead of U.S.-born swimmers who will represent us internationally?
I'm sure there are other issues, but these come directly to mind.
Originally posted by aquageek
It finally comes out, long awaited, the anti Starbucks crowd.
You have yet to state how taking more of my money will improve an inefficient gov't program. You just want more of my money. I'm sure you have poor hospitals but does that mean more money spent poorly will improve them? Seems to me you'd be more interest in reform to make things better.
Keep your paws out of my wallet!
At long last it comes out: the utter selfishness at the bottom of "libertarianism"! Look, the hospital I mentioned isn't actually my hospital (mine is in a nice middle-class neighborhood and is much more pleasant). And what is this mythical "reform to make things better" that doesn't involve money? Is that like the magical pill that won't make me fat anymore?
I know, I know, you can't actually answer concrete questions with real answers. Insults and assumptions are just so much easier.
Originally posted by aquageek
It finally comes out, long awaited, the anti Starbucks crowd.
You have yet to state how taking more of my money will improve an inefficient gov't program. You just want more of my money. I'm sure you have poor hospitals but does that mean more money spent poorly will improve them? Seems to me you'd be more interest in reform to make things better.
Keep your paws out of my wallet!
At long last it comes out: the utter selfishness at the bottom of "libertarianism"! Look, the hospital I mentioned isn't actually my hospital (mine is in a nice middle-class neighborhood and is much more pleasant). And what is this mythical "reform to make things better" that doesn't involve money? Is that like the magical pill that won't make me fat anymore?
I know, I know, you can't actually answer concrete questions with real answers. Insults and assumptions are just so much easier.
