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.
Former Member
Oh boy, I can't believe I'm getting involved in this.....
Maybe its the rampant conservative in me, but I believe that people need to help themselves. If someone is working a minimum wage job..... look for another job. If you don't like your standard of living..... do something about it. And I don't mean whine to the government that you need a handout.
I believe that the worst thing that has happened to this country was the creation of the entitlement attitude... mostly as a result of government programs.... and compounded day in and day out by the lawsuit happy court system, continued handouts and probably other influences that I am not aware of. Everyone thinks they are entitled to a handout. What I think is that people are entitled to one thing... opportunity. And opportunity does existing in this country. Period.
I grew up in a house where hard work happened all the time. Unfortunately, many children grow up in a house where the only form of income is the government. These children grow up learning that the way to survive is to have your hand out. It's an evil cycle that gets those family's nowhere over time. But somehow I think many of our government leaders like it that way. If you have a large group of people that is beholden to you - needs you to keep giving them money - you have a steady stream of votes as long as you keep their cash flow going.
OK Libs.... blast away!
Originally posted by Kae1
Maybe it's the rampant liberal in me, but all this means to me is that perhaps, as a country, we should do something to make sure that if ARE working, you can afford to provide for yourself and your family. This doesn't mean subsistence living, either - it means decent food, permanent shelter, clothing, health care (preventative and curative), reliable transportation (maybe not a car, but public transport costs money, too), and the ability to save something in case of emergency. I know in my current state of residence as well as in my home state of Missouri, making minimum wage does not cover these things and yet is considered too high of an income to qualify for state aid. I heard a report not too long ago that in Missouri you have to be making less than somthing like $8,000/ year to qualify for public assistance. How many of you could afford a place to live, food to eat and feed your kids, costs for education, transportation, health insurance, etc. on that?
To get this back to swimming scholarships, my theory is that if you're good enough to get 'em, you should get 'em, regardless of where you were born. After all, aren't foreigners educated in the US more likely to stay in the US after graduation? And therefore contribute to our country? What REALLY sticks in my craw is the schools that lower their ACADEMIC standards to get athletes.
That should be enough to get me lynched if I ever get to one of the big meets :D
Kae
Originally posted by aquageek
There has yet to be a single compelling argument for why we should not give foreign students a scholarship or two.
Um, for public universities, how about that foreign students haven't been paying taxes, which these instutitions receive a chunk of?
And one of the original beefs was with foreigners making up 50% of a US collegiate team. If a number of scholarships are available, then a scholarship or two should be open for foreign students, with more scholarships possibly available if an institution receives donations from foreign companies.
Once again, there is no issue with foreigners training here. The issue is with us, the taxpayers, paying for them to train here.
Just out of curiosity, you ever hear of the Rhodes (sp ?) scholarship? It is possibly the most coveted scholarship in the world.
I didn't realize that you could be selected for this based on swimming. Maybe I need to re-read their selection criteria.
Heck, I will give you one...MY SON....Honor student all A's...good swimmer....and had very little chances for a ride of any kind....
He went to the US Merchant Marine Academy where he does swim and is doing very well...but little was out there when he was looking....WHY THE HECK SHOULD USA SWIMMERS TAKE 2nd BASE TO FOREIGN SWIMMERS....?
I for one am damn sick and tired of giving the damn store away and getting very little in return....sure, bring them here if they want to swim....but let them pay their way! ANY PUBLIC funding should NOT be spent on foreign swimmers....Heck, take the fast young lady from Africa that swam for Auburn (today's USA Today article)...and SWAM for her home country in the Olympics.....ON A FULL RIDE NO LESS!
Although not as weighted as it used ot be, atheletic ability and performace is one criteria for decision making in determining who becomes a Rhodes Scholar. Haven't you read Clinton's book, My Life." If you want to learn how to become president, it is the best book about what type of character (good or bad) it takes to become president.
Also, almost any debate about foreigners coming to the uS to use services has some aspect of racism or negative internationalism in it. It is by defintion the nature of the debate. This does include swimmers taking scholarships. How can you complain about a son getting a free education at a service academy?
As for health care, almost evedry hospital in the US has a foundaton attached to it. That foundation pays a get deal of its 5-7% annually to cover hospital bills for clients who are unable to pay. It used to be called Hill/Burton Act. Some of the money was reimbursed by the fedral government. Now it isn't.
What about foreign students who come to the US on other types of scholarships? If it weren't for foreign students most large univerities woudn't have enough teachers to teach physics and mathematics to undergrads.
I think Denmark, India, Ireland (if you have aan Irish relative no more than two generations back), and Sweden also provides licenses to citizens of other countries and some will even let you take some university classes for free if you have one parent who is a citizen of that country but you aren't.
I don't think there is a single point that anyone has made on this thread when arguing that swimming scholarships should go to U.S. citizens first that could be considered racist. It's fine if you disagree with that viewpoint, but it is completely irresponsible to make a serious accusation like racism without cause. It is not by definition the nature of the debate, as you state. I haven't heard anyone say that we shouldn't welcome people of all nationalities to attend U.S. universities and compete. We are simply having a discussion about who should pay for it.
Arguably food and shelter are for the public good, neither of which are free (note I did not say affordable--clearly the health care system has problems). By the way, I don't believe that the millions of Americans who smoke receive their cigarettes for free--they pay for them.
Should healthcare be affordable? Definitely. Should it be free? That's an entirely different question. The problem is that most discourse in this country is polarized to the extreme--Democrat vs. Republican, dove vs. hawk, anaerobic vs. aerobic, sprints vs. distance, etc.
My point was simply that cigarettes are not free--people choose to pay for them, just as they do for other goods and services (essential ones like food, housing, water, electricity, etc.), despite the fact that the health risks (and corresponding medical costs) are well known.
Kirk:
Was one of the those swimmers named Michael Green who swam for British team in the 1988 Olympics and swam at MSU. He is now a citizen and living, working, and swimming in USMS.
Um, the response was sarcastic too. But yes, there is a really big difference between being a democratic socialist and being a communist. You know, like the difference between preferring progressive taxation and nationalization of vital sectors to centrally planned economies and total nationalization.
Anyway, my argument was perfectly logical.
Geek: Low taxes are good because the founders liked them!
Me: That isn't an argument. The founders liked other things that we now recognize aren't good. Therefore, just appealing to the founders' sense of good isn't sufficient.
Others: But the founders did some good stuff.
Me: Of course. And we should retain the good, while making things better.
You: You hate the Declaration of Independence and make no sense. Commie.
That is, you misrepresented my argument by saying I dismissed the founders entirely, when all I dismissed was the notion that because they thought something was good, it is obviously good.
But I have to get back to work, and I'm feeling bad about this giant derail, so I'd be happy to discuss this stuff via PM, but I don't think I'll post in this thread anymore.
Originally posted by Blue Horn
Some_girl,
Sorry if you thought my post was contained a nuanced argument. Assuming that you understand the definition of nuanced. Actually, I wasn't making much of an argument. I was simply using sarcasim to point out your failure to employ logical reasoning.
Assuming that you also felt that I misrepresented your post, I don't see how I mispresented anything. Maybe you simply prefer to think of yourself as a socialist instead of a communist. Either way, you are advocating a communistic/socialistic approach in that you think that the government should provide for everyone a decent standard of living. You specifically stated, "I'm saying the sign of an advanced nation is the willingness to provide a decent standard of living for all its citizens regardless of their economic situation." Your words not mine.
As for the constitution hating, I never said that. I was simply pointing out the flaw in your dismissing of the founder's rational for declaring independence. Specifically, you bash Geek for relying on the founding father's ideals to be free from taxation without representation. His reliance on the founding fathers, which you ppointed out as being "poor", was one of the main reasons that the documents I referenced were created. In essence you completely dismissed the reliance on any of the ideals and beliefs of our founding fathers because of their views on a few issues unrelated to taxation. Then you go on to say that we are supposed to learn from our forefathers. Thats funny considering your complete disregard of them. How can you learn from our forefathers if you completely dismiss all the ideals of people that had a few bad ideas and acts? ALL societies, including ours today, have problems, but that doesn't mean you dismiss everything else.
So, exactly how did I misrepresent your post?
Hook'em
Blue
