It does not paid enough to support a person for the rest of her life. Spread over the whole life (considering that it takes away an opportunity for education, getting a stable job and usually developing any acceptable position in society) it is probably less than minimum wage.
You're assuming that all college athletes a) don't care about academics, b) are worse students than the average non-athlete
On average, they definitely are, and if they were not, they have to spend their time training and participating in competition when everyone else is studying.
c) all aspire to be professional athletes.
It does not matter what they aspire to. They are for all practical purpose professional athletes, they are paid in tuition.
Athletic scholarships at American universities are almost entirely funded by alumni. These athletic scholarships aren't taking away any money from academic scholarships.
Then alumni should open their own professional sports teams and stop shitting up education for future generations.
That you somehow think that modeling (or athletics) and education are mutually exclusive activities suggests that you've done neither.
I did neither modeling nor athletics. This is one of the reasons I got decent education.
Amazingly there are people who can carry both a modeling career and a full course load simultaneously.
Most however can not.
Indeed even people who have educational opportunities presented to them contingent on their participation in athletics.
And those are exactly the kind of people who should not be allowed within ten kilometers from any university. Then suddenly there would be enough scholarships available for people who actually can and want to study, as opposed to becoming an underpaid professional athlete with a student ID, and after retirement/graduation a fraud (and optionally a cripple).
If this is not the only asset, what is the point? At the age when you are most capable of studying, spend time showing off your "assets", and be a female equivalent of Christian Weston Chandler (at best) for the rest of your life?
And yet in US it's OK to refuse long-term medical treatment whenever insurance companies can predict that a person will be unprofitable for them. By severity of consequences, benefits gained and resources necessary to avoid such violations, it's many orders of magnitude worse than torture. Americans refuse to recognize this for the same reason why they prefer murderers to rapists despite murder having far worse consequences than rape -- one is a "hot button", another is not.
What about countries where majority of population does not want democracy? They are not idiots -- for example, I honestly don't want democracy anywhere close to myself until at least 80% of Earth population will have college education with mandatory course on recognizing propaganda techniques.
US violates almost everything in it (not surprising considering that country was originally based on "rights" like slavery and genocide). EU countries are only marginally better.
...and then he proceeded to write a massive pseudo-autobiographical piece of fiction where he paints the government of the country where he was wrongfully imprisoned as pure evil, mixing facts with fantasy as it fits his agenda.
When population sees the incumbent as the "default" choice that loses popularity and opposition is weak, incumbent's distribution will have an upside down "protest vote" component. The rest of parties closely reflect ideological relationships -- randroid extremist Yabloko (green line) is almost universally hated, clowns from Liberal-Democratic Party (black) and major Socialist opposition A Just Russia (blue) share relatively low popularity but not bad enough to be irrelevant, Communists (red) is a somewhat popular and typical protest vote choice because they, despite their name, do not promote anything fundamentally incompatible with proclaimed goals of United Russia (brown).
More like protecting future exclusive use of dollar as international currency. Can't do that without a continuing trade relationships with survivors of the war.
1 - The US is "everything that's wrong with the world". Really? If the US dissapeared tomorrow, just what do you think would happen to the world? Honestly. Do you think the world would suddenly live in peace and harmony?
No. It would however have no poverty and much less war.
Given the current pigheadedness of the public convincing is quite a tall order.
US population is probably the most docile in the world. For most of the population, the only difference is, which particular subset of corporate rulers they happen to obey.
Then why don't Americans go through Universal Declaration of Human Rights and demand their government to implement all that are not protected in US?
Even in the way how rights are proclaimed, the set of "human rights" is specific to a country, there is no universally accepted set, and the closest thing to one (the above mentioned Declaration) is almost completely at odds with US Constitution's Bill of Rights. In practice, the only time US mentions "human rights violations" abroad, it's a code phrase for "does not bend to the will of US government and businesses".
Slashdot Mirror
It does not paid enough to support a person for the rest of her life. Spread over the whole life (considering that it takes away an opportunity for education, getting a stable job and usually developing any acceptable position in society) it is probably less than minimum wage.
You're assuming that all college athletes a) don't care about academics, b) are worse students than the average non-athlete
On average, they definitely are, and if they were not, they have to spend their time training and participating in competition when everyone else is studying.
c) all aspire to be professional athletes.
It does not matter what they aspire to. They are for all practical purpose professional athletes, they are paid in tuition.
Athletic scholarships at American universities are almost entirely funded by alumni. These athletic scholarships aren't taking away any money from academic scholarships.
Then alumni should open their own professional sports teams and stop shitting up education for future generations.
That you somehow think that modeling (or athletics) and education are mutually exclusive activities suggests that you've done neither.
I did neither modeling nor athletics. This is one of the reasons I got decent education.
Amazingly there are people who can carry both a modeling career and a full course load simultaneously.
Most however can not.
Indeed even people who have educational opportunities presented to them contingent on their participation in athletics.
And those are exactly the kind of people who should not be allowed within ten kilometers from any university. Then suddenly there would be enough scholarships available for people who actually can and want to study, as opposed to becoming an underpaid professional athlete with a student ID, and after retirement/graduation a fraud (and optionally a cripple).
You could say exactly the same about every athlete out there
I can and I do.
Imagine that!
If this is not the only asset, what is the point? At the age when you are most capable of studying, spend time showing off your "assets", and be a female equivalent of Christian Weston Chandler (at best) for the rest of your life?
And yet in US it's OK to refuse long-term medical treatment whenever insurance companies can predict that a person will be unprofitable for them.
By severity of consequences, benefits gained and resources necessary to avoid such violations, it's many orders of magnitude worse than torture. Americans refuse to recognize this for the same reason why they prefer murderers to rapists despite murder having far worse consequences than rape -- one is a "hot button", another is not.
What about countries where majority of population does not want democracy? They are not idiots -- for example, I honestly don't want democracy anywhere close to myself until at least 80% of Earth population will have college education with mandatory course on recognizing propaganda techniques.
US violates almost everything in it (not surprising considering that country was originally based on "rights" like slavery and genocide). EU countries are only marginally better.
...and then he proceeded to write a massive pseudo-autobiographical piece of fiction where he paints the government of the country where he was wrongfully imprisoned as pure evil, mixing facts with fantasy as it fits his agenda.
What freedom? Store cameras are not available for mass-surveillance fishing expeditions by police and businesses, so what is the problem?
Who cares? China is in no danger of making McDonald's the best available option for any part of its population.
10 hamburgers per month?
will treated
s/will //
When population sees the incumbent as the "default" choice that loses popularity and opposition is weak, incumbent's distribution will have an upside down "protest vote" component. The rest of parties closely reflect ideological relationships -- randroid extremist Yabloko (green line) is almost universally hated, clowns from Liberal-Democratic Party (black) and major Socialist opposition A Just Russia (blue) share relatively low popularity but not bad enough to be irrelevant, Communists (red) is a somewhat popular and typical protest vote choice because they, despite their name, do not promote anything fundamentally incompatible with proclaimed goals of United Russia (brown).
No. There is no good reason for prohibiting governments from censoring EACH OTHER.
lol
(to clarify -- I am Russian).
Protecting its profit?
More like protecting future exclusive use of dollar as international currency. Can't do that without a continuing trade relationships with survivors of the war.
1 - The US is "everything that's wrong with the world". Really? If the US dissapeared tomorrow, just what do you think would happen to the world? Honestly. Do you think the world would suddenly live in peace and harmony?
No. It would however have no poverty and much less war.
Most Americans know
How?
Given the current pigheadedness of the public convincing is quite a tall order.
US population is probably the most docile in the world. For most of the population, the only difference is, which particular subset of corporate rulers they happen to obey.
All US-friendly, and all approved by US corporation that provides the channel.
Then why don't Americans go through Universal Declaration of Human Rights and demand their government to implement all that are not protected in US?
Even in the way how rights are proclaimed, the set of "human rights" is specific to a country, there is no universally accepted set, and the closest thing to one (the above mentioned Declaration) is almost completely at odds with US Constitution's Bill of Rights. In practice, the only time US mentions "human rights violations" abroad, it's a code phrase for "does not bend to the will of US government and businesses".
pursuit of happiness.
Not a right.