Lone Candle
Champion of Truth
‘47,000 gun deaths occurred in the United States last year, 7 times more than that of all Europe combined. Five trans people participated in women’s sports.’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm36YmyDdsA
“stadium subsidies are a bad deal for the cities and states that make them. “Studies conclusively show subsidies create little to no new jobs and open gaping wounds to public finances,” Americans for Prosperity wrote last year. “The fancy new stadiums might be a good deal for the teams and politicians who voted for the funding, but they are a terrible deal for taxpayers.”
…
Trump is not opposing subsidies for the Commanders’ new stadium because he has wised up to the economic case against public funding for private projects.
No, Trump opposes the project—in his telling—because the Commanders dared defy his wishes by switching the team’s name to one he doesn’t like as much.”
https://reason.com/2025/07/21/trump-should-kill-commanders-stadium-deal-but-not-because-of-the-teams-name/
“There are federal tax benefits for racehorses (although there’s a chance they might soon expire) and some states exempt racehorses from their sales taxes. Other states own the racetracks.”
…
“”The obvious solution here is also the simplest: Just stop,” Shachtman wrote. “Let the sport stand on its own and dwindle to whatever size its fan base supports. Instead, state legislatures keep funneling money to it.””
https://reason.com/2025/04/29/stop-subsidizing-the-sport-of-kings/
“Trump could strip away civil rights and nondiscrimination protections enumerated under the Biden administration, which specifically apply to trans students.
The executive branch has a lot of control over what counts as discrimination in education, thanks to Title IX, a civil rights law originally meant to advance women’s equality. The Biden administration took the position that the law’s protections against discrimination “on the basis of sex” mean that discrimination against trans students on the basis of their trans identity qualifies as sex discrimination.
That interpretation of the law faced legal challenges and has been rejected by about half of the states. The Trump administration can — and likely will — simply take the stance that Title IX offers no protections to trans students.”
https://www.vox.com/lgbtq/385378/trump-trans-kids-sports-ban-schools-title-ix
“In 2023, over strong objections of activists on the right and left, the Biden administration announced a proposed change to Title IX, the law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in any federally funded educational program. Their suggested change would prohibit outright bans on transgender athletes, but would permit schools to restrict transgender students from participating if they could demonstrate that inclusion would harm “educational objectives” like fair competition and the prevention of injury.
This more nuanced stance marked the first time the Biden administration took the position that sex differences can matter in school sports, something hotly disputed by leading LGBTQ rights organizations. The proposed rule also reflected research that suggests sex differences emerge over time, so the standard for inclusion in high school should not necessarily be the same as that in younger grades.
Contrary to the post-election grumblings from Biden allies in the Atlantic, the president has been virtually silent on his own administration’s proposal for the last 18 months. He’s never spoken about it, and it was never mentioned by any other Biden official, including in any White House briefing on transgender issues.
The White House declined to comment for this story. A spokesperson for the Department of Education said their rulemaking process is still ongoing, as they consider the 150,000 public comments they received. “We do not have information to share today on a timeline,” they added.”
…
“Tellingly, Biden’s proposed policy on transgender athletes — allowing targeted restrictions for fairness and safety while rejecting blanket bans — would likely resonate more with average Americans than the hardline stances typically associated with Republicans, who leaned on transgender fearmongering in the midterms only to see their candidates flop, or Democrats, who many voters perceive as having no nuance on the topic at all. Yet the Biden administration’s reluctance to clearly communicate their middle-ground position left a vacuum that Republicans were happy to fill. It’s a dynamic that political observers say has become increasingly common: Democratic leaders stake out a position but, wary of internal rifts, default to strategic ambiguity even on issues where their stances might resonate with voters.”
…
“the Biden administration initially staked out a position that said there’s no legitimate basis to discriminate based on sex differences. In 2021, Biden’s Justice Department intervened in a lawsuit filed by parents of an 11-year-old transgender girl against the state of West Virginia, affirming this view.
“[West Virginia] cannot point to any valid evidence that allowing transgender girls to participate on girls’ sports teams endangers girls’ athletic opportunities,” the department said in its filing. “Instead, the State legislated based on misconceptions and overbroad assumptions about transgender girls.”
While praised by major LGBTQ groups like the Human Rights Campaign, this position obscured quieter disagreement among transgender leaders. Some questioned whether sports participation should be a top priority for the movement, while others doubted whether litigation was the best approach for advancing inclusion, given the state of public opinion. The Justice Department’s position also masked divides within the Democratic Party. Though it’s a complex topic and more research is needed, some existing scientific evidence suggests that transgender girls and women who do not suppress testosterone can have advantages in sports, particularly if they have gone through male puberty.
The West Virginia lawsuit wasn’t the only federal suit in the works. Happening at the same time was another case involving two transgender girls that was quickly drawing national attention. In response to Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood winning multiple state track titles in Connecticut, competitors’ parents and the Christian right-wing legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit against Connecticut’s policy of including transgender athletes. Though initially dismissed in 2021, a federal judge just this month said the Title IX case could proceed.
As more of these politically charged lawsuits and bills mounted, the Biden administration announced it would be delaying its proposed changes to Title IX, despite its Day 1 executive order. Sources involved said the delay was largely understood as a political move driven by the upcoming midterm elections. When the Education Department finally released its proposed school sports rule in 2023, its language represented more of a compromise.
The rule marked the Biden administration’s first time saying that sex differences can matter in school sports and schools can discriminate in some cases, while also saying schools do not have to — thus permitting blue states like Connecticut to continue with existing policy. While its merits were debated, the federal proposal was on the table.
“The draft regulation recognizes that there are real sex differences and that these matter in competition,” Doriane Coleman, a law professor at Duke University who focuses on sports and gender, told Vox. “For the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which takes the position that all sex differences are just myth and stereotype, that was a big, maybe even treasonous move.””
https://www.vox.com/policy/385549/trans-sports-transgender-biden-harris-democrats-titleix
Is the NFL ripping you off with monopolistic power?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTflMK9gufo
Is the nfl a monopoly or oligopoly? Femveratu. 2022. Reddit. Is the nfl a monopoly or oligopoly? Seth066. SwissyVictory. 2022. Reddit. Is the nfl a monopoly or oligopoly? Seth066. The Economic Structure of the NFL John Vrooman. K.G. Quinn (ED.). 2012. The
Trump played a key role in destroying the USFL in the 1980s?
“The NFL would later introduce extensive evidence designed to prove that the USFL followed Trump’s merger strategy, and that this strategy ultimately caused the USFL’s downfall. The merger strategy, the NFL argued, involved escalating financial competition for players as a means of putting pressure on NFL expenses, playing in the fall to impair NFL television revenues, shifting USFL franchises out of cities where NFL teams played into cities thought to be logical expansion (through merger) cities for the NFL, and, finally, bringing an upcoming antitrust litigation..”
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/sugarman/Sports_Stories_USFL_v_NFL__-_Boris_Kogan.pdf
“we shouldn’t be oblivious about why the result was possible. It’s because of immigration. As The Indian Express points out, at least six players on the American team are of Indian descent, including several who are in the U.S. on work visas and who play on the national team essentially as a hobby.
That includes Saurabh Netravalkar, who bowled (the equivalent of pitching) the final inning for the American team. He moved from Mumbia to San Francisco when he was a student. Now he’s an engineer at Oracle. Monank Patel, who scored 50 runs in the game, moved to New Jersey from India in 2016 to start a restaurant. Nosthush Kenjige, who recorded three wickets (the equivalent of strikeouts), had been born in Alabama before moving to India and then returning to the U.S. to work as a biologist. Other players on the team were born in Canada, while some others (such as Kenjige) were native-born American children of Indian immigrants.”
…
“Immigration is America’s superpower. Being one of the world’s freest and most prosperous places means talented people from all over the world want to live and work here. When they do, it’s not just their workplaces and immediate families that benefit. The country does too.
But what about all the immigrants who aren’t world-class cricketers or scientists, some might ask. No problem! Can you cook or clean or code or care for someone? Can you do road work or construction? There are 8.1 million unfilled jobs in this country right now—and there will only be more economic opportunities as the country grows—so we should welcome all the help we can get. And when the kids of those immigrants grow up to be world-class scientists or athletes or entrepreneurs, America wins some more!
Some folks on social media seem grumpy about the victory because it was a bunch of immigrants and children of immigrants who made it happen. Those people should just say what they mean: that they’d prefer to see America be less successful—and not just at silly things like cricket matches, but at stuff that matters too. Be honest about it: You want America to lose more.
Personally, I prefer winning. And I don’t care whether your parents were born in India or Indiana. Come here or stay here. Be an American. Go kick some ass.”
https://reason.com/2024/06/10/immigration-fueled-americas-stunning-cricket-upset-over-pakistan/
“Taxpayers fronted nearly $500 million for a new professional football stadium in Minneapolis that opened just seven years ago. Now, they could be on the hook for as much as $280 million more in ongoing maintenance costs over the next decade.”
…
“Another reason why these public projects so rarely “pay for themselves” is that cities often grant huge property tax breaks to the stadiums. In New York City, for example, a recent report from the city’s Independent Budget Office found that the four major stadiums in the Big Apple—Barclays Center, Citi Field, Madison Square Garden, and Yankee Stadium—are exempt from roughly $377 million in annual property taxes.
While Madison Square Garden’s situation is weird and unique, the other three stadiums are exempt because they “were all built on publicly owned land that is exempt from property taxes,” according to the IBO report. But there’s nothing actually “public” about a stadium—they’re not parks that anyone can visit whenever they’d like or use for a variety of purposes—and cities should stop engaging in the fiction that they are.”
…
“Taxpayers are forced to cover stadium construction costs with the promise of economic growth that doesn’t materialize, then sometimes get hit up for ongoing maintenance costs that can’t be covered by the economic growth that didn’t materialize, and all this happens while the supposedly public stadiums are not generating property tax revenue to help offset their public costs. It’s a bad deal for just about everyone—except for the stadium design firms that get to decide how much extra cash taxpayers will have to pony up to maintain a facility that’s still basically brand new.”