Covering sports is a lot like covering middle school.

Right now, ESPN.com has these two headlines on its front page:

(1) "Sergio Garcia chides Tiger Woods," where Sergio says "He's not my favorite guy to play with. He's not the nicest guy on tour.'' And

(2) "Joba scolds Mo: Never 'shush' me," where this exchange is recorded:


Joba Chamberlain told Mariano Rivera in front of reporters: "Don't ever shush me." Chamberlain then reiterated his message, saying he was serious about it.

We are waiting word on who is sitting next to whom at the lunch table.

BlueCarp official policy on answering "yes" or "no" questions.

There is nothing inherently wrong with asking a question that calls for a "yes" or "no" answer. For example, "Are you hungry?" is not an invitation to a long winded answer. Nor is "Did you get an invite to the party?"

However, some less-than-intellectually honest inquisitors will insist on a "yes" or "no" answer when it is entirely inappropriate. For those inquisitors, I invoke the following rule:

I will answer one "yes" or "no" question for everyone of mine you likewise answer. 

My first question will then be a variation of "Do you still molest collies?"

The problem is obvious. The question assumes a fact that is itself in doubt. The person to whom I ask my question may or may not have ever molested a collie. My question assumes the did, and by answering "yes" or "no" he admits he molested collies at some point. The trap is set: he can not answer my question either "yes" or "no" honestly. Unless, of course, he has at some point molested a collie.

Feel free to adopt this policy at your leisure.

:-)

What vision of America do you prefer?

One where natural rights are incorporated in the Constitution and those accused by the government, including Chechens accused of blowing up innocent people, have those rights defended to the fullest by lawyers?

Or do you prefer an America where such an accused is given a perfunctory show trial without rights and then summarily executed, because terrorists don't have any rights?

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who prefers that second vision should take down their Gadsden flags and Molon Labe stickers because they don't understand what they mean.

And, then, when your flag is folded and put away, and your stickers are peeled off,  may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

Turn out the lights. The Grand Old Party is over.

What do George H. W. Bush, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, John McCain and Mitt Romney all have in common? Since 1988, they are the nominees for president of the two major parties. And they all love big government. And they all love federal authority over state sovereignty. Only half of them are Democrats.

As Bill Parcells noted, "you are what your record says you are." The GOP record? Medicare Part D. No Child Left Behind. Bank bailouts. Socialized medicine in Massachusetts. Referendum C and Healthcare Excanges in Colorado. I could continue, and have in other posts, but you get the point.

"But Dave!" you exclaim, "those are some bad big government programs, but they aren't the ONLY things the GOP has done!" Indeed not. But no party based on the principle of limited government would back any of those things. Therefore, the GOP principle, to the extent it has one other than getting elected, is something other than limited government. Don't tell me what the GOP says, look at what it does.

The only legitimate defense of the GOP made by honest Republicans? "Well, at least we aren't the Democrats." Now that's a rallying cry! It ain't quite "Remember the Alamo!", but it is all they have got.

So, what is the Grand Old Party to do? Like any party, at some point you have to turn out the lights, put up the chairs and call it a night. It is time.

Just recently, the Durango Herald asked "Where does GOP go from here?"

Like much of Colorado,

"La Plata County voters are registered as about one-third Republicans, one-third Democrats and one-third unaffiliated and other parties. But on Nov. 6, the county went Democratic all the way."

Why?

“A lot of candidates barely lost,” said Brad Blake, chairman of the La Plata County Republican Central Committee. “I personally feel it was due to the marijuana issue on the ballot. It brought a lot of Democrats and independent voters out.”

That explanation is more right than Mr. Blake realizes.

So, more voters came out to vote because they were interested in ending a wasteful government program - the War on Weed. Yet, somehow, the one major party that pretends to be in favor of efficient, cost-effective government, is able to blame people showing up for that very reason for its massive losses.

The disconnect is obvious.

For additional disconnection, let's go to the former Chairman of the Colorado GOP:

"I think you have to go on the assumption that the majority of Libertarian votes would go to a Republican candidate if the Libertarian candidate was not on the ballot," said Dick Wadhams, a political strategist and former state GOP chairman. "I think history would dictate that.

See "Libertarian influences outcome of Senate race."

Let us walk through Mr. Wadhams' thought process: A candidate from a minor party that believes in limited government takes votes away from the major party that believes in limited government. How could that possibly be true, unless the major party didn't actually believe in limited government? ("But Dave," you continue to repeat ad nauseam, "at least he's not a Democrat!" We've been over that already. I've heard it. You can keep repeating the mantra into the dustbin of history if it makes you feel any better.)

The fallacy is clearer than domestic light beer. The GOP doesn't believe in limited government. The ruse is over.

Yes, there are a few Republicans that get it: Rand Paul and Justin Amash to name just two on a national level. But their effectiveness is severely limited as long as they are in the party of Lindsay Graham and John McCain. It's hard to run with a millstone around one's neck. Cut the chain. Amash and Rand will do better without it. Mitch McConnell fought against Rand in his primary. John Boehner punished Amash for standing up to limited government principles. Any success they have had is in spite of the GOP, not because of it.

People are starting to see through fraud - the GOP cares about limited government like Jack the Ripper cared about London prostitutes.

The charade is over. The GOP is dead: Not because it believes in limited government, but because it does NOT. We already have a big-government party that is honest about its intentions. There is no need for another one that lies about it.

Keeping it alive at this point is just cruel - like trying to ride a lame horse. There is only one humane solution.

================
Epilogue:

Allow me to save everyone the time and effort of the brilliant and well thought-out responses I know are forthcoming (because they always do) by summarizing them:  "HA HA HA. YOU ARE HILARIOUS. LIBERTARIANS ARE LOSERS!!!! YOU SUCK!!!! THE GOP RULES!!!!!"

You have the right to remain silent. Exercise it. Every time.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 20 (2001) (internal punctuation and citations omitted), said:

"...we have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment’s basic functions … is to protect innocent men … who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. .. we [have] recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth."

Never, ever, EVER, be ashamed or embarrassed to exercise your God given right to remain silent. EVER.

You are an American, be PROUD to assert your rights. A good cop will not hassle you about it. A bad cop, well, is a bad cop. You certainly don't want to talk to him.

Never consent.

Tyranny, guns and the statist alternative.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting or protecting your house from burglars. It is about fighting tyranny.

Until recently, even big-time Democrats like Hubert H. Humphrey accepted this truth: "The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."

According to modern intellectual Mark Nuckols at The Atlantic,  however,

"It is easy to ridicule such rhetoric as just overindulgence in Red Dawn fantasies about resourceful and brave citizens resisting a modern army with nothing more than small arms and their wits. Even individual Americans armed with military-style assault rifles could hardly pose any serious resistance to any future tyrannical central government supported by overwhelmingly powerful military capabilities."

In other words, we are just ignorant rubes with a Rambo-complex.

In World War II, the Japanese had overwhelmingly powerful military capabilities  Certainly they could beat a bunch of rubes with rifles, right? Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto didn't think so: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass(1)."

And those goat herders in Afghanistan held off a nuclear powered Soviet Union until the Communists went home with their hammer and sickle between their legs.

More recently, a bunch of students and radicals have overthrown governments with powerful military capabilities in Lybia, Egypt and are holding their own in Syria.

Even if the anti-gun thesis that an armed citizen is useless against tyranny, what is the alternative? Is it better to rollover, defenseless; or fight with whatever weapon you might have? The anti-gunners would have you rollover. After all, according to them, it is futile to fight with your little rifle.

Just comply, they say. Do what you are told by the people with the guns. Don't fight. You might hurt yourself. It is better to live under tyranny than to die fighting for your freedom, they say.

They can kiss my ass.





(1) Even though that quotation is almost certainly misattributed and the Japanese Admiral didn't actually ever say that, I'm borrowing from Dan Rather - it may not be true, but it is accurate.

Abortion is neither a "progressive" nor a "conservative" issue.

Abortion is not strictly a "progressive" issue. Plenty of Republicans are pro-choice. and some Dems (particularly in the South) are not. If one wants the state out of the woman's life, they are pro-choice. If on one wants the state to protect the unborn, one is not pro-choice. It is simply a matter of how one applies the non-aggression principle: to the mother or to the unborn. I do not have the answer to that dilemma.

Having said that, I always side with the individual over the state. I always side with voluntary action over state force. Both Republicans and Democrats have issues where they want the state to force individuals to behave a certain way. Ergo, neither understands the non-aggression principle. Ergo, neither understands freedom. Ergo, neither understands the proper role of the state.

Why athletes inspire.

I just watched the ESPN documentary on Bo Jackson. I almost forgot how incredible he was.

Incredible athletes like Bo remind us (well, me, anyway) that exceptional humans exist in all walks of life and that greatness is attainable.

For instance, when Bo Jackson threw out Harold Reynolds at the plate from the warning track with a throw that never hit the ground - you can't believe what you just saw. It was impossible.

But it wasn't. It just happened. A human being just did something impossible. That's inspiring.

Accept Holmes' plea and lock him up forever.

If it is true that James Holmes, the man accused of killing 12 and wounding 58 others in an Aurora theatre, is willing to plead guilty in exchange for life imprisonment without parole, District Attorney George Brauchler should jump on that opportunity. Right now. Without hesitation.

A guilty plea saves the surviving victims and the families of all the victims years of trials and appeals. It saves them the anguish of reliving the trauma imposed by Holmes.It gives them closure. It assures them, and all of us, that Holmes will never see another sunrise as a free man.

And excuse me for being tacky, but it saves all of us the millions and millions of dollars that otherwise will be spent on prosecuting and defending the man for the next decade or so.

End it now. Accept the guilty plea. Lock him up and bury him under the jail.

The only reason NOT to accept the plea is to pursue the death penalty. But in exchange for that pursuit, Holmes fights the case canine and cuticle. He may even be found insane and eventually freed. No one knows what might happen in the next decade if the case is not closed right now. The door can be slammed on Holmes immediately - forever.

It should be.

Not tryin' to be a smartass...

So, I understand that if you show any sign of concern that Islam might contain violent elements, then you are clearly a racist with an irrational fear of brown people just because they dress differently and have a different culture and religion.

OK then. Let's accept that premise for the sake of discussion.

If it is true, where is the irrational fear of Hindus?

What does a poor person need most?

What do poor people in the United States need more than anything else?

A government check? No.

Free healthcare? No.

The ability to sue someone if they have been discriminated against? No.

So what do poor people in the United States need more than anything else?

A job.

Unfortunately, every government check, every "free" government service, every new cause of action created by the government makes it harder for the poor to get what they need more than anything else:

A job.

Everyone of these feel-good government policies ostensibly designed to help the poor do the opposite. Even if one gives the proponents of these policies the benefit of the doubt and assumes they are completely and honestly well-intentioned, we know what paves the road to Hell.

That road has never been better maintained.

The GOP is Dead

The GOP is dead.

Too much of it talks about freedom, but doesn't want homosexuals to marry.

Too much of it talks about freedom, but doesn't want you to smoke marijuana.

Too much of it talks about fiscal responsibility, but champions debt.

Too much of it talks about the Constitution, but kowtows to the feds when it exercises usurped powers reserved to the states.

Too much if it talks about the Constitution, then pushes for legislation the Congress has no authority to enact.

Too much of it talks about reigning in Executive power, then looks the other way when the President unilaterally starts wars.

Too much of it talks about free markets, then fights for farm subsidies.

Too much of it equates a fertilized egg with a human, and spends resources on doomed legislation when it could be using that energy effectively spreading the gospel of Jesus.

The GOP is dead, collapsing under the weight of its own inconsistency. Putting it out of its misery is the humane thing to do. Don't let it flail about in death throes for another decade. Trying to save it is wasted energy.

Fighting for freedom is where the effort should be. Using the GOP as a means to that end is futile. You might as well try to put a square peg into a round rock.

Nullification is not a radical idea. It is a legitimate tool against oppresion.

Play along with me here...

Suppose the federal government declares an emergency and decided it needed to put some soldiers up in private residences for a short time. Some owners of such private residences are not happy with this. They refuse to comply.

The federal Order requiring this housing of soldiers in private residences against the wishes of the property owners is a pretty clear violation of the Third Amendment. I think we could all agree on that. (The Third Amendment says, in pertinent part: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner..." .)

Do you believe the Owner of the property has a right to disobey the federal Order and refuse to quarter soldiers in his home? Do you believe the local should Sheriff assist the home owner?

If so, you believe in nullification. Imagine that.

Before slavery ended, the federal government passed a law that said any alleged runaway slave had to be returned to the person claiming ownership without any due process for the alleged slave. What if a state refused to hand over such a person to federal agents, in clear violation of the federal law? Would that state be in the right?

If you think so, you believe in nullification. Imagine that.

During World War II, the federal government ordered Japanese Americans - including citizens - rounded up and put in camps. What if the Governor of a State refused to comply with that order. Would that Governor be correct?

If you think so, you believe in nullification. Imagine that.

The first example has not happened. Yet. The second did. So did the third. There are many other real life examples for those that wish to find them.

Nullification is not a crazy, radical idea. It is merely a tool against oppression.

Perhaps we could take a cue from Cuba...

"Cuba introducing free-market reform"

   ------Headline, Denver Post, page 41A, today.

The United States should try that. Instead, we are reforming the other way.

No time for a party

You are on a long trip, driving alone. It is night and you are on a two lane rural highway. You are getting close, but have another hour or so before arrival.

... you hear a horn and suddenly wake up. Headlights are coming right for you. You slam on your brakes, jerk the wheel back into your lane, travel off the road into a ditch and come to rest when you slam into a tree.

You wake up some time later. Groggy, you take inventory: no blood, no broken bones. You are alive.

Even with this realization, you aren't exactly in the mood for confetti and champagne.

... and if Mitt wins, you shouldn't be either. For the same reasons.