While I do not own any guns, I am not philosophically opposed to them.  I've fired rifles at targets, and I can imagine that real target shooting, or something like skeet or trap shooting, could be kind of fun to do on occasion.

So with that minimal background, I was curious about Professor Glenn Reynolds' link to an article on anti-gun sentiment in the NFL and NBA.  Here's the setup:

Last year, Washington Redskins safety Sean Taylor got out of bed upon hearing intruders entering his home. The house was situated in a wealthy, gated community on the outskirts of Miami. It was the middle of the night. To protect himself, his girlfriend, and their young child, Taylor grabbed a machete he kept nearby and crept to his bedroom door.

So Taylor, in fear, and concerned for the safety of his family, armed himself with a large knife used to hack away at jungle foliage. The intruder shot and killed him.

Many have asked why Taylor felt it necessary to have a machete nearby, but it's probably worth asking (as his friends and peers in professional sports certainly are), "What if it had been a gun?" Certainly, the outcome may have been different.

Unfortunately, officials in the NFL and the NBA increasingly take a paternalistic attitude toward their athletes. For years, the NFL and the NBA have attempted to distance players from firearms. Some would argue these policies are aimed at a culture that celebrates the criminal use of violent weapons, but the effect is pretty clear: The leagues would rather their players put themselves at risk than protect themselves with guns.

I wind up reacting to this article like I do to a lot of things posted on the Reason website - intellectually, it's kind of compelling and interesting to see where they're going.  In this case, the idea that safety training, including proper handling and use of firearms, for professional athletes who may have unsavory connections in their background or exposure to unbalanced fans makes a certain amount of common sense.

But when I try to imagine a reality where professional sports teams somehow trying to sell the public on the idea that they are encouraging or aiding professional athletes in learning how to properly defend themselves, which may mean using firearms for their protection, I just don't see it.  It would probably be an easier sell for professional sports leagues and teams to somehow provide "official" security for players that would somehow be more professionally trained and responsible than would be the athletes themselves.  But even that has disturbing connotations if athletes become seen as being surrounded by armed goons, creating even more distance between themselves and their fan base.

And I suppose one elephant in the room that the Reason article does not address is steroids and other drug use.  My guess is that there is an increasingly common perception of professional athletes as being users and abusers of steroids and other drugs.  And one of the problems often mentioned with steroids is the user's rage issues.  So until the league's can somehow get a handle on the players' use of steroids and drugs that would impair their decision making ability, it's probably not a good idea to float the idea of promoting more firearm ownership on the part of professional athletes.

Lower property and income taxes?  Check.  Lower cost of housing?  Check.  Visited by the Chicago Cubs for at least 3 games each season?  Check.

I told my lovely wife when we moved to her native state of New Jersey 5 years ago that I did not want to go through the hassles of relocation again.  Since telling her that, the elected yahoos and bureaucratic dim bulbs in this state have done nearly everything in their power to get me to rethink my position.

Just in the past few weeks, we've been treated to:  (1) having the death penalty removed from the books, despite wide popular support for retaining it; (2) being told that our votes in the presidential campaigns won't matter because the state's elected officials have decided in their infinite wisdom that they know better than the Founding Fathers and New Jersey's electoral college votes will go to whatever candidate wins the national popular vote (I'm so glad that my already worthless presidential vote will now officially become subservient to the wishes of those in California, New York, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida); and (3) an official apology from the State of New Jersey for slavery, undoubtedly setting up the taxpayers who were never asked about an apology to make massive payments in reparations for slavery that ended over 100 years before they were born.

Makes me wonder if there are any Lakota Indians anwhere in Mercer County so that perhaps they can declare a separate, tax free country here in Lawrenceville so that we can somehow abandon New Jersey but still not have to move.

Sports Illustrated has a page on its website called Extra Mustard, for even lighter fare than the nuts and bolts of game reports.  There was a blurb in today's entries with a picture of Texas Tech men's basketball coach Bob Knight with the following caption:

Bobby Knight topped himself yesterday. He brought his grandson into his postgame press conference and  then unleashed the BS curse right in front of the tyke.

Wearily, I clicked through the provided link to the YouTube video to see the latest "outrage" for myself.  Having been raised watching Indiana University basketball during Knight's heyday in the 70s, and then enjoying watching his Hoosier teams play during the 80s and early 90s, I've also been through the countless episodes of shameless behavior, both basketball related and otherwise.

But after watching the YouTube clip, I found myself wondering how the caption from Sports Illustrated could have been written.  Maybe I missed it during the approximately 4 minute segment, but if Knight uttered a BS during the press conference, it was done with no real emphasis and certainly was not part of any angry tirade directed at the media.

I know Knight is not perfect.  But it's this kind of sensationalized reporting from the media that has always put me much more firmly on Knight's side than the media's when it comes to any story of Knight's excesses.  What I got out of the video was that Knight did in fact have his grandson with him, and the grandson, despite being very young (I would guess maybe 2) was very well behaved during the segments shown.  Did Knight swear during the press conference?  Maybe, but again, if he did, I missed it, and it certainly wouldn't have been the worst thing in his grandson's life if it was said in passing in response to a question during the press conference.

Good luck on number 900 and beyond, Coach.  I wish things in Bloomington had not turned out the way they did and that you were able to continue your success with the Hoosiers.

The headline at ESPN.com caught my eye:

Cubs will add 70 'bullpen box seats' at Wrigley

From the story:

The Chicago Cubs have received permission to add 70 "bullpen box seats" along the third base line and install additional digital signage at Wrigley Field.

First, as we Cubs fans have now hit the century mark for incompetence, futility and losing, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that the team sees the offseason not as an opportunity to pull out all the stops to acquire a dominating pitcher such as Johann Santana, but rather as the proper time to focus on important issues like increasing the revenue stream, because the biggest problem the Cubs have faced lo these 100 years since they last won a World Series title is lack of money and fan support.

Second, I realized with horror that these new "bullpen box seats" will be down the third base line.  Anything of significance ever happen during a Cubs game down the third base line?  I seem to remember something happening in 2003...

That's right, the Cubs have in fact found a way to get Steve Bartman CLOSER to the action on the field.

If I believed Lou Piniella actually cared about winning a championship with the Cubs, I'd be worried this coming season will see him stroke out.

Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online posted an excerpt from this online news story about the Lakota Indians withdrawing from various treaties with the U.S.  The relevant bits:

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States, leaders said Wednesday.

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us," long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means told a handful of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference.

and

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free -- provided residents renounce their US citizenship, Means said.

I'll leave it to the smarter lawyers like the guys from law review, as well as the folks who actually took the course in Native American Law in school, to debate the likelihood of the Lakota Country somehow becoming a truly free and independent country.

One thing that wouldn't surprise me, though, would be to find that in the coming months and years, if this issue continues to linger, people will start trying to claim citizenship in Lakota Country in order to avoid paying U.S. income taxes in much the same way as the geniuses who keep trying to tell us the entire income tax is unenforceable so you don't have to pay taxes.

While it may be a very interesting socio-political experiment if the Lakota were somehow able to become a separate, tax-free nation, my guess is they still have a very long hill to climb in order to get there.

If anyone really believes that the proposed "apology" resolution being floated in the New Jersey general assembly will not be used at some point to help pave the way for reparations to all African American citizens, please contact me immediately to discuss a bridge I'm looking to sell.

From this morning's story posted on the Fox News web site:

TRENTON, N.J. —  New Jersey could become the first Northern state to apologize for slavery under a measure due for a legislative committee hearing this week.

"This is not too much to ask of the state of New Jersey," said Assemblyman William Payne, sponsor of the proposal. "All that is being requested of New Jersey is to say three simple words: 'We are sorry.'"

And:

Payne's measure is set for a hearing Thursday by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. It hasn't received Senate consideration. The legislative session expires Tuesday.

Huh.  The Appropriations Committee.  Go figure.  Wonder why the yahoos who oversee all the profligate waste of taxpayer funds are the ones who are considering this resolution.

No way this could possibly lead to consideration of reparations.  No, never.

As the great Lloyd Bridges said, "Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue."

From a "breaking" news story posted online this morning:

SINGAPORE (AP) - Maria Sharapova said Saturday she believed women's tennis is taking the necessary measures to remain clean amid allegations of match- fixing and illegal betting in the men's game.

"The women's game is very clean," the fifth-ranked player said one day before an exhibition match with her sixth-ranked Russian compatriot, Anna Chakvetadze.

Sharapova, 20, said WTA Tour chief executive and chairman Larry Scott "is doing all the things possible, from having meetings throughout the year to encouraging players to be safe and smart about their choices.

"Unfortunately we have to be realistic about the fact that some of these things do go on ... but at the end of the day I believe that women's tennis is doing a great job of being clean," Sharapova said.

Ok, so the chief executive of the women's professional tennis tour is "doing all things possible" to make sure the sport is clean.  That must mean state of the art, random, and frequent drug testing, rigorous background checks on players, their coaches and entourages, perhaps even working with international police agencies to further investigations into possible improprieties in the world of professional sport.

Oh, wait, never mind, he's found a better way.  He's having meetings (presumably with players) and encouraging said players to make good decisions.  Well, then, he's pretty much covered the waterfront!

I suppose we have to at least give Mr. Scott credit for having Ms. Sharapova make these comments to the press.  If your tour's position is essentially to do nothing and hope that there are no problems, you may has well send it via a tall, blonde, gorgeous player for all those people who aren't listening to what she's saying, but instead are mesmerized by her beauty.  Well played, Mr. Scott.

Some smart blogger should make available "Contempt Citations" for ordinary citizens to issue to deserving elected, judicial and bureaucratic figures.  If I were a government official or employee, nothing would give me a bigger smile than having a nice clean contempt citation from Congress to frame and hang on my bathroom wall.  From the linked story:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Thursday to hold two men who have been top aides to President George W. Bush in contempt for refusing to comply with subpoenas in its probe of the firing of federal prosecutors.

On a largely party-line vote, the Democratic-led panel sent contempt of Congress citations against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove to the full Senate for consideration.

I see on Michelle Malkin's blog that the Democrats in New Jersey are apparently working to eliminate the death penalty in this state.  The news report from the Courier Post that Ms. Malkin links to provides in part as follows:

The Legislature moved New Jersey closer Monday to becoming the first state to pass a law repealing the death penalty since it was nationally reinstated in 1976.

The state Senate passed the measure 21-16, and the Assembly Public Law and Safety Committee advanced the bill by a 5-1 vote to the full Assembly. The Assembly will take up the bill Thursday, positioning New Jersey to replace capital punishment with life in prison without parole by early next year.

Of course, more surprising to me was the revelation that New Jersey still actually HAS the death penalty on the books.

My guess is no criminal who truly deserves it is ever going to be executed in New Jersey anyway, so I'm not going to get too worked up about this nominal change in law.  When the busybodies in the State House figure out a way to outlaw living in Camden, Jersey City and Newark because residing in such locations is effectively a death sentence, then things may get interesting.

This story just breaks my heart.  I can't begin to imagine the heartache this dog owner has felt since Halloween.  And the sickness and depravity of the people who are putting this man and his pet through this ordeal is equally unfathomable.  Our family will add Bill Whiting and Edna to our silent prayers this week.

Michael McCarthy wrote a piece in this morning's USA Today on the growing tension between university athletic departments and academic departments as the two sides compete for general university funds.  Always good to see Myles Brand, head of the NCAA, dispensing pearls of wisdom like the following:

"You're getting a lot more tension in the university. And no one is talking about it. Almost a quiet crisis," said Brand. "That tension between faculty needs, academic needs and the desire of athletic departments to be competitive is really a very serious, and growing, issue."

The average earnings of the 120 major college football coaches nationwide hit $1 million for the first time this year, according to a USA TODAY analysis published Wednesday. But Brand doesn't blame spiraling head coaching salaries for the rise in athletic department spending. Roughly 75% of a head football coach's salary is generated by outside sources, such as TV/radio deals and endorsements, he noted.

Instead, he blames the "coattails effect" of pricey assistant coaches, trainers, video technicians and equipment. "It's everyone else. It's the $400,000-$500,000 coordinator," Brand says.

Check me if I'm wrong, but to have a "coattails effect," doesn't there have to be a coat to begin with?  I mean, presumably without the multi-million dollar head coaching salaries that Brand says are not a problem, there wouldn't be the excess of half million dollar assistant coaching salaries, trainers, video technicians and equipment that are causing all the trouble.  So I guess the head coaching salaries are just an inconvenient problem that Brand doesn't want to recognize.  Better to stroke the egos of the millionaire coaches who are the faces of college athletics, and who just by coincidence happen to help the NCAA, under Brand's leadership, make billions of dollars from television revenues.

But wait.  Isn't Bob Knight, long-time bete noir of Myles Brand from their days together at Indiana University, one of the coaches with a mega-salary?  What's the world coming to?  Reminds me of the movie Ghostbusters, when the title characters are explaining to the mayor of New York the ramifications of their findings about ghostly activity in the Big Apple:

Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.

None of the above is even close to the cataclysmic nature of Myles Brand and Bob Knight seeing eye to eye on the size of Knight's salary.

From perusing Hugh Hewitt's and Michelle Malkin's blogs, I see that the Boston Globe has apparently managed to "discover" that the lawn care service Mitt Romney uses for his home in Massachusetts still hires illegal aliens, despite their promises to Mr. Romney that such practices would not continue after this issue first arose earlier this year as the presidential campaign started to gather steam.

Patrick Ruffini, writing at Hugh Hewitt's blog, had this to say:

But you have to wonder what Romney was thinking using the same company that got him in hot water the year before. You would think he would have had this kind of thing squared away before he became an active candidate. It's not like he's ever at the house overseeing these guys, but that's no excuse. This is exactly the kind of treatment any candidate can expect. Do we know, for instance, who's been tending the garden on Whitehaven Street or in Chappaqua? In light of this report, perhaps we should.

Michelle Malkin, while pointing out the interesting double standards involved in questioning one's immigration status, also noted as follows:

For the record, Romney should have cut ties with the company a long time ago. Dumb decision. He should  be embarrassed.

I understand from the perspective of people who apparently have nothing better to do that find the political angle to everything in life that being angry or disappointed in Romney for not having "fixed this problem" by firing the lawn service is the obvious reaction.  But as someone who grows more disenchanted with politics and government with every passing year, I wonder why people like Ruffini and Malkin don't have the common sense to look at this situation from the perspective that maybe Romney tried to handle this like a normal person rather than a politician.

Let's assume that Romney has been using the same lawn care service for his home for the past 10 years.  I don't know how long he has lived in Massachusetts, but I believe he was running for Senate and the Governor's Mansion back in the early 90s, so it seems reasonable to think he's lived there longer than 10 years.  Provided the lawn service company is doing a good job, and the price seems acceptable, it wouldn't be surprising to find that the same company handled the work for a long stretch of time.  The same service took care of our lawn from the time our house was built in 1994 through this summer, when we had to make some financial cutbacks.  And when the time comes to bring a lawn service back, our first call will be to the service we used before.  We liked the work they did, and have some loyalty to them.

So why couldn't it be reasonable for someone like Mitt Romney to also have some loyalty to the lawn care service people he has been dealing with for years?  When the "problem" of the service hiring illegal aliens first arose, the company apparently assured / promised Romney that it wouldn't do it again.  So now it's Romney's fault for believing them and not just firing the company and bringing in someone new?  What kind of view of the small business owner does that involve?  Should we just assume that a small business owner is a liar and cut them loose because it's more politically expedient?

I find Ms. Malkin's and Mr. Ruffini's comments often times quite insightful.  But I think they've missed something on this topic.  I'm willing to give Romney points for sticking by the lawn care service company after their assurances they would no longer hire illegal aliens.  That's the normal guy, decent thing to have done, and I don't think he has anything to be embarrassed about with this story.  Quite frankly, I think Romney would have more to be embarrassed about if he had fired the lawn service company in response to the original discovery that they had hired illegal aliens.  That would have been the craven, weasely, politician approach that I am disappointed to find Ruffini and Malkin advocating.

Well, probably not.  Adverse possession is an old common law doctrine whereby someone can obtain title to property that they do not actually own.  Essentially, you have to act as if you own the property for a sufficiently long period of time (usually 20 years) without the real property owner taking steps to stop you.  This is one of those things you learn in property law during law school and then find out in practice that it's darn near impossible to succeed on this type of claim in today's world.  So it would kind of be interesting and newsworthy in the legal world to see a case involving a valid adverse possession action.

However, in this story out of Boulder, Colorado, linked by Instapundit.com, it looks to me more like a typical case of political corruption carrying the day, using adverse possession as a hook for extorting the rightful property owners.  Sounds like the idiot judge/mayor/trespasser in Boulder could use being on the receiving end of some old-time frontier justice.  Here's a taste of the story - sorry if it ruins anyone's appetite heading into Thanksgiving:

The story is so absurd, so unfair, so ludicrous, I had a difficult time believing that it could actually happen - even in Boulder.
I
t's about a couple named Don and Susie Kirlin. They moved to the city in 1980. A few years later, the Kirlins purchased a plot of land near their residence, hoping to someday build a "dream home."
"We took advantage of the market in the early '80s," says Susie Kirlin, almost apologetic for making a smart investment.

Children interfered slightly with the master plan - three of them in the next few years - postponing any development of the property.

As the children began to make their own way in life, the couple decided it was time to finally develop the property in late 2006.

By then, it was too late.

Despite owning the land, despite living only 200 yards from the property, despite hiking past it every week with their three dogs, despite spraying for weeds and fixing fences, despite paying homeowner association dues and property taxes each year, someone else had taken a shine to it. Someone powerful.

I first saw this item linked via Instapundit.com (the entire text is below, but if you click through, you can see a photo of the plane):

With exquisite timing, Boeing chooses a travel weekend that could go down in the annals of airborne horror to deliver a top-of-the-line Boeing Business Jet that will be assigned to Congress - those folks who have charged billions in air travel taxes over the decades and left us with 1930s blind-landing technology. The jet took off from Seattle this morning for its base at Scott AFB in Illinois.

Midwest and East Coast - check out this morning's Seattle weather in the picture, because it's headed your way.

The C-40C, jam-packed with 40 seats by luxury-jet specialists at Greenpoint Technologies, is the third and last of a batch ordered in 2005. They will be operated by the USAF reserve to carry Congressional delegations around the world.

Funny how nobody in Washington ever mentions these $70 million jets as an example of wasteful defense spending. Or as an example of an unjustified Air Force mission that doesn't support our soldiers on the ground.

Instapundit has posted a follow-up:

Reader Al Reasin emails: "Since congress's new luxury jet is part of the military appropriations and with congress not funding the military as the president requested, the jet should be the first causalty of the reduction in spending required to maintain support for the troops in harm's way. While the jet has been delivered, so too late to cancel it, it should be grounded. Actually all congressional fights provided by the Air Force should be grounded. Let them all take to the airways with the regular folks and experience the problems we face. And since they are so concerned about global warming, it would reduce their carbon footprint." I'm on board!

So Al, if you are a natural born U.S. citizen, and will be over the age of 35 by January 20, 2009, you may be getting at least one vote for President next fall.  Good luck and Godspeed.

From the Daily Mail:

Man 'torched £350,000 home to stop his wife getting it in divorce'

By CHRIS BROOKE -  A furious husband burnt down his £350,000 home to stop his wife receiving it in a divorce settlement, a court heard.

Gary Hooley, a builder, had previously threatened to "knock the house down brick by brick" during one of many heated rows with his wife Michelle.

With the short marriage heading for divorce, he set fire to the house they shared in a callous act of retribution committed while drunk, Sheffield Crown Court was told.