Despite the idiot sarcasm ("... have you ever opened a history book, or do you even follow current events, for that matter?"), which begs me not to take you seriously, I'll take you seriously. I didn't say, and I don't think, that the U.S. army is invincible. What I said was that we the people aren't going to forcibly defeat it, and what I meant (but probably didn't say clearly enough) is that neither the 2nd Amendment nor private gun ownership will make a difference there.

Let's keep the comparisons relevant. In fact, modern history is not at all replete with examples of armed citizens overthrowing their own tyrannical government by force, let alone a government with anywhere near the disproportionate military strength of ours. Neither the Soviet failure in Afghanistan nor the U.S. failure in Iraq are meaningful here because the ability of those native fighters to frustrate an invading foreign power doesn't tell us anything about our own ability to seriously thwart or to takedown our own government in the event that it becomes tyrannical--which is to say that it stops giving a shit about protecting our liberty and security and its own survival is at stake. The differences between those foreign excursions and a serious domestic uprising are just enormous, as is the difference between the government's military power relative to its own citizens that exists in our country today and that which existed in historical examples of successful domestic rebellions.

Really, can you imagine any scenario in which our privately owned guns will beat the force of the government? Try that on the individual level or in small groups and you get Ruby Ridge and Waco. Lot of good their guns did them. Conceivably it might happen if a very large portion of the population took up arms simultaneously, and the government chose to use considerable restraint. But it wouldn't be the firearms that make the difference there.

Our army is not invincible and our government is not permanent, but to think that private gun ownership provides a viable defense against government tyranny--today, here in America--is just foolish. And imagining yourself as a Cossack fighting Napoleon's army won't help.

That last sentence was stupidly sarcastic, as well. Sorry. Please ignore it.

My last post pointlessly defensive and hostile? You don't consider that to be meaningful debate? And then you triumphantly sign off? How embarrassing. What a phony.

I agree with Melody: When the names get named, that'll be headline news. The news that someone was dealing PEDs to big-league players and he may name names in the future just doesn't pack a punch anymore. Plus, it seems likely to me that things will ultimately be arranged so that no names get named at all, and I'm probably not the only one with that cynical expectation.

Also, King, has there really been much blame directed at the sports media for not covering the drugs issue enough? Seems to me everyone's blaming MLB officials for ignoring it or covering it up, not the press.

... how in this analysis the Warriors seem to have had nothing to do with Nowitzki's poor performance. When Nowitzki doesn't score it's because "his shots stopped falling," but when G.S. misses shots it's because of "tight defense by Jason Terry" and "Nowitzki's presence in the paint." Really?

In addition to Nowitzki suddenly playing like a star, something else happened at the end of last night's game that gave the Mavs the victory--Golden State fell apart. Just a couple of well-executed offensive plays or a couple of shots falling in would probably have ended this series despite Nowitzki's comeback.

I'm not a fan of Golden State, but the Barkley-esque refusal to give Golden State credit is just weird. You don't have to believe the Warriors are a championship team to recognize that, even if they don't win this series, the Warriors clearly have an edge over the Mavs--the more talented team. Is it the individual matchups? Is it the coaching? It is purely psychological? I think it's one of the most fascinating things in sports when a less-talented team or player just seems to own a better one. You should talk about that.

"Basically, it suggests that if you spray-painted one of your starters white, you'd win a few more games," Wolfers said.

Damn, even accepting the conclusions of this study (as King reports it), I don't know how Wolfers can make this claim. The whiter teams having a higher winning percentage hasn't been shown to be a consequence of the foul calls, and the assumption that a very small number of fewer fouls is going to give a team a few more wins is just wild. It's remotely possible, but it sure ain't scientific.

for that graf about Queen Elizabeth and Anna Nicole Smith. And on top of that Monty Python link from the other day! Keep it rolling.