Muda69

I guess so. Thanks for the kudos. Interesting that you refuse to answer how as a football coach you would respond to a simple scenario. Telling.

Unmask America https://mises.org/wire/unmask-america The story changed from "masks don't work," to "masks may work," to "masks work and you must wear one." Now the narrative switches yet again: "cloth masks don't work, so you should wear a surgical or 'well-fitted' mask," or even wear two! Note that even as covid evolves into a less dangerous omicron variant, we are supposed to increase the hysteria level by wearing masks intended for surgeons maintaining a sterile environment over open wounds. We are told this by the same political, medical, and media figures who have been "frequently wrong but never in doubt" about all things covid over the past two long years. And they spoke with just as much bogus certainty then as they do now. Perversely, the Biden administration recently ordered 400 million surgical N95 masks for distribution across the country. Since N95 masks are considered disposable, and meant to be worn at most perhaps 40 hours, it is unclear what happens in a week or two when 330 million Americans run out of their "free" personal protective equipment. The UK has sensibly ended its mask mandates, both in public places (offices and other workplaces, bars, restaurants, sporting events, theaters) and thankfully schools. One young university student broke down in tears at the news, lamenting the inhumanity of her experience over the past two years. As British Health secretary Savid Javid stated, "We must learn to live with covid in the same way we live with flu." Amen. The arguments against masks are straightforward. Masks don't work. Or at least cloth masks don't. Even the CDC now admits what Dr. Anthony Fauci told the world in February 2020: cloth masks don't work and there is no reason to wear one: CNN's dubious medical expert Dr. Lena Wen, previously an uber-masker, now tells us cloth masks are "little more than facial decorations. And heroic skeptic Dr. Jay Bhattacharya cites both a Danish study and a Bangladeshi study which found cloth masks show little efficacy in preventing covid. Are we seriously prepared to wear tight and uncomfortable surgical masks all day to evade omicron? Masks are filthy. Humans lungs and our respiratory system are designed to inhale nitrogen and oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is literally a waste product, removed from the blood via our lungs. Masks may not trap injurious levels of carbon dioxide against our nose and mouth, but they certainly get filthy very quickly unless changed constantly. They also encourage mouth breathing, which can cause "mask mouth" symptoms including acne, bad breath, tender gums, and lip irritation. Why would we ever interfere with natural breathing unless we felt sick, displayed symptoms, and were worried about infecting others? And in that case, why not just stay home? Masks are dehumanizing. Humans communicate verbally and nonverbally, and masks impede both forms. Masks muffle and distort our words. Our facial expressions are important cues to everyone around us; without those cues communication and understanding suffer. Infants and toddlers may be most affected, as a lack of facial engagement with parents and loved ones impedes the human connections and attachments formed during childhood. Perhaps most disturbing, however, are the symbolic effects when millions of Americans dutifully wear masks based on flimsy evidence provided by deeply unimpressive people. Facelessness--the lack of individual identity, personality, and looks-- is inherently dehumanizing and dystopian. Like prison or military uniforms, masks reduce our personal characteristics. Mask are muzzles, symbols of rote acquiescence to an ugly new normal nobody asked for or voted for. Risk is inevitable. Risk is omnipresent, and heavily subjective (e.g., covid risk varies enormously with age and comorbidities). Nobody has a right to force interventions like masks onto others, just as nobody has a right to a hypothetical germ-free landscape. Exhalation is not aggression, short of purposefully attempting to sicken others. People wearing masks arguably shed slightly fewer covid virus particles than those not, but this does not justify banning the latter from public life. As always, the overwhelming burden of justification for any intervention—including mask mandates—must rest on those proposing it, not those opposing it. In sum, Americans are not children. Tradeoffs are part of every policy, whether government officials admit this or not. We know how to coexist with flu, just as we live with countless bacteria and viruses in our environment. We will similarly coexist with covid. The goal is not to eliminate germs, and zero covid is an absurdity. A healthy immune system, built up through diet, exercise, and sunlight will always be the best frontline defense against communicable disease. But diet, exercise, and sunlight cannot be outsourced to health officials or mandated by politicians. Whatever slight benefits masks may provide are a matter for individuals to decide for themselves. People who feel sick with symptoms should stay home. We can all wash our hands frequently and thoroughly. Otherwise it is time for Americans to assert themselves against the dubious claims and non-existent legality of government covid measures. It is time to get back to normal life, and that starts with visible human faces. Shocking to see the psuedo-police state called Great Britain actually doing the sensible, and human, thing here.

How would you handle the above scenario as a coach, Irishman? A sensible position if you really care about the health and safety of children.

Wow. Never thought I would see the day where Clinton Central was smaller than Lafayette Central Catholic. Bulldog nation is slowly dying. It looks like a consolidation is real possibility in the near future.

Let's say a high school safety prevents a go-ahead touchdown by their opponent as time expired in the 4th quarter, but does it using a non-approved tackling method that puts him and/or his opponent at the risk of incurring a real concussion. Would he be berated by his coaches after the play, or carried off the field on the shoulders of his teammates?

Obviously Budda Baker didn't use that technique and it cost him a concussion, and possibly more health issues later in life. Coaches bench receivers for dropping passes, do they not? Coaches bench lineman for missing blocks, do they not? Should coaches bench players who don't follow the properly taught tackling techniques? And if the answer is yes, do they? Really?

At least Bears games are good for something: gambling. https://deadspin.com/want-to-know-who-s-going-to-win-this-weekend-just-look-1848393811

https://www.jconline.com/story/news/2022/01/20/family-center-eminent-domain-push-sees-dream-dying/6571009001/ Hmm, it does not state that the TSC even looked for an alternative parcel of land that was for sale. Instead they just happened to luck out with an adjoining parcel of farmland and decided to take it by force. Tyranny.

Good point.

Wow, truly a rock icon and legend. He will be missed.

Thank you. I wonder how many of these transgender applications have been filed with the IHSAA so far.

Can you please point me to those rules in their by-laws regarding transgender "girls" participating in sports? Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen for the IHSAA.

So what's the use of teaching this technique if the players are not going to embrace it and use it?

Go Redskins!

NFL fines Buccaneers’ Bruce Arians for striking his own player: https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nfl-fines-buccaneers-e2-80-99-bruce-arians-for-striking-his-own-player/ar-AASWCAl?ocid=uxbndlbing Stay classy Mr. Arians.

Biden approval hits new low at one-year mark: AP-NORC poll - https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-business-health-inflation-6b6b0abfef867fc405e9f358ce2c3a09 Mr. Biden's first year has POTUS has been a failure, who is to think the next three years will be any different?

Report me then. I view it as akin to purchasing a newspaper, reading it, then leaving it on the table after I leave so others can read it. What's the real difference?

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congresss-16-committee-claims-absolute The committee did not deny that it failed to meet these requirements. Obviously, they could not argue that, given that the plan they created with JPMorgan and its lawyer, Loretta Lynch, was designed to ensure that Budowich have no time to obtain a judicial ruling before his bank records were handed over. Instead, the committee's response is they do not have to comply with this law. “The Act restricts only agencies and departments of the United States, and the Select Committee is neither,” the committee's lawyer contended. In fact, they explicitly argued that these safeguards were meant to be imposed only on the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, but were intended to exempt Congress even when, as here, they are clearly engaged in investigating private citizens for potential crimes. “Multiple provisions of the statute underscore that Congress intended 'Government authority' to mean an executive branch agency or department,” the committee's lawyers wrote in an assertion of power breathtaking in its scope and limitlessness. All of the other committee's arguments are similarly designed to bestow on itself absolute and unlimited power in how it investigates private citizens, and to insist that the judiciary is without power to impose limits on it. The committee insists, for instance, that it can investigate anyone it wants in connection with 1/6 even if its motive is not to enact new laws and even if the documents it seeks (Budowich's financial records) have no relationship to any proposed new laws. That is because, it says, “Congressional committees are not required to identify a specific piece of legislation in advance of conducting an investigation of the pertinent facts. It is sufficient that a committee’s investigation concerns a subject on which legislation 'could be had.'" Such a principle, if accepted, would destroy any limits on Congress’s ability to investigate citizens (clearly, it was possible for the McCarthy-era Congressional investigations to lead to new laws even though, as the Supreme Court twice ruled when striking them down, that was clearly not its primary purpose). But Judge Boasberg nonetheless accepted the committee's argument on the ground that an appellate court had already ruled that the 1/6 Committee had a valid legislative purpose and he was therefore bound by that decision. The committee's other arguments are even more extreme: namely, that “the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause provides absolute immunity to Members and committees when performing legislative acts" and that “sovereign immunity prohibits litigation against Congress to which it has not consented, and no such consent has been.” That would mean that the 1/6 Committee could literally do whatever it wanted to citizens, and no court would have the right even to review the legality or constitutionality of what it is doing let alone put a stop to it. What happened during the first War on Terror — and so many other events that were perceived as traumatic — is instructive here. So many Americans were so horrified by the carnage of that day that, for years, many did not care or want to hear about legal niceties, constitutional limits or civil liberties regarding the government's actions. Anything the government did in the name of responding to or retaliating for 9/11 became inherently justified, and anyone who objected — no matter the principles cited — was deemed to be on the side of the terrorists. The same dynamic is prevailing here. There are serious constitutional limits on the ability of Congress to investigate private citizens. It is blatantly abusive to scheme with JPMorgan and its counsel Loretta Lynch to ensure that a citizen has no time to seek judicial relief regarding the committee's attempt to obtain mounds of his personal and financial records. And, in general, the committee has been on a rampage targeting not only Trump officials or people who engaged in criminal behavior at the Capitol on January 6 but a wide group of citizens whose only crime appears to be their political beliefs and associations — exactly what the Supreme Court cited when striking down the excesses of Congress’s McCarthy-era probes of citizens. But with the media overwhelmingly cheering anything done in the name of stopping the Trump movement and those who supported 1/6 in any way, all of these civil liberties concerns and constitutional protections are run roughshod over in the name of safety. The latest arguments from the Congressional 1/6 Committee amount to little more than an assertion of unfettered power for Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney and the rest of the committee members to dig into the lives of anyone they want without limits. Yep. McCarthy-era type terrorism of United State citizens is still happening today, courtesy of this out of control 1/6 Committee. Chilling.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/20/transgender-bill-school-sports-likely-advance-indiana/6527878001/ It will be interesting to see where this legislation goes.

I love you too. <smooch> Disagree. Those gyms are dumps compared to Case Arena.

https://jalopnik.com/this-tiny-alabama-town-of-1-200-has-been-overrun-by-pol-1848389331 It’s a rampant display of for-profit overpolicing from law enforcement in a tiny town with a population whose median income is well below state average — a town that survives in large part due to tax revenue from the local Dollar General. It’s not a town known for violence, though it already brought in a pretty high percentage of its local revenue from fines and forfeitures, even before the policing crisis started. A town with just 6.3 miles of roads saw officers patrol 114,438 miles in 2020. And those patrols resulted in stops that residents have often found problematic. There’s the grandmother who’s suing the city alleging that she was stopped after officers claimed she flashed her headlights to warn other cars that they were nearby. Or there’s another resident who was one of 75 people that were given a ticket for simply using the left lane on the interstate. The city is in the business of screwing over its residents. And the mayor doesn’t seem to care that people are complaining: Residents are hoping something can be done about the situation soon. The sheriff for Brookside’s Jefferson Count, Mark Pettway, thinks everything that’s going on will eventually attract the attention of the federal government: Hmm, somebody in the Brookside government is making some $ over this.

Good point. They want to keep up the fiction of marijuana as the 'wacky weed'.

I guess we now need separate conferences for those schools/communities who choose to "invest" enough in extracurricular athletics and those schools/communities who choose not to "invest". Why Western Boone and not Frankfort? From a geographical standpoint the Hot Dogs make better sense. Oh, it's that "invest" in sports thing.

I guess Budda Baker wasn't taught rugby style tackling. How many current players on NFL rosters did not play youth football, when the foundation of their skills coaching was lain? Probably few to none.

But it was in Obi-Wan's plan. Was not talking to you, Chief.