But not a peep from anyone... If you have a playoff, and say a team with 3 losses beats everyone, they are the champ. No one will complaint, or grumble.

I don't like this BCS, never have, never will. Every college year, I hope for 3+ undefeated teams, or a bunch of teams with 1 loss, this year, it's a couple of teams with 1 loss, and a bunch with two losses...

Same goes for Pacific-10 and 2 from Mountain West and remaining can go to FSB or subdivision groups.

Thanks for dropping by.

You've got to take (well you don't HAVE to) what I post with a LARGE grain of salt, since I'm a a slave to the cheap joke and hyperbole.

I was actually an admirer of <Bill Buckley> and read his column my whole life.

<traditional liberal view>-- You mean <modern liberal view>:

Traditional "Left" or "liberal" thinking from the 17th century on <Locke> was quite "libertarian"-- small government, an unfettered market-- and these ideas were appropriated later by political conservatives.

Your 18th century <conservative> (Edmund Burke) thought capitalism was "crass" and that, paternalistically, the job of the elite was to care for the great unwashed and to set an example for <"noble behavior.">-- IE- respect for God, King and Country.

To be fair to your point, however, of course I realize that=

The <extended family>, <philanthropy>, and of course the (originially) <Lockean> economic idea that an <unfettered market> creates jobs and therefore relieves poverty are all <pre-welfare state> ideas of how to care for the poor.

However-- the history of the <Union movement> proved that "class struggle" was also an economic reality, perhaps a necessity for raising the bar for traditionally "poor" occupations. Note that the Union Movement is the OPPOSITE of a <welfare state> ethos-- the poorer workers band together fight for themselves in this case.

Only a total <libertarian>, however -- (Nozick) for example--- would advocate letting the "market" take care of the poor all by itself.

and even Locke had his famous <proviso>- "lest those who were unable to compete were not cared for" etc. etc. He thought those simply unable to compete in a labor market should be cared for. He didn't say exactly HOW, though (second Treatise on Government).

<Nozick> imagined himself a disciple of <Locke>, but he's a tad heartless.

And let's not get into the perverted heartlessness of <Herbert Spencer's> "social Darwinism"-- An idea enthusiastically embraced by the <Nazis>--

<Spencer> thought the poor (those unable to compete in a market) really would starve to death-- and this would be GOOD because it would weed out the social "fault" of poor people from the "gene pool." <Bobby Fischer> had similar notions about <weakie> chess players.

But I'm sure you know all this.

I think elements of a <welfare state> are necessary-- only a programmatic libertarianwould sugget otherwise-- but I'm no "knee-jerk" modern liberal either.

I wouldn't even vote for <H-Dog> or <Saddam Hussein Barack Osama Bin Laden>.

Course I wouldn't vote for <McCain French Fries> either.

I might vote for <Britney Spears>, but she's not running for nomination.

Anyhoo, thanks for dropping by.

The enigmatic <R Kola>...

Part 1

A question was posed as to what King move caused the earliest resignation. Here's the answer:

Den Broeder - Van der Ent, correspondence, Netherlands 1977 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 e6 4.c4 Bb4+ 5.Ke2 and Black resigned.

click for larger view

click for larger view

Havel 1925

White to play and win