Steroids in baseball and greatest pitcher of the 90's

Well, I'm finally going to weigh in on the whole Miller report, etc. It seems to me that the report revealed a pervasive problem within the sport. 80 or so names listed specifically, many of whom are still playing and an entire team worth of All-Star players. That assumes of course that they were ever really All-Stars to begin with. Naturally that is. At any rate, here's my opinion. All the players should come clean and admit what they did, when they did it, why they did it and for how long they did it. Continuing to deny allegations in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary just makes you look even more guilty. After everything is said and done, there should probably be a few disciplinary actions handed out. However, punishing someone for doing something that wasn't illegal (although perhaps unethical) at the time it was done isn't really justice, so I think any punishment should really be done on a case by case basis. At any rate, that's pretty much it for me. Punishment can't possibly include removing records from the books, although it might include adding asterisks, which I hate, but somehow they might be needed. Finally, I'll now weigh in on who was the greatest pitcher of the steroids era. Everyone has always said it was obvious that Roger Clemens was the greatest pitcher. He had more wins, more strikeouts, fewer losses and more Cy Young awards than anyone else. While all that is true, the new allegations about his alleged steroids use certainly calls into question a lot of those statistics post 2000. Some say that pitchers being juiced isn't bad because the batters they were facing were too. I say that's nonesense, because not all pitchers were juiced which would give the juiced batters an advantage against them and the same is true in reverse. Therefore, while it might not matter in cases where both players were using, it certainly mattered in cases where only one player was. Therefore, who was the greatest pitcher of the 90's (steroid era)? That's easy, only one pitcher has statistics that come anywhere close to those of Clemens and there has never been an allegation that he used steroids. In addition, he's almost never even been on the disabled list. He would have faced juiced up and non-juiced batters alike and still achieved greatness regardless. Therefore, the greatest pitcher of the 90's was Greg Maddux followed closely by Tom Glavine, then Clemens would be third, not first, mostly due to the idea that he used 'roids to heal from injuries faster and possibly to give himself an advantage. At any rate, I don't think we'll be hearing that Clemens was the greatest so much anymore.

soccer in drag

I must admit that one of the most entertaining events I've seen in a while happened last night. Everyone knows that soccer is the favorite sport of Brazil. Last night, while attending the communities Christmas festivities, which included a wonderful children's choir from Sao Lucas Community School (I think that's what it was called, after all, Portuguese is not my strong point), we looked over at the soccer field to see a bunch of men playing. Upon a closer look, all the men on the field were dressed in drag. There were a bunch of women watching and taking pictures and some of the men were obviously too big for what they were wearing indicating they were probably wearing their girlfriend/wife/whatever's clothes. It was quite entertaining watching this soccer match, especially since the men were getting into their roles pretty well at times. There was some obvious poking fun at women? perhaps or just at themselves, again, Portuguese isn't my strong suit, but the whole spectacle was quite entertaining. My 3 year old son didn't seem to notice a bunch of men dressed as women playing soccer (although I'm not sure how you can miss the skirts and dresses these guys were wearing) but he did want blue to win. Since there were guys on both teams dressed in blue, that made it easy for him to root since he got to cheer both sides, whenever someone was wearing blue.

Travelling TAM Airlines

So, my family and I were travelling to Brazil last weekend. I must say that it was relatively uneventful. However, TAM Airlines apparently thinks that using an A320 between Miami and Manaus is a good idea. I might as well be flying domestic while flying on this plane. In addition, their apparent idea of in-flight entertainment was an American program, dubbed into Portuguese with no English on the second channel, followed by a British comedy program in English, followed by a magic act in English with the grand finale to the entertainment being a Brazilian show with subtitles (yeah). Oh wait, the subtitles were in German. Go figure. Anyway, I also would not recommend doing customs at 2:30 in the morning with 2 children who you have no chance of keeping asleep, but we did manage, even though the next day was like walking through a vat of molasses.

Why hasn't the U.S. joined the Kyoto Protocol???

The United States has taken a lot of flack for not joining the Kyoto Treaty and the Bush Administration has taken a lot of heat from Democrats for not passing the treaty. While I believe more needs to be done to preserve the environment, I was convinced in 1998 by arguments from the Democrats, not Republicans that Kyoto was bad for America. So, let us set the record straight on this issue.

It is true that President Bush has never submitted the Kyoto Treaty to the Senate for ratification, however, the question really should be, why didn't Bill Clinton do it since the treaty was signed late in 1998 and was able to be submitted to the Senate for ratification while he was still a sitting President and while Al Gore was still the sitting Vice President and President of the Senate? That's a good question, with a relatively simple answer. EVERYONE was against it. Even though Al Gore did symbolically sign the treaty, before it was signed, but after it was finalized, the U.S. Senate did in fact vote on the treaty. Although it was not a ratification vote, the vote was 95-0 (see the results of the vote here: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm
.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00205), which is as unanimous as the Senate ever gets on something. The resolution they voted on was S.Res. 98 which stated that the "United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". This is stunning. Even though the Senate passed a resolution NOT to sign the treaty by a vote of 95-0 because it was a flawed treaty, the Vice President signed it anyway. Well, I guess the people of this country have been lied to in regards to Kyoto. The lie is that Republicans and President Bush don't support a good treaty when in fact, the only supporter of the treaty was Vice President Al Gore. The Senate unanimously voted against it and President Clinton didn't even see fit to present it to the Senate for ratification. There's the truth. EVERYONE WAS AGAINST IT! Now, what is so bad about the treaty?

When asked directly about the treaty, President Bush said he would not submit the treaty for ratification as long as it exempted China from reducing their emissions. Really? China is exempt? Why is that? Well, because a majority of developing nations were exempted from implementing the protocols, but were required to do nothing more than report their total emissions. Okay, so still, what's the big deal? The United States is still the biggest carbon dioxide emitter in the world, right? Well, as of 2004, the United States was listed as the largest emitter, yes, but there is more to that story. In fact, the largest ten emitters as reported to the U.N. in 2004 were 1. United States 2. China 3. Russia 4. India 5. Japan 6. Germany 7. Canada 8. United Kingdom 9. South Korea 10. Italy. Hmm... looks like a good list and I bet all these countries are required to reduce emissions under Kyoto, right? Well, we already know that China is exempt, so who else is exempt. Supposedly developing countries are supposed to be exempt, so why is it that Germany is also exempt from the accord. In addition, India, as a developing nation, is exempt from the accord. Wait, that means that 2 of the top 5 emitters are exempt from reducing their emissions including India and China which as of 2006 means that the top emitter is exempt from reducing emissions. Oh yeah, in 2006, China took over from the United States as the top emitter according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. So, are any of these other top 10 emitters exempt? Well, I mentioned Germany earlier, but they get a bye because of the EU's special exception in working together as a group. This way, all EU nations including Germany and Italy in the list above get to redistribute their emissions to meet their targets. Sounds interesting. In addition, South Korea is also exempt. This means that three of the top ten producers are completely exempt and Russia, who was required to ratify the treaty only did so after being given certain guarantees by the EU that probably violate the spirit if not the letter of the treaty. So... according to the 2004 emissions report, the world produced 27,245,758 total emissions. The top 10 countries in the 2004 list produced 18,136,545 total emissions. This is almost 67 percent of the total emissions worldwide. That means that the top 10 producers should be responsible for the majority of the reduction. However, 3 of those countries are exempt outright which means that 6,818,775 emissions in 2004 are exempt from reducing, placing additional burden on the other 7 countries. But wait, three of those top 10 are EU countries that can "redistribute" their emissions around the EU to make their targets so it is questionable how much they would actually contribute to reduction? In addition, how much did the EU really give to Russia in order to get them to sign. Do they even have to reduce anything? Probably they are supposed to, but with some crazy EU scheme in buying and selling credits, Russia can probably get away with reducing very little. Therefore, that leaves the United States, Japan and Canada as the only countries in the top 10 who can be relied upon in reducing emissions to meet Kyoto goals. Hmm... That means that 3 countries out of the 39 required to lower emissions are responsible for the majority of the required reductions since most of the top 10 countries have outs for getting around those reductions. Therefore, countries that produce 29 percent of reductions are responsible for reducing 67 percent of the Kyoto requirements. Even if the other countries did meet their required reductions, that would mean that China and India and South Korea are still exempted, so that would mean the 7 countries who produce 42 percent of the emissions are required to be responsible for 67 percent of the reductions. As long as China, India and South Korea are exempt and as long as Russia and some EU countries can use formulas and credits to get around actual reductions, then I agree with the unanimous Senate that we should not have signed and certainly shouldn't join this treaty because it is a sham and not a treaty that should ever have been agreed to. We need to start over and do it right.

How bad/good is the U.S. economy today?

It has been recently and widely reported that the U.S. economy is doing very poorly under Bush. In fact, I recall hearing the words tanking used. While I have no problem with blaming things on the sitting President since I tend to subscribe to the concept of "the buck stops here" whether a President actually had anything to do with it or not, since my personal experience hadn't suggested a particularly bad economy, I thought I'd check out just what our economy is doing, since not everyone is affected the same way. So... here goes.

You hear a lot about how the low dollar, rising oil prices and falling housing prices indicate we must be headed for a recession. Although those are three common indicators of economic stability, they are only three indicators. All economic indicators are available from various government and non government sites online. Let's look at them.

The Gross domestic Product (this is an important one since it determines whether a country is in a recession, depression or a boom) for the United States has grown every year since 1991. During that time, even though GDP went up in 2001, there was a single recession (a recession is defined as any two or more successive declines in the nation's GDP) in 2001 beginning in March of that year and ending in November, so a relatively short lived recession at that. This recession was compounded by Sept. 11, 2001 but contrary to predictions, remarkably turned around and didn't survive the year, in fact, 2001 actually saw an annual increase in the GDP. This indicates the relative health of the U.S. economy that it was even able to absorb the downturn caused by 9/11.

Interest rates are another key indicator of the strength of the economy, lower ones generally mean we are concerned about stimulating the economy and higher ones generally mean we are concerned about inflation. So, if the interest rates go lower, we are trying to stimulate a slow economy but that doesn't mean we are in for a recession. In addition, higher interest rates usually mean that we are concerned about inflation which usually happens because the economy is rising too fast and therefore, prices begin to rise so much that it slows the economy down because nobody can afford anything. So, you make interest rates go lower to stimulate the economy and then when it gets going, you make them go up to prevent inflation. So, statistics indicate that from at least 1995-2003 they were generally on a downward trend, with a few exceptions. Then, in 2003-2006 they were on a severe upward trend. Now, late in 2007 they have begun to inch downward again. This indicates that beginning in 2003, the economy was really beginning to get moving and that only recently has the federal reserve thought there was any stimulation necessary. That stimulation is a direct result of falling housing prices mentioned above. This doesn't indicate a falling economy but quite the opposite, however, there are other indicators to look at.

Inflation rates go up when the interest rates are low and the economy is rising. With that in mind, the inflation rates are currently relatively stable, fluctuating between 1.97 and 2.78 percent with an average rate in 2007 so far of 2.79 which is a good thing. In 2006, rates were as high as 4.32 percent and in 2005 they were as high as 4.69 percent and in 2004 they were as high as 3.52 percent. This tends to indicate an economy that is increasing, not contracting. In 2002, following 9/11 and the most recent recession, the rate fluctuated between 1.07 and 2.38 but the average rate for the year was 1.71 percent. This continues to be a positive trend in regards to inflation.

Unemployment rates have fluctuated a lot under Bush. In 2001, before 9/11, they had fallen to 3.9 percent in December 2002. Anything under 5 is considered to be excellent when it comes to the unemployment rate. After the 2001 recession and following 9/11, unemployment rates soared to as high as 6.3 percent as of June of 2003. Since then, the rates have steadily fallen until in June of 2007 the rate was 4.5 percent. September's number recently came out and was 4.7 percent. Again, this looks like a positive indicator to me.

Overall national income doesn't indicate much to me but economists swear it is a good indicator, so I looked up the statistics, and national income has increased every year since at least 1995. (My statistics didn't go back farther than that, but I'm sure you could find it if you wanted) Again, this seems like a good thing to me.

Personal income, or the amount one personally receives is an indicator of what the national income is going to look like apparently. This indicator has also increased every year since 1995. Hmm...

CPI (Consumer Price Index) is an indicator we are all familiar with and we want it to go up or be stable, not down. At least that's what I've always heard. At any rate, this indicator has slowing increased in the last 7 years. So slowly that it could be called stable. Perhaps this indicates a bit of slowness in the economy, but certainly nothing to cry foul over.

The Stock Market has been a wonderful fluctuating yo yo for some during the last 7 years. It really fell after the Tech. bubble burst in the late 90s and then again after 9/11. Although it has had some bumpy times, it is up, for the most part, this past week's downturn not withstanding. It is actually impressive how it was able to absorb both the tech bubble burst and 9/11 and still stay up over the long haul.

Consumer Confidence is another indicator that tells how people think the economy is doing. This really doesn't indicate much other than whether or not people feel they have any money to spend. Whether that is true can be compounded by a significant number of factors including how much personal debt someone has or whether they feel they can give to their favorite charity this year. Nonetheless, this is down, which really isn't surprising with the negative news on gas prices and housing prices but that doesn't really indicate what the economy is really doing, just how people who really have no idea other than what is in their bank account think about what the economy is really doing.

The dollar is down, no doubt about it, but come on, it hasn't tanked as I've heard it described in some media reports. It is down against almost every currency in the world that matters, true and we need to come up with a way to work on that, but much of that is due to China deciding they were going to dump a lot of their dollars in favor of the Euro. At least that's been my perception. China would probably have done that regardless of who was President.

Now, home prices are going down, that's absolutely true. However, they saw an unprecedented upturn in the 5-6 years before that so is the prices being down a sign of an economic slowdown or is it simply what Wall Street analysts like to call an inevitable correction to a smoking hot upturn. I tend to think it is the latter.

So, what is the overall health of the economy as of this writing? I think it looks pretty good and is actually on an upswing, with prices remaining somewhat stable and inflation as well. However, with people being concerned over their housing prices going down and gas prices going up, I think there is some cause for the downturn in consumer confidence, but does that really have any bearing on the actual health of the economy? Therefore, in my opinion, if you want to blame Bush for the economy, feel free to do so when it comes to housing prices, the strength of the dollar and gas prices since all of these fall into the "buck stops here" category for sitting Presidents, however, it appears to me that otherwise there is no cause for concern since it appears the economy is actually doing pretty well, contrary to media reports. You ask, if the economy is doing so good, why is the media making it sound so bad? Excellent question. If you find a good answer to that, post it here so all of us can be enlightened. I have my opinion, but it's just opinion so I'll leave only the facts above and keep my opinion to myself.

Is Birth Control for pre-teens a good idea?

I read in this morning's USA Today that a middle school in Maine has decided to allow the distribution of free birth control to children in the school. This includes the pill and patch as well as condoms. So, is this a good idea? I suppose many would argue that they are protecting the health of children and preventing unwanted pregnancies. I get that, but is that really enough justification to do this? In addition, this school district asks parents to sign a form allowing their children to be treated in the school clinic. If a parent signs this form, then a child receives free care in the school clinic at the hands of a nurse practitioner or physician. Sounds great right? Well, what it translates to is that the parent's have just signed away their parental rights by signing such a form because once they've signed the form, any and all care received at the clinic is considered confidential between the student and the care giver and excluding the parents entirely. Even if they wanted to know what treatment their child had received in the clinic, they wouldn't be able to find out because of said confidentiality. So that really changes things.

I've always felt that a giving out condoms to high school girls and boys was no big deal because it would probably prevent pregnancies. Is that even a good idea? I don't know. But at least I know that most high schoolers are old enough to actually be considering these issues. It disturbs me however, that we are now expanding this policy to middle schoolers. One school does it and many more are sure to follow. In addition, we aren't just giving out condoms but giving out all sorts of birth control options. Some of these options might even have unknown long-term health affects, especially for children of that age. Regardless, it is a crime to have sex with a child of middle school age in Maine and in most states, so why would the state choose to equip young children with the ability to break the law? Interesting thinking on their part. The most disturbing part to me though is the lack of control a parent has in this. A parent should be privy to any and all medical care and decisions relating to their children until said child is 18 years or older, in my opinion. Of course, if the state can prove some form of abuse in the home, then the parents judgment might be clouded in regards to good medical decisions and therefore the state might be able to take action, but otherwise, a parent should have authority over their child. Anything less is an unnecessary and undesired state intrusion on parental authority. Of course, many parents now have abdicated their authority de facto, and maybe they should sign the form and turn over their authority to the state, although the state doesn't take responsibility either, they just do what the kid wants. That's not parenting. Regardless, educating a child about the dangers and pleasures of sex is the job of the parent, whether they choose to exercise it or not. If you choose to exercise it (which all parents should) then make sure you do NOT sign any kinds of governmental forms regarding the care of your child without first knowing what the consequences of your signature are. A parent can and should care for their child and make sure they make good choices as well as discipline them for bad behavior. Inability to do either of those means you probably shouldn't be a parent. However, some kids will still make bad choices, especially in regards to sex. This means, as a parent, you have to support your children, help them to make better choices or to make a good choice for them depending on the circumstances. In Maine, a parent can't do this anymore apparently. Now it is the job of a school nurse and not the parent to guide your child through one of the most difficult times in their lives. That is simply unacceptable to me and should be to any concerned parent. So I ask, where are the concerned parents in this school district?

Conspiracists abound, even in communist Cuba

Well, we finally know what happened on 9/11/2001. After all, Castro just told us. Apparently, it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, but a missile or some other projectile. Citing "evidence" and "media statements", Castro has decided he knows more than those of us who live, work and grew up in this country. Now, just to be clear, Castro is and always has been very shrewd and clever and is by no means stupid, but he is also a charismatic leader who is a master of maintaining control. Statements such as this serve only that purpose and none other. He doesn't really think it was a missile, he knows, just like everybody else, that it was in fact American flight 77. Now, back to the conspiracy theorists out there. Go ahead and weave your theories all you want, but remember, the theory has to make sense. I love a good conspiracy tale and have read most of them. Occasionally they do make sense and make me wonder. However, I was in DC on 9/11 and I saw the destruction at the Pentagon first hand. Now, everyone knows there were four planes hijacked that day. Two out of Boston, 1 from New York and 1 from Dulles outside DC. At least everyone knows that four planes disappeared. We know from television that the towers were hit by planes and from flight recorders, etc. that it was in fact a plane that crashed near Shanksville, PA. Also, there was plane wreckage found at the Pentagon as well as a black box. In addition, there were thousands of commuters on the highway the goes past the Pentagon at that time of day. If it wasn't a plane, one of them would have said something. I've driven that stretch of highway, at that time of day, we are talking THOUSANDS of people. It was a plane. In addition, Castro cited the hole in the Pentagon being round, like a missile. OK, one, I saw the hole, and round is not what I'd call it, but, just for arguments sake, let's say it was round. Guess what, just like a missile, so is the fuselage of a PLANE!!!! Sorry, doesn't hold up. Now, there are some serious questions being asked about the flight data recorder for flight 77. We know we are missing 4 planes that day and that 4 planes hit something. The questions regarding flight 77s recorder are significant to some, but are really minor in the overall question. Did flight 77 hit the Pentagon? The answer is, unless you believe that Aliens abducted the flight and replaced it with another plane at the very last moment, or if you believe the US govt. somehow got wind of the attacks and allowed them to happen, but managed to save flight 77 somehow and replace it with another plane, then you have to believe it did. If you do believe one or more of these implausible theories, perhaps the plane and passengers are being kept at Area 51 along with little green men. Anyway, there is a legitimate question based on the flight data recorder as to whether or not the plane was on the trajectory claimed in the official account. Also, the recorder ends one second before impact. OK, got that, but who really cares. So they have a typo in the official report and it should read 45 seconds instead of 46. Get over that one people. Now, did the plane take out a few light poles, was it traveling at 100 feet, 300 feet, at the stated trajectory, etc.? Those are good and valid questions. Ones worth asking. Do they really change the fact that a plane hit the Pentagon? Also, since no other plane went missing, and since the people on that flight disappeared off the face of the Earth, that plane logically therefore had to be flight 77. An irratic flight path is not enough to prove it wasn't. The hijackers were not great pilots, and they hadn't been trained on commercial jets. They'd also never learned how to land. This suggests that an irratic flight path would have been expected. Eyewitnesses to the event (remember those thousands of people) stated that the plane actually hit the ground with a bounce just before impacting the building proper, yet that was largely ignored in the official account as well. Perhaps the conspiracy here is nothing more than shoddy work by officials, but the FACT remains that a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon and since all other planes are accounted for, it had to have been flight 77. Well, unless you really do believe in an alien or Area 51 scenario, in which case, get a life.

Minors can't vote but their opinion can be heard

I was just reading in USA Today that minors (children) can give to political candidates as long as it is their money and their decision to do so. Although ages aren't kept by candidates, there have now been 2 million dollars worth of donations from "students". Now this catch all category conveniently covers up just how much of this money is coming from persons who can't vote, but I suspect that it is the majority of this money. While I'm not passing judgment on the candidates per se, especially since McCain tried to ban contributions from minors in the 2002 legislation that was struck down by the Supreme Court, I must say that this is an issue that definitely needs to be addressed. Now. You might say that a child, which is what anyone who can't vote is, can give their own money to whomever they please. I agree, and I, as a parent, would encourage my child to be a charitable giver. You can instill value in your children by encouraging this activity and helping your children give and make good decisions on who to give to. In any case, this child would much rather spend their money on Xbox games and movies, so it is usually something encouraged by the parents to instill good values. So then, how come so many children are contributing to political campaigns? Especially since political contributions are not charity. This is really an easy one. Irregardless of the law, which requires it to be a child's money and that same child's decision (do you really see a kid choosing this on a regular basis?), it is the parents who achieve this. The reason for this is that, in a family of four, the two parents can give 2300 dollars each to any particular candidate under the individual contribution laws for a total of 4600. So, they give their amount and their kids give 2300 dollars each too. This now totals 9200 dollars. Let's be real, the parents wanted to spend more than they are allowed on their favorite candidate, so they used the same method from above, which is a positive effort to instill charity, and got their kids to give too. Maybe it's my own prejudice here, but I say that instilling political giving isn't necessarily positive, but is crossing the line and becoming manipulative. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a parents responsibility to raise good citizens which includes raising people to be able to make good political and social choices based on sound beliefs and principles and by voting for who you think the best people are rather than what anyone tells you. Most importantly from all that is to vote. But instilling good citizenship habits and beliefs into your child and coercing them out of 2300 dollars are two entirely different things. If I wanted to instill such values, I'd have them join clubs at school, hold mock elections, even investigate the candidates and explain to me who they think is best and why, I don't have them take 2300 dollars of money they can use for college and give it away. I suppose reasonable people can agree to disagree on this issue. For those of you out there who, like me, think this is a big deal, here is a list from USA Today of who has taken the most contributions from "students".

Hillary Clinton - $556,640
Barack Obama - $503,821
Mitt Romney - $282,827
Rudy Giuliani - $214,600
John McCain - $105,750
John Edwards - $79,056

CIA and 9/11

While I don't believe the CIA is without fault in failing to prevent 9/11, I think that reports out today regarding that failure are unfair and clearly designed to make the CIA the scapegoat. Before simply believing what you read in the media, especially in regards to 9/11, I think you should read George Tenet's book "In the Center of the Storm" which clearly, succinctly and without regard for his own ego explains the CIA's role, it's failures and it's successes from the time of Tenet's hiring until his retirement in 2004. It is a very interesting read, which clearly shows that many people and many organizations were at fault, so we can't just blame the CIA, but he is also very willing to point out where CIA failed. He addresses each issue brought up in today's papers with clarity and explains not only CIA's role in them, but the role of other agencies, FBI, the Pentagon, etc. I do believe that the 9/11 commission, which seem to serve absolutely no purpose other than to appease a few activist women who tragically lost their husbands has finally found it's purpose. The conspiracy it was supposed to investigate never existed, however, there is a conspiracy in our government regarding 9/11. That conspiracy is to blame CIA however and whenever possible. That much seems apparent. Now my cynical side is finally revealed.

Presidential races 2008

Just wanted to vent a little more about the 2008 Presidential cycle. I read in today's USA Today that South Carolina's Republican primary is moving up even earlier in January in order to beat out the Florida primary on the 29th. My response is, "Really?! Come on!" While this is pretty bad, and likely will cause other states to change theirs, I still can't fathom why the Democrats have had, what, 5 debates now? It's not even September! The whole YouTube debate thing was a good idea, but it'd be an even better idea if it occurred between the two party nominees somewhere in Sept.-Oct. of NEXT year! Sure, the Republican candidates have had a debate or two, not that anyone actually watched them, but the Democrats seem to be moving full steam ahead to drive the voters crazy before the end of this year, and it isn't even an election year. All that said, it seems to me that the candidates in general are trying to alienate me as an independent voter, much like they did in 2004. This is disheartening, but quite understandable. At this point in the race, they have to make their own party love them, otherwise, they won't get the nomination, so they will say and do things that they'll, hopefully but probably, water down when it comes down to the general election, or after they get the nomination. If they don't do so, they should know from experience that they will lose independent voters because we don't care about party affiliations. We care about issues and character and the ability to lead. At least, that's what I care about. I guess I can't speak for all independents. Of course, I should really refer to us as unaffiliated, not independent, since there is apparently an independent party, which I am not affiliated with. So, as an unaffiliated voter, what do the parties have to offer me? Not very much I'm afraid, but in the end, absent a viable third candidate, I'll have to make a choice between the lesser of two evils. I've had to do that in two of the four elections for President I've voted in. That's not a good track record in my opinion, in case you were wondering.

So, with all the hype currently going on in regards to the election, I suppose the Republican candidates currently have the upper hand. Why? do you ask? I'll tell you. First, they haven't said much. This helps make me feel less bombarded and inundated than the Democrats have done and I don't think the election cycle should be in full tilt, but should just be getting started at this point in this year, so I'm a bit put off by all the Democrats flashiness. Secondly, because the Republicans haven't said much, they haven't been caught saying stupid things (Hillary and Obama), and they haven't alienated people with what they've said. This isn't to say they won't, just to say that they haven't, yet. Third, there are really only a couple of Republicans worth talking about and they seem to realize that, moving aside fringe candidates they don't really expect to have a chance (at least that's been my impression). The Democrats seem to think that every democratic person who announces a candidacy deserves equal time. It may have been a stupid blunder on Hillary's part to talk about getting rid of the chaff, so to speak, not her words, but she is largely right. In the CNN/YouTube debate, there was a question asked about bipartisanship and who a Democrat would choose for their running mate if they had to choose a member of the opposing party. Great question, in my opinion, but completely irrelevant as it turns out, because not a single viable candidate had to answer the question. You didn't get a response from Hillary or Obama in regards to this question. Who answered it? Well, at least John Edwards did, but Joe Biden isn't going to win the nomination, so what are we doing really? They both picked Chuck Hagel, fyi. Perhaps that should tell the Republicans something? Even if it did, they'd probably miss it. So, here it is for me. By the time we know who the Democratic nominee is going to be, we're going to be so tired of whoever it is, that almost anyone is going to look better. Of course, I think, regardless of how much a Republican candidate tries to distance themselves from the current administration, they are going to be painted with the same brush, so it'll be hard for any Republican this election cycle. Therefore, that leaves us all with the hope of a viable third party candidate. Anyone got a suggestion?

Weighing in on Barry Bonds

Well, here goes my take on this whole Barry Bonds issue, since it now seems impossible for him NOT to break the record. First of all, I absolutely believe he took steroids, but I can't prove it. So far, neither can anyone else and in this country, one is innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't mean I have to like him. If he is ever proven guilty of using steroids, then I say he should have an asterisk by his name, but his records should not be removed. Steroids may have lengthened his career by a year or two, or, as in the case of McGwire, they could have shortened his career also. During the time he most likely took steroids, he hit 73 homers in a season. Well, Mark McGwire also hit 70 using a, most likely, steroidal substance. However, Creatine (assuming that's all he used, which I now doubt), was not a banned substance, so therefore, I'd question that it was cheating. Steroids (which is almost definitely also used) however, are simply cheating in my book, no doubt. I am not going to argue whether Creatine should have been banned, I'm just saying it wasn't. I don't feel these guys are good role models for my kids at all and many of them don't want to be, which is too bad. I want my kids to learn to play sports with a sense of honesty and fair play and to always play the best you can and as hard as you can to the best of your God given ability. That does not include steroids or drugs of any kind in my book and as a parent, I'll do the best I can to make sure my kids learn that. Now, back to Bonds. He's always come off to me as arrogant and snooty and a bit of a whiner when it came to media attention (good or bad), but I don't know the man, so I only have public pronouncements and field behavior to base my opinion on. He might be a great guy who just doesn't present himself well publically for all I know. He doesn't come off that way to me however. As for his statistics. I admit, steroids can't help you hit a ball. They never could and never will, so in that sense (Barry is a dangerous hitter), it is true and always has been. I do think he has about 100 more HRs than he would've had if he hadn't used the 'roids and perhaps he has extended his playing time by a year or two. Now, all that being said, I think we need to compare him to Aaron if we really want to judge his career, regardless of steroids.

Aaron is a great man and ballplayer who presented displayed his greatness to the public and the fans on a regular basis through his play, his grace under pressure and mostly for his positive attitude and behavior, even though half the world hated him for breaking Ruth's record. Aaron acquitted himself well, regardless of the insane hatred people had for him as a black man. That kind of hatred is ridiculous and inexcusable, but it doesn't change that it exists today and certainly existed then and Aaron was all the better because of his ability to deal with that and still be a great ballplayer besides. Bonds has argued that a lot of the animosity people have for him is based in the same kind of hatred. I don't buy it. Sure, there are people who hate for all kinds of illogical reasons and I'm sure somebody somewhere has chosen to hate him simply because he is African American. I don't think that he can compare himself to Aaron in that way though. People spoke highly of Bonds throughout most of his career as he put up great numbers, but always seemed to alienate people whenever he opened his mouth. That's pre-steroids and that had nothing to do with race, in my opinion. It's only been since the massive growth he displayed coupled with the Balco scandal and coupled with the unusual increase in statistical numbers later in his career compared with almost anyone else in baseball history that people began to really question his stats. I've always believed him to be a great ballplayer and he was a first ballot hall of famer for me before he took steroids, even though I've never liked him, but now he has cheated to pad his numbers and lied about it, which to me throws his credibility out the window. He's still a hall of famer. We can't exclude him from the hall simply because he's a liar and a bit mean because if we did, we'd have to kick several guys out of the hall. So, all that being said, lets take a look at the numbers of the two men and see who's better. For this comparison, let's just assume for a minute that all things are equal and that his stats can hold up to scrutiny.

Through Aug. 4, 2007

Aaron Rank Bonds Rank

Home Runs 755 (1) 755 (1)
Games 3298 (3) 2955 (12)
At-Bats 12364 (2) 9768 (30)
Runs 2174 (4) 2209 (3)
Hits 3771 (3) 2912 (35)
Doubles 624 (10) 598 (14)
RBI 2297 (1) 1980 (5)
Total Bases 6856 (1) 5927 (4)
Walks 1402 (24) 2539 (1)
Strikeouts 1383 (69) 1530 (37)
Extra Base Hits 1477 (1) 1430 (2)
Slugging Pct. .555 (24) .608 (5)
Grand Slams 16 (t8) 11 (t30)
Stolen Bases 240 514
Batting Average .305 .298
Season High-HR 47 73
Season High-RBI 132 137
All-Star Games 21 14

So what does all of this add up to? When you take HRs out the equation, Aaron is the better player all around. Without the HRs, Bonds would have Aaron beat really only in stolen bases and walks. You can't count slugging percentage because that has a lot to do with his HRs. Aaron was voted onto more all-star teams, he was virtually even in season high for RBI, he has a higher batting avg., he had more grand slams, he had respectable numbers in stolen bases and had an excellent slugging pct. He has more extra base hits overall, regardless of HRs, he has significantly fewer strikeouts with significantly more at-bats, he has more total bases, more doubles, more RBI and more hits. Sure, Bonds took a lot less time (fewer at-bats) to hit his HRs, which significantly pads his slugging pct., but as I stated above, you remove the HRs from the equation and he can only compete with Aaron in walks (how many are intentional anyway) and stolen bases. How many might he have stolen if he hadn't used the steroids? Hmm... Anyway, I think one could argue Bonds was a great player regardless of steroids and deserves to be in the hall and that he would have hit well over 600 HR regardless, but I think I've shown that Aaron is the better player and I'd say the better man.

Sometimes, it isn't the kids who need to be educated

In today's USA Today, there is an article about childhood obesity and nutritional education. It explains that these educational programs targeting children to change their eating habits have had almost no effect at all in getting kids to change what they eat. It goes on to say the the federal government is going to spend 1 billion dollars this year to continue such programs. Now, for my opinion of what's going on here.

It is atrocious what is happening to kids today in regards to obesity. As a parent, it is very concerning to me. However, spending a billion dollars on programs that have been clearly shown not to work is, quite simply, insane. The definition of insanity being, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It's not going to happen. All this education will do is get kids to, maybe, be more positive about healthier foods. It doesn't get them to eat more healthy. The article cites many of excuses why children are fatter and even suggests a socio-economic reason. While I'm sure this plays a role, it is nothing really more than an excuse because there are obese kids in all socio-economic levels, so it is simply one factor. I think this billion dollars would be better spent educating parents to the dangers of childhood obesity and how to help their children eat healthy. Also, some education to parents in how to say no to their children would be the best thing anyone could do. The simple truth in this country is that parents will feed their children whatever the kid wants in order to quiet them down or have some time to themselves, etc. They don't say no to their kids. I see this all the time, especially at the supermarket. Only a parent can teach good eating habits to their children, by presenting healthy choices and saying no to alternatives. Now, I believe in the concept of everything in moderation, so I'm not advocating cutting out anything. However, nothing is good for anyone if it is taken in excessive amounts. This is simply what needs to be done. STOP teaching the kids, since they don't care and won't change what they do anyway and START teaching the parents, who are the only ones who can do anything about it.

Florida Legislature still not getting it right

Although I must admit that the property tax cut plans that seem to be evolving in Tallahassee do actually finally seem to have some teeth in them, the idea that they will cut my taxes to last year's levels, then have a special election, coupled with the primary election, on January 29 of NEXT year (2008) is awful. Meaningful tax relief should come NOW. If we have to have an election to change the constitution to approve the new tax plan, have it NOW. The special session will be next week, where I hope they will pass good reform, but they are still putting off that reform until next year by having the special election in Jan. of '08. Our tax bills will go out in the fall, so we won't get much of a tax cut this year and I bet people will be wondering why? The reason is because special elections are expensive to hold and the legislature isn't interested in having one before August (which would actually do some good for us) because they have already decided to put off the cuts until next year. Probably, the rationale for that is to allow a year for the local governments to figure out where and what to cut in preparation for the new law and because special elections are expensive so they figure they can tack it on to an already existing election. Both of those arguments have merit, admittedly, but they are simply nothing more than excuses. Meaningful tax cuts should come NOW, with a special election held NOW, immediately following the legislative session.

Florida legislature fails miserably

OK, so here's the thing. EVERYONE in the state is suffering from property tax increases. Especially homeowners who have seen the values of their homes rise and their property taxes rise and now they can't move because if they sold their home and bought another one, their taxes would be even higher. It's a sad state. In fact, what's been going on in Tallahassee would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. So, the House wants to eliminate our property taxes and replace it with a 2 percent sales tax increase. For me, that would be a 6000 dollar tax cut coupled with approximately a 100 dollar tax increase in regards to sales taxes, based on last year's spending. That's great for me, but not so good for the local governments. Of course, they could use some belt tightening, but that's a lot for them to absorb all at once. The Senate wants to roll back my property tax to last year's levels. Well, I'd have to thank them for my 37 dollar a month tax cut. That's it! Considering my taxes and insurance increased over the past year to send my escrow soaring up 132 dollars a month, a 37 dollar a month tax cut just doesn't cut it. It isn't fair and it isn't meaningful. The Senate isn't interested in meaningful apparently. The governor's statements include raising my homestead exemption to 50K. Again, when the homestead exemption of 25K was originally passed, average home values in the state were around 80K. That's around 32 percent of your home's value that wasn't being taxed. The current average value of homes in the state is around 385K, so at the still 25K exemption, that's about 6.5 percent of your homes value. So... doubling that to 50K wouldn't do so much. That would make it about 13 percent of your home's value. So for me, that would be a tax cut of 375 dollars, or 31 dollars a month. Again, not particularly useful. If they are serious about using the homestead exemption to give us a tax break, they should raise the exemption to the levels of when it was originally set up. So, that would be an exemption of about 125K, not 50K. With that, my taxes would be cut 1547 dollars, or 129 dollars a month, which is starting to look better to me. At least that amount gets my escrow down to last year's dollars. I think the fact that they couldn't reach an agreement in the legislature and that their plans (except the House plan) are less than useful and certainly not meaningful is a huge failure and disappointment. They say they'll have a special session to resolve the issue in June. That special session will probably cost about as much as any tax cut they'll give us. In the end, the House bill is too large a cut and the other ideas aren't even worth discussing. My idea at least has merit. Combine it with a small half cent increase in the sales tax, plus a tax year rollback to around 2002-03 levels, and you are talking a significant tax cut that won't destroy local government funding while still providing significant relief to homeowners.

How many chances?

So, how many chances does a pitcher get before a team gives up on him. The Braves (I've been a Braves fan for approaching 3 decades now) signed Mark Redman to be their fifth starter and give them a bit of stability at the bottom of the rotation. Right! He's had 5 starts so far this season and is averaging only 4 innings per start which is tough on a bullpen, not to mention, he's given up 25 runs in those 20 innings, plus he has lost 4 of those games. The fifth one was won because the Braves scored so much in that game, he wasn't able to throw it away. His ERA is almost 11! That's ridiculous. Now, I know that you can't judge a pitcher by a couple of bad outings, but he's had 5 starts and 5 bad outings. The Braves, at 16-10, are one game behind Milwaukee for the best record in the National League. Of those 10 losses, four are a result of this pitcher. It's time to do something different.

Book review "The Language of God" by Francis Collins

"The Language of God" by Francis Collins
This was an extremely interesting book. The author was instrumental in the Human Genome Project and recently announced (co-authored a paper) breakthroughs in the genetic causes of diabetes. The book presents an very interesting case for both belief in God and for belief in science, specifically evolutionary science. The author's narrative was informative and easy to read, even for a non-scientist, and as a moderate Christian with conservative leanings, I found it compelling. I'd have to say I agreed with him a lot (but not entirely) and would offer much of his argument to people wanting a consensus between faith and science. For those who find such consensus unnecessary or incomprehensible, I say, read this book. If you still feel the same, then I'd say good for you. God doesn't want us to live in a vacuum and this book provides an excellent resource for using reason, logic and faith to address the issue. He often quotes Saint Augustine, C.S. Lewis, Einstein and others in his search for consensus and surprisingly made an elegant argument which can only spur discussion. I have to admit that I learned more about DNA in the reading of this book than I had ever learned in a single science class in high school or college. He presents a compelling case with clarity and with concern for the beliefs of others, whether they be atheistic scientists or creationist believers. A book well worth reading.

Seriously!

OK, so we have a Congress who seems to think that attaching a minimum wage increase to the Iraq funding plan is a good idea. What!? That just shows a Congress who isn't thinking seriously about the people in this country since they knew ahead of time the President has said he will veto it. Do they think that by putting a measure on the bill that everyone is for is going to change his veto? Seriously, Congress needs to stop playing politics with Americans future and start putting bills on the floor and sending them to the President as individual bills. Pork barrell projects, appending bills completely unrelated to the primary legislation and the like seems like a complete waste of time and money and here's another good example of wasted time. If Congress is serious about this minimum wage increase, send the bill to the President for his signature without attaching it to something else, especially something they have foreknowledge will be vetoed.

Domestic issues of the Democrats

Last night was the first debate of the Democratic Presidential hopefuls of this awfully drawn out campaign season. Since the Republicans only worry about three questions in campaigns (Do I like him, Does he care about my issue, and Is he strong) and don't generally address issues directly, they, as usual, haven't said much of anything. However, the Democrats have always worked under the premise that people actually care about the intricacies of political issues (not my experience) and therefore, we are having a Democratic primary debate 19 months before the Presidential election. So, ignoring the Iraq war for a moment, on which I generally agree with most democrats (that we need to go ahead and start leaving), I didn't see much in these candidates issues that will excite Americans to vote for them. Therefore, I think they need to watch out and hope that Bush continues to fight the Iraq war poorly, otherwise, if they don't have Iraq as an issue come November 2008, they may be in danger of losing, again. So... what are the prime issues for Democrats as portrayed recently (not just in last night's debates). It seems to me they are focusing primarily on 5 things. 1. Universal health care, 2. Rolling back or eliminating the "Bush" tax cuts, 3. A deal for illegal immigrants (whether they call it Amnesty or not), 4. Strengthening labor unions, and 5. Eliminating our dependence on foreign oil, which is being called an energy policy. I'll address each point:

1. There are millions of Americans who tragically can't afford health care. Also, there are some serious issues with the health care industry in this country that need to be addressed. Is throwing government money at the problem by creating a nationalized health care system the answer? I don't know. I tend to err on the side of trying EVERYTHING else before we start throwing government money at a problem, so I would tend to say that we haven't done that yet and therefore, the discussing of nationalized health care is premature.

2. I can certainly see the point of allowing some tax cuts expire, especially ones that helped ONLY the rich, like the elimination of the "death tax". Most Americans would never be affected by this tax because most of us wouldn't have millions of dollars in property and wealth to pass on to anyone. However, as a middle class American, I have received nice benefits from the elimination of the "marriage penalty" tax and from the increase in the child tax credits. Some of the candidates have publicly stated that they want to do away with ALL of the Bush tax cuts. This would essentially mean raising taxes on middle class Americans and even on poor Americans with children. That's certainly not an issue they can win on because nobody likes to have their taxes raised.

3. It is clear that people just don't want to let illegal immigrants have a free ride. Some candidates clearly recognize this, but I think they underestimate how emotional this issue is. My wife is a legal immigrant to this country and does not believe that people who came here illegally should be given any kind of special treatment. Having been through the process of immigration, we should be making our immigration process more streamlined and more difficult, not easier, and certainly not by giving free rides to anyone, especially since they've already broken the law just in coming here. I live in south Florida, which is a majority latino population. Of the people that I work with and live with and talk to on a regular basis, I have yet to find a single person here who supports this idea. It is almost universal that if they came illegally, they should be sent back. I tend to defer to my wife, who is generally non political, on this issue since my ancestors immigrated here over 300 years ago. I'm not sure, therefore, that this is an issue the Democrats can win on since the people these concepts would help, assist, etc. are unable to vote.

4. In regards to labor unions, I'm sure this issue will shore up the Democratic base in regards to how the unions vote. They've tended to support the Democrats in recent years and I'm sure this issue will help them, but I must admit that I've never been part of a union, don't really understand the need for any more power or laws to support them and therefore can't really comment on this issue. My only question is, does the union vote constitute enough constituents to win them the election in the absence of Iraq as an issue and I'm just not sure they do. Like I said though, I don't really know.

5. This last issue is really a non-starter. Everybody wants to be independent from foreign oil. Even Republicans say that as loudly as they can. The fact is that this administration has failed to establish clear and concise goals in order to achieve that, but I don't think the Democrats can use it as an issue to win on, because EVERYONE is for it. Perhaps the environmental issue could be used, global warming and pollution and even gas mileage and emissions for vehicles as well as investment in renewable resources. But not oil independence. Still, a clear energy policy probably is not enough on it's own to win them the election.

Basically, I am not sure that the platform that seems to be developing for the Democrats consists of domestic issues that people care enough about and agree with them on enough to get them elected in the absence of Iraq as an issue. Therefore, Iraq will need to still be an issue come November 2008 and I so hope it isn't. Not because I want to see them lose, but because I want the troops to come home as much as everyone else does.

Presidential candidates?

Let's see now... we have 8 Democratic party candidates declared and capable of debating each other on the issues in April of 2007. The election is when? Oh right, not until November of 2008. What are they thinking?! Seriously, with each Presidential election cycle, the start date has been getting pushed back further and further. What's going on now doesn't make sense. NOBODY will remember what was said in last night's debate come election time. Even the media will have forgotten about it. Now, I'm not picking on the Democratic party. How many Republicans have declared their candidacies? Having any candidates before the summer, in my opinion, is too many candidates, so both parties are guilty of perpetuating a spending spree. Who pays for this anyway. Sure, they are repudiating public funds, but the money still comes from somewhere. Whether it's through private, business, lobbyist donations, or whoever donates, you and I are still paying for these campaigns, whether directly or indirectly. I am tired of how early all this is happening.

Now, one can argue that the extreme prematurity of this election cycle is due to the fact that there is no incumbent and due to the rampant Bush bashing that is occurring. Both of these could be contributing factors to it, but that still does not account for the every widening campaign season that has occurred with each successive Presidential campaign that I've witnessed. I just don't understand why anyone thinks this is a good thing. What I suspect will happen is that a large part of the electorate who actually try to keep up with the candidates and who actually vote will suffer from information overload by the time each party has chosen it's candidate and therefore will either not really care very much by the time it all comes to fruition, which can only hurt the candidates, the country and ourselves come election day, or they might just not vote at all, which would be even more tragic. A majority of Americans don't vote on a regular basis as it is and a prolonged and certainly dragged out campaign season certainly isn't going to change that, but it might very well have the effect of making even more people choose not to vote. I suggest we the people choose to let our legislators know that this is unacceptable and that the campaign season should be limited to a year, or perhaps 18 months, but certainly not as early as 2 years, which based on when some of these candidates announced their candidacy (December), it has become that long. At the point of last night's debate, we are still over 19 months from election day. By compressing the election cycle, you achieve two things. You SPEND LESS MONEY and you might actually keep people interested long enough to make it to election day.

Why this blog?

I love to talk and I love to here other people's views, so I thought I could do both by having a blog. What will I talk about here? Pretty much anything I choose, but you can expect postings on history, politics, family, religion on a semi-regular basis. I am a father of 2, so you shouldn't expect daily posts but I am sure I will make the time to post relatively often.