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.