The Mitchell Report was ho-hum. None of the prominent names mentioned were surprising. The only question I have is "What about Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire?" Basically this is just a small percentage of the people who used steroids and HGH. If people like Ricky Bones used steroids then probably a high percentage of players used it. So if that is the case what do we think of the records of Bonds and Clemens? They faced pitchers and hitters who used steroids also. Are their records valid? Well, I would have to say no because if Marion Jones had to give up her medals then the records of the highest achievers in baseball should not be recognize if they used steroids. After all Jones' competitors probably used sterois also. Ultimately everyone can have his own opinion on this. I may be cynical but I am beginning to view sports as similar to a Jackie Chan movie; very impressive athletism but in the end it is just entertainment.

Very few people on the list responded to the report. The only two prominent names denying the allegations were David Justice and Roger Clemens. I believe Justice a lot more than Clemens. First of all Justice came out swinging right away but Clemens took 5 days before responding. If you are not guilty, why wait? Justice also retired at about the right age where Clemens kept going and kept going. Just like Bonds, I find it hard to believe that a player can improve in his forties. Like Bonds, Clemens also looks a lot bigger than you would expect by aging alone. As for the few that admit guilt they usually use the excuse of using HGH to recover from injury. This include Peitite and Fernando Vina. I don't believe these excuses. These are very good players who were probably trying to be great players. Now I would have sympathy for the life time minor player who just want to get into the majors. It is a wrong thing to do but very understandable.

Now that a new intelligence report says that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program back in 2003 people are asking if we should change our strategy toward Iran. To that I say -what strategy? Calling for sanctions and threatening war is not a strategy. Iran was never a threat to start world war III as Bush claimed. Iran can't threatened us, just as Iraq was no threat before we invaded. I am tired of people who talk about not backing down from Hussein or Iran because Europe once appeased Hitler and he ended up causing WWII. But Germany was the strongest nation in Europe. If England and France were to try to preempt Hitler they would have lost quicker. It is always easier to defend than to attack. Iran and Iraq had no power to attack us. Even if they had nuclear weapons they would not have used them because they would have been destroyed quickly afterwards. Hussein and Ahmandinejad were not suicidal.

Bush says that there will not be any strategy changed since Iran is still dangerous. Well, it does not matter what Bush says because hard sanctions are not going to happen. Russia and China has a way out now and will not go along with tougher sanctions. The question for me is "is this report even accurate?" Given the previous reports on Iraq turned out to be way off the mark, who would believe that this report is correct? My view has always been that Iraq and Iran would not use nuclear weapons but they may still try to get them. While Iran can't win a nuclear war, nuclear weapons is a deterrent against American attack. See North Korea. So I do not believe that they have no nuclear weapons program at all. If Bush was smarter, I would have thought that by going public with this report, it gives him a chance to back up from his WWIII comments and be able to start a diplomatic course. But I doubt it that he even thought about this.

The thing that frustrates me is that we believe that any one intelligence report should have great influence on our policy. We should focus on the long term, not react to any change in intelligence. I would not have gone to war on Iraq based on those false reports nor will I change my thinking about the Middle East based on this report. The number one priority in the region is always Israel and the Palestinians. Unless peace is attained there terrorism from that region will always be a threat. Seven years into the Bush administration there is finally an effort to bring the two sides together. This should have started in 2001 right after his election, even with 9/11. Afghanistan was a necessary move but Israel-Palestinians negotiation should have restarted at least 5 years ago. If we were to be scared of nuclear attack from a Muslim nation, it was going to be from Pakistan. Iraq and Iran would not have helped terrorists with nuclear weapon even if they had them. But Pakistan has them for sure and there are religious fundamentalists who are not controlled by the government. So what do we do? Attack Iraq and worry about Iran while paying Pakistan to help us in the war on terror. If terrorists get hold of the bomb in Pakistan, are we going to bomb our ally on terror? Is that a policy that will make us safe?

The LA Times have an article today about the supporters of the top 3 democratic and top 3 republican candidates. It only gave 4 examples of the supporters of each of the candidates. Obviously it does not give a complete pictures of who is supporting whom but it does give some insights of where the candidates are seeking support. I will rate each supporter from -3 to +3, depending on if I like their views and if they are good for the country in my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt because I generally don't like union and corporate supports because they are all about self-interests and not about the good of the country. There are no corporations like Countrywide on this list so it would appear that I am against liberals a little more. Also I don't have much respect for the opinions of entertainers or athletes unless I have heard of their views and find them intelligent. With those cautions in mind, here are the lists:

Hillary Clinton supporters: 1. Walter Mondale-- a far left liberal who got destroyed when he ran for president. rating -2
2. Jan Perry-- African American LA city councilwoman, again a strong liberal. Rating -2
3. Barbra Streisand-- Far left liberal who doesn't make much sense. Rating -3
4. American Federation of Teachers--Big union which doesn't help the education of our children. Rating -3

John Edwards supporters: 1. James Denton--actor, don't know much about him. But I hate Desperate Housewives, which he is in. Rating -2
2. Lar Ulrich--The drummer of Metallica, don't know much about him Rating -2
3. United Steelworkers and United Mineworkers of America. Rating -3
4. David Obey--Chairman of House Appropriation Rating -2

Barack Obama supporters: 1. Eric Garcetti--LA city Councilman and son of Gil Garcetti the prosecutor who blew the O. J. Simpson case Rating -3
2. John Conyers Jr.-- Michigan Congressman and a strong liberal Rating -2
3. Zbigniew Brzezinski--Former national security advisor and one of my most respected man in foreign policy. Obama is often criticized, including by me, that he lacks experience. So this means a lot that an experienced diplomat like Brzezinsi endorses him. Rating +3
4. Oprah Wifrey--Influential but I don't think she really knows what she is talking about. Rating -2

Rudy Giuliani supporters: 1. Pat Robertson--Crazy televangelist Rating -3
2. Steve Forbes--Conservative rich guy but I like his flat tax idea. Rating +1
3. Pete Wilson--former Calif. governor. Moderate Republican who wasn't much of a leader. Rating 0
4. Bo Derek--Come on! Claims to be a conservative republican but took off her clothes in the movies. How hippocritical! Ratings would be a -3 but since she was good looking when I was young, gets upgrade to a -1

John McCain supporters: 1. Republican for Environmental Protection. Sounds like an oxymoron! I would like to learn more. Rating 0
2. Former Prisoners of War--Supports McCain for obvious reason. Rating +1
3. Sam Brownback--Conservative Kansas Senator who dropped out of the race himself when he realizes that he doesn't know any issues except for abortion and creation of the world. Rating -3
4. Curt Schilling--Rich athletes are a big minus in my book. Plus he was for the war. It is easy to be for the war when you don't have to fight. Rating -3

Mitt Romney supporters: 1. Rick Caruso--Mall developer. Rich guy and I hate malls. Rating -3
2. Orrin Hatch--Utah Senator who is Mormon. I think Hatch is a fair Republican most of the time. Rating +1
3. Meg Whitman--Chief executive of e-Bay. Rich person made money on shopping. Not my cup of tea. Rating -3
4. Bob Jones III--Chancellor of the university of the same name. The university finally ended its ban on iterracial dating in 2000. Rating -3

So if my tally is correct the following is the final score: Clinton -10, Edwards -9 Obama -4 Giuliani -3 (although should have been -5, see Derek score) McCain -5 Romney -8

This is of course an exercise of no importance. But with all the negative scores, either the country is in real trouble or I am too much of a cynic. Feel free to give your opinions.