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.

Last week in the business section of the LA Times there were 2 articles next to each other that caught my eyes. One was about Yahoo going to pay families of two Chinese journalists that were jailed after Yahoo had given their names to the Chinese government. The journalists had used Yahoo services to share material advocating democratic reform. Yahoo caved in to the Chinese government and as a result Jerry Yang received a tongue lashing from a Congressional hearing the week before this article. Yahoo was called moral pygmies by a Congressman. It is difficult to defend Yahoo but Yahoo is not first U.S. company to kowtow to the Chinese government in an attempt to gain market share in China. I am sure that bribery, kick backs and technology transfer by U.S. companies are frequent happenings in China. What happened to the old saying "When in Rome, do what the Romans do"? Sure, China's legal system are not up to standard, but what is Yahoo suppose to do? Risk going to jail themselves and lose the market? Didn't the Chinese journalists think that their e-mails are not so private?

The article next to it was about privacy in America. Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence said in a speech "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that." Well, that's interesting. If you use Google in America and you can't be sure of your anonymity, then why would a journalist in China believe that he is safe by using Yahoo in China? Kerr also said that "Privacy is a system of laws, rules and customs with an infrastructure of inspector general, oversight committees and privacy boards on which our intelligence community committment is based and measured." Wow, so it is basically up to the government to decide what is private for us. The Bush administration is asking that telecom companies should be granted immunity for assisting the government in its warrantless spying program. Mark Klein, a former AT@T technician, said that the program involved domestic communications, not just foreign, and the numbers were enormous--much higher than the government leads us to believe. If this was true, wouldn't these telecom companies be moral pymies as well?

I have always believe that the west someday will meet the east. A country like China, while still authorative, will gradually be more free. The economy is almost totally capitalistic today. It is a more open society than the one I saw 10 years ago. It still has a long way to go but is coming toward us. Our own society on the other hand, is becoming more restrictive. Due to fear, at least some of it unjustified, we are willing to become a less free country. Whether you believe that warrantless spying, secret detention locations, or the torturing of suspects to get information is justified or not, it is obvious that we are moving in the direction of China. I predict that in 25 years there will be little difference in the freedoms of the two countries.

Lee Corso of ESPN got it right by warning that Michigan may be upset by Wisconsin. Dah! That is not an upset pick. Michigan is probably the worst team in history with an 8 game winning streak. The talent level of the two teams are about equal and Mike Hart and Chad Henne are injured. The game was played in Wisconsin and Mich. is the favorite? If Appalacian State can beat Mich. in Ann Arbor, how can losing to Wisconsin on the road be an upset? The talking heads would be more impressive if they predicted that Illinois beats Ohio State.

I don't know what is an upset anymore. The Big Ten teams are the easiest to upset. Of course Mich. losing to Appalachian State was the worst but what about Mini-soda, which has no fiz on offense and no pop on defense. They have won one game. They lost to Florida Atlantic, or is it Florida Pacific? Afterall Florida is not very good in geography. South Florida is located closer to central or north Florida. Miami might as well move to Ohio and see if it can beat the other Miami. But I am going off subject here. The Big Ten teams would finish in the bottom of the Pac Ten. I mean who would beat USC except a power house like Stanford? And who would beat UCLA, except for Utah and the one win wonder Notre Dame? Having been sunk by Navy ( I waited 40 plus years to write that) and bombed by Air Force, will ND ever win another game? When is the last time ND, Mich. and Ohio State all lost on the same day? This sure is one crazy season in football. Can't wait till basketball to start to get some normalcy in the world.

What? Mich. State loses to Grand Valley State? Ohio State loses to Findlay? And Kentucky got raked over by a gardner named Webb? It is not even March Madness yet! You think maybe tennis players and NBA referrees have money on these games? The world is going crazy in sports. Pretty soon you are going to tell me that 250 million people in the world watched an NBA game because two Chinese guys are playing. I think I will watch more predictable sports like horse racing.

Couple of authors wrote into the LA Times supporting the idea that pharmacists should be able to prescribe medicines. They say that pharmacists know more about pharmacology than physician assistants and nurse practitioners who are allowed to prescribe. The flaw of this reasoning is that pharmacists don't examine the patient. Making the right diagnosis is the most important part of prescribing treatment. I don't know how you can make the right diagnosis without examining the patient. They point to the morning after pill which someone can purchase without a prescription just by talking to the pharmacist. According to them the next logical step would be to allow medicines for migraines and cholesterol to be sold behind the counter. This does not seem logical to me. If a woman comes in and say that she needs emergency birth control, there is no need to examine her to see if she really had sex last night. But over the years I have had many patients who come in and tell me that they have migraines but upon further questioning and examination, I found that the cause of their headache was not migraines. Treating cholesterol requires ordering and interpreting test results. This is not something pharmacists are trained to do.

It is legal for doctors to dispense medications. I choose not to do so for two reasons. First I believe that pharmacists play a very important role in assuring the safety of the patient. Just like any human being, I make mistakes. When I make a mistake on my prescription a pharmacist usually would point it out to me. If I dispense the medicine myself, this layer of protection is lost. So if a pharmacist prescribes and dispenses, wouldn't that layer of protection be lost? The second reason is that it gives an appearance that I may prescribe more to make a greater profit. Most of the doctors who dispense and most pharmacists who would prescribe are probably honest. But some would be dishonest. If the government and the patients think that one step shopping is the best way to go, then I guess I may have to dispense as well to keep up with the times. I hope it won't come to that.

The authors of the article are economists. While I understand that economics teach us that free market usually works the best, it is not the case here. When the person who provides the product is able to tell the buyer what and how much to buy, free market forces are not at work. More people prescribing and dispensing will lead to higher and not lowe healthcare costs. Believe me if you can walk into a pharmacy and get medicine without being examined, you will see more advertising by pharmaceutical companies to encourage people to do so. These companies will also pitch to the pharmacists who unlike most doctors who only prescribes will have more incentive to sell more. With more medicine taken, more complications will certainly follow and there will be more healthcare spending. So the economic calculations by these authors are totally wrong.

Now that Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize, there is more interest to the idea that he would run for president. I don't think that it is likely that he would jump in now. It would be difficult to build a campaign team strong enough to knock out front-runner Hilary Clinton. It would also be awkward to go against his former boss. Gore is more popular than ever now that he is not running for any office. Once he gets back into it he becomes a target more than an admired statesman. The only way I can see him getting the nomination is if Obama and Edwards can make a race out of this, to show that Hilary is vulnerable. That way as a compromised candidate who can unite the party, Gore may be drafted. I think he would beat the Republican candidate easily. Most people like him better now and many still think he got robbed last time so he will get sympathy votes from independents.

I would vote for Gore is he declares. I don't like Hilary and Edwards. I think Obama is too inexperienced. I don't buy all the science that Gore puts out there but I applaud his effort. Even if things are not as bad as he paints it, there is no reason not to try to improve the environment. Anyone who sits in traffic behind a bus knows that fossil fuels are not good for us. Having been to China recently I am convinced that the energy policy of world is heading for a disaster, it is only a matter of when. So, yes, Gore gets too much credit and awards. But who else have any better ideas?

Of the declared candidates, I like Joe Biden the best. I think he is the most qualified and he is a moderate. Of course, he has no chance of winning. So if Gore doesn't run I don't know who to vote for yet. Biden is the most experienced, having been chairman of the judicial and foreign relations committees. He supported the war, as did just about everyone else. But he did try to delay the Bush administration from starting the war by joining with Republican Richard Lugar to try to use diplomacy first. While I don't agree with him totally, he does present a reasonable solution to the war by dividing the country into 3 parts with a weak central government. He got himself into trouble in 1988 when he ran against Michael Dukakis. He made a speech which was almost identical to one a British politician gave before. He had given credit to that person every time but he forgot once to do so. He was accused of plagerizing and lost all steam. I think he would have beaten Dukakis in 88 but probably would have lost to Bush I. He got himself into trouble right away this campaign with his remark about Obama which I think was way overblown. But he does not generate any enthusiasm which is too bad. I think he is more respected around world leaders than any of the other candidates. Maybe he will be secretary of state under a democratic administration.

Clarence Thomas is finally coming out of hibernation. He is speaking out for the first time since his confirmation hearings. Of course, he is doing so because he is promoting a book! I am not a fan of Thomas and I think he got out of trouble during the hearings by using the race card. Nevertheless I watched his interview of Sixty Minutes and I found that I agree with some of the things he said.

Thomas was brought up by his grandfather, a no nonsense guy who would not accept excuses for failures. Thomas graduated from Holy Cross near the top of his class. Then he was accepted at Yale Law. Thomas described himself not as a liberal but a radical in his early years. This gradually changed after he got into Yale. He thought the white liberal establishment believed that given the chance blacks can succeed as well as whites. What he found out was that he was treated as a token under the affirmative action program. Even though he believed that he got in based on merit, he felt that others believed that he was not qualified. He had trouble getting a job even with a Yale diploma. I believe that Thomas was right on this. When I went to college there was a strong push to recruit more blacks with the idea that leveling the playing field was the reason. But I got the sense that the powers in the universities were just trying to fill quotas so as to not make their institution seem racist. I don't think that they truly believe that blacks had the ability to compete academically on their own. I mean if they truly believe that they are just trying to even the playing field, then they should do it by economic standards. There is no reason why a black doctor's child should have preference over a poor white kid. By using race it makes people believe that all blacks at the school were not qualified. In reality some were excellent students and should be recognized just as that. There were others who did get in by affirmative action only and they would have been better off at a lowere level school. By admitting these students the school was reinforcing the stereotype of the unqualified black.

Thomas was also right in that his critics had no business saying he is an uncle Tom for being on the conservative side. When he couldn't get a job it was a Republican, Senator Danforth of Missouri, who helped him find one. Danforth was his mentor in Washington and introduced him to the powers of the Republican party. Thomas was also comfortable with the change because he was brought up by his grandfather to be self-reliant and not accept the victim's mentality. These certainly are values closer to the conservative side than the liberal side. So it is understandable that he switched parties. He should not be vilified for that. Afterall, Hilary Clinton swithced from Republican to Democrat.

While it is all right for Thomas to be against affirmative action, it is undeniable that he benefited from it. Sure he was a good student but it is unlikely that if he was white and graduated in the middle of his Yale class, he would have caught the eye of Danforth. He certainly would not have moved up in Washington so quickly. And there was no chance that a white man would have been nominated to the Supreme Court after one and half year of undistinguished service on the Appeals Court. To replace Thurgood Marshall at that. There were many more candidates that were more qualified and Bush was not being honest when he said that he picked the best man and it had nothing to do with his color.

Thomas also would have more trouble getting confirmed if he was not black. While the whole Anita Hill situation probably was leaked illegally, once it was leaked, the Senate had no choice but to investigate. By using the word lynching, Thomas was using the race card that many liberals have used. By using the word lynching, Thomas insulted all those blacks who suffered that fate. It was not a lynching. If a white man was accused of the same thing, the senate would have acted the same way. Well, except once Thomas used the word, all the liberal senators, in particulary Ted Kennedy, shut up right away. White guilt or liberal doctrination had made little boys out of these supposedly powerful men.

So I agree with Thomas on somethings and disagree with him on others. Usually I do that with liberals also. I think it is good to listen to all side and make judgment on each issue based on its merit. That's why I think dangerous and crazy men like Ahmandinejad should be listened to. I probably won't change my mind but usually I learn something. I don't think I would learn much if I only listen to people I agree with. Someday maybe America will even listen to dangerous and crazy men like Lawrence Summers! What do you think, liberals?

Columbia University is under fire for inviting Iranian president Ahmadinejad to speak. Many people and organizations are protesting the appearance of the leader of a country Bush has called part of the axis of evil. Ahmadinejad is accused of building nuclear weapons, aiding terrorists, sending weapons of Iraq and denying the reality of the Holocaust. Despite the protest, President Lee Bollinger of Columbia is keeping the invitation.

At the University of California former Harvard President Lawrence Summers was supposed to speak at a Reagents' meeting. Summers lost his job because of his comments that there maybe biological difference that explain the lack of women in physical sciences. As a result of some protests, particularly from the UC Davis campus, that invitation was rescinded.

In my view both should be allowed to speak. I don't think that students or faculty learn much if they just listen to people with the same views as them. Let Ahmadinejad stand up there and take questions about his views. I doubt that he will act like a neo-nazi and start shouting death to America and Israel. And if he does it will only make him look like an idiot to the whole world. By not allowing him to speak you just make a ideological martyr of him. By listening to your enemy you may learn something that will be helpful later. We should not be afraid of showing the freedoms we have in this country. Hurray to Bollinger for taking his stand.

A big boo to the UC Regents. They caved in to political pressure. The whole Summers incidence at Harvard shows that there is only academic freedom for the politically correct. Summers offered a theory which has NEVER been proven right or wrong. But the liberal nazis would not engage in rational discussion. This is like the ancient times where people thought that the sun revolved around the earth. Even though it was never proven, anyone who disagrees with that was attacked. Summers may well be wrong but he can't even bring that up for discussion? How many times in history have someone bring up a theory that was wrong? He was not going to the UC to discuss this topic anyway. The UC Regents are bunch of wimps to cave in.

It is interesting that the liberals would be more likely to back Columbia than conservatives. As a result Columbia can use academic freedom to allow Ahmadinejad to speak. But since liberals run the UC any politically incorrect views are scorned. In this case a person who had a politically incorrect view is not even allowed to speak on another topic! So to the liberals the former President of Harvard is a more controversal and dangerous speaker than someone who had called for the destruction of Israel and may very well have helped terrorists against the U.S. You have to wonder what are they teaching on our campuses today. Or what is it that they are smoking!

Watched parts of the Emmys the other night. I was wondering why Ray Romano and Sally Field got censored. Still don't know what Romano said but Sally Field apparently made a short speech against the war and included the words "goddamn war". It doesn't seem that outrageous compared to past political speeches at award shows. It does not seem to warren censorship in a supposedly free country. Now most of the time people who make these types of speeches really don't help their causes. I mean it usually is a big ramble that would not convince anyone that is not on your side to change his mind. Field, for example, sounded confuse and said that if women ran the countries there would be no wars. That is nonsense. Didn't Golda Meir fought the Arabs? I am sure Margaret Thacher would not hesitate to fight a war. Sometimes wars are necessary. We just should not fight those that are not necessary.

Also read in Time magazine that Kathy Griffin was censored when she accepted a creative-arts Emmy, telecasted on E!. Of course nobody watched that. I didn't even know there was such a channel! She said "a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award but no one had less to do with this award than Jesus". The Catholic League condemned the remarks and got it edited out of the broadcast. It is absurd that people thank God when they win an award or score a touchdown. The true God would careless about who won an Emmy or the Super Bowl. Now I am sure Kathy Griffin would not have gone to Tehran and told the Iranian basketball team, which had recently won the Asian championship that "Allah really has nothing to do with this unless He told China not to send Yao Ming and the rest of the "A" team to the tournament". If she had said that in Tehran she would probably be beheaded. We didn't go that far here but by censoring her, we are moving a little closer to Iran.

The truth is that these people who make political statements at awards make themselves look silly. But at the same time, people who censor them look silly also and even help spread their messages. Everybody wondered what Sally Field had said and looked for it in the papers the next day. If they had heard it on t.v. they would have not paid any attention at all. Kathy Griffin's comments would not have been heard by anyone since nobody watches E! anyway. But by getting censored, her message is in Time and other media. It is like protesting a book or movie, it just helps the sales.