Liar, Liar: McNamee v. Clemens, who would you trust?

In watching the first 3 hours plus of the House Oversight Congressional Hearings on the Mitchell Report with regards to Roger Clemens and former MLB trainer Brian McNamee, one has to understand that neither has budged much at all from their dichotomous assertions. That being said, it is obvious Brian McNamee is a liar and con artist. Roger Clemens is undoubtedly lying too.

If there is a scale or measure of creditability to use with regards to either man, Clemens would weigh more truthful on matters I would assert all of us would be able to give a good showing on. Things like who we believe in, people we would do right by, the ability to no harm to others in our care. Things that make most of us, normal human beings.

However, in matters that effect his remembrance as likely the greatest pitcher of the last 15-20 years, Roger Clemens would falter after 2 innings of batting practice in front of the 1976 Cincinnati Reds or 1927 Yankees. Roger has repeatedly offered little to refute his close teammate Andy Pettitte's affadavit/deposition claim that he used HGH in 1999 and likely on or before 2005. Roger saying, "he misremembers," but also saying, "he'll be my friend after this." Highly unlikely given the probable perjury investigation the FBI agents will see fit to pursue in light of this testimony by Clemens.

Meanwhile, (Dr.? )Brian McNamee has shown his imaginative ability to contort, confuse and obliterate facts whenever his interests lie in lying. His obtainment of a paper mache doctorate from Columbus University, a place well known to the U.S. Congress via Charles Abell, assistant secretary of Defense for force management. His recollections to implicate Clemens by loose association with Jose Canseco during a June 1998 party. His utilizing his connections to Clemens, Mike Stanton and Andy Pettitte to garner more business, ignoring the fact he injected them (all) with illegal/performance enhancers.

More to the point, McNamee is a player of the game of "snitching to save his ass." His assertions (paraphasing here), "that he only went so far in telling how many times he injected these players because he didn't want to hurt them too much," is utter and complete bullshit. His obvious anger at Clemens for secretly recording him, and thus, provoking the 'newly found evidence' of needles and other medical paraphernalia from 7 years ago used to implicate Clemens shows a desperate man willing to do, and all ready doing, anything to save his ass from a prison cell. (Which I can reflectively understand.)

Clemens is no saint. But I don't see a devil.

I see a man who likely projected a strong appearance for so long that Clemens may have fell victim to an Eve-like man named McNamee, that conned him down a road of no return in biting into the steroid-laced apple. It will improve you. You'll get your fastball back. You'll get better, I promise you.

McNamee's name will go down in Major League Baseball history as one of the dirtiest, sleaziest human beings to work with professional athletes. His word is never his bond. His concept of right is skewed to his own self-reward. And his loyalty is to whatever winds of cash flow fall in his hands.

"Roger 'Titan' Clemens... meet Barry 'Balco' Bonds, your new cellmate at Club Fed." A federal warden might have to say. Both will be far removed from the American Gladiators they were on the ball field.

"Brian McNamee you are hereby ordered to serve 2 1/2 years in prison for probation violation," A federal magistrate will eventually say.

Each side will lose more than they bargained for.

The Bipolar Me: What I suppose isn't clear

In my last post, I was attempting to ask which of the five directions I should take. In other words, one option that sounded most appealing.

As far as the diagnosis, given what I've read and what I do experience, sometimes daily, hourly, I am as good at self-examination as those professionals are.

As Susan Bernard, as close to an expert as any expert is, stated recently:

"In my experience, everyone has such a negative view of bipolar
disorder--doctors and therapists alike--that they've lost the ability to
approach it from a problem-solving perspective and to help provide answers and
services rather than a lot of meaningless conversation and ineffective
medication."

There is a strong stigma related to all things called "a disorder."

Over the past 11 years, I went on 4 different occasions to "therapists."
3 times on my own accord prior to the year 2001. Their diagnoses were all wrong.

1) Alcoholic - wrong. I can and do go weeks/months at a crack without any craving or yen for a drink. I drink to self-medicate certain aspects of BIP, I suppose. (And during those periods, I would binge drink...which I did often in college from 1990-1996, when my symptoms first manifested, but were undefined in my thinking.)

I also do not possess any tell tale signs of drug abuse. AND I do not use other illegal drugs, ever. (You, the reader, likely have smoked pot, I haven't.)

2) Slightly depressed - again, wrong. They catch me at the near term lows. Not understanding or acknowledging other points in my life. Explanation therapy has barely scratched the surface before they shuffle me off, or I shuffle myself off to another direction.

3) Some other disorder(s) - but fail to treat or define.

"Coming out" about what I know to be apart of my character is not easy. People seem to think I enjoy the self-diagnosis. I don't. Given the various other dilemmas in my life, prior to this, why would I enjoy it at all? (And it is not like I haven't explore the terrain. Since 1999, I have looked at various thoughts and analysis on Bipolar that tended me to that conclusion.)

As far as treatment, I don't (and haven't) had health insurance since early 2001. So unless I garner that, getting whatever treatment is viable and workable is simply impossible, if those things existed clearly.

The last time I was in "therapy" in late 2003. I was forced to attend 8-10 sessions at $100 per. I rode a mountain bike 7 or 8 miles to the session after 8 hours of work in a restaurant. I still owe over $600 on that medical bill since I was unable to pay for it at all. (And that was at a cut rate to begin with.)

And it did zero for me. In fact, she elected to guilt me into admission of being "a failure." (Due to thinking a 12-step program was again the solution to my ills. I still have the AA book.) She was a very unhelpful human being. But likely, making more money in a decade than I'll see in the rest of my life. So, she's a good capitalist.

Point is, I know what most think about any "disorder". The fears and stigmas they foist on others for having such a difference. It is no different from a Neo-Con talking about the abominations called "gay people."

Due to other things done in life, I am stigmatized and ostracized from the milieu of normalcy. The 9-5 job or career, the living in a decent apartment, the ability to enjoy other's company - like in relationships and families - all because, I am no longer "good enough" for many of you.

If I tell you the truth too soon, you'll say, "I don't care. Why would someone hold that against you?"

If I told you the truth too late, you'll say, "Why didn't you tell me that? (Or now I wonder what is next?)"

It is pathetic to explain it - I know - but this is a part of me.

There is nothing I can do to drastically change who I am - I can only tweek things here or there.

And I try pretty hard to do it.

But some days, I don't want much to do with anyone on this Earth.

Failure is what "it is."

I won't bother to explain this any further.

Direction?: A way forward. Which option?

Before I get into my direction post, I want to link you to a very well thought out post on the treatment path for Bi-Polar disorder written by Susan. She addresses it to all political candidates, about her ideas on addressing this situation, what will (or could) work in regards to treatment, a real process to improving BIPS and what funding is needed. It is a "pilot" looking for a "crew."

I hope she will succeed in getting this into the "mainstream" and receiving the backup in going forward. I, for one, am willing to explore the avenues.

Which leads to what this post is about.

I am weighing some ideas that I recently I bantered around between my episodes of depression.

1) An online monthly blog magazine. Gathering the best of bloggers postings up for a monthly journal on a wide range of issues, events, categories... PDF format with blog links to the contributing stories... Rotating bloggers, not just a hand-picked group. Wide range of viewpoints - not just liberal, conservative talking points. Worldwide views on issues from home country bloggers. Visuals as prepared by the bloggers. I am looking to edit it. (Tons of blog surfing by me and those I get turned on to doing some blogger article searches for me.)
Have a concept of the structure of it...but need the meat and the stories to sell it.

2) Online short story-novella serial. I started this 10 days ago. I am hoping to write it first before putting it out on the blog here. Will be a bit unusual due to the semi-screenplay format I am looking to put in place. Right now, I have to improve my research of where I want this story to go...I have a good concept, I think, but the background information is a bit lacking....Hint: It is literally two stories in one...

3) Start working on the Environmental book front. I think this is an issue worth a real look. Graphs, analysis, the truth and fallacies (and where they evolved from) of the Environmental, Energy and Political Landscape. Barely scratched the surface. 18mo. - 2yr. project.

4) American History. As I stated before in a prior post. A very long, intensive book project.

5) Bipolar Disorder program assistance. Susan has the concept, know-how and experience to launch something that could help thousands, I truly believe.

Though I haven't openingly admitted it, I am bipolar.

The quick swings I have in mood, the deep depressions I funk into for weeks and months, the mania of doing multiple things for a brief spurt effortlessly and the overall thinking that I am not like many other people, tends me to this. If anything, I think I could gain a perspective from working on this "mental health opportunity" to really do something that obviously gets ignored until it is literally too late for the sufferers of this particular diagnosis.

So, what should I do?

Feedback is very welcomed... :)

A Super Fat Tuesday: Picking A Candidate before Lent???

I am not a practicing Catholic, so don't go thinking I have "found Jesus." (I didn't know he was missing...)

With the super pre-election process coming to a frothy end, at least on the Republican side, I guess I'll step out on the plank and pick a candidate: Barack Obama.

I believe all the candidates have "their diseases" not revealed to their wives or husbands, in the case of Hillary. But I also think it is not sound to just ignore it, or not "change it", or otherwise, not vote for it.

I think Barack Obama can and does stand for a change in the policies that have decidedly led the United States into a pit of delusion, mediocrity and rabid preachiness at the cost of its soul.

Among other things, I believe he can see the Environment Issues in a whole new light, if directed well. He comes from a state that uses Nuclear Power heavily, which, even give a skeptics point of view, is more ecologically friendly than coal, oil or other means devised currently by man. (And he did not rule it out in the Nevada debate, unlike Senator Edwards who took the easy route on Yucca Mountain.)

A book about this subject, written by a former, anti-Nuclear proponent is currently in my possession. Power to Save the World:The Truth About Nuclear Energy by Gwyneth Cravens tells of the fallacies spread about Nuclear Power Industry and Radiation Scares that are overblown. The extremely efficient nature of the beast - and why even the Sierra Club, once a supporter, became anti-nuclear and spread misinformation.

But back to Barack.

He has more than "energy" that I like. I think he could be great president. He seems geniune about his feelings toward people. And his gravitas can make up for inexperience that Hillary & McCain will attack like a pit bill.

In one interview on BET, he actually spoke logically about the criminal justice system and the propensity to put a disproportionate number of African-Americans & economically-poor people behind bars. And more to the point, the inability to educate or improve their lot before they are released again. (His website buttresses this idea.)

Iraq. He wasn't at the front of the line or willing to let his political party's weakness deter him from opposing the war from day one. Having those instincts, as we have faithfully come to realize, are apart of becoming a good President. If due diligence had been done by the alphabet Agencies, Congress, "The Media", we might all be more secure today than we are under the Bush administration.

Barack Obama: "I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war' in
Iraq. I worried about, ‘an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined
costs, and undetermined consequences.’ The full accounting of those costs and
consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come
into focus.”

Foreign Policy. Diplomacy. This is a word that can mean many things, and in the case of Bush, nothing at all. I do believe you have to talk to people, friend or fiend. If anything as Barack's message states:

"Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies
us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally
international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism
to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we
can draw on strong international support."

In all, I think Barack is a way to the future. Not without flaws, or policy deficiencies, but at least a vision I can get behind.

(Note: He wouldn't want my support if solely on the basis of my personal flaws, background and shortcomings. But I hope that does not deter him in receiving my endorsement, such as it is.)

The Internet War of the Roses: Microsoft vs.Google

I am not at the front lines of the technology battle/war that has ensued between Microsoft and Google. Unlike John "Mcplain" McCain I am not a foot soldier in anyone's army currently. (Though I could pretend to be one on TV, like Mcplain did at the Reagan Library this week.)

The recent takeover bid by Microsoft of the former internet darling Yahoo! was long thought to be a sound business decision. The joining of their forces was seen as a marriage of aging man that is incredibly rich (Microsoft) and a divorcee (Yahoo!) that still looks pretty good and has a few tricks left to turn. (A bad pun.)

As Andrew Ross Sorkin at the NYT reflects:

The message that jolted Mr. Yang also jolted the technology industry. Yahoo,
founded by two Stanford graduate students, Mr. Yang and David Filo, was once the
leader of the dot-com world. But it has been dethroned in recent years by
Google, itself founded by two Stanford graduate students.

This battle will barely begin before Bill Gates steps down as the chairman of Microsoft, leaving it in the capable, if only marginally visible hands of Steven A. Ballmer. As Google and Microsoft enter their virtual cage match of internet death in 2008-9, one suspects they will be fighting a War of the Virtual Roses.

Wikipedia quotes on the War of the Roses:

The antagonism between the two houses started with the overthrow of King Richard II by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of Lancaster, in 1399. As an issue of Edward III's third son John of Gaunt, Bolingbroke had a very poor claim to the throne. According to precedent, the crown should have passed to the male descendants of Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence, Edward III's second son, and in fact, Richard II had named Lionel's grandson, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March as heir presumptive.

However, Bolingbroke was crowned as Henry IV. He was tolerated as king since Richard II's government had been highly unpopular. Nevertheless, within a few years of taking the throne, Henry found himself facing several rebellions in Wales, Cheshire and Northumberland, which used the Mortimer claim to the throne both as pretext and rallying point. All these revolts were suppressed.

The wars were also fought largely by the landed aristocracy and armies of feudal retainers. Support for each house largely depended upon dynastic factors, such as marriages within the nobility, feudal titles, and tenures. It is sometimes difficult to follow the shifts of power and allegiance because nobles acquired or lost titles through marriage, confiscation or attainture.

This virtual war started long ago between Google and Microsoft as each has gobbled up companies, made threats, lay claim to the title, "Internet King" and put to work "coding
foot soldiers" to destroy each other's empire.

From the Sydney Morning Herald, from 2005:

After learning Lucovsky was leaving to take a job at Google, Ballmer picked up his chair and hurled it across his office, according to the declaration.

Ballmer then pejoratively berated Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Lucovsky recalled."I'm going to f---ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again," the declaration quotes Ballmer. "I'm going to f---ing kill Google."

Before joining Google, Schmidt was a top executive at Sun Microsystems Inc. and Novell Inc., a pair of tech companies that Microsoft has previously battled.

At this point, Microsoft was hoping to legally stop Google's expansion after they had hired away ex-Gates guy Kai Fu-Lee to head up expansion into the megamarket of China. (Yahoo! also made news in 2007 in assisting the Chinese government in a crackdown on free speech.)

As a result, Microsoft is buying Yahoo! to thwart Google in the mother-of-all emerging markets, China. And to improve their share of an all ready non-competitive market as this quote reflects from the NYT's Andrew Ross Sorkin:

The combination of Yahoo and Microsoft would create a more powerful counterweight to Google. Yahoo’s audience, already the largest on the Internet,
would be bolstered by the tens of millions of users of Microsoft’s services,
creating a much larger online display advertising business. In Internet search,
the market share of the two companies would rise to 31 percent of the
American market, according to comScore. That would still be far below Google’s 58 percent share, but would help the companies attract more advertisers and higher prices for ads.

89 percent in two companies!!!

Hardly seems fair.

But War never is.