Oh, here's a reference on testing for HGH.Comment Posted By Giacomo On 10.08.2007 @ 06:01
Bonds the "best hitter ever?" I beg to differ.
And tetvet, you need to know a little more about drug testing to make any definitive statements about the last 8 years of Bonds' career. For instance, Balco was successful precisely because they developed a steroid that could not be tested for. In order to test for an anabolic steroid, the testing agency has to get its hands on the drug and analyze it, then devise a test to identify that particular compound. Develop a new steroid and you're back in business.
Similarly, HGH still can not be reliably tested for. It leaves the system too quickly, though the effects last much longer.Comment Posted By Giacomo On 10.08.2007 @ 05:59
Bravo, Rick. While I was one of those technorati links, I suspect mine was one of the civil ones. But it's appropriate and admirable to give him the support. There's a difference between being wrong and being evil. There are, however, a lot of people confused on that point.Comment Posted By Giacomo On 14.04.2007 @ 21:01
One of my daughters - the seven year old!! - loves Jeopardy now. Anyone remember the original host ... pause ... Art Fleming?
The original Alex Trebek vehicle - High Rollers - wasn't terrible, either.Comment Posted By Giacomo On 12.11.2006 @ 10:43
It's been interesting to see the hysteria and rage coming from the defenders of the Clinton presidency. They can be concerned that the film, which I watched in it's entirety, will be taken as a documentary of actual events rather than a dramatization of events, and ABC, if indeed it was their intent, was wrong to leave that impression.
But I never got the impression that it was a "dead on balls accurate" (it's an industry term) documentary prior to the film's airing, and I'm not sure why anyone would. What I did expect to see - and which I did see - were events and missed opportunities and poor decision making portrayed accurately. The "wall of separation," which was undeniably present, was dramatized. The law and order approach to terrorism, which was undeniably present, was dramatized. And the well-documented missed opportunities to go on the offensive, which were undeniably present, were also dramatized.
Kind of what I expected.Comment Posted By Giacomo On 13.09.2006 @ 15:13
Excellent fisk, Rick. I found it interesting and noteworthy that the very first of Shaw's liberal utopian ideals - the leader of the laundry list of 'desireable' outcomes - was blocking a Supreme Court nomination and preserving Roe. Fascinating mindset, no?Comment Posted By Giacomo On 26.08.2006 @ 21:36
Re: the two questions posed by caninepundit
1. I disagree, Rick. I think it was on November 7, 2000.
2. I don't know for sure either, but given past statements I'd guess that the Democrats plan to work their asses off to arrest those responsible and bring them to justice in American courts, publicizing national security secrets in the process, in response to any successful terrorism attack.Comment Posted By Giacomo On 19.08.2006 @ 12:21
Great comments above. I found a very interesting presentation by Professor Lindzen last year when I was looking into some of the hysteria on global warming after Katrina. It's worth a look.Comment Posted By Giacomo On 29.05.2006 @ 10:35
The key sentences in Jenkins' piece, I think, are these:
The word refers to a technique, usually a bomb, not an ideology. A bombing is an anarchic gesture calling for police and medical services. It becomes a political weapon only if publicised and answered with hysteria.
That is the argument that John Kerry made unsuccessfully, that terrorism is largely a law enforcement issue. While that may be a workable theory in the absence of nuclear/chemical/biological weapons (though I disagree), and particularly in the absence of attacks on our home soil, with both of those possibilities in existence it becomes unworkable. For then you have decided that a large number of American life may be lost, and that would be acceptable.Comment Posted By Giacomo On 19.02.2006 @ 20:07
the GOP case is that Al Qaeda is so big and scary that Bush must be able to break the law.
Actually the [national security] case is that, in concordance with both the AUMF and the FISA Court's own opinion in that 2002 sealed case, the President does have the authority and his action is legal. Your paraphrase is the equivalent of a cartoon of Mohammed. Are you unable to understand the language that AG Gonzalez is using?
The AUMF authorized the President to "use any and all necessary force." How is it possible to properly use that force against terrorists without doing the intelligence work necessary?Comment Posted By Giacomo On 6.02.2006 @ 22:32