Skip to main content

Pete Rose, WMD, and things people aren't talking about...

So Pete Rose finally admitted that he gambled on baseball. As a late-80s Mets fan who watched guys like Dwight Gooden and Darrell Strawberry practically throw away their careers for drugs, only to get a slap on the wrist, gambling never sounded all that bad as long as no games were thrown. So I've been quietly pulling for Pete all this time, and now that he's admitted he bet on baseball (with less-than-ideal timing, given the announcement of the new Hall of Fame class yesterday), I guess I'm still hoping he gets his lifetime ban from baseball lifted.

But what if Pete Rose is lying now? He doesn't seem any more or less sincere in his apology now than he was in denying he bet on baseball, so isn't there some chance that he figured his only opportunity to get back in the game was to tell people what they wanted to hear, regardless of the truth? And isn't it a productive way to cash in on a book deal? I imagine he's telling the truth now, but without any further evidence and with a bit of skepticism, we may never know. After all, people generally don't go looking for more evidence after a confession.

So what does this have to do with weapons of mass destruction? I remember being told, before we went into Iraq, that we needed to remove Saddam Hussein because he had WMD and would eventually use them on us or sell them to terrorists who would. Now that we're in Iraq and can't find the weapons, people (including all the talking heads on TV) want to question the intentions of our government. Were we lied to? Was the intelligence faulty or improperly used? Maybe. But there's another reason to explain the disappearance of those weapons, and it's the same reason our government told us before the war. What if Saddam did sell the weapons to terrorists, and that's why we can't find them? This is certainly nothing I want to believe, but why do I never hear people discuss this possibility? If there's proof this didn't happen, I'd sure take comfort in hearing it. Wouldn't you?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The 15-Year Blogoversary

15 years and 1,213 posts! My first experience with the World Wide Web came in 1995, and by 1997 I had my own web page. The first web authoring tool I remember using was Composer, an HTML editor built into the Netscape Communicator suite. That helped me learn some HTML, and later I used Microsoft Word 97 and then FrontPage 98 and later Macromedia Dreamweaver to design more elaborate pages. Some of my FrontPage-built sites are still on the web. As I learned more about HTML standards and validation I wrote more HTML by hand, but I still wanted a way to make publishing to the web easier.

By 2001 I understood that (a) sites should be updated regularly and (b) FTP'ing sites and pages from my desktop to a server was a bit of a pain. I had heard about some early blogging platforms and chose one, Blogger, to try out. As you can see, I'm still here.
My first post using Blogger came on December 8, 2001. A few months later I paid for Blogger Pro, which offered additional authoring tools, l…

Last.fm and Ten Years of Web 2.0

Ten years ago yesterday I scrobbled my first tracks to last.fm. What's scrobbling? On last.fm, scrobbling refers to automatic music track logging to the internet. For me, uploading a record of my music listening habits was my first real experience with "Web 2.0." Remember Web 2.0? It referred to websites of user-generated content that enabled virtual communities and interoperability. Now such sites are too ubiquitous on the web to warrant a special designation — they're just the web. But that wasn't true in 2006, and even though I'd been putting content on the internet since 1996, at the time it was enough to make me a little nervous. What did these strangers want with my data, and what was in it for me?

Ten years and 24,941 scrobbles later, I have my answer: I have a really cool record of all the music I've listened to the past 10 years! Well, not "all," technically: I've certainly listened to music in places and on devices that didn't …

Why Eleanor Roosevelt Would Have Liked Google+

And why Google+ won't be replacing Twitter or Facebook for most of us anytime soon
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
-- Eleanor Roosevelt

I know too much already has been written about Google+ and its place in the world of social networking, but I've recently developed a new perspective which might help some of you who are trying to decide how and when to use Google+ versus Twitter or Facebook.

Eleanor might have said "small minds discuss people," but there's more than one way to discuss people and none of us are consistently small-minded. People are important, and the people who are most important to us are those with which we have mutual friendships or family relationships. This is why Facebook is best at people: it enforces (if we ignore fan pages) a symmetric follower model, ensuring that we are connected to people who want to also be connected to us. Those connections, often with people who we don&…