Bonds and Steroids: All but a done deal

Tuesday, news of a new book documenting in great detail Barry Bonds' "alledged" steroid use rose to the top of the sports headlines. So I let it sink in for a few days before commenting on it. Frankly, even after a few days, the story still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Since the steroid scandal story broke several years, I've reserved judgment, stood back and let the natural progression of events take care of themselves keeping faith that some piece of information--diamond in the rough, if you will--would shine like a beacon enlightening me to the what REALLY happened. Tuesday, ironically on my birthday, this missing link may have very well surfaced unlocking what most of us suspected for a very long time.

(Picture to the left is Bonds in 1998)

Two authors, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote "Game of Shadows" based upon thousands pages of documents and interviews of over 200 people concerning Bonds' steroid usage. (You can click on this Game of Shadows link for more details on how the book came to be) In it, they describe doping schedules, what he took, when and how long among other bombshells. Consider this book--from what I've heard-- to be the Woodward and Berstein/Washington Post Watergate story equivalent.

Stories like this that have potentially longstanding effects on the game of baseball peek my curiosity being a baseball purist of sorts. Invariably, the need for more information in an effort to quench my insayshable curiosity gets the better of me. So I google...google...and google some more hoping for that one article that clarifies everything hopefully tipping my opinion one way or another.

The problem with this method is that there is so much information readily accessible over the internet true AND false. Consequently, the process of filtering out what is hearsay and what is confirmed fact must be efficient and effective. Needless to say, its a monumental task that I hoped would get easier. It hasn't.

Since exerps of the book--billed as the missing link to the Barry Bonds steroids scandal--came out, certain subtopics which paint a broader and more true picture of how this story relates to baseball need to be discussed. Many of these subtopics have been pushed under the radar (Why this happened is more of a discussion of journalism ethics which can be talked about at another time) which does nothing to help us understand the entire story.

Let's go ahead and investigate these misreported and/or left out subtopics individually:

* Contrary to popular belief, a male in his mid 30s can increase his musculature by 10 or even 20 pounds in a relatively short period of time if he works out correctly, rests enough and most of all eats the proper food. Yes, even without steroids you can go from 180 pounds to over 200 pounds in 4 to 6 months! Creatine, an energy source that is found in red meat and other foods can also assist in adding muscular weight. Best of all, it can be purchased at your neighborhood grocery store. I know people who have done this.

(Picture is Bonds in 2000)

* The increase in overall offense in Major League Baseball since 1995 has been driven mostly on three factors:

Diluted pitching due to league expansion in 1993 and 1998, smaller ballparks (rarely do you see an outfield fence more than 365 feet in the power alleys) and more tightly wound baseballs. One of the networks did a story a few years ago at the Rawlings Baseball Facility. What do you kno, the room that wound the baseballs was off limits to the reporters. Hmmm. They claim that the balls are the same but tests since then prove otherwise. Sure, steroids are a factor. No question about it. In some isolated player cases, steroids might be the main factor. But to point to steroids as the main reason for higher homerun totals and more runs scored league wide is stretching it a bit.

(Picture is Bonds in 2001)

* Here's a personal one that I love to debunk: Protein Powder does not come in pill form! I can count at least a half a dozen times where sports writers, who obviously have no knowledge of workout regimens and supplements, talk about "protein pills". Protein comes in powder form and, as of 2006, its great for you!

Anyway, back to the book.

If what the authors say is true in their outlining of Bonds' steroid use from 1998 to 2003, then its fairly safe to say that many other ballplayers could have been on similar doping regimens injecting whatever chemical they thought would give them an advantage. Scary thought when you consider that 7% of all ballplayers tested positive in the first year of testing back in 2003. Who knows how many players were using performance enhancing drugs in the 1990s or earlier.

Is taking steroid in baseball prior to 2003 considered cheating? Some people say no because baseball didn't test for performance enhancing drugs or anything else for that mater. In effect, baseball had no problem with these substances or else they would have been banned a long time ago. In a twisted sense, baseball--although not officially--gave their blessing. "Take whatever you want" was the non-verbal communication from MLB and the Player's Union. Therefore, as many people conclude, it wasn't an unfair advantage because any player could "juice up" without any recourse from MLB.
One other aspect to ponder: Many players back in the 1960s and 70s took "greenies" --stimulants-- to get themselves "up" for a game. Those are considered performance enhancing yet no one has made an agrument for inserting astericks next to players of decades before. By the way, testing will start for the first time for amphetamines in 2006, more than 40 years removed from their first alledged use.

Although MLB didn't test for steroids of other drugs at that time, it is a felony to obtain without a prescription or distribute steroids and has been since 1991. Do you fault the players for taking advantage of the non-testing era knowing that it was illegal? Many athletes don't care about the future ramifications of these substances. These guys are "wired" differently that the rest of us mortals. Anything to get an advantage regardless of the effects to the body; many of they don't care.

Beyond the physical reprecussions, the ethical implications are far greater and can't be ignored. While MLB didn't test for these substances which are illegal according to federal law, players who took these drugs did so with complete disregard for the game itself and all it represents past, present and future. It is this ethical pedestal that these steroid using players should be measured not the poor decisions made by corporate power politicians who represent the owners and the player's union.

Here's an aside about baseball cheating: Its existed in baseball since its inception. No argument here. Whether cheating manifests itself in stealing signs or applying a foreign substance to the baseball in order to change its trajectory players are looking for an advantage and will always will. But consuming artificial chemical substances that don't occur naturally which are illegal in an effort to enhance your body beyond what it is designed to do can't even be compared to Joe Neikro's scuffing-the-ball-with-a-nail-file incident.

Who do we blame for this steroid mess? Many blame the players and want all statistics marked with an asterisk who played from 1995 to 2003. The problem with that is we don't know was "juicing" and who wasn't because no testing existed prior to 2003. Sure, we have our suspicions. But how can we penalize players who earned their numbers the right way with proper workouts and supplementation? The fact is there are players who were using steroids during this period but we will never know with one hundred percent certainty who they were. Frankly, the stats should speak for themselves and left alone. The court of baseball public opinion with its deep historical tradition will be far more critical and damming than a simple "*" next to a player's name.

Many blame the owners. The argument is how could team owners and management not know what was going on. Its foolhardy to think that they had no knowledge. Ticket sales soared during the Cal Ripken games played record chase right after the strike of 1994/early 1995. Rather than inflict another black eye on baseball with a steroid scandal, owners just ignored the problem. Fans were coming back to the game, the sport was being re-energized and the owners were adding beaucoup jack to their wallets. Why stir up steroid talk and upset the applecart?

Many blame the Player's Union. Same argument applies here that applies to the owners. How could they not know? Many players were growing at an alarming rate and so was the frequency of injuries due to many players' bodies breaking down due to the increased muscle mass. Players were having career years offensively and their pay reflected it. From 1989 to 1995, players' salaries jumped 100%; salaries jumped another 50% from 1995 to 2000. The union was in the driver's seat. Player's salaries were going up and most of all, the strongest union on the planet--as some have described it--was as strong as ever. So why address a growing drug problem when it will only weaken their position?

Some blame the commissioner. Back then, Bud Selig was in a quandary. Does he officially bring steroids to the attention of the owners and player's union at the risk of starting another labor war? Most of all, did he want to deal with the public relations nightmare that it would create knowing it would continue to build eventually leading to a fracture that might not be repairable given the delicate state of most baseball fans after the strike? In baseball, the commissioners does not have the power that Paul Tagliabue has in the NFL or David Stern commands in the NBA. So, his hands were tied. After al, baseball was on the road to recovery so like dirt on the kitchen floor, the topic of steroid abuse by baseball higherups was pushed under the rug hoping that no one would notice.

Fast-forward to 2003. BALCO (company involved in creating designer steroids) was in hot water with the Feds, players were called to testify before a grand jury, steroid testing was finally established in an agreement between the union and the owners, congress became involved in 2005 and above all of this, a man at the heart of the steroid universe Barry Bonds was closing in on the most revered of all sports records: THE HOMERUN TITLE. As ESPN writer Gene Wojciechowsk said in a recent article, "...Bonds allegedly chose home runs over ethics."

Two weeks into spring training, this "super-tell-all" book comes out describing everything drug-related Barry Bonds has done since 1998. Whatever the fallout after the book is released, several events must happen: Baseball must own up to their mishandling of the entire steroid mess over the last 10 years. Bud Selig on down the line must take command of the situation and launch a full investigation similar to the Pete Rose gambling issue. I do not envy Bud Selig. He'll be walking a thin line between his extracting and subsequent handling of the truth of steroids past and present and the backlash of any recognition of Bonds' possible breaking of the most celebrated statistic in all of sports.

Most of all, Barry Bonds must come clean with baseball and its fans. He should admit to what he did and finish out the season with the scandal hanging over his head. He's on the verge of breaking the most hallowed mark in sports--the homerun record--which cannot be tainted by scandal. More significant than the players' union or the owners, the homerun record's very nature by its elevated status represents the game far deeper than any individual who might break it. Any link to the record by any individual or individuals whether against the formal rules of baseball or not should be removed in order to preserve the sacredness of the record. Its just a shame that baseball from the commissioner on down the line through ignoring the steroids problem created an even bigger problem that will take many years to dismantle.

As for Bonds' legacy, Gene Wojciechowski wrote, "The tragedy of it all is that Bonds didn't need the alleged chemical boost. His legacy was secure. His Hall of Fame plaque was a done deal. It didn't matter if we thought he was a jerk because his statistics were so overpowering. No longer."

Age and Birthdays

Age is a state of mind. Nothing exemplifies this more than your first birthday as a father. Today marks that first birthday for me. Sure, I have a great job, a lovely, attractive wife, a nice house and a wonderful son but even with a steady career path and a wonderful family, I've never really thought of myself as an "adult" per se. Maybe its a function of society in 2006 with so many activities like video games designed to keep Generation X'ers from graduating into the everyday riggers of adulthood in an effort to foster a youthful mindset gone by. Then again, maybe I just don't want to grow up.

When I think of grown-ups, I think of my parents not me. When they moved into their house back in the 1970s, my father was YOUNGER than I am right now! Damnit, my dad is the old man not me! Maybe some perspective is need here: Kids who are in high school now were born a year after the first gulf war. Remember the OJ chase through Los Angeles? Current 9th graders were in diapers during that historic event. They don't even know what the dewey decimal system is...Oh the humanity!

Anyway, back to my mental mindset quagmire.

The key to fighting the mental mindset that is adulthood is to have goals--really, really hard goals that make you work. In order to quench the competitor in me, athletic type challenges are the best. Of course, it helps having a younger brother who is 12 years my junior to deed off of. So a quick pickup basketball game in the driveway at our parents' house (complete with an adjustable hoop) with the customary smacktalk during possession changes makes the games more heated, at least for me. I heard Michael Jordan would psych himself out during games into thinking that a rivalry existed when none did. This would ignite a fire within him and we all know the results: 6 championships. So, before these driveway games, I would employ the same techniques that his Airness would use. The result: Usually a loss for yours truly, a rolled ankle and a deflated ego.

The bottomline is that age is a mindset and through certain "creative" mental techniques, I've tried to push the thirtysome age factor to the backburner albeit in a losing effort. During my earlier years in the quest to defeat the effects of age, I decided to raise the bar to stratuspheric heights. My goal was to bench 315 pounds when I turned 30 in 2004. Yep, 3 plates on each side of a 45 pound bar. Through extensive training for 3 months prior, I did it! Two 2 solid reps at 10AM on March 7, 2004. However, the price was paid 18 months later with shoulder surgery to cleanup debris no doubt caused by my overzealous athletic endeavors. Since then, the bar has been lowered to more earthly levels. Last year on my 31st, my wife and I painted the kitchen.

Two years later on birthday number 32, I've scaled back my quest for athletic dominance. The shoulder is back to near normal and I'm back to playing video games with the best of them while enjoying time with my 8 month old son who chews on the controller cable while I play.

But you know, I can't ignore what lies ahead. The writing on the wall says the day is coming where my days of playing sports will end and my coaching days will begin.

But not this year. Baseball season is around the corner which means one more season playing with guys who were learning how to write their name with crayons when I was playing in college.

So here's to all of you who share a birthday with me. Please send a blank check in lieu of gifts.

Is it ALWAYS the wealthiest team who wins?

Spring training is in full swing and the debate concerning the "haves" and the "have nots" is heating up again. In other words, is it the Yankees who always win or do other less fiancially flexible teams have similar opportunities in October? Consider these payroll rank statistics when comparing them to regular season wins of teams in the postseason.


The World Series Champions are boxed in red. You can see that since the Yankees World Series win six years, three of the next five World Series Champions were not one of the top ten teams in payroll. Granted, the Yankees have money to spend no question. But it hasn't paid off in the last six years. In fact, the disparity between the Yankees payroll wise and the World Series winner has continued to grow since 2001. The difference between the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Yankees was $27 million in 2001. In 2005, the difference between the Yankees and the Chicago Whitesox was $133 million.

Thus, teams are doing more with less and its culminating in championships.

Last Few Weeks of Freedom - ColonelT.com

* CORRECTION TO ELIMINATE THE WORD "CATACLYSMIC" AS PER THE REQUEST OF MY LOVELY WIFE *

My esteemed colleague over at colonelt.com in his last entry quantified his feelings four weeks from parenthood. To paraphrase him:

"....95% excited and 5% terror beyond imagination."

I can certainly understand his mindset being somewhat torn between two emotions that are diametrically opposed to one another. Its only natural. While most couples who are expecting one child naturally fear the unknown territory of being a parent, he and his wife are expecting not just one baby but twins--yes, TWINS!

Like the laws of physics when you work back to the start of the universe, my parental knowledge and experience at this point breaks down and is no longer valid. Why? Simple, I have just one child.

When my child was about a month out, I told my wife that our son would graduate from high school in 2024! Talk about putting things into perspective. Here we were sorting out baby clothes and I was already stressing about how to pay for the kid's college education. I would guess that the emotions "The Colonel" is going through are magnified since multiple babies are expected.

Without a multiple baby experience to draw from, maybe some statistics might paint a clearer picture of what the Colonel is going through. According to the United States Census conduction in 2000, only three percent of birth were twins. The chances go up to a robust four percent over the age of 30. That's 118,916 births.

Ahhh. Clarity through numbers.

In other words, the colonel---oops, my bad, "The Colonel" and his lovely wife are in very special company.

As a longtime friend going back to the late 70s, I feel some great need to coach him over the next four weeks until the big day. But alas, I need to take a step back. The Colonel is a smart man and he will sort out his amalgam of emotions in due time. He's probably painted the baby's room, assembled the crib and installed a plasma screen near the diaper changing station for Baby Einstein viewing. For all the preparation involved, nothing will really "prepare" him for what lies ahead. Still, I can't resist at pointing out a few changes that WILL occur after birth:

1. Neurotic behavior by both father and mother will become increasingly conspicuous to neighbors and family members. As much as they tell you everything will be fine, you shun their words and continue to act as if every movement or action will do irreparable harm if not done with utmost precision .

2. Forget about rest, you will not sleep for 5 months

3. Video game entertainment will also cease for at least 5 months...maybe longer depending on whether or not the baby(s) like to watch while you play

4. Current events will seem the furthest thing from your mind. As long as the power doesn't go out, you won't care about staying informed

5. Finally, time will stand still. See my entry on the speed of time


Anyway, the best of luck to you and your wife, Colonel. That 5% terror you spoke of will slowly go down but not until 2016.

Nathan's First Trip to the Pool

Here are a few pics from my son's first experience in a pool. He was more entertained by the ambient noise and the overhead lights reflecting off of the windows and of course daddy's pool antics. But overall, it was a great time!

After getting cleaned up, Nathan decided that he would dawn some flannel, smile to the camera and go chop some wood.

Chopping wood and swimming in the same day can increase your appetite. So, Nathan devowered 12 jars of babyfood and proceeded to tell us with his perfected non-verbal communication skills that he wanted more!

Baby Attraction and Reaction

Absolutes in our world are few and far between. Death and taxes, of course, are the two biggies that come to mind. However, the two absolutes that are, in my opinion, more abundant than "death and taxes" are the following: The law of Gravity and the ability that babies have for bringing out wild spikes of emotion resulting in high octave squeals among certain people.

Sure, we all know what gravity is. We all experience gravity all the time. Its an absolute. However, the second absolute might not be as obvious if your not a parent. This absolute is characterized as an eruption of some people at the mere sight of a baby noticible as a high pitched vocal noise with wild spikes of emotion that normally don't exist in nature. Why is an absolute? It will occur with all babies without fail. If you've seen this, then you know what I am talking about.

What is the root cause of these strong forces--absolutes, if you will--in nature that seem so diametrically opposed? For some perspective, let's try to tackle the first. Gravity.

Over the last few centuries, physicists' knowledge of gravity has increased at a rate unlike any period in human history. The Law of Universal Gravitation (Issac Newton's brainchild) which describes gravity in great detail is still used today in some applicationn. In a revolutionary move to describe what causes gravity, Einstein came up with his Theory of General Relativity in 1915 which stated that the presence of mass, energy, and momentum causes something called "spacetime" to become curved. Thus, gravity exists because of this curvature.

Don't feel bad if all of this abstract science is hard to grasp. Just remember that Einstein formulated this in his spare time IN HIS HEAD WITHOUT COMPUTERS and since then, experiments done to confirm this curvature have all checked out. The bottom line is gravity exists everywhere. Whether you're here on earth or 15 billion light-years away (that's 88,177,302,054,810,000,000,000 miles--88 sextillion) in one of the first galaxies to form after the big-bang, gravity (as far as we can tell) is present.

Babies are very similar to this universal gravity concept that Newton formulated and Einstein expounded upon. Instead of attracting planets or other heavenly bodies, babies attract people. It's as simple as that. Race, color, creed or religion, it doesn't matter. Babies pull people in. Regardless of what we are doing at the time, we always make time to look at the little bundle of joy in the stroller in the food court at the mall. There's no way around it. Think about it: have you ever witnessed a situation whether at the mall or at a family gathering where a baby doesn't cause people to gravitate to them? Exactly.


Is this universal baby attractive force present everywhere and is this attraction the cause of that high pitched verbal reaction that Aunt Betsy gives when she sees little Johnny during the holidays? We know, obviously, that this baby attraction is present on earth. Whether it exists on an other planet in a galaxy far, far away isn't known. We assume however--albeit against proper scientific method--that if we somehow traveled at warp speed in a spaceship to a planetary system a gazillion miles away with an infant, that baby would still attract a crowd. While the attraction goes hand-in-hand with the verbal reaction, we can't say for sure that is the REAL cause.

What then IS the cause of the instantaneous emotional reaction when a baby is present? We tried to look for an answer in the studies of one of the smartest minds of all-time--Albert Einstein--but that didn't lead us to much information. Why? Evidentally, he spent most of his life researching the universe and aforementioned universal gravity concept but conveniently passed on trying to describe this high pitched, deafening squeal babies create in some people. He no doubt realized its complex nature and thought up his Theory of Relativity instead.

Let'e back up and state a few facts:

Babies in public attract other people especially if they are cute. At some point, some subconscious, involuntary, neurological reaction occurs, mostly with women but not always, when a baby is seen at a close distance. Now, seeing the baby is key. You can hear the baby or smell the lotion on a baby but this seizure-like excitement won't occur until you actually see him. The reaction manifests itself in an out-of-control spasm accompanied by a frantic verbal exclamation which is 4 octaves higher than normal speech. What is said can vary but most of the time it is usually:

"Ohhhhhh....he is sooooooo cuuuuuute!"

You don't just say this. You stretch it out for at least 10 seconds. Long enough to paralyze people within 15 feet. Glass items such as coffee pots, mirrors and wine glasses crack or shatter all together. Dogs bark in shear terror and car alarms go off without warning. In essence, the apocalypse that ensues is tantamount to a small thermonuclear explosion but without the radiation. Its a wonder that babies don't cry more when they are subjected to it.

According to OSHA guidelines, decibel readings above 85 are considered harmful and could cause hearing loss. Needless to say, many mothers and fathers are suffering from hearing damage from these high pitched reactions. If you are anticipating one of these reactions, proper ear protection should be worn.

This past weekend, I witnessed a middle-aged woman expand her octave range at the expense of my ears along with every dog in a 3 mile radius. Her uncontrollable excitement over her first glance at my child was the most unbelievable display of emotion I have ever seen.

My son, in my opinion, sets the cute scale bell-curve quite high so he attracts his fair share of people. (I'm just his father with a totally unsolicited, unbiased opinion of my son.) But the event that occurred as this woman saw my kids was pure torture! Don't get me wrong. Its wonderful to see a person show so much emotion toward your new child. As a parent, you couldn't ask for more. But when your ear drum resonates like a tuning fork, that's plenty for me.

Yet the question still remains: What universal force emanating from babies that causes people to display such excitement? If it manifested itself like magnetism or electricity, we would be able to measure it. If it showed properties similar to light, we would see it. Yet the force causing baby attraction and the resulting ear-piercing reaction remains unseen without properties that we can quantify.

Maybe science isn't the road to take in our exploration of this. Maybe baby attraction and reaction and the forces that create it aren't something that were created to be "measured" in the traditional sense.

Maybe that instantaneous, emotional reaction of cosmic proportions people give when they see a baby stems from the their innocence and delightful demeanor unblemished by society and the complexities of everyday life. Then again, it might orginate from something deeper, something well beyond our comprehension.

Maybe its a feeling that we should just embrace as an intangible component of human creation instead of trying to analyze it analytically. Yeah, the high pitched reaction might be like nails on a chalk board at first. But once you step back and observe the real meaning behind it, you can't help but embrace it as one of those powerful emotions that accompany parenthood and the people who share it with you.

1st Graders: The Carriers of Disease

About a week ago, the entire family and I decided to go out into the winter elements to get some errands done. You know, the innocuous trek to the grocery to pick up basic food necessities such as milk, bread, eggs, bacon and of course assorted babyfood ranging from peas to chicken and rice to beef and potatoes to the ever popular desert among babies from 5 to 9 months--Hawaiian Delight. How they puree chicken and rice to a consistency that matches smashed banana I have no idea. But I digress.

One of the stops that day was to the eye doctor to pick up my FIRST pair of glasses. I hadn't had an eye exam since the pre-internet days so I knew glasses were in my future. Plus, the shelf-life of my left bionic eye being only 7 years was due for a refit.

While I was busy picking out frames, my wife was entertaining my son by playing peek-a-boo among the endless rectangular mirrors in-between the ecletic styles of frames throughout the store. He was getting a bit cranky so she put him in his removable car seat and started feeding him lunch. It wasn't the best setup but you make due when your arsenal of baby needs doesn't include a traveling high-chair.

As my son was eating lunch, a family consisting of a mom and two kids probably age seven or eight walked into the store. The mom made a mad dash to the checkout desk to pick up her prescription. The kids, however didn't follow. They made a beeline to my son who was quietly eating lunch.

As a parent, you develop a second sense when danger might be lurking. On this day, I realized that I had developed this power. Soon, my "spider-sense" was tingling bigtime. Almost immediately, I turned around and these kids were talking to my son. No problem, right? Normally that would be true. Except this day, these kids were hacking up phloem as if they had smoked 3 packs of non-filtered cigarettes on the car ride over! Their eyes were bloodshot, the bottoms of their nose were red with irritation and the snot was running out of their noses like a leaky spicket puddling on their upper lip! Instantly, the words Pneumonia and Sinusitis repeated themselves in my head like a huge, blinking neon sign.

Not used to my new glasses, I stumbled over to everyone congregating around my son. The disease infested kids paid no attention to me. So, I leaned over to my wife and start mumbling different random diseases:

"Bronchitis, pneumonia, whooping cough, The Black Plague--one of these kids has to be named one of these", I said.

My wife who usually corrects me when I am somewhat blunt in public started to laugh uncontrollably partly because what I said was, frankly funny, but it also served as a therapy mechanism that dulled the prospect of our son coming down with a prolonged illness of the likes that hadn't been seen since the SARS epidemic.

From that point on, the first graders handling our kid were referred to as: Bronchitis and Emphysema

As a paranoid father, who desperately wanted his child's streak of non-sick days to continue until he's 18, I needed to jump into action. Do I pull the kids away from my child and soak them in antibacterial soap? Should I risk actually touching these kids potentially exposing myself to the Bubonic Plague they were carrying? Do I call their mother over and ask her nicely to remove her disease infested children whose DNA was being re-written to resemble some alien, snot producing lifeform from the SCI-FI Channel? Do I Purel my son's hands, face and other exposed skin and run the risk of showing the mother through my actions that their kids are spreading their germs to my infant son? Or do I ignore this and hope that everything will be alright?

All of these scenarios went through my head in the span of a few seconds and thankfully I didn't have to act on any of these possibilities. Why? Because, my wife saved the day as only a mother can.

She calmly told the kids who doubled as a petry dish to not touch my son because he was not feeling well and that he might pass along his germs to them. Upon hearing this, I couldn't fathum my son passing along any germ that could have been more potent then the bacteria that resided on these kids. Almost immediately, they moved a few feet back from my son although more curious than ever. Finally, after what seemed like an eternity, their mom finished her business and made her way to the door followed by the kids. They left the store and I breathed a sigh of relief now that my son was by himself and hopefully free of contaminants.

Like a season of "24", a biological disaster was averted that day all because of my wife's quick thinking and unorthodox tactics. Sure, all my wife did was turn the situation on its head by pretending that my son was the carrier of disease but it worked.

What did we learn from all of this? Simple. Quarantine all first graders until spring because they are carriers of disease.

Missed us by THAT MUCH

You can call it the blizzard that almost was.

Throughout last week, the computer models were cranking out yet one of the those solutions that make most people cringe this time of year. That solution was another major east coast snowstorm that would have affected parts of the great lakes including Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

As most of these storms have done, this one deviated from its projected path. Unlike the last one that went too far west to produce widespread snow, this storm shifted to the east sparing the aforementioned states but not New England. The storm might not have been of the magnitude of the March 1993 storm that is now ranked as the worst snow storm of ALL-TIME but it produced more snow for places like New York City than any storm in RECORDED HISTORY! Try 27 inches in 24 hours.

All that areas of Cleveland saw from the storm was a few fluffy inches (up to 5 in spots) that quickly melted or blew away.

Here is a view from outside shortly after the snow ended. Notice the blue sky and hardly any significant accumulation.

Another major meteorological bullet has been dodged. Now if Lake Erie would just freeze over.

BEARDS: The measure of a man

Recently, I had a three day weekend to tackle my television memoirs. I woke up on my first day off, drank 12 ounces of water (one must be hydrated), jumped in the shower when an otherwise unimportant mental manifestation surfaced with the ferocity of a nuclear blast:

I didn't need to shave!

Forget the morning coffee or a homemade country breakfast to stimulate your groggy senses. The realization that you can display a days growth of facial hair without having the cataclysmic repercussions you would normally encounter at work is one of the most exhilarating epiphanies one can experience early in the morning on a day off.

Throughout the day, the scruffiness of my days growth became empowering. I felt like changing the oil on the car. I wanted to build an addition on my workbench along with finding random uses for my cordless drill. I felt like challenging people at the grocery store to feats of strength. My facial hair was even brainwashing me into thinking that I could hold up the front end of my car up with my bare hands WHILE changing the oil! In essence, my facial hair increased my adrenaline output and my level of stupidity. If it weren't for my wife strongly suggesting that I refrain from these activities or my day would revolve around cleaning our bathrooms, my adrenaline overdrive would have caused serious injury. This, keep in mind, is all due to facial hair.

Since my overzealous, adrenaline laced body was checked at the door by my lovely wife always looking out for my well-being, I never tackled the projects that I set out to do that day while on my facial hair high. But I did have a chance to reminisce about facial hair days gone by. One specific instance was back in 1995 during my last year of college.

Several friends along with myself were studying for a calculus test (how dorky is that) and--for reasons still unknown--the conversation shifted from integrals and complex equations to beards within a few minutes. Actually, it was more of a switch to topics that were only partially related to manly activities but within those minutes, the focus evolved to straight up, manly things. Eventually, as all manly conversations go, the topic drove headstrong right into beard territory. Once your there, you cannot back out. The friendly discussion morphed into a heated exchange and then to a challenge. We all agreed to grow beards for a period of weeks after which we would have an impartial party judge to see who has the best beard. Needless to say, I won!

After the two weeks elapsed and the contest was over, I realized that each man's beard was distinctly different not because of color but in thickness or density.
This, in my opinion, is directly correlated to his manliness. Since I won the contest, I figured I was more manly than the others ( I was biased) so it was up to me to explore this relationship further. After all, I owed my results to all manly men who won beard growing contests.

But first, I needed a scientific term.

Also, how could beard density be quantified?

Since my background is in meteorology, I took a weather-type term and changed a bit to describe what I needed. In weather, an isobar is a line of equal pressure. So, I thought, the lines showing equal beard density should be appropriately named: ISOBEARD

So I drew a picture of a face (circa 1995) illustrating where the beard is the thickest using these brandnew ISOBEARD lines.

Notice that the facial hair in this example is the thickness or the most dense around the chin and near the ear. The beard is the least dense in the mustache region and near the cheek bone. Also, NEGATIVE ZONES or areas where the beard doesn't occur (below the lower lip and to the left and right of the mouth) become very visible using this technique. While these negative zones make the beard look trim, it is a detriment to possess too many NEGATIVE ZONES as it dilutes ones manliness

What does this map tell us? Simple really. If a person's ISOBEARD MAP has lines that are far apart then, by definition, he is not as manly because he doesn't have a thick beard. If, however, a person's ISOBEARD MAP has lines that are concentrated throughout then his manliness is much greater because he has a thick beard.

Since then, I have created ISOBEARD MAPS for many people (with their permissiion) using this technique as a tool to determine the person's manliness. Of course, God created all of us to be unique in our own way. However, if God created us with the same level of manliness then I wouldn't be here determining a way to quantify it because we'd all be the same. Basically, some of us have more manly uniquenesses than others. That's what the ISOBEARD MAP TECHNIQUE shown in the picture above was designed to find out.

So draw an ISOBEARD MAP of your own beard using the picture above as a template and see where you come out. Don't give up if the outcome isn't what you hoped for. If at all possible over a few days off, try to let your beard go for a bit longer and see if the results get more precise.

If you think this technique is faulty, remember this: Does Clint Eastwood have a thick beard when he chooses to grow one? Does Arnold Schwarzenegger have a weak beard why he's sported facial hair? Does Chuck Norris have a beard that's spotty? Exactly.

Guess What? La Nina is Back!

Remember back in 1997 when everyone blamed EL NINO for everything weather-related? Well, its cousin--LA NINA-- is showing signs of returning albeit in a very weak capacity.

LA NINA STORY