Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But the point of the reporter's question on accountability is that we were promised better than, "None of us has been caught yet; therefore, we're not guilty of anything." There's a difference between "illegal" and "wrong."

Gonzalez hasn't been charged with perjury because of two reasons: It's the hardest thing to prove, and he's been SO evasive, that he hasn't really said anything--true OR a lie. He just babbles nonsense and never answers the questions. He would have to give a detail or a fact in order to perjure himself, and he refuses to to that. He's lied, but not in a chargeable way. What he's done is "wrong," but not necessarily "illegal." And that's not what we were promised.

And as far as Libby goes, they're arguing that what Libby did was "technically illegal," but not "wrong." THAT'S the sort of nonsense we are being fed.

I think the point is that Bush promised that his administration would bring back accountability in the sense that they would hold themselves to a higher standard than the typical, "if you can't prove I broke any laws, that means I haven't done anything wrong" way of thinking. Accountability in the sense of no more obfuscation, no more cronyism, no more spin, no more "that depends on what the definition of 'is' is" type of evasion. Only an idiot would believe they actually meant those things at the time, but that's precisely what got him "elected" the first time. "Compassionate conservatism," "a return to accountability and personal responsibility," "put the gown-ups back in power," and all that hokum. It's hard to think back that far, but that's the hog-wash the American people were sold, and after 9/11, it was all forgotten.

I was on the fence regarding how much I agreed with King's point, but you just convinced me how right he really is. Some events really do require more distance than others in order to see them in the proper context of history.

If you're so frigging smart, why did you post that last comment onto the wrong thread?

If I said what you say I said, you'd have a point. But I didn't. Nowhere in my comments did I say, or even suggest, that fantasy baseball is "the root of all evil in baseball." I didn't say that, because I don't believe that it is the case. I merely believe that it is an unhealthy influence, (regardless of how dorky and dweebish it is). I stated that there is an over-emphasis on of the significance of stats like homers, and there has been for many decades. But that emphasis has grown in the 40+ years that I've been around, and influences like fantasy baseball only help to increase that influence, even if it's primarily in the minds of the fans.

Just for the record, I agree with you about the worth of Bonds vs. Eckstein to a team. I wouldn't agree with the "100 Ecksteins" part, but the difference "in reality" is significant anyway. However, fantasy baseball exaggerates and inflates that difference (hence your "100 Ecksteins" point), and that's why I don't like it. Well, that, and the fact that it's so dorky and dweebish. But Eckstein has a couple of rings, and Bonds doesn'thave any. And Eckstein himself is a big reason why he has one, and Bonds himself is a big reason why he doesn't, and fantasy baseball doesn't account for those factors. Fantsay baseball is just that: fantasy.

I will offer to "clarify" my opinion of baseball's situation like this: If baseball is a beached whale, with a bunch of sharks and fish feeding on it, fantasy baseball is only one of those fish, and a small one at that. It's not "the root of all evil," nor is it a "huge" problem. But it's not helping, either. It's one relatively minor problem alongside all the major problems. Speaking of problems, don't even get me started with sports talk radio....

Your letter struck me as very naive. Your post only deals with unearthing "the truth"--or things with barely a tenuous connection to the truth--with the Clintons. Stuff that basically happened pre-2001. However, as we saw with John Kerry in '04, there's no end to the lies they will unearth in order to smear the Clintons. Plus, they have six years of catching up to do, let alone what will transpire over the next two. We've yet to see the beginning of it, really.

We have "Fantasy Baseball" to thank for that. It's 100% stat-driven, and it ignores all of my favorite aspects of sports. It was only a matter of time until it had a negative effect on the game. Too bad. I cringe everytime I read the sports ticker at the bottom of the screen and they're running fantasy stats of the leading players, instead of scores of the games.

Ironically, the people I know who are into fantasy sports all cite their displeasure with "what's wrong with sports today" as their reason for being invloved in fantasy sports in the first place.

I think if we try to look at this objectively (yeah, I know that's basically impossible, but try to humor me here), it seems reasonable to see that the steroid era is a natural extension of the fans' longtime obsession with the long ball. A well-pitched 2-1 nail-biter? Screw that. We want 12-11 nail-biters with LOTS of homers, dammit.

The only thing Americans hate more than a cheater is a loser. We accept liars and cheaters as long as they are on our team, and as long as they win. Why do you think Republicans accept Bush's lying? Because he won twice and keeps their taxes low, and that's all they really care about.

Like it or not--and most of us don't--Barry Bonds is the symbol and reflection of what our society has become. And it has become what it is today because we let it, and even encouraged it.