Why are we bothering with this?

[weaktwos]

McCain is pushing the steroids issue.

Listen, I don't favor using drugs, but then, I don't really support the baseball industry. I think the government enacting legislation on this is somewhat of a waste of time, especially since it involves enforcement, and probably will not be rigidly enforced anyway.

Let these ball players destroy themselves; they are big boys (and getting bigger!). They are willing to take the risk for millions. It is profitable for them to do so. No matter the penalties, it's still profitable for them to do so. And no doubt their employer and the industry secretly supports this. I suggest that consumers who are not in favor of this boycott the sport and the companies that support them (mostly beer, right?) . Otherwise I think demand is driving this pumped up supply. If a ball player gets fined for steroid use, he gets punished, and the issue kind of fades away. Just look at the way this article proceeds. Steroids is just a means to an end to discuss McCain's '08 presidential prospects. Let's get a real issue, folks.

It's sports, people. It's entertainment. I'd like our national government to focus on things that matter, like good international Intelligence data, not creating more problems than we solve, working on corporate level corruption, campaign reform, mitigating the mainstream media interested in profit more than information. Let's stop acting like we're legislating morality while collecting profits on the other side.

Comments

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

Amen!!

[dangermouse74.livejournal.com]

wow, this is a truly different viewpoint than i have seen anywhere. i must say i'm surprised and have to digest that one. So you are generally not in favor of legislation in general to prevent us from doing things we can do but shouldn't? what about sweatshops, or UPS hiring 2 part time workers instead of one full time worker? i mean if peopel are willing to accept those consditions and take those jobs, why should the goverment step in then?

I would think you'd suppport such measures being more liberal, but then maybe you just don't give a shit about sports and think they all make so much money anyway so they can go suck an egg? i'm just trying to figure out where that came from.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Okay, so baseball players are like sweatshop employees? Is this because both baseball players are uneducated and poor, and couldn't possibly get another job that wasn't equally low skilled and low-waged? No, I think sweatshop employees don't have a lot of options, and they sure as hell don't get paid huge amounts of money.

My thoughts are: who is driving this need to harm yourself by taking steroids? Do you really just love the game, or do you love the fame and money? Because, if you love the pasttime, then go join a local league. But if you're taking steroids, it's not really that you want to be the best player, or that you truly love the game: it's that you love the fame and fortune, and you want everyone to know how good you are. Well, fine, go for it. I don't want government resources spent legislating steroids abuse that probably won't be enforced.

Sure, if all our other more serious problems were resolved, like our foreign policy debacle, our continually creeping unemployment, our growing lower class, then let's take the time to clean up sports. But professional baseball needs to work itself out. I'd rather solve the problem of a starving child before I try to save an adult jock who should know better, and not be a fuckin' cheater. Children are innocent, they don't deserve to be uneducated or abused or cold or hungry. Ball players know what they are doing and still choose to do it. Ergo, they deserve their health problems , their shrunken testicles, etc.

[dangermouse74.livejournal.com]

no that was my bad, makes more sense. like when my friend felicity said who cares about the peopel that died in the WTC, most of them were white collar anyway. Somehow peopel that make a lot of money or are better off are inherently bad or evil to liberals. I forgot that point.

But as far as sweatshop employees, it was a matter of people doing things because they can get away with it, not because they should. though i see now that i thought about it, that anaolgy doesn't hodl really because the baseball players are mostly screwing themselves, though also screwing their peers because Barry Bonds for example and Jason Giambi are potentially taking spots away from someone else who is not willing to use steriods. likewise for olympic athletes, Marion Jones gets lots of medals an money and acclaim that she might not otherwise and that hurts her competition. But it is not like a company screwing an employee, so i realize now it's not the same.

And by the way, i don't think too many of those baseball players coudl do much else, esp the ones who are immigrants and can't speak english, they have trouble with drygs, they probably would be sweatshop employees if they did not have athletic talent :-) but every industry is like that, sports and other forms of entertainment like acting and music are just more of an anomoly so i digress.

Forgive me as i said, this made me angry and hit a nerve, i should have waited a bit before i replied, or not replied at all cause we'll not agree :-) I care about baseball, and you know what? there'll always be starving children. no one deserves anything. their parents were most likely not responsible in having them, especially over in places like where the christian children's fund always advertises. those places have no food, those peopel are irresponsible and deserve what they get. talk abotu a waste of money and time, you'll never change them, they just keep doing stupid things, that's their own choice.

Baseball isn't any better or worse, and i think it shoudl be fixed on principle, because as many kids grow up playing it, teaching them that the way to get ahead in life is to cheat, and it hurts those doing it honestly, that guy who worked his ass off and gets the league minimum. there's all kinds, the absurdly rich and the just making it types. I mean if you dedicated your life to something with a passion, and didn't get behind because of somethgin unfair, like because of someone kissing up or sleeping with the boss or slacking but stealing your ideas or whatever, you'd be pissed too cause it's not fair. the differences are, some of these people happen to make a lot of money and they're in the public eye, so peopel actually give a shit unlike if it were you or me.

Life is unfair, peopel die, people cheat, people starve, peopel are homeless, people are rich, there will always be inequality. but yes the more you can do to make it fair is a good thing (fair of course doesn't mean equal). there's a plethora of problems to fix, so anyone they pick and if they are successful at is a plus, since overall the government is incompetant anyway. May as well fix somethign fixable that peopel care about, and then in a few months they can go back to all those other things we'll still have thousands of years to fix (unless we annihilate ourselves by then).

But this is why i am no longer liberal hehe. I just can't understand why people think everyone should be equal, we shoud help everyone, and that we can make it so given human nature. and that peopel who are better off than they are and have money are some how bad or evil. I think we'll likely have to agree to disagree.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Rich people aren't necessarily bad or evil. But they sure as hell don't need the goverment's help.

And people do get ahead cheating and using special circumstances in their favor. Look at President Bush. He benefited from his parents wealth, never ran a successful business, and financially, he's doing the same to our country. Sure there's some things he can't help, but there are definite choices on his part that helped us where we're at.

Yes, life is unfair, and we continue to make it unfair. I think society is better on the whole if we really help the lesser folks than devote our resources to people who don't need any monetary help.

Yes, some of those ball players are from foreign countries, and they don't speak english, but ya know, they will have the money to get educated and figure themselves out. But the whole sports angle is hosed. Some of these folks get college scholarships and still don't end up educated. I think sports is a bogus pedestal. The exemplary ones truly aren't celebrated as much as the steroid totin' cheaters. Being honest, being fair isn't glamourous and it will not get you fame, more often than not. Some of the nicer, more decent people get reviled. This country tends to honor the ones who take more than they give in this country.

[dangermouse74.livejournal.com]

well sure they do, rich peopel are entitled to the govenment's help as much as anyone else. it's like people who cheer robin hood, really he was a criminal.

Agreed.

I disagree. no one is obligated to do anything. you may as well help who you care about, how much money they have shouldn't matter. yes they don't need more money, but they shouldn't be treated less fairly and not helped if they have a problem because they have money. but that is my opinion, i hate the idea that you get "penalized" and villified for being successful.

naw they'll never learn english or get educated cause they won't have to. thy'll have a translator and we cater and puublish everything in every language anyway :-) And true, but that is the mess that is college sports. Football and basketball suffer fromt hat because there is no minor leagues like hocky and baseball. peopel who want to play these sports essentially have no choice but to go to college to play, they're forced to. it's basd for everyone since they don't do well academically, and they pullk the school down and dilute it. but the NCAA makes so much money off the bowls and March madness and all that, they'll never let it change either.

As for the pedestal, hmm well, why do you say that with steroids? there's few people we know of for sure that take steroids. and those liek Ben Johnson and maybe now marion Jones are disgraced and lose their medals. In baseball, you'd better believe that babe ruth is way more revered than Barry Bonds who no matter what he does is constantly talked about as "yeah but he takes steroids." We don't beliee Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson or Larry Bird, Dan Marino, John Elway, Jerry Rice, Wayne Grezkey etc took steroids. Baseball is where you gaint he most as far as hitting homeruns, and football second because it is a strength sport, but few runningbacks or safeties, uarterbacks and wide receievers, the ones who get the glory, not the centers and the tackles generally woudl benefit too much from steroids, mobility is as important. Baseball if you hit a homerun, you can just walk the bases, and besides they hardly run anyway, they are barely athletes. So i don't think that is a fair accusation.

I will agree that in general, being quiet, upstanding, going about your business doesn't bring you glamour. and those guys might not do as well as someone with a big mouth like terrell owens. But then Jerry Rice was liek that, he doesn't say a whole lot, and his performance speaks for itself. if your performance is good enough, maybe you'll get $10 million a year instead of $15 million, but maybe you're satisfied with that. I don't know that nice peopel really get reviled, unless say they compete for office and are just painted as horrible and do not or poorly defend themselves, but that is a matter of public perception, that's not substance, and if you know that person personally that means nothing.

We do honor and like the loudmouths, and we do liek the homerun hitters, but when we fidn otu they take steroids we rip them apart. as much as we love to worship people, we love to rip them apart too. But i think that is really ireelevant as is the fact that they are ok financially in the fact that it is not a level playing field, and there is an obstacle to making it one because of greed, and a legal decision can fix that can be explored. and perhaps just the threat of one is enough to make be a catalyst and make baseball itself resolve the problem. i think that is what most people are hoping for.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

but they shouldn't be treated less fairly and not helped if they have a problem because they have money. but that is my opinion, i hate the idea that you get "penalized" and villified for being successful.


Didn't you just tell me life isn't fair? When you're successful, life is plenty fair; more fair than most. And most wealthy people are not villified. However, people who use their wealth for undo influence should darn well be villified. The leaders of Enron are a fine example. People who inherited money instead of earning it tend to not be so well respected. But believe me, on a day to day basis, wealthy people are treated far more fairly than non-wealthy people. When wealthy people break the law, odds are high they can buy their way out of the problem, whereas poor people cannot do that.

But hey, life isn't fair, so it's not an issue of fairness.

I'm not villifying sports stars, I'm just saying the national government isn't part of the solution.

[dangermouse74.livejournal.com]

correct life isn't fair. being succesful doesn't make life more fair, it just means you have more. fairness doesn't enter into it. And while life isn't fair and you shouldn't expect it to me, i think it is something we shoudl attempt and not make it less fair. We *want* it to be as fair as can be after all. but perhaps you and i have a different opinion of what constitutes fair.

Yes there is a difference of whether you earned that like bill gates, warren buffet and Rockerfeller or whther you just inherited it like paris hilton.

And yes abusing your wealth or power to get your way isn't right. Same for politics. but right now that is how the system is setup, peopel seek power and wealth after all to be able to do that (well many of them do), so i can't say it is not expected. nevertheless we shoudl do what we can to prevent peopel who compete unfairly such as Bill Gates, and the leaders of Enron.

Being able to buy yourself out of somethign though doesn't nmecessarily mean it's "more fair" for you. it's not equal, but that doesn't mean it is unfair. the system is setup such that money makes the world go around, and the more of it you have, the less you have to work, and the more power you have over your environment. Life has always been that way for people like us compared to say the native americans. If you accept that is the way the game is played, then having more resources doesn't make it less fair, it just means if you want more control over your life, then you need to figure out a way to have more money and resources. I don't think the gov't shoudl try to make peopel who have less equal to those who have more, then why did the have's bother to work and get where they are in the first place? and besides which who will they feel better than? And we all know psychologically we compare ourselves to others and need to feel better than people, it's human nature.

Not being able to buy your way oout of a ticket is liek i can't play the piano, is it not fair that someone else can and i can't? eh, depends hat is one way of lookign at it. but that is nothig the government shoudl fix. nor should they make the have nots equal to the haves to be "fair". fair is simply not screwing the have nots, and giving them every opportunity to compete and become a have shoudl they wish to do so. that means foiling the enron's, bettering education, etc, that doesn't mean coddling them and giving them money beyond a point where we consider it inhumane to live like that. And that is essentially charity, and while well and good, shoudl not be undertaken by the governement, it's not their job and they suck at it, private charities do better. Nor is charity an obligation, it's a nice thing we do, it's not required.

Saying wealthy people have life more fair is indeed villifying them for their wealth and success and in this case god given (if you believe in god) talent. And if you want to treat them as equal as anyone, the gov't has as much business in their affairs as it does in defending our citizens and paying off our debt, busting enrons and unfair workpractices in the office and by orporations, and even more so than lending other countries money and doing charity work outside the States.

The government can be part of the solution potentially and can break the roadblock. they have traditionally stepped in when car companies needed bailing out or when a union and company reach an impasse, it's bad for everyone so the gov't forces the issue when it has to since it has ultimate authority.

So why not do the same thing in this case? Because you deem it not important, a waste of time and resources, mostly i gather because you don't care about baseball and because those players make plenty of money. Now while you are entitled to that opinion, it is as selfish as anyone else to say they should work on what i care about and not this other bullshit.

That's fine, we all have things that matter to us and things that don't, and we're all biased in wanting to have the gov't work on those things. People try to make their things seem more important or more noble, couching it behind scared things such as morality, charity, neediness, or religion, but it doesn't change anything when you get down to it.

[denimdoll.livejournal.com]

I care about baseball, and you know what? there'll always be starving children. no one deserves anything. their parents were most likely not responsible in having them, especially over in places like where the christian children's fund always advertises. those places have no food, those peopel are irresponsible and deserve what they get. talk abotu a waste of money and time, you'll never change them, they just keep doing stupid things, that's their own choice.

Baseball isn't any better or worse, and i think it shoudl be fixed on principle, because as many kids grow up playing it, teaching them that the way to get ahead in life is to cheat, and it hurts those doing it honestly, that guy who worked his ass off and gets the league minimum. there's all kinds, the absurdly rich and the just making it types. I mean if you dedicated your life to something with a passion, and didn't get behind because of somethgin unfair, like because of someone kissing up or sleeping with the boss or slacking but stealing your ideas or whatever, you'd be pissed too cause it's not fair. the differences are, some of these people happen to make a lot of money and they're in the public eye, so peopel actually give a shit unlike if it were you or me.

So, in your book, fixing baseball so that children can be proud of it is more important than helping a starving child?

[dangermouse74.livejournal.com]

no, my point is it's a toss up, you can go after either or i think both. one does not preclude the other. There's so many problems, if you fix any of them you're better off then you were, so why waste time over which ones to fix first, more people just die in the mean time.

[dangermouse74.livejournal.com]

and by the way, this is america's past time. it does matter to a lot of people, more so than a lot of other things. i think mccain should run in 2008 but i think this is really irrelevant to that. it's a long ime away.

peopel need entertainment and sports to care about something and forget about their daily sad lives. they government can't fix much of anything, and i'd sooner see them work on this than say waste time on the middle east or something that is never gonna be fixed and doesn't affect us directly.

Campaign reform is long in coming because they are noit going to limit themselves, the gov't has proven they suck at that. Good intelligence would be nice since we seem to suck in that area. but then we have agencies in the gov't competing with and sabotaging each other in greedy power struggles, so good luck.

I dunno, i'm sorry if i come off too harshly, i'm gonna stop and think a bit. For some reason i find this viewpoint angering and offensive, liberal perhaps that's why. Saying this isn't important, but i realize everyone is entitled to their opinions and it may very well not be important to you. And if somehow talking about this and passing a law por whatever takes up the entirety of congresses endless yabbering and they are up to the gills with things to do, and this somehow precludes them from improving the CIA or something and diverts resources away from that.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

No, David. We do need to work on the hard stuff, and stop having the media feed us these lightweight issues. We need to tell our elected officials that this is bullshit, and they need to work the hard issues before we're forced to work them when they blow up.

[dangermouse74.livejournal.com]

well i disagree, and i'm glad you're not in charge :-) work on whatever you like, but you're gonna be sad if you sit around thinking the gov't is going to fix everything (or anything). we don't need to do anything, in fact i'd be much happier if they did a whole lot less (or the same amount really) and stop taking so much in taxes since they are incompetant anyway.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Now, don't backtrack on me. that's why I have a problem with this steroids issue: more government mismanagement. Yet you have a problem with my opinion...hmmm...

[dangermouse74.livejournal.com]

no i think the government is incompetant, andf they waste money yes this is true. but i don't find it to be mismanagement if they actually fix something, and i see this as worthy for them to try and fix as anything, mainly because if there is enthusiasm, they might actually get something done.

[adgy.livejournal.com]

Amen to that, sistah!