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

[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.