Christians in the media seem to be mostly an angry lot. We hear about how gays are "attacking" the institution of marriage, how illegal immigrants are undermining our economy, how Hollywood has declared a culture war on Christian values, and how Islam is essentially a religion of violence. Now there may or may not be something to these claims (for those keeping score at home, the answers are "no, no, maybe, and not necessarily"). But can anyone deny that the most obvious and pure recent public example of the love of Christ is produced by those who care least about what our popular culture represents: the Amish of Lancaster County, PA? They've offered forgiveness for the killer of their children and financial support for his family. If you are at this moment at a place where tears won't embarrass you, please read these articles.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06280/728083-85.stm
http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2006/10/08/1978049-sun.html
This, my friends, is the face of Christ.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
What's Wrong with this Picture?
I understand that Bill Clinton was far from a perfect President, let alone a perfect husband and Christian. In fact, it is clear that for much of his marriage, he's been a pretty poor husband. And I would not want to excuse his affair with Monica or the way he lied about it to the country. That was all wrong and showed a significant defect in character.
Still did the man really deserve to be impeached for lying to a court about his sex life? When you consider what a distraction this was to the real issues of his presidency (like, for example, hunting down a terrorist named Osma Bin Laden) and how minimal his descretion was vis-a-vis the way he carried out his oath of office, you might come to think that punishing his wrongdoing wasn't worth the damage that his impeachment would do to the country or to the office of the president.
Compare Clinton's case with that of our current President. I'll buy that President Bush was sincere in leading us to war--he was trying (I believe) to do what was in the best interest of the country. (Although, from the reporting of Bob Woodward it seems that his primary reason for wanting to go to war had more to do with a desire to build a democracy in the cradle of the Middle East rather than concern over WMD, although there was undoubtedly that too.) But his over-confidence and arrogance led him to not consider all the intelligence with the seriousness it deserved. He oversaw a Defense Department that made no plausible plans for the protracted war that was to come. He instituted policy of tapping phone calls of American citizens without gaining even post facto warrants. He's ruined our reputation as a nation that protects human rights by his blatantly declaring that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to the prisoners we take. Bush has done all of this and has not had to worry about impeachment. Now I ask you, which is worse: leading a country to a pre-emptive war without paying attention to all the relevant intelligence and violating the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens (when getting post facto warrants was always a possibility if he only cared to) or lying about oral sex?
The question answers itself.
Still did the man really deserve to be impeached for lying to a court about his sex life? When you consider what a distraction this was to the real issues of his presidency (like, for example, hunting down a terrorist named Osma Bin Laden) and how minimal his descretion was vis-a-vis the way he carried out his oath of office, you might come to think that punishing his wrongdoing wasn't worth the damage that his impeachment would do to the country or to the office of the president.
Compare Clinton's case with that of our current President. I'll buy that President Bush was sincere in leading us to war--he was trying (I believe) to do what was in the best interest of the country. (Although, from the reporting of Bob Woodward it seems that his primary reason for wanting to go to war had more to do with a desire to build a democracy in the cradle of the Middle East rather than concern over WMD, although there was undoubtedly that too.) But his over-confidence and arrogance led him to not consider all the intelligence with the seriousness it deserved. He oversaw a Defense Department that made no plausible plans for the protracted war that was to come. He instituted policy of tapping phone calls of American citizens without gaining even post facto warrants. He's ruined our reputation as a nation that protects human rights by his blatantly declaring that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to the prisoners we take. Bush has done all of this and has not had to worry about impeachment. Now I ask you, which is worse: leading a country to a pre-emptive war without paying attention to all the relevant intelligence and violating the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens (when getting post facto warrants was always a possibility if he only cared to) or lying about oral sex?
The question answers itself.
Monday, August 07, 2006
What a Godly Person Looks Like
I have a twelve-year-old son who is (in part, anyway) named after Billy Graham. Now I don't know that I agree with every aspect of BG's theology and ministry, but he's always been a person of integrity. In the late-mid 20th century he could have had "it all." He was popular, telegenic, well connected and articulate. If he wanted to make lots and lots of money, and make himself the story, well, that would have been an easy thing to do. But he didn't. The gospel of Jesus, and not the celebrity of Billy, was his commitment. The cover story in the latest Newsweek makes it clear that Graham has as little time for the politics of the Christian right (or left, for that matter) as he did for his own celebrity. I can't think of a better of example of godliness, Christ-like humility, and lovingkindness than one finds in this profile:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14204483/
God bless you, Billy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14204483/
God bless you, Billy.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Late Night Anxiety
I make no assumptions about having readers. And had I had any a few weeks back when I began this blog, I've surely run them off by my inactivity. Oh well, the past is what it is.
Still, I find myself wondering if anyone else has been finding him-or-herself rather full of anxiety these days. I suspect that separation anxiety is one of the causes of my unease. My oldest daughter recently spent three weeks in Europe, traveling and seeing friends from high school and from her freshman year of college (she'll be a sophomore this year). Although she is now home safe and sound (and with a rather large digital card full of wonderful pictures), I'll admit to feeling a bit nervous with her an ocean away. Then this whole war in the Middle East has sort of freaked me out. I just don't see where it will end. You've got a strong militaristic state (Israel) who justly feels persecuted by other states in the region, and fanatical Islamic groups (and in the case of Iran, nations) who want to wipe said state from the face of the earth. Caught in between is the United States (and her nominal allies), Russia, and moderate Arab states. Oh yeah, and most of the world's supply of oil. It doesn't take too much pessimissm to see the beginings of WWIII in this picture. And even if we manage to avoid that, there are God-knows-how-many nuclear warheads that were once assigned to countries that are now in the former Soviet Union and that may or may not be accounted for, and hence may or may not be available to various terrorist groups who would love nothing more than to make 9/11 seem like small potatoes.
Oh, and have I mentioned global warming? Despite the reaction of those who reactively reject any claim by the American left, there seems to be good scientific evidence that this is indeed happening, and that we have no good idea where it will all lead.
Two mornings ago, I thought about all of these things between 4:00 and 4:30 am. And while I kept reminding myself that the God who brought the universe into existence by the mere fiat of his will, and who counts the falling of each sparrow--that this God is finally in control of whatever mess of things us humans make, still I couldn't help shake the thought that God would still let us suffer the consequences of our foolishness, even if in the end such consequences are only temporary. God is just and yet gracious. God help us.
So I'm wondering if anyone who might read this has the same problem: do you wake up in the middle of the night, feel the weight of the world, and worry that your kids will end up paying for the foolishness of our generation (after all, it's not our kids' faults that we've wasted natural resources, neglected signs of global warming, worried more about our income than about the poor, and elected George W. Bush (twice!) as President)?
Still, I find myself wondering if anyone else has been finding him-or-herself rather full of anxiety these days. I suspect that separation anxiety is one of the causes of my unease. My oldest daughter recently spent three weeks in Europe, traveling and seeing friends from high school and from her freshman year of college (she'll be a sophomore this year). Although she is now home safe and sound (and with a rather large digital card full of wonderful pictures), I'll admit to feeling a bit nervous with her an ocean away. Then this whole war in the Middle East has sort of freaked me out. I just don't see where it will end. You've got a strong militaristic state (Israel) who justly feels persecuted by other states in the region, and fanatical Islamic groups (and in the case of Iran, nations) who want to wipe said state from the face of the earth. Caught in between is the United States (and her nominal allies), Russia, and moderate Arab states. Oh yeah, and most of the world's supply of oil. It doesn't take too much pessimissm to see the beginings of WWIII in this picture. And even if we manage to avoid that, there are God-knows-how-many nuclear warheads that were once assigned to countries that are now in the former Soviet Union and that may or may not be accounted for, and hence may or may not be available to various terrorist groups who would love nothing more than to make 9/11 seem like small potatoes.
Oh, and have I mentioned global warming? Despite the reaction of those who reactively reject any claim by the American left, there seems to be good scientific evidence that this is indeed happening, and that we have no good idea where it will all lead.
Two mornings ago, I thought about all of these things between 4:00 and 4:30 am. And while I kept reminding myself that the God who brought the universe into existence by the mere fiat of his will, and who counts the falling of each sparrow--that this God is finally in control of whatever mess of things us humans make, still I couldn't help shake the thought that God would still let us suffer the consequences of our foolishness, even if in the end such consequences are only temporary. God is just and yet gracious. God help us.
So I'm wondering if anyone who might read this has the same problem: do you wake up in the middle of the night, feel the weight of the world, and worry that your kids will end up paying for the foolishness of our generation (after all, it's not our kids' faults that we've wasted natural resources, neglected signs of global warming, worried more about our income than about the poor, and elected George W. Bush (twice!) as President)?
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Jerusalem
Steve Earle is a remarkable songwriter. Apart from his writing he can be a complete horse's ass (and he can be a semi-horse's ass in his writing---see "Condi, Condi"), but the man can write a song that'll bring a tear to your eye. If his song "Jerusalem" doesn't do that for you, then (or so it seems to me) you should think a bit harder about your faith in the context of the people who live in the Middle East.
Earle's song "Jerusalem" is on the album of the same name and also on a new live CD to be released this week.
Jerusalem (Steve Earle)
"I woke up this mornin' and none of the news was good
And death machines were rumblin' 'cross the ground where Jesus stood
And the man on my TV told me that it had always been that way
And there was nothin' anyone could do or say
"And I almost listened to him
Yeah, I almost lost my mind
Then I regained my senses again
And looked into my heart to find
That I believe that one fine day all the children of Abraham
Will lay down their swords forever in Jerusalem
"Well maybe I'm only dreamin' and maybe I'm just a fool
But I don't remember learnin' how to hate in Sunday school
But somewhere along the way I strayed and I never looked back again
But I still find some comfort now and then
"Then the storm comes rumblin' in
And I can't lay me down
And the drums are drummin' again
And I can't stand the sound
But I believe there'll come a day when the lion and the lamb
Will lie down in peace together in Jerusalem
"And there'll be no barricades then
There'll be no wire or walls
And we can wash all this blood from our hands
And all this hatred from our souls
And I believe that on that day all the children of Abraham
Will lay down their swords forever in Jerusalem "
Amen.
Earle's song "Jerusalem" is on the album of the same name and also on a new live CD to be released this week.
Jerusalem (Steve Earle)
"I woke up this mornin' and none of the news was good
And death machines were rumblin' 'cross the ground where Jesus stood
And the man on my TV told me that it had always been that way
And there was nothin' anyone could do or say
"And I almost listened to him
Yeah, I almost lost my mind
Then I regained my senses again
And looked into my heart to find
That I believe that one fine day all the children of Abraham
Will lay down their swords forever in Jerusalem
"Well maybe I'm only dreamin' and maybe I'm just a fool
But I don't remember learnin' how to hate in Sunday school
But somewhere along the way I strayed and I never looked back again
But I still find some comfort now and then
"Then the storm comes rumblin' in
And I can't lay me down
And the drums are drummin' again
And I can't stand the sound
But I believe there'll come a day when the lion and the lamb
Will lie down in peace together in Jerusalem
"And there'll be no barricades then
There'll be no wire or walls
And we can wash all this blood from our hands
And all this hatred from our souls
And I believe that on that day all the children of Abraham
Will lay down their swords forever in Jerusalem "
Amen.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
A Folkie Star Spangled Banner
As I tuned in the Cubs/White Sox baseball game on Sunday, I was pleasantly surprised to find that singer/songwriter Michael McDermott was performing the national anthem. He managed to somehow both perform the song traditionally and yet to make it his own without upstaging the dear ol' gal. So on this 4th of July it seems only appropriate that I share this wonderful performance with the one or two of you who might eventually read this post. If you are interested (and you should be!), you can see it here:
http://www.cshs86.com/forum/downloads/McDermott_7-2-06.mov
Happy Birthday, USA.
http://www.cshs86.com/forum/downloads/McDermott_7-2-06.mov
Happy Birthday, USA.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Happy Independence Day
Those of us whose politics tend toward the left on the American political spectrum are often accused of not being sufficiently patriotic. And, truthfully, I can understand this accusation. A not implausible first stab at a definition of patriotism sees it as equivalent to supporting the policies of our country in international relations simply because they are our policies. If that's correct, then us in the middle/left tend to be less patriotic than those on the right. Yet while "My country right or wrong" is often confused with patriotism but a little reflection is enough to see that such a definition is mistaken. What a true patriot wants is a country he or she could die for and be noble in so doing. No one (or at least no decent person) wants to die for Hitler's National Socialism. To die in service to an evil institution is to waste one's life.
Patriotism, then, should be thought of as a well-founded commitment to the institutions of one's native or adopted land.
By these standards, American liberals ought to be exemplars of patriotism. For our country was formed on the principles of freedom and equality. And while we've often done a damned poor job of living up to our own standards (or of even interpreting them aright), ours is still a country founded on a democratic and even egalitarian ideal, rather than ethnic/tribal pride and purity. This is something we ought rightly to celebrate and even take pride in. So tomorrow, on July 4th, I'll be celebrating the principles that our country was founded upon: freedom of the individual to worship as he or she sees fit, the equality of all persons, the belief that the government should generally let people live as they see fit, and the conviction that our God has given us rights and responsibilities of self governance.
Happy Fourth of July, y'all.
Patriotism, then, should be thought of as a well-founded commitment to the institutions of one's native or adopted land.
By these standards, American liberals ought to be exemplars of patriotism. For our country was formed on the principles of freedom and equality. And while we've often done a damned poor job of living up to our own standards (or of even interpreting them aright), ours is still a country founded on a democratic and even egalitarian ideal, rather than ethnic/tribal pride and purity. This is something we ought rightly to celebrate and even take pride in. So tomorrow, on July 4th, I'll be celebrating the principles that our country was founded upon: freedom of the individual to worship as he or she sees fit, the equality of all persons, the belief that the government should generally let people live as they see fit, and the conviction that our God has given us rights and responsibilities of self governance.
Happy Fourth of July, y'all.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
The Pregnant News
I can understand people's fascination with the lives of the famous. In unguarded moments, I sometimes feel the voyeuristic impulse to look at photos of the glitterati. I expect that these reactions are pretty wide-spread, and that there isn't anything particularly wrong with them--at least as long to they mostly kept in check. But they often aren't kept in check. That in and of itself, isn't particularly surprising. What I do find disappointing and even somewhat unexpected is the way that the mainstream media have decided that pandering to our rubber-necking instincts is acceptable journalistic behavior. For example, one might hope that CNN would be committed to bringing us serious news stories. But their website frequently has "top stories" about the reported pregnancy of a starlett or the couch-jumping confessions of a former ersatz top gun. Fox and MSNBC are no better on this score.
What I would dearly love to see is a network that would decide that the private lives of the famous are, well, private (and mostly uninteresting--at least to our higher natures) and which would steadfastly ignore the gossip and celebrity worship that infects the other news networks. I'd pay extra, I think, for the uncompromised integrity.
Any takers?
What I would dearly love to see is a network that would decide that the private lives of the famous are, well, private (and mostly uninteresting--at least to our higher natures) and which would steadfastly ignore the gossip and celebrity worship that infects the other news networks. I'd pay extra, I think, for the uncompromised integrity.
Any takers?
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
A Light [Beer] in the Darkness
I'm sometimes tempted to think that this world is controlled by dark, malevolent forces. But not right now. MSN.com reports that 17 beers a day is good for a guy (well, at least with respect to prostate cancer) and that for those who drink lots of coffee, the potential negative side effects of all that booze are largely negated (well, at least with respect to cirrhosis of the liver).
What a wonderful world.
What a wonderful world.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Paste Magazine's Best Living Songwriter Survey
The latest issue of Paste Magazine (a really fine music and film rag) includes a list of the Paste music critics top one hundred living songwriters. There are some surprises of both commission and omission. Before I get to those, though, let me give you the top twenty, in count-down order:
20. Van Morrison
19. Patty Griffin
18. U2
17. Holland-Dozier-Holland [writers of many 60s r&b hits]
16. David Bowie
15. Willie Nelson
14. Stevie Wonder
13. Paul Simon
12. Jagger/Richards
11. Randy Newman
10. Prince
9. Joni Mitchell
8. Elvis Costello
7. Brian Wilson
6. Leonard Cohen
5. Paul McCartney
4. Tom Waits
3. Bruce Springsteen
2. Neil Young
1. Bob Dylan
Keep in mind that this is not a "best songwriters of the past 50 years" list, but rather the best of those still alive. (This strikes me as a curious restriction, but then it's not my magazine.) In addition to the critics poll, there was also a readers' poll, the top twenty of which is:
20. Carole King
19. Ryan Adams
18. James Taylor
17. John Prine
16. Willie Nelson
15. David Bowie
14. Jagger/Richards
13. Brian Wilson
12. R.E.M.
11. Jeff Tweedy
10. Van Morrison
9. Tom Waits
8. U2
7. Joni Mitchell
6. Elvis Costello
5. Paul Simon
4. Bruce Springsteen
3. Paul McCartney
2. Neil Young
1. Bob Dylan
One problem I had when I tried to contribute to the readers' poll is that I couldn't decide whether I was supposed to list the living songwriters who have the best body of work or those who are currently writing the best songs. These would be very different lists. Dylan is a no-brainer top five (at least) pick for the first kind of list, but he'd be nowhere near the top twenty of the latter kind.
Okay, so I guess my biggest complaint is that Paul Simon ends up so low on the critics poll. Can we really take seriously the thought that Prince is a better songwriter than Mr. Bridge Over Troubled Water? No, I don't think we can. I also want to complain about the derth of folk songwriters on the list. Bill Morrissey is a wonderful songwriter who doesn't even make the top 100. Ditto Pierce Pettis and Ellis Paul. And one of the best pop songwriters working, Michael Penn, is also given the shaft.
Who else should have made the list?
20. Van Morrison
19. Patty Griffin
18. U2
17. Holland-Dozier-Holland [writers of many 60s r&b hits]
16. David Bowie
15. Willie Nelson
14. Stevie Wonder
13. Paul Simon
12. Jagger/Richards
11. Randy Newman
10. Prince
9. Joni Mitchell
8. Elvis Costello
7. Brian Wilson
6. Leonard Cohen
5. Paul McCartney
4. Tom Waits
3. Bruce Springsteen
2. Neil Young
1. Bob Dylan
Keep in mind that this is not a "best songwriters of the past 50 years" list, but rather the best of those still alive. (This strikes me as a curious restriction, but then it's not my magazine.) In addition to the critics poll, there was also a readers' poll, the top twenty of which is:
20. Carole King
19. Ryan Adams
18. James Taylor
17. John Prine
16. Willie Nelson
15. David Bowie
14. Jagger/Richards
13. Brian Wilson
12. R.E.M.
11. Jeff Tweedy
10. Van Morrison
9. Tom Waits
8. U2
7. Joni Mitchell
6. Elvis Costello
5. Paul Simon
4. Bruce Springsteen
3. Paul McCartney
2. Neil Young
1. Bob Dylan
One problem I had when I tried to contribute to the readers' poll is that I couldn't decide whether I was supposed to list the living songwriters who have the best body of work or those who are currently writing the best songs. These would be very different lists. Dylan is a no-brainer top five (at least) pick for the first kind of list, but he'd be nowhere near the top twenty of the latter kind.
Okay, so I guess my biggest complaint is that Paul Simon ends up so low on the critics poll. Can we really take seriously the thought that Prince is a better songwriter than Mr. Bridge Over Troubled Water? No, I don't think we can. I also want to complain about the derth of folk songwriters on the list. Bill Morrissey is a wonderful songwriter who doesn't even make the top 100. Ditto Pierce Pettis and Ellis Paul. And one of the best pop songwriters working, Michael Penn, is also given the shaft.
Who else should have made the list?
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
The Politics of Jesus?
Last Tuesday, Republican State Senator Jim Holt won his party's nomination for Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas. Holt never misses a chance to note his faith in Jesus. When it was clear that he would not only get more votes than his competitors but also win a majority and thereby avoid a run-off, Holt said, "First off, of course, we want to give all the glory to Jesus Christ." His campaign signs prominently feature the Christian fish, and he speaks to religious groups whenever he can. His campaign, he tells us, is a values campaign. There is little doubt that Holt's faith is sincere; he has done nothing to indicate that he is a typical "say what will get you elected" politician. Even his detractors grant that he is true to his convictions.
As a Christian, I might be expected to think it a good thing that Holt has thrown his hat into the political ring. After all, how could a fellow believer object to a Christian candidate who is true to his convictions?
Easy enough, when the values of the politician are about as far removed from the Christ of the Gospels as one can imagine. Here is the primary platform on which Senator Holt is running: immigration reform (he wants our state to adopt a law that would make it illegal for for emergency room staff to perform even life-saving treatment for immigrants who don't have papers showing that they are in the country legally; Holt realizes that this would violate already existing federal law but he favors such a state restriction anyway because of the, ahem, moral message it would send), restricting the rights of gays, and the protection of property and gun possession rights. Oh, and when it comes to capital punishment, well, Holt's all for it even when the person to be killed is not mentally competent (http://www.jimholt.us/capitalpunishment.htm).
So, Mr. Holt's perspective is that true Christian values involve the rejection of all undocumented aliens (and their children) even unto death, the execution of the mentally incompetent, and the protection of firearms and citizens to do whatever they please with their property.
Maybe I'm naive but I don't see these values as fundamentally Christian. I'd expect a politician who believes in Jesus to value helping the underprivileged. I'd expect that even if the Christian politician believed that homosexual relationships are wrong, he or she would think that there are greater social issues that Christians should be concerned with, particularly in the state of Arkansas where there are so many who need so much. Holt's public values are those of the Pharisees--there is the sheen of faith on their surface that thinly disguises a soul-corrupting essence that is very far removed from the politics of Jesus.
As a Christian, I might be expected to think it a good thing that Holt has thrown his hat into the political ring. After all, how could a fellow believer object to a Christian candidate who is true to his convictions?
Easy enough, when the values of the politician are about as far removed from the Christ of the Gospels as one can imagine. Here is the primary platform on which Senator Holt is running: immigration reform (he wants our state to adopt a law that would make it illegal for for emergency room staff to perform even life-saving treatment for immigrants who don't have papers showing that they are in the country legally; Holt realizes that this would violate already existing federal law but he favors such a state restriction anyway because of the, ahem, moral message it would send), restricting the rights of gays, and the protection of property and gun possession rights. Oh, and when it comes to capital punishment, well, Holt's all for it even when the person to be killed is not mentally competent (http://www.jimholt.us/capitalpunishment.htm).
So, Mr. Holt's perspective is that true Christian values involve the rejection of all undocumented aliens (and their children) even unto death, the execution of the mentally incompetent, and the protection of firearms and citizens to do whatever they please with their property.
Maybe I'm naive but I don't see these values as fundamentally Christian. I'd expect a politician who believes in Jesus to value helping the underprivileged. I'd expect that even if the Christian politician believed that homosexual relationships are wrong, he or she would think that there are greater social issues that Christians should be concerned with, particularly in the state of Arkansas where there are so many who need so much. Holt's public values are those of the Pharisees--there is the sheen of faith on their surface that thinly disguises a soul-corrupting essence that is very far removed from the politics of Jesus.
Monday, May 29, 2006
One Cheer for Barry (and that of the Bronx variety)
Yesterday, it finally happened: Barry Bonds crawled (slithered?) past Babe Ruth into sole possession of second place on the all-time career home run list. If you don't live in the Bay Area, you're probably not very happy about this. No one who knows baseball denies Bonds' amazing natural gifts: for many years with the Pittsburgh Pirates and a few more with the San Francisco Giants, Bonds was the consummate 5-tool player: great glove, cannon for an arm, blazing speed on the basepaths, serious power, and good contact hitter. It's not hard to imagine that had he not made The Decision in the late summer of '98, he might have been remembered as the best all-around player to ever play the game. But having decided during summer of McGwire & Sosa to begin taking all manner of performance-enhancing substances (steroids were but the tip of the hypodermic), Bonds has become the poster boy for the decade of cheating in baseball that ran from the early-mid 90s to the early-mid 00s.
While I have no desire to be an apologist for Bonds, I do think that there's room on that poster for a bunch of other boys. Put a picture of MLB Commissioner Bud Selig doing what he does best (nothing) right smack in the center, twice as large as any of the other images. Selig is the single person most responsible for the chemical mess baseball finds itself in. I daresay that were he not a former owner himself, he would have never sat on his hands while the signs and rumors of juicing were abundant. But fans were filling the stands, and owners and players were both getting rich. His lack of moral leadership has cost the game its integrity, and that will prove to be harder to get back than the fans were after the strike of '94.
Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, and (probably) Sammy Sosa are also more to blame for MLB's present deplorable condition than Bonds is. For Bonds at least has the excuse of five-year olds everywhere: "But they did it first!" Assuming that the account in Game of Shadows is accurate (and there is no reason not to), Bonds decided to juice after seeing the success on the field and adoration in the stands that the cheaters who came before him had achieved (sic). Bonds figured that if these lesser talents could make themselves into ersatz super heroes while the Commissioner, Players Union, press, and fans looked the other way, then why shouldn't he? This is not, of course, the reasoning of the morally upright, but the temptation to keep up with the Joneses is one most of us are familiar with.
So by all means, put an asterisk by all of Barry Bonds numbers earned after the 1998 season. Just don't forget to do the same for McGwire's numbers from possibly as far back at the late 80's; those of Canseco,Palmeiro, and Sosa should get them too. And while Selig has no numbers to put an asterisk by, perhaps we could make sure the explanation of the asterisk at the bottom of the page reads: "these numbers are likely inflated as there is evidence that this player was juicing during the Selig-Steroid era."
While I have no desire to be an apologist for Bonds, I do think that there's room on that poster for a bunch of other boys. Put a picture of MLB Commissioner Bud Selig doing what he does best (nothing) right smack in the center, twice as large as any of the other images. Selig is the single person most responsible for the chemical mess baseball finds itself in. I daresay that were he not a former owner himself, he would have never sat on his hands while the signs and rumors of juicing were abundant. But fans were filling the stands, and owners and players were both getting rich. His lack of moral leadership has cost the game its integrity, and that will prove to be harder to get back than the fans were after the strike of '94.
Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, and (probably) Sammy Sosa are also more to blame for MLB's present deplorable condition than Bonds is. For Bonds at least has the excuse of five-year olds everywhere: "But they did it first!" Assuming that the account in Game of Shadows is accurate (and there is no reason not to), Bonds decided to juice after seeing the success on the field and adoration in the stands that the cheaters who came before him had achieved (sic). Bonds figured that if these lesser talents could make themselves into ersatz super heroes while the Commissioner, Players Union, press, and fans looked the other way, then why shouldn't he? This is not, of course, the reasoning of the morally upright, but the temptation to keep up with the Joneses is one most of us are familiar with.
So by all means, put an asterisk by all of Barry Bonds numbers earned after the 1998 season. Just don't forget to do the same for McGwire's numbers from possibly as far back at the late 80's; those of Canseco,Palmeiro, and Sosa should get them too. And while Selig has no numbers to put an asterisk by, perhaps we could make sure the explanation of the asterisk at the bottom of the page reads: "these numbers are likely inflated as there is evidence that this player was juicing during the Selig-Steroid era."
Welcome
In time (should I find it), this will be a blog about music, books, politics, and God. Oh, and baseball.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)