More proof that it's anti-choice, not pro-life

The anti-choice zealots on the right, supposedly guided by their faith and belief in god, proved again today why their preferred label of pro-life is anything but accurate.

Dr. George Tiller, a controversial abortion provider in Kansas, was gunned down as he entered the lobby of the Lutheran Church her regularly attended in Wichita, KS. He was on his way in for Sunday services.

Tiller gained national notoriety thanks in large part to several individuals in conservative talk radio and television, namely Bill O'Reilly. As one of the few doctors in America who performed legal late-term abortions, Tiller became the target of anti-choice, patriarchal prophets in the media who somehow have a direct line to god and are perfectly clear as to what god believes. They are so certain that they know beyond a doubt what is divinely mandated that they seem to act on earth as the servants of this mandate by doing all they can to control individual women’s' reproductive rights. And this includes taking the life of a physician who disagrees with them and their beliefs; and they are merely that, beliefs - not truths, facts, or any else remotely related.

These people's convictions are so strong, and their grasp of their god's position on this matter so clear, that they have emboldened themselves to go far beyond simply controlling the legal options available to pregnant women. You know, because having your beliefs controlling other people's ability to make a decision about their own bodies wouldn't be quite enough. These modern-day crusaders go even further and believe they have a responsibility to create a climate so intolerant, threatening, and just plain violent, that those seeking an abortion, or those seeking to perform the legal procedure, will shudder and hide in fear. If their tactics aren’t enough, and an individual like Tiller continues to march on in the face of these acts of terror, they’ll just take it upon themselves to end another human being’s life. Tragic irony.

This piece provides an excellent overview of the conditions under which Dr. Tiller had to live and practice medicine for the past 25 years. The anything but pro-life list of incidents he has been involved in includes being shot in both arms, and his clinic being bombed. Dr. Tiller also had to live under federal protection after the FBI discovered he was the top target on an anti-abortion group’s assassination list.

This moment is tragic for the friends and family of Dr. Tiller. It is also tragic for the fate of our culture. We must, at this moment, speak up, out, and against those who have helped to create and stoke a climate of hate and intolerance towards those who believe in a woman’s right to choose, seek an abortion or counseling on such matters, or are involved in the medically and legally sanctioned practice. We must name those who contribute to the creation of an atmosphere that results in a man losing his life for performing his job. And when we call these people out we must cast a wide net that includes those wastes of humanity in the media like Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingraham; but first and foremost must be Bill O’Reilly.

For years Bill O’Reilly has taken his causes, including the advancement of anti-choice policies, to AM radio (this, thankfully, is now a thing of the past) and TV’s top-rated program on any news network. We all know O’Reilly provides anything but news, and except for a few minutes a day neither does anyone else on that RNC propaganda vehicle; but if you call yourself something for long enough, apparently it sticks. The same goes for how some people actually think this network masquerading as a news outlet is fair and balanced. If they say they are, they must be; right? Clearly you can pee on some people’s leg and tell them it’s raining.

O’Reilly has used his lofty platform to call Tiller a murderer, barbarian, and disgrace to the medical profession. Bill O also coined the nickname “Tiller the baby killer” and made false accusations that he performed illegal procedures.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that Bill O and the rest of these folks are individually or collectively directly responsible for Dr. Tiller’s death. But, were I one of them (I just threw up a little in my mouth), or if I subscribed to the logic these folks use in situations that suit their causes, I would blame them directly.

Accoridng to Bill and company, when it comes to young people committing acts of violence, the list of factors that cause such behaviors always includes hip-hop, video games, music videos, music lyrics, and the interwebs. It’s amazing that these forms of media directly and indisputably cause, or at least greatly contribute to, acts of violence. This is particularly true when we speak of young people, and even more so when these young people are poor and Black or Brown. Amazing how that works.

Unfortunately for Bill, his popularity acts as a disservice to him in this instance. You see, when you host the most watched television show on cable five nights a week, and, until recently, also host a multi-hour radio program that is consistently among the top ratings-earners, you do have an impact. Your voice influences the public debate, discourse, and climate, no matter how poorly thought out your ideas are. The intellectual merit of your ideas doesn’t matter. What matters is that you have a venue that a large number of people turn to. When you use this venue, this platform, to articulate a hateful message, and when you do so in a violent manner, you must be held accountable for contributing to a climate that facilitates the perpetration of violent acts by imbalanced, angry, and god-delusional people.

But to dismiss today's actions as those of a fringe, marginalized individual whose sentiments do not accurately represent those of others would be a dangerous move. And if we needed proof of the number of people who in agreement with Dr. Tiller's murder, or at least sympathetic to the killer and her/his motive, check out this discussion on Free Republic. Unfortunately, these are the acts of one, who feels like many.

Finally, I wonder if when Bill and the rest of the rightwing hatemongers and blowhards take to the airwaves tomorrow to spew their daily dose of dumbed-down and vile rhetoric, they will even talk about this, let alone call it what it is – a terrorist act. Actually, that was a lie. I don’t wonder; unfortunately, I already know the answer.

First step gay marriage, next step people marry ducks

Perhaps just as ridiculous as the war on drugs has been the fight to keep heterosexism and homophobia codified by a prohibition against marriage for all those not heterosexual.

Among the more ludicrous arguments propelling this movement is the idea that if we legalize gay marriage we then put ourselves on a track to legalize polygamy and human beings marrying animals. The slippery slope argument is always put forth by the simple-minded, but as many people in our illustrious nation fit that bill (see ratings for American Idol), it often works.

Pat Robertson, noted spiritual leader, hate monger, and god profiteer, is one of but many of the geniuses that has stated that the step right after legalizing gay marriage is legalizing humans marrying ducks. No lie. He said this shit.

Sometimes humor is needed to keep you from losing your sanity or just giving up. Check out this amazingly funny video on what a world with people marrying ducks would look like.

You mean not all pot smokers become meth addicts?

The war on drugs has been a colossal waste of money and has destroyed millions of lives. In other words, it's been just as stupid as its name.

One of the foundational arguments of those advocating complete prohibition of all drugs has been the gateway theory. You know this one. It posits that marijuana should be illegal and those who use and sell the insidious herb should do hard jail time because using marijuana inevitably leads to using heroin, crack, and crystal meth, which then leads to wild crime sprees.

As I'm sure those reading this (if anyone is) can attest, this is not exactly always what happens. I'm sure a few of you have sampled, or experimented, with the green demon.

Here's a link to a great piece on the overwhelming research that points to the fact that the gateway myth is just that - a myth supported by ideology, propaganda, and a need to keep certain drugs illegal so others (alcohol industry and big pharm) can keep their profits up.

Black Woman becomes Rabbi...In NC!

I didn't know there were any Jews in Greenville, NC. Apparently there are enough to form an actual congregation, and there new spiritual leader is the first ordained Black female Rabbi.

I'm not a fan of organized religion, but this tickles me for a couple reasons.

Any time barriers based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, age, disability, etc. are broken, that's a good thing.

Second of all, I'm sure the Orthodox and hard-core nuts are freaking out. That too is always a good thing.

Mazel Tov Rabbi Stanton!

Help! There's a Puerto Rican Woman About to Enslave All White People!

Too much work that has to get done to post a more lengthy piece today. But I gotta keep the momentum going, so I'm posting but keeping it short. I know, you're worlds are now shattered. Somehow I think you'll gather the courage and the strength to pick up the pieces.

Somehow the progress we've made on issues related to race/ethnic-based discrimination has brought us to a point where privileged white men (and Ann Coulter & Michelle Malkin) can talk about racism and oppression of whites by persons of color without simply being dismissed as ridiculous and absurd. The airwaves are full of folks talking up the racist record of Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Media Matters has put together this minute and a half compilation of clips from the past few days of not-so-critical folks (seems like a prequisite for being on TV) making such claims. The list of noted intellectuals, race activists, and scholars on this clip includes Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanan, and Lou Dobbs. Not exactly the role call at a MENSA meeting, and I'm pretty sure that's not a coincidence.

In addition to the video, Media Matters has also put together this list of myths being put forth about Judge Sotomayor, her record, and her beliefs.

Kinda makes you question this whole progress thing when individuals are allowed public platforms to simplify racism by dredging up the tired and weak arguments about so-called reverse discrimination and reverse racism.

Racism, in terms of how it manifests in the present moment and its historical roots, is contextual to a particular country, culture, and/or group. Racism in the US is not simply about X group discriminating against Y group (or Y, Z, A, B, and C for that matter). Racism in the US is about a White supremicist model that created and still controls all public and private systems and structures in our culture. There are unearned privileges that come with being White (and male, heterosexual, married, etc.).

Indigenous folks and people of color are and have been systematically oppressed in intentional and public ways, as well as through insitutionalized and insidious means that are simply woven into the fabric of our culture and our lives and accepted as the way it is. Electing a multiracial President does not make this all go away in one moment.

While all this blabbering about a Puerto Rican woman raised in the projects in the South Bronx being a racist is going on, the prison population remains disproportionately Black and Brown, poverty and infant mortality rates remain skewed based on race and ethnicity, and minority children continue to drop out of school at rates much higher than their White peers.

Man, this oppression against the White man has to stop. Otherwise, before you know it, we may even have 2 Black US Senators. Of course, the way things look with Senator (for now) Burris, we're much more likely to end up with none.

Torture, Pictures, and the Big Picture

I almost always find fault with comparisons and analogies of any sort to Hitler, the Nazi regime, and the Holocaust. Like countless other such inane examples throughout history, attempts by the hawkish right in our previous administration to compare Saddam Hussein to Hitler, and the anti-choice zealots’ labeling of the post-Roe, pro-reproductive rights era of US history as the American Holocaust are intellectually lazy and dishonest. They are overly simplistic rhetorical moves designed to distract from a critical examination of the individual issue at hand by categorizing one person, event, conflict, and/or policy with those universally thought of as repugnant (at least in terms of public discourse in the US). The purpose is to end a debate before it even begins by framing a perspective as irrefutable, the only logical and moral conclusion possible.

This method of constructing an argument sets forth a foundation that the individual constructing the argument believes leaves her/his opponent(s) no room to maneuver. Individuals and groups who engage in such deceptive and dishonest, not to mention morally repugnant tactics, believe that by putting forth an argument predicated on the grouping of something in the same category as such horrifically inhumane and criminal individuals, groups, and acts, they leave their opponent(s) no choice but to (a) concede their position and see the light, or (b) be labeled Hitler and Nazi sympathizers.

We have seen this and other similar methods of advocating a position many times throughout our nation’s history. A belief is articulated as fact. It is not a conclusion that accepts and allows for nuance and disagreement. It sets forth that the position espoused is not the result of careful intellectual, emotional, and/or moral analysis and reasoning; rather it is fact and the only possible conclusion resulting in the acceptance of a universally held belief set forth as the foundation of the argument.

We saw this immediately after 9/11 when President Bush set the tone for the 7 years of hell and intolerance that would follow when he famously said you’re either with us or against us, when referring what we would come to know as the War on Terror. You’re either one of us, a good guy, or you are a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. Being a terrorist and/or sympathizer means you hate America and freedom (and apple pie, baseball, beauty pageants, reality TV, fast food, and the other cornerstones of American culture; oh, and anything French too of course). And being one of us means you have no time or interest in nuance or understanding of other cultures, their history, and how they see the world, including what they think of us.

According to this way of thinking, it is inconceivable to simultaneously be against terrorism and be empathetic (not sympathetic, there is a difference) to how a fundamentalist person of faith in parts of the world we have ridiculed and shat on as much as possible, living in conditions beyond anything the word poverty captures, might view things differently. This is clearly a dangerous and false binary.

It is possible, even desirable, to understand the rationale a person has for forming an opinion without agreeing with the conclusion they reach. It is possible to both understand what drives someone to acts of violence, even terrorism, without condoning or sanctioning their acts. But we have been told otherwise by many of our illustrious leaders, and this way of thinking (or rather not thinking) has had dire consequences.

It has contributed immensely to the horrific xenophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-Islam, anti- immigrant climate that permeates our culture today. And it is this very same method of demonization that has also led us down the road to torture.

We torture people who are not us; they are them. They are less than us, less than human. They do not share our basic, foundational values and beliefs. And we demonstrate this difference by torturing them via means including rape. And we wonder why folks in other parts of the world don’t instinctively chant, “U-S-A, U-S-A” and welcome us with open arms when we invade and occupy (otherwise known as liberate) their nation. An understanding of all of this is key in understanding the issues surrounding the photographs depicting torture at Abu Ghraib and other detention sites.

And it is with all this said that I make an exception to my rule of dismissing comparisons to the Holocaust. There are many similarities between the argument to release the photos of US military and security personnel torturing detainees, to see these acts ourselves, and the Allied forces’ documentation of the atrocities they witnessed in liberated concentration camps.

Upon seeing the unfathomable sights that he bore witness to when entering his first concentration camp in Ohrdruf in 1945, General Eisenhower famously said, "The things I saw beggar description...the visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations to propaganda."

Now, contrary to popular belief amongst many today, including false and widely circulating emails of the past several weeks, Eisenhower spoke explicitly of his desire and need to bear witness, not take photographs. But, he and others on the ground quickly realized the need to document the atrocities as well. He knew, as reflected in his quote above, that just as he could not imagine what he was seeing with his own eyes, neither could virtually any other human being. What he saw was so horrific, so grotesque, it needed substantiation. It needed documentation. It needed to be photographed.

And that is precisely why these pictures of individuals torturing other human beings in the name of the United States, in our name, are so important. But lost in the consuming debate of whether the pictures should be released to the public, amidst all the screaming and yelling of freedom of information versus emboldening our enemies, is a more important issue. That issue is that these pictures are evidence, proof of wrongdoing to the highest degree. These images prove, in a way nothing else ever can, the manifestation of an us vs. them ideology taken to such an extreme that we lose sight of the fact that even if we do believe that there are individuals who wish us harm, and are beyond reason, they are still human beings. And if we seek to make the same claim of humanity about ourselves, we must confront these horrors by bearing witness and we must keep them for proof when those in the future dispute such things ever occurred. But more importantly, we must use these pieces of evidence to take action and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Our actions define our values and who we are. It is easy, in the vacuum of a hypothetical situation, to declare that you believe in anything, including the basic tenets of human rights. It is much more difficult to prove yourself when confronted with an actual situation that makes you realize that the values and principles you so clearly, firmly, and assuredly believed were part of your moral framework are much more complicated than you ever imagined. It is what you do, in those moments of intense personal moral conflict that determines whether you truly believe in those values.

We must decide what we believe. We must decide whether we are a nation that believes in human rights when it is convenient, in certain situations, or whether we are a nation of adults that understands that there are repercussions for acting on your beliefs. Actions always produce consequences. And often, inaction produces even greater consequences.

And that is why whether or not these pictures become public record for us and the rest of the world to see is not what maters most. The pictures exist whether we see them or not. There are already individuals around the world who are committed to fighting against us, our interests, and what we purport to stand for. Do not accept the argument against the release of these pictures that lays as its foundation the harm that will surely ensue the moment the images become public. This is merely that old trick, decked out in new garb. Our policies serve as a far better means of recruitment than these pictures ever could. But, again, publishing these pictures is not nearly as important as what we do with the knowledge that they exist because of what they depict. The images were not staged. They are a means of bearing witness to what occurred.

Instead of spending energy arguing about whether we, the people, deserve to see these images, we must devote our energy to making sure something is done about what these images depict. We must prosecute the individuals responsible for these heinous acts. And though this will upset our consensus-building, looking to the future and not the past President, this includes bringing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the individuals who at the least oversaw, and at the most directed these atrocities conducted in our name.

Make no mistake about it; these pictures are proof of war crimes. Plain and simple. These acts are the definition of crimes against humanity. Just because folks on our side ordered them, acting in our name, doesn’t change this. We must act accordingly and demand justice be rendered. Anything less is conceding that we don’t value and believe in human rights. Instead, we admit that we value human rights, but only some humans, and only some of the time.

Profits Over People

It’s hard to make any sense of the various news reports we get bombarded with regarding the state of the economy. The latest indicators point to things improving at the end of the year, though not as dramatically as initially predicted. Gotta love predictions from the same people and sources that had a large role in creating all this. Why do we still give these assholes a platform?

Some things we do know - home prices keep giving new meaning to the concept of the bottomless pit, and more and more people are out of work and losing their homes. It’s perfectly clear that shit is bad and people are hurting. Lots of people are hurting in ways they never imagined possible. So why is it that we don’t seem to be questioning the fundamental principles of the system that got us into this mess in the first place? Why do we accept the premise that a few tweaks here and there, and beefed up regulations will make everything better? We act like children unconditionally believing our parents when they tell us not to worry and everything will be ok, because we simply don’t want to face the harsh reality that the vaunted system of capitalism just might not be so wonderful after all.

Our culture has become so obsessed with wealth and excess that we can’t even see what’s right in front of us. We listen to the talking heads in the media and from the business community when they tell us that our system is still the best there is, and we should expect downturns like the one we’re experiencing. We have to take the good with the bad. These are the same multinational corporate conglomofucks that led us down this road, into this sea of despair. But we listen to them because they have shiny suits, perfect teeth and hair, and represent all we wish to be.

Above all else, the one thing these profit-obsessed assclowns represent that we aspire to become is rich. And we continue to accept the ludicrous notion that in order for there to be some that are rich, there also must be some that are poor. Just because something gets said over and over again doesn’t make it true. And if it is the case that there do need to be the poor in order for there to be the rich, why don’t we just reject both? Why do accept this disparity instead of a more equitable distribution of resources?

Wealth distribution continues to be more and more disparate. The rich have been getting richer and the poor poorer for the past several decades. There is no longer such a thing as the middle class in the same way there used to be. We have embraced a system of capitalism on steroids that not only values profit, but does so in a way that marginalizes the importance of all else, including our fellow human beings and their well-being.

We’re driven to become an exception, a person who is part of the rich. And we are consumed with this despite the fact that history and the current state of things tells us that only a miniscule fraction of us will ever be in a position to make this possible, let alone have it actually happen. So we buy into the fairytale that serves the interests of those authoring the myth, and turn off the part of our brains that controls critical thinking. We become unable to question, to recognize that things are happening that point to the existence of huge disconnects between the ability to make a profit and care for humanity at the same time. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the dissonance in the simultaneous increase in homelessness and home foreclosures. We have more vacant dwellings and more people without a dwelling. What the fuck?

Homelessness has never been about a lack of supply. There are no “No Vacancy” signs adorning the metro areas of the US. Homelessness has always been about greed and a lack of concern for our fellow human beings. Can’t afford to pay what the market dictates? Well fuck you, your ass can sleep outside. And your kids too.

I mean really, how insane is it that we don’t stop and ponder the fact that we are all aware of the increasing number of houses and apartments that sit vacant, while we also see an increase in the number of those forced to live in shelters and on the streets? Kinda seems like the two are related, maybe one issue could even provide a solution to the other? Na, fuck that; it’s all about the Benjamins – those that adorn our currency, not those that are forced to live on the streets.

It’s times like this when I miss George Carlin the most. In addition to his general mastery of the English language and his understanding of how the powerful have used language throughout history for shady purposes, Carlin had a particularly venomous streak for capitalism and the super rich.

I dug up this 1992 piece on homelessness and golf that I think is particularly relevant today. This clip is particulalrly important to me not only because I hate both golf and homelessness, but because it's the first thing I remember that got me to begin to question the construction of arguments and positions via the use of language. Click here to view. Enjoy.

Constitutional Matters You Might Not be Thinking About

Just when you became complacent, thinking the only talk of changes to the US Constitution you would ever hear about would involve gay marriage and abortion, a shining intellectual beacon from the right steps in and shakes things up.

Current US Representative and Georgia GOP gubernatorial hopeful Nathan Deal has put forth a proposal that would change the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Ratified in 1868, the amendment grants US citizenship to any person born in the United States. This means that if your parents are undocumented, but you are born in the United States, you are a citizen. Period, end of story.

Apparently the suffocating anti-immigrant climate that we currently live in is a bit too tolerable and lenient for Rep. Deal. He doesn’t believe that the intent of the 14th Amendment was to allow for individuals to enter the country without documented status and have a baby who would then be granted citizenship as a birthright. And apparently this practice has become commonplace, even problematic, though there is absolutely no evidence that points to this.

I’m always fascinated by those who claim to have insight into the mindset of the intent of others’ actions. I find it particularly interesting when we get into debates about the intent of laws passed and/or court decisions made. I would agree with Rep. Deal that it probably wasn’t the intent of those living in 1868 and just coming out of a civil war to amend the Constitution to give citizenship rights to those whose parents do not possess proper legal documentation to be in the United States. The amendment was intended to grant citizenship to freed slaves who were born in the US. But the original intent of the amendment is not what is important. What is important is the spirit of the amendment.

I wonder if Rep. Deal remembers that we are a nation founded on the principle of White supremacy. The Spanish, French, British, and other Western European colonial settlers believed that the indigenous peoples occupying North America were savages who needed to be saved.

Our country exists because of the systematic and legal murder and rape of the indigenous peoples living here for centuries before the arrival of Europeans. They then pillaged and plundered their lands, stripping all the resources for personal use - my how times have changed. The remaining indigenous folks were then forced to specified parcels of land called reservations.

While these events were occurring the economy was being built on the backs of slaves kidnapped from their homelands across an ocean, forced to be build a better country for others to inhabit. And this was all done legally, with clear intent.

So it with all this in mind that I ponder, or rather dismiss offhand, the proposal of the Rep. from Georgia. You see, Rep. Deal, most of us don’t want to live in a country whose policies reflect the intent and ideas of those from the past because if we still operated on the intents of laws passed 20 years ago, let alone 100 or 200 years ago, most of us wouldn’t be allowed to be here.

Initial thoughts on President Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee

One of the reasons my interest waned the first couple times I attempted to keep a blog was my inability to write short pieces. Posting became arduous, and I just stopped. With that in mind, I am committed to writing shorter pieces this time around, though my first post is not representative of this new mindset. Again, we’ll see what happens.

As all of you by know, today President Obama put forth his first nominee to the Supreme Court when he nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I follow politics fairly closely, but I am not a legal scholar. Therefore, I must admit that what I know about Judge Sotomayor's record and beliefs is fairly limited. As soon as Justice Souter announced he would stepping down from the bench, Judge Sotmayor’s name was thought to be among the favorites to fill his seat. So, I’ve been reading up on her for the past few weeks. Based on that, and what I heard from her and the President today, here’s what I think right now.

First of all, I am thrilled that the President selected a woman and a Latino. It matters. As Judge Sotomayor herself once said, who we are, where we come from, and the experiences we have had in life define how we see everything, including the law. I’m sure this will be a Republican talking point when they make the claim against her, but her public recognition of what seems to me to be obvious is a breath of fresh air.

I liked that the President cited Judge Sotomayor’s intellect as a major factor in her receiving the nomination. This should go without saying, but after the last administration, it’s pretty clear that intellect is often minimized, even marginalized and pathologized.

I’m not so excited that the President stated that Judge Sotomayor is not someone who sees things through an ideological lens? Really? And how is that possible? We all see things through an ideological lens; and those who don’t, or at least claim not to, should be questioned as not having intellectual acumen. An ideology is what helps us see individual actions and circumstances in a larger context. We all live our lives with ideas of what is right and wrong, just and unjust. To suggest otherwise is simply political pandering.

Finally, it looks like despite all the right’s claims of socialism and the like, the President is behaving much as he has throughout the course of his life – as a moderate, slightly to the left of center pragmatic politician. While I like much of what I know about Judge Sotomayor, she is not a radical, or even what I would consider to be a staunch progressive. History shoes that it’s hard to predict what kind of Justice Judge Sotomayor will become if/when she is confirmed. But if her history is any indication, we can expect to see a Justice that believes more in incremental changes than sweeping, monumental ones. Here’s hoping I’m wrong.

So steroids are worse than racism? Please explain

So I’ve decided to try blogging again. This is my third attempt at blogging, but I feel more motivated to keep at it this time. That’s what I said last time, so we’ll see what happens. Since my first post comes during Memorial Day Weekend, the unofficial start of summer in the United States, I figured baseball would be an appropriate topic to address.

I’m a big sports fan, and baseball and college basketball are my favorite sports. While pro football has gained in popularity (mainly due to gambling), the popularity of baseball has leveled off some. This is particularly the case for younger folks – anyone under 50. Attendance numbers keep going up, but it is rare for me to meet a sports fan reasonably close to my age that considers her/himself a baseball fan first and foremost. Baseball doesn’t dominate sports coverage at the national level the way football does, though it still reigns supreme in some places – New York and Boston, for example. For the past few years, the baseball stories that have garnered national attention are almost always related to steroids and other performance enhancing drugs.

I’ve never really cared much about steroids and who uses them. You’re an adult and a professional athlete; shoot up horse steroids for all I care. If it allows you to do your job better, go for it; I know I would. The argument that it matters because kids follow the lead of professional athletes is simplistic and beyond asinine. If we’re looking to athletes to be role models simply because they have a particular skill set that allows them to make a living playing a game that we voluntarily pay to witness, we have much greater problems than steroids. Sir Charles was right when he said parents should be role models for their kids, not athletes.

So while self-righteous sports commentators and so-called purists have been indignantly calling Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and countless others cheaters, I’ve been enjoying the game as much as ever. I’ll always think of Bonds and Clemens as the best of my time and two of the biggest assholes ever – but not because they took steroids (allegedly).

It seems that the issue matters a whole lot more to the folks who have public voices - the media and those who decide who gets in the Baseball Hall of Fame (the voting members of the Baseball Writers Association) – than it does the average fan. People keep going to games and buying merchandise. And most folks would prefer more home runs, regardless of how it happens.

The issue of steroids and performance enhancing drugs is always framed around the concept of cheating. Baseball players who use(d) are cheating the fans and the game. Baseball is pure; and sports are supposed to be a meritocracy. Everyone starts at the same place and the finish line is visible and finite. And more than any other sport, baseball’s records and numbers are sacred, and known by more than just the casual fan. The last two decades have produced numbers that cannot be compared against those players from cleaner eras produced, or so goes the company line. And more than anything else, this all goes back to Babe Ruth and the legacy of his cult of personality.

The mythology of Babe Ruth is just that – myth. Babe Ruth was one of the greatest hitters to ever play the game, according to the numbers he put up. And beyond just the actual number of home runs he hit, most sports commentators and writers point to the difference between his production and that of his peers when (re)constructing the myth of the Bambino. But just like the today’s players, The Babe’s accomplishments must be contextualized as occurring in a particular time period. More specifically, why the fuck do we rarely hear mention of the fact that Babe never faced many of the best players of his day?

You see, we romanticize the past to the point where we forget that Babe Ruth only played against White ballplayers. This important issue is rarely mentioned by the overwhelmingly white talking heads that moralize and aggrandize daily about the purity of the game.

Players from the past 20 years will always be viewed with a lens that minimizes their accomplishments as occurring in the steroid age. But what about the fact that until 1947 all Major League baseball players compiled their statistics while only playing against other White players - this includes those put up by Babe Ruth, Cy Young, and a gaggle of other legendary names. And players from the Glory Days of the 1950s and 1960s (isn’t everything in the past considered glorious by someone?) played in an age where White ballplayers still dominated clubs’ rosters (the Red Sox didn’t integrate until 1959!). And Latino players, who know dominate the game, were virtually non-existent. This is to say nothing about the broader issue of the game becoming globalized in the past 10-20 years.

The point of all this is that we must remember our history as it occurred, not as it is told through those who wear rose-colored glasses and gloss over important issues like segregation. And much of what influences the stories that are told is who has voice to tell them.

So the next time your hear someone like Mike Lupica (he is perhaps the worst thing to ever happen to sports media) or your Grandfather wax and wane about the glory days gone by and the accomplishments of players from when the game wasn’t tainted, ask them why legalized segregation didn’t taint the game but steroids have. Get back to me with their answers; I can’t wait to hear what they have to say.