Monday, July 9, 2007
My politics starts and ends with Thou Shalt Not Kill. I would think that’s the least you should expect from humans. Turns out to be a toughie. The injunction against murder allows for lying, cheating, stealing, you name it. Just don’t kill the motherfucker. But there’s the rub. Humans can’t stop killing. Then again, the elected head of state of the United States is an honest-to-god murderer, so what the hell do you expect of the general population. Thou Shalt Not Kill transcends politics, obviously, because it’s saying, hey, don’t try to dazzle me with your agenda. You kill humans. Ergo, your argument is bullshit. And so are all the other arguments offered in human history. In re Iraq, Bush ordered U.S. military personnel to kill innocent Iraqis. That’s what happened. And hardly anyone, most of whom knew better or should’ve known better (the press, the media, the groves of academe, all the other pigs at the trough) said a word against it. Then they topped themselves by re-electing the sick fuck. Yeah, we humans can’t get to the next level—you know, the Golden Rule?-- until we get past Thou Shalt Not Kill 101.
The Democrats don’t deserve my vote and aren’t going to get it. Hopefully, their disgraceful behavior--their slothfulness, their cowardice, their shamelessness--will destroy the party and something decent will replace it. Whatever. I don’t care if I “throw away” my vote on a third party that has no chance or if I give the Republicans a better chance to win. The Republicans and the Democrats are both pimples on the ass of progress. The Democrats look the other way at the grossness of the Republicans and thus legitimize them, in order to reap the same monetary and electoral benefits. This country’s much-too-slow development in integration, women’s rights, labor unions, etc. is all on the Democrats. They made it slow by accommodating to the lucrative status quo. The Republicans are just insane. They really believe in that shit. The Democrats, consummate Machiavellians, don’t believe in anything. Now as ever, the Democrats are the bad guys and the Republicans are the crazy guys. Ya gotta think we can do better.
When the smoke subsides from The Steroid Era, history will be harsh on the sportswriters who habitually, gratuitously and viciously have been attacking Barry Bonds. Much as, after years of war in Iraq, the political media is now understood to be enablers, complicit in accepting everything the government fed them about Iraq, and often making it up themselves. Not exactly the gadfly, the fourth estate, whose raison d’etre is keeping government honest. The press was in bed with, embedded with, the murderous policies of the Bush-Cheney administration.
And, as it is above, so it is below, the (mainstream) sportswriters thought it was okay, even cool, that authors Fainaru-Wada and Williams breached all ethics in a) copying sealed grand jury testimony--with a lawyer who is going to jail for helping them, b) profiting from it, since their material on Bonds is the cornerstone of their book, and c) almost single-handedly ruining Bonds’ reputation. Sure, most of the writers had been down on Bonds, but it’s those two guys’ book, Game of Shadows, that fueled the anti-Bonds movement. No one cared that the book violated Bonds’ right to privacy as well as his presumption of innocence, violations that could happen to any of us. And, things being the way they are, just might. And then what’s so fucking cool about two corrupt, ambulance-chasing sportswriters?
A few weeks ago the San Francisco Chronicle’s Bruce Jenkins (the most possessed, the Ken Starr, of these non-courtroom proceedings) was saying that Bonds just couldn’t cut it anymore and was an embarrassment to the front office because they gave Bonds a big contract and here he was—on the way out. Even when those words were written, they were false. Bonds hadn’t hit a home run in a while, that’s all, mostly because it’s hard to hit home runs when you have to deal with the haters, and you’re closing in on the most hallowed record in sports, which makes one less patient, and facing pitchers who don’t want to add their name to a long list. Meaning: They walk him. While Jenkins was fairly gloating at Bonds’ “eroding skills,” Bonds was, then and now, leading the league in walks and on-base percentage! It’s hard to hit home runs when you walk. And why does Bonds walk so much? Because pitchers are scared shit to pitch to him. So much for “eroding skills.”
Rich Reilly of Sports Illustrated recently wrote that Bonds is unpopular with his teammates. Typical of SI to be grotesquely wrong about anything related to the Bay Area. Bonds, obviously, is revered by his teammates. Sportswriters keep writing that Bonds is unpopular with the fans. So I’m wondering: How do the Bonds haters--Jenkins, Reilly et al--explain the fact that the fans voted Bonds onto the starting lineup of the NL All-Star team? That the press has poisoned the public’s mind about Bonds is a given, but there are also many fans that either don’t care if he took steroids or understand that it’s far from clear how taking steroids helps you play better or hit better, or they sympathize with a guy who is being harassed by a rabid press.
And not a single writer will cop to the fact that he just doesn’t like Bonds and never has.
I’m also wondering how those who insist Bonds “cheated,” can explain the year he’s having. The man will be 43 this month and he is going to break not only Aaron’s record but probably Ted Williams’ record: the most home runs by a player over age 40 (29). Are they suggesting that Bonds is currently taking steroids? If not, they will have to conclude that Bonds is simply an exceptional athlete who has always stayed in exceptional condition. And if that is so, why couldn’t he have hit all of his homers without benefit of steroids? It’s a shame that, because of the media party-line that Bonds is a “cheater,” the enormity of his accomplishment, over his career and in this 2007 season, is being ignored, unreported, and no one sees the irony of the press calling anyone on his ethics.
--Eugene Lesser
