| |
 |
Monday, December 06, 2004 |
Bonds and Arnie and more
As Crooks and Liars comments, isn't it funny that Republicans in Congress want to amend the Constitution so that the current shameful Governor of California -- a major steroid user -- can run for President while at the same time they're after Major League Baseball for alleged use of the same drug? Is it a tacit admission that Arnie is already such a bad example to youth that it doesn't matter? Or, more likely, isn't it just an example of when we do it it's OK, when the people we don't like do it, it's a scandal?
Myself, I'm disappointed in Barry; I've been a big fan of his for years. I wish he'd come out and admit it and apologize, say he hasn't done it since whenever, and volunteer to have public drug testing. But that ain't going to happen -- for one thing, baseball's union is so strong. But it has to be said that these steroids are not illegal, nor during the time Bonds allegedly took them was doing so against the rules of baseball. Really ridiculous is the idea of some sort of asterisk on his records. Players these days have lots of medical advantages over players of generations ago -- from pain killers to surgeries and beyond. If we tried to put an asterisk next to every record that was abetted by drugs, the record books would be filled with them.
Only Baseball Matters has more on this, with what seems to me to be a plausible debunking of the supposedly steroid-factored growth in Bonds' bulk around the turn of the century. Still, his last paragraph pretty nearly captures my thoughts:
Many, if not most people refuse to believe that Bonds didn't cheat. They believe that he did more than he admitted, and that what he admitted was disingenuous at best. Fine. I am less convinced than they are, but I also find his testimony questionable. I am having a hard time imagining the sequence of events that would lead Barry to use anything from Anderson so blithely, particlularly given that in 2003, when this was supposed to have occured, Bonds was already in the center of a shitstorm.
Finally, be sure to have a look at he steroids sidebar at OBM, it's a much better collection of links than you'll find at ESPN's anemic site.
1:25:23 PM Permalink
|
|
3 Dec 04
3 Dec 04: "A compendium of Biblical inconsistencies. Here's a nice list of Biblical inconsistencies. Just read the first dozen or so, then tell me why we're supposed to accept the creation myth in Genesis instead of science? Most of these inconsistencies are quibbles if we accept these books as preliterate myths and histories. But if we're supposed to base science and behavior on them, well then it's no wonder the western world is sliding into a new dark age.
(Via Larry's Pretty Good Web Log.)
10:23:18 AM Permalink
|
|
The Good Guys
The Donkey Rising has a very use...
The Donkey Rising has a very useful list for us to use during this shopping season. May I suggest e-mailing it to your Democratic friends?
With the holidays upon us, some of us might wish to be mindful of who we patronize relative to their Election Cycle political donations, as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics.
WITH US:
* Price Club/Costco donated $225K, of which 99% went to democrats;
* Rite Aid, $517K, 60% to democrats;
* Magla Products (Stanley tools, Mr. Clean), $22K, 100% to democrats;
* Warnaco (undergarments), $55K, 73% to democrats;
* Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, $153K, 99% to democrats;
* Estee Lauder, $448K, 95% to democrats;
* Guess ? Inc., $145K, 98% to democrats;
* Calvin Klein, $78K, 100% to democrats;
* Liz Claiborne, Inc., $34K, 97% to democrats;
* Levi Straus, $26K, 97% to democrats;
* Olan Mills, $175K, 99% to democrats.
* Gallo Winery, $337K, 95% to democrats;
* Southern Wine & Spirits, $213K, 73% to democrats;
* Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons (includes beverage business, plus considerable media interests), $2M+, 67% democrats.
* Sonic Corporation, $83K, 98% democrat;
* Triarc Companies (Arby's, T.J. Cinnamon's, Pasta Connections), $112K, 96% Democrats;
* Hyatt Corporation, $187K, 80% to democrats;
AGAINST US:
WalMart, $467K, 97% to republicans;
K-Mart, $524K, 86% to republicans;
Home Depot, $298K, 89% to republicans;
Target, $226K, 70% to republicans;
Circuit City Stores, $261K, 95% to republicans;
3M Co., $281K, 87% to republicans;
Hallmark Cards, $319K, 92% to republicans;
Amway, $391K, 100% republican;
Kohler Co. (plumbing fixtures), $283K, 100% republicans;
B.F. Goodrich (tires), $215K, 97% to republicans;
Proctor & Gamble, $243K, 79% to republicans;
Coors, $174K, 92% to republicans; (also Budweiser - sd)
Brown-Forman Corp. (Southern Comfort, Jack Daniels, Bushmills, Korbel wines - as well as Lennox China, Dansk, Gorham Silver), $644, 80% to republicans;
Pilgrim's Pride Corp. (chicken), $366K, 100% republican;
Outback Steakhouse, $641K, 95% republican;
Tricon Global Restaurants (KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), $133K, 87% republican;
Brinker International (Maggiano's, Brinker Cafe, Chili's, On the
Border, Macaroni Grill, Crazymel's, Corner Baker, EatZis), $242K, 83% republican;
Waffle House, $279K, 100% republican;
McDonald's Corp., $197K, 86% republican;
Darden Restaurants (Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Smokey Bones, Bahama Breeze), $121K, 89% republican;
Mariott International, $323K, 81% to republicans;
Holiday Inns, $38K, 71% to republicans
(Does anybody know what the restaurant chains are so anxious about? GM foods? Minimum wage hikes? Why are they all giving big bucks to the Republicans? It kind of freaks me out.)
Let's be sure to spread some Holiday cheer to the good guys --- and stick it to the others. This is America, after all.
"
(Via Hullabaloo.)
10:10:28 AM Permalink
|
|
To understand you know to soon...
...there is no sense of trying.
Last night's 60 Minutes interview was about as good a TV interview as Dylan is likely to give. According to CBS publicity, Dylan and Bradley talked for 90 minutes, so they really trimmed it down. It's hard to know if some interesting and maybe obvious questions went unasked, or were just edited out. Bradley focused too much on the price of fame stuff, but I guess that's part of the Bob Dylan story, and Bob does devote a chunk of the book to it. To me, it's of less interest that some other lines might have been
The nicest moment was when Dylan quoted the first two lines to It's Alright, Ma, and CBS cut to Dylan performing the song in 1965. Dylan was properly amazed that he could write a song like that, and told Bradley no, he could not do it now. A good follow up would have been to ask Bob that if he couldn't write like that now, what it was like to sing those songs now. Does he imagine that he's the person who wrote the song? Does he find new meanings in it these 40 years later? This would probably have gotten something interesting from Bob.
Just hope that one day the full interview comes out...
9:31:14 AM Permalink
|
|
© Copyright 2005 Steve Michel.
|
|
|
|
|
