Steroids - Sports - Politics- Credibilty?

Treading cautiously into this water because I know so little about sports, but I do know something about politics.

Yes, I had heard the name Roger Clemens, but I didn't know what his record was other than in baseball. When a record was being broken, and recently I understood a lot had been broken, it would slip by me with a that's nice and ho hum. Not so a lot of the rest of the country. Not so kids who follow these sports' heroes, mimic their behavior, and hope for the same sort of success.

Even with the hearings on Capitol Hill, I was not paying a lot of attention. Seemed weird that a trainer would save a bloody syringe with DNA and steroids-- but then that preserved, semen-stained dress didn't make much sense either. Did the trainer do it for potential blackmail, an unusual souvenir, or a protection in case something came along where perjury was a possible issue?

Listening to the Daily Show last night, I saw clips of various Representatives asking Clemens questions and a bell dinged. How did this become a partisan issue? Republicans directed their questions away from possible steroid use to how great a career Clemens had had. Democrats went for the jugular by saying they didn't believe him and how he had disappointed them. Democrats also believe in Santa Claus and Republicans in the dollar.

Apparently athletes using steroids is okay with Republicans and for Democrats it's not. If Republicans think it's not big deal (as long as the guy has a crew-cut and fits their all-American prototype), and that the results of using them are good, why haven't they legalized them? (It could be a tit for tat. We give them steroids and they give us marijuana.)

Actually the Republicans didn't need Democratic support to legalize steroids for pro athletes. For most of the Bush administration (7 years but seems like an eternity), the Republicans have had the power of the Legislature and Presidency (a president who they say will pardon Clemens if he gets in trouble for his perjury). So what was the reason for not legalizing something that they clearly approve of athletes using even if it atrophies their sexual organs, makes them prone to rages, has unknown cancer-causing effects, but improves performance on the field. And aren't gladiator shows part of their plan to keep the masses ignorant of what is really going on to their country?

I find this business of conservative and liberal labels to be very confusing. How can a conservative encourage the use of something that is not only illegal but encourages kids to use it to create their own sports careers? I can't figure out how this party of the moral right can be defending this while the supposed immoral left is saying it's wrong.

And Democrats? You thought those thick necks came from what? You thought a man like Roger Clemens, who had a good career as a young man but suddenly exploded with power in his 40s, was naturally getting there? How shocking to find out the gifts of the tooth fairy aren't really without cost!

If people want these gladiator shows, they could make the use of steroids legal, make the playing field even, keep them illegal for kids (they will get them anyway as they do other illegal drugs).

Or we could all accept sports at a bit lower level and not demand super human results from our athletes? Oh that doesn't sell as many tickets? Guess that explains the Republicans defending its use while not explicitly saying that.

[Finally, I got an email alert about a virus that has been around since last year, but evidently is out again in force. Watch out for cards you get even from friends or family. There are safe ways to open them, just don't click on the link, go to the card site and use the code number you are given. This sounds like a particularly nasty virus-- Snopes on Storm Virus.

And finally, don't forget the petitions circulating from MoveOn.Org as well as other groups like Democracy for America. If petitions aren't your thing, do let the super delegates from your state know that there will be a price to be paid if they ignore the majority will of the Democratic voters and workers in the caucuses. Hillary Clinton cannot get the nomination through a regular vote of the primaries, but she can get it through back room deals. Those are never good for us and could easily cost the party the November election.

I think the whole super delegate and caucus system should be scrapped. Caucuses are there because they are cheaper for the party to run, but they are not fair to older people, to those who don't have a whole day or an evening to put into the selection of a candidate. Leave caucuses for organizers and get back to primaries where the people in the party decide who they want.

And party primaries should probably not allow the other party to cross over to foul up the meaning of the votes. Voting for someone because they are not the best person but you think you could most easily beat them is not beneficial for the country or even the party system. I still would like to see a third party become viable.

I also think Florida and Michigan should have the financial help of the party to hold new elections to be sure their votes are counted in the Convention. If they simply let them give it to Hillary, than those voters who didn't bother to vote, knowing it wasn't going to count or threw away their votes on a candidate unable to win, will lose any voice in who our Presidential nominee will be. Howard Dean wants to have those states vote again. It seems the only fair thing to me as the original disenfranchising of them didn't seem right to start.

The primary season has turned on its head and instead of states like Oregon, who don't vote until May, having no voice, every vote is going to count! That may be the only good part.