Barry Nanny-State Of Bush & Co
Matt Welch decries the revenge move against Barry Bonds and other athletes by the government for alleged steroid use:
...The federal justice system should be about apprehending serious criminals, not "sending messages" to schoolchildren by abusing the grand jury process to compile and illegally leak publicly damaging information about non-criminals.Thirdly, in an era when testosterone and other hormones are being used safely to treat various illnesses, isn't it time to ask why, exactly, they can't be used to help men who use their bodies for a living recover from the daily strain as they reach retirement age?
And finally, think back to poor Barry Bonds, if you can call a jerk who makes $19 million a year "poor." What if he told the truth under oath, and never knowingly took illegal or banned substances?
If that's the case, then the man who had the season to end all seasons was rewarded for it by A) being made the prime target of a multi-agency federal investigation backed directly by the president and attorney general; B) having his reputation (and endorsements-earning potential) deliberately shredded; and C) being forced to fend off continuous hostile cross-examination, even while compiling the best four-year run in baseball history.
There is such a thing as the presumption of innocence, no matter what you read in the sports pages. As it stands, Barry Bonds has not even been formally accused of violating a single baseball rule, let alone federal law.
President Bush has indeed "sent a message" to the kids of America: We can make you look guilty, even when you've never been charged. It's a rough lesson, but they might as well start getting used it.
First off, Barry Bonds is a liar. It's my opinion of course, but he knew what he was taking. It's like the Clinton didn't inhale nonsense. He shou7ld be able to take them, by the way, but that's a separate issue.
On a related matter, as they say, I wanted to talk about the Detriot Brawl. Shocking, disgusting, what basketball and the prosecutor did. Artest had the right to do what he did. he was assaulted. hit with that cup.He had the right to go after the fan that assaulted him, to bring him in. If the fan then fights back, artest had the right to take his head off. i used to play sports,I'd do the same thing. Hit punch or throw an object and hit me, Ill come after you and tear your fucking heart out, regardless of what the league or the law says. Artest-you go boy.
chris volkay at December 9, 2004 4:42 PM
One small follow-up here. Welch talks about the presumption of innocence in this country. Normally Welch is a good writer and I enjoy his writing but I will try to guide him here. Saying there is a presumption of innocence is the same weak, wishy washy nonsense you usually read.
Let me explain it for ya. There is a presumption of innocence in our court system. There is no such thing actually but that's the popular canard that we float about.
I as a private citizen and or writer am entitled to my opinion on the matter, and that's what readers want to read, not stale bromides.
What do you think? I know O.J was guilty, Scott Petersen and that little asshole Robert Blake. When Robert Blake was interviewed by Barbara Walters he said something like, "you think I'm guilty" and the gutless, idiotic shameful, brain-dead Baba, said "Oh no Robert we don't think you're guilty. What a brainless piece of garbage she is. Of course we think he's guilty. I would have told the asshole to his face. But this is the level of journalism that we have in the papers and media today. We understand there is a legal presumption of innocnece as far as the courts are concerned. But what do you think? That is why people read any given writer. Scott Petersen is presum...oh fuck all that. Me? I'd cut his head off and use it as a doorstop.
chris volkay at December 9, 2004 6:03 PM