Major League Baseball-- Congressional hearings, chemical steroids, political steroids, moral steroids, Mark McGuire, Curt Schilling, Jose Canseco, and so-on.

March 17, 2005--

Major League Baseball-- Congressional hearings, chemical steroids, political steroids, moral steroids, Mark McGuire, Curt Schilling, Jose Canseco, and so-on.

In baseball, as in life, too few of us (i.e., we, not just they) live up the the standards we want for those who serve (wittingly or not) as "role models" for our children. Some of us try harder than others, but all of us fail. Some famous athletes (and most "celebrities") complain that it's "not fair" to demand that they behave as "role models." Life's not fair, and such complaint falls like a whimpering whisper on the drums of my hears hardened by the roar of self-indulgent, narcissistic celebrity.

Too few great athletes exhibit great moral responsibility on a par with their athletic prowess. For me, Cal Ripken represents the Gold Standard. If there are "moral steroids," he must have taken them. We can't expect everyone to be "Cal Ripken," but we can expect, and should demand (as consumers) that those to whose athletic prowess or celebrity status we pay financial homage are at least trying not to offend our values.

Are there many who fail to sink to the lowest standards? Of course. It's unjustifiable to imply that "most" baseball players (or most professional athletes) use steroids, commit crimes, or behave in other forms of patently offensive conduct. However, it is fair to judge the rest by how, and to what extent, they use their own celebrity to combat the abuses by others of the privileges celebrity brings.

Everyone hates lawyers (of which I am one)-- what everyone really does is hate everyone else's lawyer but not his own. (This is only a mild exaggeration.) I concede also that in too many respects on too many occasions, some us who occasionally achieve a platform larger than an individual case behave in ways that deserve reprobation rather than approbation. However (this may shock you), among all the "self-governing" professions, the legal profession is light-years ahead of the others. What makes the system work is that the vast majority of lawyers understand that one of the ways that good men (calm down PC people-- I mean "men" in the sense of "mankind" or, if you insist "humankind.") distinguish themselves from bad men is by their willingness to separate themselves from the bad. In the legal profession, it's called "disbarment."

If professional sports want to regain public respect (and there's doubt they would prefer that over profits-- and I'm no anti-capitalist), then those who value such respect must begin separating themselves from those who lack such values. So what if the short-term consequences are a worse season. Would it be a challenge? Was it a challenge to storm the beaches at Normandy? Is anything that's really worth doing not a challenge?

Paradoxically, the congressional hearing today reminds one that politicians as a group tend as much as, if not more than, other groups to fall far below the standards of behavior they so pontifically demand of others. Yet an important function of politicians is to use "the bully pulpit" in the arena of public morality. I must concede that listening to Henry Waxman produces such a strong gag reflex that it requires extraordinary self-discipline to concede the rare occasions (like a broken clock twice a day) when what he says is at least partly right (or at least not patently ridiculous). Yet the real solution is not within the grasp or power of politicians.

What's the real solution to such problems? The problem is not solely in "them"-- it's in us. Until we as a society begin refusing to pay financial homage to those who offend our standards (i.e., until we stop automatically watching their games, going to their movies, listening to their music, etc.), all the regulation in the world will do nothing more than change the location through which the bad behavior will seep through the capillary effects of economic power. That we as consumers demand higher standards by refusing to patronize those who offend such standards is necessary to stiffen the spines of those who are in a position to cull the bad from the good.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.

About Archives (Old Archives) Contact Search PoliticalxRay/PoliSat.Com News Troops

Links Box for:

Mar. 17, 2005 #01 Daily Update at PoliSat.Com, where satire is always commentary, but commentary isn't always satire.™