I'm treading on Paul Hue territory with this one, but I just have to ask; Barry Bonds, as well as many of his supporters in the black community have repeatedly claimed that Bonds is being singled out and punished for his "alleged" (yeah, right) steroid use because of the color of skin (I think you could add into the equation the fact that the guy's a real *sshole too). If that is indeed the case, then how would Mr. Bonds, or anyone else for that matter explain Mark McGwire's shunning by the baseball world?
Based solely on his career numbers and on that wonderful, breathtaking and emotionally-charged home run race he had with Sammy Sosa in 1998, he should have been a first ballot Hall of Fame shoe-in. Instead, not only was he rejected by the HOF voters, but now this.
My personal opinion is that McGwire should be excluded from the HOF, as should Bonds. They obviously both cheat/cheated and their form of cheating has greatly exaggerated their personal stats and made a farce of the "National Pastime" and of the records set by past players.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It seems to me that some sports fans accept both of these bums, and some reject both of these bums, and that this acceptance/rejection ignores race. Overall, the Roger Marris record seems to be the one that people respect. As for the lifetime record, people seem to accept Hank Aaron's record, and seem likely to continue to do so after the new phony officially breaks it. My interest: zero. I feel gypped that I ever cared about the Mark McGwire record.
Bonds has not been found guilty of steroid use just like OJ was found "not guilty" of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman. In both cases, the Black man is guilty until proven innocent and even after being proven innocent.
Mark McGwire admitted to using performance enhancing drugs though not steroids. That's his own asterisk to bear.
And I don't give a damn about baseball either. It's like watching paint dry.
Black and white accused criminals in these situations are receiving exactly the same treatment, at least from honkies: all honkies believe that Bonds and McGuire have taken steroids, and that OJ and Robert Blake killed their alleged victim. Zero black/white discrepancy.
Legally in the US, there exists no such of a thing as "proven innocent", only proven "not guilty", which is a big difference, and applies only to the meting of governmental criminal penalties, not to each of us citizens reaching our own conclusions. Nadir here applies a very preposterous criteria, and one that he applies only when convenient to his socio-political views. For example, though Bush II has never been found "guilty" in a court of law, Nadir is 100% certain that Bush is guilty of more crimes than can fit on the internet, as he constantly informs us. Conversely, Nadir refrains from applying this standard -- adopting as his own opinion whatever a court decides -- to people officially found guilty, such as Leonard Peltier and the black teen guy convicted of consensual sex with this honkey girlfriend. Nor does he apply this standard to the original Rodney King cop court ruling, which found them "not guilty". Nadir certainly opposes that ruling.
To carry Nadir's view here to another level of absurdity, consider that whereas the criminal court found him "not guilty" (which Nadir thinks means "innocent"), a civil court found him "responsible".
Thus in Nadir's mind, "OJ is innocent" because a criminal court found him "not guilty" and criminal courts are infallible (but civil courts are not, and neither was the Rodney King criminal court), but Leonard Peltier is "innocent", despite the unfair conclusion of a court.
I offer my own approach to these matters as the only reasonable one: I examine cases for my own and reach my own conclusion. Thus I believe that sometimes courts let guilty people free, and sometimes imprison innocent people.
"Legally in the US, there exists no such of a thing as "proven innocent", only proven "not guilty", which is a big difference, and applies only to the meting of governmental criminal penalties, not to each of us citizens reaching our own conclusions."
So should I have said, 'In both cases, the Black man is guilty until proven not guilty and even after being proven not guilty'? Fine. I'll put it that way, if the semantics make you feel better.
Both men have not only been tried in the court of public opinion, but have faced legal challenges after they have been cleared of all charges. This has not been the case with McGwire or with Robert Blake, but I'll address that later.
"For example, though Bush II has never been found "guilty" in a court of law, Nadir is 100% certain that Bush is guilty of more crimes than can fit on the internet, as he constantly informs us."
Fine. Indict him and see if he is guilty or not. That's exactly what I want. Put him in court. Put that motherscratcher on the stand and see what happens.
"Nor does he apply this standard to the original Rodney King cop court ruling, which found them "not guilty". Nadir certainly opposes that ruling."
America saw the evidence of that crime, Paul. Do YOU believe those cops were "not guilty"?
"To carry Nadir's view here to another level of absurdity, consider that whereas the criminal court found him "not guilty" (which Nadir thinks means "innocent"), a civil court found him "responsible"."
You're ignorant, Paul. At no time did I say that I think OJ is innocent or not guilty. He was found not guilty by the criminal court, but was tried in civil court (which should not have been allowed since another court had found him not guilty).
How could he be responsible if he was not guilty? This isn't about my opinion. It's common sense. It's about the double standards of the legal system and how public opinion can sway it.
McGwire admitted that he used performance enhancing drugs. Bonds has not. Bonds also hasn't been found guilty of using those drugs in tests. Yet public opinion finds him guilty just like it did OJ.
This has nothing to do with whether I believe either of them is guilty or not. It has to do with public perception.
The Baretta case is the same. The only difference is that Blake isn't Black. But I didn't include him because I talked about the Bonds and OJ situation, which have been compounded because of their race (and with Bonds because he is perceived to be an asshole by the media).
Did anyone sue Robert Blake and find him responsible? Is anyone hounding him for every dollar he makes like the Goldman family does OJ? No.
Perhaps Paul doesn't see a difference in how these cases played out, but I think it's obvious to anyone else who views it.
The Leonard Peltier case is a clear case of injustice because FBI agents admitted that there was no way for them to know who fired the weapon that killed the other agents, and there was no evidence linking Peltier to the weapon. He was found guilty presumably because someone had to be found guilty.
I also see the Peltier case as a continuation of the indigenous nations' war against the US government... a war which has resulted in the theft of native lands and the genocide of untold millions of people. The combatants at Wounded Knee were fighting in self defense on sovereign territory.
"I examine cases for my own and reach my own conclusion. Thus I believe that sometimes courts let guilty people free, and sometimes imprison innocent people."
This is the only thing that you said that I agree with. I feel the same way.
And don't worry, Six. McGwire will eventually get into the Hall of Fame. It will just have to wait until the steriod controversy dies down. Five years? A decade perhaps?
Nadir writes:===============
You're ignorant, Paul. At no time did I say that I think OJ is innocent or not guilty. He was found not guilty by the criminal court, but was tried in civil court (which should not have been allowed since another court had found him not guilty). How could he be responsible if he was not guilty?
============================
*I'm* ignorant? Yet it is you who here finds a contradiction between criminal prosecutions and civil actions, who believes that a finding of "not guilty" in a criminal court should exclude a civil action, I suppose on the grounds of double-jeopardy, and who is unaware of the different standards in criminal court (guilt beyond reasonable doubt) and civil court (responsible via preponderance of evidence). Among many important differences, the state seeks to imprison the defendant, in the other a private citizen seeks to be "made whole". For the state to take your liberty, it requires a higher standard than for the state to make you pay damages. Thus the same set of evidence even for the same jury (if the same jury hypothetically stood for both types of cases) could result in "not guilty beyond a reasonably doubt" but "responsible via a preponderance of evidence."
Yes, I believe that Rodney King's cops were guilty.
And before Mark McGuire admitted to steroids, the same fraction of people believed that he was guilty of this as do now believe the same of Bonds, at least amongst honkies.
Though all honkies believe that both Blake and OJ are guilty people who got off, for a variety of reasons OJ's situation draws much more attention. For one thing, OJ was the greatest and most famous at what he did, whereas Blake was not. Also, Blake lacked a huge segment of society proclaiming his innocence, cheering (literally) his getting off, and condemning those who booed as "racists". If Blake was Marlon Brando, and somehow managed to get 12% of the population behind him as OJ did, Blake would surely still receive derision.
Post a Comment