The Pink Elephant in the Center of the Diamond

Politics and sports go hand in hand. If it wasn't for politics, who would care about the Olympics? There is another side to politics and sport, the side that leaves an ugly reflection upon society, and asks questions about the very fabric of who we are. An issue in sport has divided the nation in this way the past 3 - 5 years, and that issue is steroids, which Barry Bonds being the figurehead for cheating in baseball. Now, through the Mitchell Report, we have come to learn of many others (ex. Roger Clemens) using similar performance enhancing products in the same time frame as Barry Bonds, but without the same anger as we saw with Bonds. Is that fair? Why does society point out one person, without the other, and who is to blame for this behavior?

Fairness is a tough thing to tackle, because life is not fair, and the world of sports is no different. We get lost in the ambiance of sport. Everything within the white lines operates in such an organized manner, that the games have the ability to take us away from our everyday lives and for three hours get lost in the joy of a children's game. The simplicity of the rules provides balance and order that we do not find in the other sectors of our lives.

Now I am not convicting Roger Clemens, or any other player named in the Mitchell Report guilty of anything, besides being mentioned in the Mitchell Report. Just being named in a report does not correlate to guilt in any court, besides the court of public opinion. Barry Bonds has been convicted by the court of public opinion a long time ago. So I ask, what makes Roger Clemens or any other player so different from Barry Bonds. We all know Bonds has been vilified by writers, reporters, fans, and even a book, as the monstrous face of the steroid problem in baseball. Now we see it was a systemic problem with more monsters than Richard Matheson's "I am Legend" novel, with no one in the baseball front office willing to play the Robert Neville character.

Who is to blame for the horrific injustice in the arena of sport? The politics for king-makers are not created by the diamond. The sportscasters, radio shock jocks, and even sports reporters have decided long ago Barry Bonds is public enemy number one. And other the other side of the spectrum Roger Clemens always got a pass, the golden ticket as you will to play the white knight that represents baseball and America at its best. Clemens played the symbol of the product of hard work. While the diamond creates stars and even legends amongst peers and fans, the villains are created somewhere else. In our need to jeer or boo. We feel the need to put some, like Clemens on the pedestal, while we let the monsters feast on players like Bonds. Here is the catch, we are the monsters!

In Political News, Where is THE ISSUE?

If you have read the newspaper or the headlines for online news feeds in the last few days, most of the major United States domestic news has been aimed at providing coverage of the superficially over-hyped, presidential race for 2008. The way major news headlines have told us everything we have ever wanted to know about the candidates lives, views on issues and more, but my dissatisfaction is not with the amount of candidate coverage. My dissatisfaction lies on the notion that the most important domestic/international topic is no longer getting covered in today's news, and that is the war in the Middle East. Maybe everyone is tired of talking about and reporting on a war that doesn't seem like it is on the road to resolution anytime soon, but that is the exact reason why we need to continue to make this front page news! As long as the United States continues to send 18 and 19 year old men and women to a region of the world to enforce a political agenda, the war in the Middle East should continue to remain a front page headline.

Higher Education Indoctrination

Last week (November 1st) a discussion topic on Glenn Beck (CNNHN) was debated on the state of higher education, and if modern universities are not educating now just indoctrinating.  The topic that was up for debate, and venomously opposed by Mr. Beck's program was the orientation of new students into the university housing (dorm) system and the accepted university definitions of several life terms and experiences.  The terms that were taken exception to were the definition for what/who is racist, and understanding sexual identity.  Now these are very complex issues that could be discussed as dissertation topics, but they chose to give an editorial commentary on Mr. Beck's television program.  Mr. Beck's conclusion stated that the universities have gone away from institutions of higher learning, and now are houses for left-winged, pro-socialist, anti-American professors attempting to indoctrinate young minds.  In response to these claims I will discuss these assertions to the best of my ability.

First, Mr. Beck had two guests on the program to discuss the state of modern universities and the educational practices thereof, but neither contributor to the program was a higher education professional nor were they a higher education researcher of any kind.  What type of adequate debate can take place when only one side of the argument is represented?  There was an independent film maker and the President of FIRE (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) on dare I say a panel.  The university in question was the University of Delaware, and their housing practices, but this isn't really about them.  This is about the way they are dissecting a program to single out the parts that they don't like.  Glenn Beck made a statement "that as tuition paying parents we've got to change that. (That being the composition of university faculty and staff that as he put it were pro-socialist, anti-Americans going unchecked.)"  What about writing a tuition check for your son or daughter makes you entitled to the hiring practices of that institution? If I go to Best Buy to purchase a television, I do not get to comment on their corporate structure.  I can complain about poor service.  I can start shopping at Circuit City, but I cannot tell Best Buy who they can and cannot hire.  Maybe this is for another discussion?  The state of American money and the entitlement people feel by spending it, I just want to remind everyone that no one makes you go to a certain school or store.  If you don't like what you are getting in one place, you can go to the next.

So some parents feel uncomfortable that their children have to learn about some difficult topics when they get to college, but isn't that what college is for?  To make the point that some people are offended by the definition of a racist, should be moot.  In the resident training program from the university in question (Delaware), a racist is a person who resides in and profits from a racist society.  So by this definition an African American, in America, cannot be a racist, because African Americans do not and have not profited in any form of the American racial hierarchy.  This may be an uncomfortable topic of discussion for many, but that doesn't make it untrue.  In our modern society, we like to embrace our 'oneness'.  We celebrate our diversity, by having unity weeks and diversity pride parades (gay pride, black family reunion, Latino pride, etc.), but we don't discuss how the wealth of our society has been unevenly distributed throughout the history of this country.  If you happen to be someone who came from a group of people that could not own land or had to be subject to Jim Crow laws until recently, your outlook on racial disparity has to be different from the people who are trying to live it down.  

Also on this topic, we must understand the difference between a racist, and a person who is prejudice.  They are discussing being racist.  Someone can be ashamed of a system in which a hierarchy had been created, that they themselves had nothing to do with and not embrace it, but that does not make that person exempt from profiting from the history of what was created.  To be or display prejudice, would be the thinking or acting on preconceived beliefs about one's race, gender, sexual orientation.  That is different from racism, and we all know the power is in the definition.  It is a weird thing in American society to discuss race, because for so long it was broken down into two groups.  You were either white or black.  One was acceptable, and the other was not.  Now, as a society we have come a great distance from that time in history, but we must not forget that the era of civil rights was just 40 years ago.  You cannot just wash away a history of behavior in one generation, and a society that is still operating on terms that have been in place for hundreds of years.  He want to forget the mistreatment of people in our society.  We want to relieve ourselves of the guilt that we feel for this American holocaust, by saying things are different now, and they are, but that doesn't change the things that took place.  Just because we feel guilty, doesn't exempt someone from it.  That is the purpose of a university is to challenge thoughts, that you may not embrace or accept, but that does not make them any less real.

The university experience as a whole, IS AN INDOCTRINATION, but that does not make it negative!  It is the indoctrination for young adults into adulthood.  Many of the ideas that circulate around in institutions of learning are not parallel to the ideas that the average high school student take for granted, nor are they always the accepted ideas that would be thought at your home.  Why do you think that universities are their own entities with university villages or college towns?  It is because you are not at home anymore in your suburb that made you so comfortable.  University is about expanding your mind, not just expanding your wallet.  So many people believe that college is simply about earning a degree to get a job.  It is not!  It is a place of learning on many levels, and in some cases learning some things that are not so comfortable for you to talk about.  Now the university experience is not perfect, but nothing in life is perfect.  If we are at a place in society that we are complaining that our children are forced to hear things we are uncomfortable with, we as a society are doing a lot of things wrong, and that does not start and stop with the university system.

Blood Thirsty

Michael Vick has recently done something he has become very comfortable doing, NO I'm not talking about dogfighting! I'm talking about his ability to create a stir while being altogether unique. Previously when the public would speak on the one-of-a-kind talent of Vick, it was understood that they were speaking of an unquestionably gifted football star. Now they are speaking of an infamous felon, who took the lives of dogs that did not meet his fighting expectations.

What brings us to this point? A debate on the legality of dogfighting? No. The story of a fallen superstar to which society has built up on a pedestal because of his freakishly stunning football talents? No. A discourse from PETA about the treatment of animals in this country? Maybe. The lessons we continue to learn and find out about ourselves, and the gruesome society we live in? YES! Getting down to it, Michael Vick's actions are difficult to stomach, but not as horrible as we make them out to be. Is he the person that many sports fans have come to cheer and respect as a upstanding young man? The answer is not as clear as we would like to think, it is yes and no.

To put a spin on the angry Dennis Green rant "they are who we thought they were", only in this case we feel the hurt and anger in the voices of fans because Michael Vick wasn't the man everyone thought he was. I would argue exactly the opposite.  We as football fans never knew him off the field.  " He was who we thought he was" on the field, an electrifying talent that brought fans to their feet and opposing defenses to their knees.  A young player striving to reach his potential, in a sport very few get a chance to play at the highest level.  Off the field is a different story.  We as fans, invest so much in the sporting experience, we forget some of the most basic concepts that come along with that investment.  

We do not know these athletes as well as we think we do. While we cheer and jeer our sports superstars, sometimes we forget they are just people who live lives away from their game.  We appreciate the passion and remarkable talents they display on their craft every game.  We understand the type of work ethic and drive that one must possess to reach the higher echelon  of professional sports success.  Many of us would have to admit that the level of passion they describe is lacking in our everyday lives.  Outside of the stage known as professional sports, many of the athletes live rather normal lives.  A house with a wife (or husband), several kids, and managing all of the daily tasks that come with those responsibilities.  All of us, that means everyone, has done things that we are not happy with.  Everyone has had to overcome a few disappointments along the journey we call life, and overcoming those disappointments is what measures to be judged upon, not the mistakes, because we all fall down every once in a while.

Everything to Everyone

As most of you know, I work at a mid-sized university of 15 thousand students.  For some, this is a very rewarding experience, but for me I want to bang my head against the wall due to utterly unnecessary initiatives I am subjected to in Director's meetings.  The newest plan of action is to create an Inter-faith council, and give them a large office space on campus in the university center.  I am not against formalized religion, even though I do not subscribe to one, but why would you create that type of group for a university campus?  Beyond the obvious concerns of what faiths make up their Inter-faith council, and the dangers of discriminating the less popular or accepted, it makes one ask, what is the goal of the modern university?  Why are modern American universities trying to become everything to everyone?

The university must ask within itself, "what is our mission?"  If the mission of the modern university is to enlighten young minds with learner-centered teaching, public engagement, intellectual freedom, multiculturalism, why would you promote a one-sided way of thinking by introducing religion?  Religion is not the enemy of higher education by a long shot.  I just feel that introducing "university approved" religions would send the wrong message to the students that did not practice them.  How can you go about spouting off comments of multiculturalism and intellectual freedom, and then introduce old-hat philosophy like a government/school/official set of religious practice on campus?

 People that go to a restaurant and have appreciate a nice bottle of wine would let you know, that if you fill half the bottle with water, the wine will not be any good.  That is how I feel about the modern university structure we are trying to move toward in our society.  We are filling the bottle with water, and not concentrating on what makes the university such a special experience.  A university is an environment with open doors and open minds that provides a platform for social discourse, which creates a learning unique to any other stage in life.  Anything less than that, should not be tolerated, but I guess we can no longer ask for excellence.  In a society that puts more emphasis on convenience over substance, I may just have to settle for the watering down of American institutions that continue to fall behind the rest of the world.

What Does a New Jail or Prison Fix?

I want you to ponder this question, what does a new jail or prison actually fix? I ask you this because we as Americans are so quick to impose a tax to build a new jail or sentence convicted citizens to lengthy terms, that we actually forget about the rehabilitation process. I want to know what you think about what jails and prisons actually fix.

~Lew

Who gets a Pass?

Maybe it is just me, but I notice on a very regular basis that steroids sparks divisive conversation. And on almost every instance the name Barry Bonds comes up. "What do you think about Barry?" "How do you feel about Barry breaking the record?" I think I depress the question askers with every response. "I am not only happy to see the greatness that is an athlete eclipsing a great milestone like the homerun record, I could not be happier for Barry Bonds!" Amidst all of the controversy and troubles he can still achieve great things. To me this is a display of the best of human spirit, if we believe it we can achieve it. I have read reporters calling Barry a fraud and a cheater, but to me I can only see him as great. A man who has never tested positive of anything gets defined as a cheater and a fraud, but others in his profession and around professional sports get a pass. Why is that?

How can someone, anyone define the greatest player since Willie Mays (if not ever?) as a fraud? A player that has accomplished so many things in his career, in comparison, I would be willing to bet that none of the naysayers (be it fans or journalists) have accomplished anywhere near that much in their own careers! A record as difficult as 755 homeruns certainly does not come over night, and it doesn't come from the tip of a needle. Only hard work, twenty plus years of standout play, and a passion to be the best you can possibly be can result in that many home runs. A player with the most 30+ homerun seasons, tied for the most 40+ homerun seasons, and the single season homerun record seems like a player one could hardly accuse of the lack of a credible resume.

So if Barry is a fraud? What defines a fraud? Last year one of the freshest faces in sports tested positive for performance enhancing drugs and the sporting news community laughed it off like hiccup. How does Shawne Merriman test positive for steroids, then go on to be the cover boy for ESPN the Magazine the next issue? Is he not a fraud? Or is it simply that they like Shawne Merriman, and reporters have an axe to grind with Barry? I don't ever want to hear any praise for a player that tests positive for steroids, but is excused because the press like him, if they can't give the same respect to another player that has never tested positive of anything besides arrogance. We see the power of the press everyday, with the way a good writer can influence the beliefs of so many readers. I want to see the end of irresponsible reporting, not on the behalf of Barry Bonds, but the improvement of public knowledge. There is nothing more powerful than ignorance, and nothing sounds more ignorant than someone trying to tell me that Barry Bonds isn't the greatest player of my time.

Blood on Their Hands

You don't have to be a sports fan to know that superstar quarterback Michael Vick has recently been indicted on several felony counts for sponsoring dogfighting. You also don't have to be a sports fan to recognize the gruesome details that are described inside the indictment. All of us are pet owners or have family/friends with pets, and the thought of dogfighting and dog executions is absolutely despicable, but this piece isn't about Michael Vick or his alleged guilt, it is about the rest of us. The blood of these dogs fighting is on more hands than this high profile football player, what about the legions of those people? I am speaking of the ability for our society to assign value to certain lives over others and the way we delegate our prison system for punishment instead of rehabilitation.

I am certain that the federal indictment is going to turn into Michael Vick vs. everyone (including angry fans, pet lovers, general public), which should be okay with Vick because that is how every Atlanta Falcons game I have seen turns out. Vick is the best at ducking, dodging and running his way out of trouble in the pocket, now we are going to see if his legal team can scramble to save the way he does on the football field. If they don't scramble enough he could get sacked, and this time it will be for years not yards!

Lets say he gets convicted. Should he serve time in prison for the punishment of this crime? The prison system carries the name of "correctional facility" as a moniker for the mission of incarcerating convicted criminals. Would sending Michael Vick to prison under this definition help his rehabilitation process as a productive member of society? The fact is that, he is already a productive member of society. He gives to charities and spends his time in children's hospitals in Atlanta. Prison by definition is designed to remove the predators from within the mist, those individuals who cannot function within societal norms. These predators would be murders, rapist, thieves, not just any person convicted of a crime. Why the thirst for the sight of rich young people going to prison, I can see no other reason for our thirst than our jealously! Michael Vick should pay a hefty fine, have some term of probation, and go about his business of playing football.

On the other behalf, people will scream and chant about poor Fido, but in the grand scheme of things this is a victimless crime. How did we as such a 'civilized' society provide a hierarchy for what animals carry more importance than others? What is acceptable animal treatment, and what is excess animal cruelty? How in the world did training a dog to fight become worse than bullfighting? We all know how that story ends... the bull dies. Not only does the bull die, but is humiliated in front of an audience while some guy dressed in frills waves a red sheet and after he tires the bull out he stabs him with sword. I personally cannot contain my excitement when the bull wins! Most will argue that due to cruelty laws bullfighting is not done in the states, that is true, but we do have horse racing. I do not remember ever hearing that the horse had a choice whether he (or she for the phillies) wanted to run in the races. If they don't perform well they can't stud, which is a whole other conversation, they go to the "glue factory". So who is going to argue that it is natural or optional for a horse to run in circles with a 145 pound person on their back while hitting them with a stick?

We need to stop being so stupid as a society! We like watching horses run, and that is why it is legal to bread horses to race. We don't like watching Fido get chomped by the bigger, badder dog across the street and that is why dogfighting is illegal. So lets put away the torches and pitchforks, Michael Vick is not going to kill your Fido!

My Broken Heart Over Our Broken Health Care

The conversation of a national health care plan has been a subject up for debate in this country for a long time. The problem with the debate has been and for the most part still today, viewed by the nation, as socialist reformers. The threat of another "RED SCARE" is enough to keep conservatives and liberals alike voting against a national expansion of government like health care! Socialism is a curse word in this country and the the detractors of a national health care system use it as such to keep us, the voters, afraid of embracing a better way to care for other Americans, with and without preexisting health care coverage. Should profit be at the crux of a health care plan? Is there a better way?


I hate to think that a movie is needed to prompt a discussion on the necessity for a national health care system. Michael Moore's latest film "Sicko" highlights a vital concern over the United States health care system, not just for the uninsured, but for the people who think they are insured as well. While I am sure most certain that Moore's editorial film speaks of his concerns and the way he views the ills of the American health care system. I think a few points he makes, especially about the rise of the HMO (health maintenance organization), are valid for all Americans to take notice. Just because you may be insured, does not mean you are covered.


How could the United States, the world's strongest economic center, be lacking in the field of medical care? The insinuation of anything less than the best or the greatest infuriates the policy makers of this country with the vast amount of resources at our disposal. Unfortunately, that is what we have in the modern age of medicine. American citizens having to sell their house, because they cannot pay their hospital bills. Young couples going broke, before they get a chance to build a financial base, due to the expenses attached to having a baby. Did you know that the number one reason for bankruptcy and foreclosure on homes in this country is due to people's inability to pay their medical bills? I am not saying that I don't believe in getting paid for an honest day of work, but what is honest about putting someone out of their home? If the motto for all those who choose to practice medicine is "do no harm", I guess they are not speaking of harm to your wallet.


The common defenses of our system is the American ability to choose your own doctor, and the luxury to have the top pharmaceutical companies be able to make products in the U.S. That is great! Companies with strong financial outlooks aid the American economy, but since when did it become okay for pharmaceutical companies to hold our nation hostage? Great Britain (which has 2 of the 8 most profitable pharmaceutical companies) has federally subsidized prescription drug prices and a national health care plan that allows doctors to work in subsets of 9, and the British citizens are allowed to choose the group or subset from which they receive medical care. This system still provides the doctors the ability to live with a modest income that keeps themselves in a BMW and their wives in Aston Martins. Why couldn't that system be here?

The rush of animosity from the idea of the socialization of any private service, will bring a nice stir to a debate between liberals and conservatives, liberals and liberals and conservatives and conservatives. If anyone has watched the posturing between the Democrats in their campaigns and speeches, they can see that there is no congruent plan between any two people. Maybe all of the issues begin with our ego? Our big American, everything we do is the best, ego. We cannot admit defeat in combat, and now we cannot concede in policy administration either. Big Brother is going to run our lives, if we let them run healthcare, first by making us live longer and healthier, then by putting more money back in our pocket. How Horrible!

Changing Gears

There have been a few things that have gone on in my life and the world around me since I have last written in my blog. Due to some of these circumstances and instances, I am going to begin to take my writings in a different direction for a while. I have not fell out of love with sports and the sporting news, but I feel that I need to change gears for a while and talk about some things that may matter on a larger scale than sporting arguments. So I hope you appreciate some of the newer topics that will be discussed by this posting, and I hope that this will encourage further discussion on message boards and homes across America.

Lew

To The Principal's Office Young Man

Lately, every time I turn to the sports page in the newspaper, or tune into my favorite satellite station (which is ESPN) I have to see a picture of the NFL's version of the perp walk. A young black man being called to go meet with the NFL Commissioner due to behavioral issues unbecoming a professional football player. Could this be true? Professional athletes that exhibit disruptive behavior towards society due to lifestyle choices, money, women and fame. Or is this just another way of the NFL's mob-like control over its employees? These issues are all important, but when did the highest official in the NFL become the hall monitor?

I have grown up in a time of several strong and great commissioners in professional sports. Lasting impressions will be imprinted on society for generations to come with the rapid expansion of the NBA under David Stern and the NFL with Paul Tagliabue which pushed the NFL and the NBA into America's mainstream. I mean that in a sense that goes beyond viewership and participation, but these sports have corporate global dominance that spans different ethnic markets and demographics now like never before. And like all businesses, when the focus is on money and not the people the business serves, there is a divide between interest. The common fan is ignorant to the business of football, and the common player is out of touch with the common fan.

The average ticket holding fan for a professional sporting event in the US would most likely be an upper-middle class Caucasian male, who pay a generous amount of money for their entertainment at these sporting events. While one can't help but notice the demographic of the playing surface be it grass, turf, or the hardcourt is noticeably tilted towards African-Americans and players from over seas. So with the understanding of those readily identifiable differences why would you patronize your product by drawn out public beatings and persecutions?

In the NBA you draft high school kids at the age of 18 and 19 with little marketable education and job skills from neighborhoods that would make Uma Thurman from Kill Bill nervous, and have the nerve to attack the way they dress. David Stern how do you expect them to dress? Many of these kids were poor with no father figure in sight and you expect them to show up in to the gym in a suit and tie. I for one, am not okay with your image problem that was created by greedy NBA executives not the kids. We have probably all heard the phrase that "you will never learn to be a man unless you get to see a man." That statement couldn't ring more true than for some of our young brothers in the NBA.

In American sports now football is king. King does not rest in the offseason either. Most of the press of the king of American sports in the spring and into the summer is simply offseason speculation, trades, and now the new dynamic of which player is getting in trouble. This offseason Michael Vick has been courted by the newly crowned commissioner of the NFL, as well as Pacman Jones (who has the worst nickname in sports), Tank Johnson (whose name is the best--a defensive tackle with the name Tank, come on) and the Bengals WR Chris Henry. All of the aforementioned players have gone to meet with the commish, and all besides Michael Vick have been disciplined by the league, and by league I mean Roger Giddell the commissioner.

Which brings me back to the main question of this article. When did the commissioner's office become the principle's office for professional athletes? The NFL's press release of the job criteria states that "a commissioner’s role is to exercise broad administrative or judicial authority. More specifically, the NFL Commissioner manages the business affairs of the league and is its most visible representative." It even goes as far to state that a conflict between a player and ownership is a conflict of interest. So how did we get here? Now we are in a state of 1984 like dictatorship by the NFL and its management officials. I can tell you how, CONTROL! This is the same league that offers the most violence this side of boxing and the UFC, and doesn't offer its participants guaranteed contracts. If you do what we like, we will pay you, if you don't we can cut you. As we can see that mentality stretches all the way to the top.

I think this mentality sounds like something that comes from the Sopranoes. And we have all seen that Tony is in a bit of trouble on that end of the spectrum. Even Rome fell, with all their advantages and superiority over their competition, overstretching their means caused their collapse as well. For the record, I love football and i don't want it to collapse, but I do believe they should treat their players better! And lastly, I did intentionally leave MLB's Bud Selig out of that conversation above. He got the chance to preside over baseball which has been a part of the American fabric in this society for over a hundred years. I just think he should take up for his players more too. If in the business world, you are your product, shouldn't you support that product?

Being Great Just Isn't That Great: Ask Lebron

As a little boy, all I dreamt of was being a great professional baseball player. I saw that as the fulfillment of talent and promise and hard work. That was long ago and that dream has long since been dashed, but that does not take away the joy of watching sports, especially at a high level. Last night I watched Lebron James (the brightest light in the NBA) and I could not help but feel sad for the young man because nothing he does is ever nor will ever be good enough.

For four years now, Lebron has been the beacon of hope the NBA has been wishing for. A dashingly handsome young face with excellent marketing potential that exudes superiority and god-given talent. Someone to fill the void left by Michael Jordan. Lebron is all of that and maybe a little bit more. Several weeks removed from his high school prom in northern Ohio, he was giving professional players some different types of moves.

We the fans have very distinct and vivid memories of the 90's Bulls crushing teams in their way of victory records and NBA title after title, but very few remember the tongue waging days of early Jordan when the Bulls didn't have a ice cube's chance in hell of beating the Pistons and Celtics. Even more rare is the memory of MJ being the 3rd or 4th scoring option on a loaded North Carolina team when he first stepped on the college campus.

Our heir apparent hero Lebron didn't even attempt to take his game to the NCAA level, yet he is in constant comparison with his draft class (Dwyane Wade, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, etc...) all of which at least went to college, some only for one year. Writers and commentators do their comparisons and Lebron compares favorably in every category, besides the category of public opinion.

ESPN's Mike Wilbon has found an excuse at every turn to why he can't anoint Lebron as an elite player. At first it was a lack of a body of work in the Playoffs. Then he was great in the playoffs, but Dwyane Wade won the championship, so Dwyane is better. If that was the criteria of greatness, Karl Malone and Charles Barkley would never be recognized as all-time greats, and Robert Horry would be on an equal plain with Michael Jordan, seeing that they both have six championships.

We live in an age of very high expectations. Not just our athletes, but all celebrities in general (sometimes going as far as calling them role models). And when you are dubbed the greatest thing since sliced bread, you better have a pretty shard knife. In his defense, Lebron's knife couldn't be sharp enough. With every dazzling dribble, dish, and dunk I like probably every other fan is more amazed by the great talent he possesses, but he wasn't blessed with a teammate like Scotty Pippen or Shaq, so no rings yet. He doesn't have the bitterness of witnessing a parent go through the troubles of stardom like Barry Bonds or Kobe Bryant. He just happens to be a kid with a kid's outlook on his beautiful game, and that will never be enough for his detractors. When he finally wins a championship, he won't have six. If he wins six, he won't have nine. Unless Lebron becomes the Tiger Woods of basketball and crushes every record imaginable he will have to face the fact that being great just isn't good enough for the chasm that is created by expectation. The way I see it, Lebron is learning slowly that being great just isn't that great all the time.

Cornerstone of Cheaters

In the past several years, in all mediums of media, I have seen and heard an assortment of comments about the state of baseball and the way Barry Bonds is ruining the Great American Pastime. Is it a racial issue? Is it a general mob mentality issue? Is it the nostalgic aspect of yesteryear invading our adult memories? I am going to answer those questions for you. Yes.

Yes to all of the concerns. Is Barry a generally good samaritan that is getting a bad rap? No he is not a charity case, and Barry doesn’t want to be, but he is on the other end of the stick when it comes to the courthouse of public opinion. I am not saying a black man cannot be treated fairly in the world of sports in the United States. I am saying that it just doesn’t help.

Everything in sports that we read, listen to and watch is commented on by sports media on a daily basis. Whether it is whatever medium (TV, radio, print, internet) and the media personnel want insight. Everyone wants to break the story. Barry has been the guy to never give the media that glimpse into his life, his story. Now, being that closed off has brought us to this. A public Barry Bonds vendetta killing in full display with the guise of it being all about integrity of the game instead of what it really is… displaced anger towards a guy they (media) think is a jerk.

There have been polls and votes to tabulate who wants to see Barry Bonds break the most significant record in sports, Hank Aaron’s career homerun mark. The findings prove that very few people, if any, want to see this accomplishment get achieved. Need we not forget that there was an even more vigorous display of hatred for Hank Aaron to pass Babe Ruth. The people tend to simply forget that the 60s and 70s wasn’t so long ago and things have changed, but not to the extent we want to celebrate.

The players in the 60s, 70s, or 80s were not saints, they were just ballplayers. So why can’t people move on from the fact that Barry is not alone. Did he use steroids? He probably did. So what? He definitely doesn’t stand alone in that category. Why hasn’t anyone come out to say “put an asterisk on the MVP Ken Caminiti won in 1996”? He admitted to being a steroid and cocaine abuser. This proved to catch up to him when he died suddenly a few years ago. So if Barry has been convicted by the court of public opinion of his doing why can’t the public acknowledge that he is one of many and there is no way to single him out as the cornerstone of cheaters? What about all the pitchers that were juiced that he hit homeruns off of? What about all the base stealers that stole more bases? What about all the hits that were robbed by juiced infielders that got more range up the middle? Where does it end? It ends with the realization that Barry Bonds is the greatest player of his era. His era just might have happened to be juiced.