Olbermann: "Say it ain't so, Big Mac"

by MJB on Mar 18, 2005 11:50 PM PST Comment 36 comments

Keith Olbermann has this great take on Thursday's congressional steroid circus, focusing mostly on McGwire of course.

If it hadn't been so tragic, so much like watching as cops fail to talk the guy out of jumping, McGwire's testimony would've been reminiscent of the old "Saturday Night Live" sketch about the Three Mile Island Nuclear accident. After President Jimmy Carter is exposed to a massive radiation dose, plant `spokesman' Richard Benjamin is asked "is it true that the president is 100 feet tall?" and replies with a mixture of mirth and disdain: "No! Absolutely not!" A second reporter then asks: "Is the president 90 feet tall?" and Benjamin replies "No comment."

More after the jump.

Olbermann perceptively points out that McGwire's testimony is not only the obvious slam on his Bash Brother, but that McGwire was calling Sosa, Palmeiro, Schilling, and Thomas liars as well:

"If a player answers, `No,' he simply will not be believed," McGwire said, doubtless to the surprise of Sosa and Palmeiro, who had just said no, and Curt Schilling and Frank Thomas, who immediately thereafter would. "If he answers, `Yes,' he risks public scorn and endless government investigations," which must've made the absent Jason Giambi feel like pretty much of a sap, and, oddly, which must also have made Jose Canseco feel surprisingly validated.

And Olbermann closes out by subtly hinting there might be a very, very good reason why McGwire alone wouldn't answer the did-you-or-didn't-you question:

There would be a lot of public scorn if you confessed. And the sea of history would close up over you and the year you had, and they might not vote you into the Hall of Fame, and your name would become synonymous with deception.

So, of the two remaining options, obviously the preferred one would be to refuse to say anything. That way, the sea of doubt would close up over you and the year you had, and they might not vote you into the Hall of Fame, and your name would become synonymous with evasion.

Apparently that stonewall choice was much better than saying "hell no, I didn't use them." Obviously, that's because...

Well, you know what? Sorry, I thought I had something to write here to explain why McGwire denying steroid use was somehow different and more dangerous than Sosa or Palmeiro or Thomas or Schilling doing so.

But that something seems suddenly to have escaped me.

Great stuff.

0 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Best one-liner of the whole mess...

On Real Time With Bill Maher (whom I despise for trying to pass himself off as a liberterian... but that's a topic for another blog) with regard to the Congressional grandstanding, Maher replied sardonically to one of the self-righteous politician's comments: "You might as well try to take weed out of Rap!"

Which pretty much sums up my opinion. Who cares if these guys take performance-enhancing drugs? And, what business is it of yours? They'll always do it. Even with the tougher testing standards of the Olympics, they still catch a few cheaters willing to risk it. A small percentage, no doubt... those without access to the more sophisticated masking methods or those who just didn't time it right.

I'd do it. You'd do it, too, if a $76 million contract in your walk year were at stake. And, all those Congresspersons would do it, too (and, not give a second thought to "the youth of America"). They are regularly corrupted for much less. The hypocrisy is astounding.

But, the anti-trust exemption is a two-edged sword, I guess. You don't see the NFL hauled before Congress, even though it has been a haven for steroid use for decades. Heaven forbid that Congress threaten to take away the cherished exemption from MLB. Then, the A's could move to San Jose! ;-) So, MLB must take its lumps and kowtow before their lords like good little serfs.

"I'm my biggest fan ..." Eric Byrnes

by FoolshGame22 on Mar 19, 2005 1:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Excellent post!

And, to throw in a quote myself: "Yes, and it counts!" ~ Marv Albert.

How refreshing to see a limited government position being taken in the forum; causes me to want to visit Cato this morning.

by LowcountryJoe on Mar 19, 2005 4:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

un-excellent post

It's thoroughly insulting to suggest that your readers would cheat (no, I wouldn't take steroids just to play mlb, I have a life and a little bit of pride). It is disgusting to suggest that steroids should just be considered part of the normal fabric of the game we (at least some of us) love. Man, when I read s#*t like that it makes me understand why our culture is going down the toilet.

by Brian in 317 on Mar 19, 2005 7:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting to see "inside" AN readers

Is it important that we give our time, money, and support to those positive things in life rather than the negative?
If we don't practice this what foulness do we then surround ourselves with?

I see players who made bad choices trying to be better.
I see owners tolerating that.
I see MLB ignoring a growing problem even when other sports have moved towards real self regulation.
I see a self righteous congress that includes some of the sleaziest unscrupled people to be found in US government.

Like any other chemicals, steroids used wrongly are just another poison that can damage the human body. As such, their manufacture, distribution and use needs to be regulated.

================= Friday's SFGate (Chronicle) Steroid effects: The body naturally produces steroids to help control... -- Stress associated with illness and injury -- Development of sexual characteristics -- Immune response -- Inflammation -- Metabolism -- Electrolyte balance

Medications -- Corticosteroids

Mimics the hormones cortisone and hydrocortisone, which help regulate the converting of protein to carbohydrates

Suppresses inflammation and reduces the symptoms of asthma and arthritis -- Birth control pills and hormone therapy

These drugs are similar to estrogen and progesterone -- Anabolic steroids

These are chemically similar to testosterone. Doctors prescribe them for sexual and growth disorders. Anabolic steroids are used illegally to increase muscle mass and strength

Side effects Hair loss (men) Enlarged breasts (men) Impotence (men) Facial hair (women) Voice deepens (women) Breasts shrink (women) Acne High blood pressure Increased cholesterol level Jaundice Aggressiveness Weight gain Blood clots Increased body hair Health risks Heart disease caused by the increase in cholesterol Makes liver vulnerable to damage and tumors Muscle tissue strengthens faster than tendons, elevating the risk for damage

Sources: Bantam Medical Dictionary, Chronicle research Chronicle staff writer Mark Fainaru-Wada contributed to this report. E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile@sfchronicle.com

=================

... a few less home runs won't hurt anyone

Can BB function on a rich team? Will A's payroll increase? Will A's wear "GAP" uniforms? Will A's build ultimate complex? Answers to these questions and more...

by A s Eh on Mar 19, 2005 1:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Couple of questions...

Didn't see depression and suicide of youthful abusers listed among the side effects. Wasn't that the reason behind the Congressional hearing? Or maybe those were just anecdotal stories by bereaved parents trying to find a "reason" for their child's death?
Where is the constitutional authority for the federal government to regulate drugs of any kind? Didn't they have to pass a constitutional amendment to regulate alcohol? Just curious.

"I'm my biggest fan ..." Eric Byrnes

by FoolshGame22 on Mar 19, 2005 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm just a fan like you, perhaps older...

as a fan in his mid-fifties I can say;

FG22 #1 ...despondent people that I have personally known/seen that successfully committed suicide, exhibited a strong self image of being inadequate and were predisposed to Alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and dependency. The linkage of steroids to suicide may be similar. In other words that comes down to the particular user.

FG22 #2 It is the duty of all goverments to protect it's citizens. Especially in those ways that only the goverment can succeed; Military, Post Office, Highways, Bridges, Safety, Freedoms & Rights, re-distribution of wealth, foreign policy, Law & order, Education... and yes, drug controls.

Can BB function on a rich team? Will A's payroll increase? Will A's wear "GAP" uniforms? Will A's build ultimate complex? Answers to these questions and more...

by A s Eh on Mar 19, 2005 10:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Only slightly older...

While I agree with what you said in response to FG22 #1, all I'm pointing out is that the parents and Congress are confusing correlation with causation. The parents, no doubt, innocently... but Congress more disingenuously. We've seen them do it before in the case of youthful suicides "associated" with music lyrics.

I mostly agree also with what you say in response to FG22 #2, as most of the "duties" you cite are express powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. But, re-distribution of wealth and drug controls are not among them!

"I'm my biggest fan ..." Eric Byrnes

by FoolshGame22 on Mar 20, 2005 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm a layman, not someone with college

governement or politics courses.

I see the government tax wages and businesses.

I see the government give the proceeds and/or tax exemptions to non-profits, educational orgs, religious orgs, native americans, amtrak, caltrans, Palestine, Israel, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, United Nations, World Bank, One-eyed Salamaders and Profit Making Corporations.

I call it re-distribution of wealth because that is what it accomplishes. Is it unconstitutional? If it is, ...it has been so for over 70 years.

-------------------------------------------------
Regarding Drugs. Go through any poor district of any large city in America. Walk through downtown SF as night comes and the transients set up their beds for the night come. Unregulated over the counter access to drugs & pharmaceuticals just isn't a realistic or good idea for a country like ours as it currently is. While I'd really like to believe that Americans are capable of exercising sound judgement and discriminatory use the derelicts of the streets and the persistent DUIs remind me just how bad an idea it is.

For that reason, to protect the rest of society from these irresponsible few, it is good to require prescriptions that regulate doses and promote safer use when a drug is an intelligent option.

How many kids get on steroids if you need a doctor's prescription?

I've heard most of the arguments but really, is Amsterdam such a great place to raise a family? I want my grandkids street smart, but that requires they stay alive and have enough brains left to be so.

Can BB function on a rich team? Will A's payroll increase? Will A's wear "GAP" uniforms? Will A's build ultimate complex? Answers to these questions and more...

by A s Eh on Mar 20, 2005 2:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The power to levy taxes...

was always constitutional. However, an income tax was declared unconstitutional in 1895. Unfortunately, the Constitution was amended (16th Amendment ratified in 1913) to allow income taxes. The explosion of the federal government followed. And, as you correctly observe, re-distribution of wealth has for purposes never envisioned has been the result. A sorry chapter in American history.

I'm not saying society doesn't have the right to regulate drugs. On a local or state level, that's okay with me, if that's what voters want to do. I'm just saying the federal government has usurped powers not granted to it. Personally, I think "the cure" is worse than the disease, since prohibition inevitably results in a black market controlled by the criminal element you decry.

"I'm my biggest fan ..." Eric Byrnes

by FoolshGame22 on Mar 20, 2005 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Steroids have medical purposes where they

serve us well.
A doctor's prescription isn't so hard to get when appropriate.

I like you I abhor big government - 50% of the population recieves some type of regular monthly income from our generous uncle.

Yet 50% of the population does not work!

The largess that gets under my skin most are the constant misdirection of funds from where they belong and how private enterprize is 10 x more efficient yet is forced to compete with government agencies.

Here is the single most effective item the government can do (and won't) that would benefit all economic levels of our society.

The government should drop employee taxes 50% for each add'l employee hired over the same quarter of the previous year. (Private enterprise only).

The way it works now employers are economically penalized for having employees. California seems to be a "leader" at this. We push business to other states and even other countries, ...ridiculous!

Can BB function on a rich team? Will A's payroll increase? Will A's wear "GAP" uniforms? Will A's build ultimate complex? Answers to these questions and more...

by A s Eh on Mar 20, 2005 9:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

all politics is grandstanding

if congress is able to push through the kind of reform on steroids that bud selig can't because he can't break the union, so be it. better this than,

A. a cloud continuing to hang over the game so long as a toothless steroids policy exists

B. let's say that selig really does dig in and we have a lockout, and all of the sudden mlb is the new nhl.

i think the big revelation that will come of all this is that congress will whip something up and have a solid resolution in place in a couple of days. and then people will be like, "whoa, that was fast. how come our government can't get everything done that quickly. like everything they do takes forever and comes out half assed". all politics is grandstanding.

by mcbronsh on Mar 19, 2005 1:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Congress can legislate all it wants...

It's worked so well in the "War on Drugs" there is no reason to expect such legislation won't be equally successful in this context.

"I'm my biggest fan ..." Eric Byrnes

by FoolshGame22 on Mar 19, 2005 1:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

So McGwire is the bad guy in all this?

So it's better to lie, and get away with it, than to refuse to lie and look stupid?

What am I missing here?

by Mission1929 on Mar 19, 2005 7:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

no grasshopper

it's what everyone ELSE is missing here (a conscience). If steroids do become the norm in mlbaseball, I will give it up (I've been a fan since 1965, so that's saying a lot).

by Brian in 317 on Mar 19, 2005 7:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And that would be...

...the true market place at work! Many people fear market outcomes, I don't...I'd rather be an active participant in them and see the chips fall where they may.

If the players want to wreck the game (it's every bit their game too, perhaps more so), then they'll leave their heads in the sand and not police themselves. If so, the records wont be as meaningful, the stadiums less packed, and the paydays lighter. If this happens, the next generation player will have to be a better example, less selfish (not that self-interestedness to a point is undesirable), more appreciative of the game & the fans, and more apt to step up and confront the bad apples in order to bring the fans such as yourself back.

It would be nice to see more position players have the character of someone like Andre Dawson again.

by LowcountryJoe on Mar 19, 2005 7:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

god, I loathe that argument, the....

..."free market" argument, I mean. "No regulation will allow the game to wreck itself and reform in a better way."

Well, to hell with that. Completely unregulated free markets don't work because that's what happens: institutions and continuity are destroyed when, inevitably, something goes wrong. That's why a mixed economy has and always will work better. It's why mixing politics and morality and a conservative desire for continuity is always better than simply standing back and watching a train wreck, literally and figuratively.

by jrbh on Mar 19, 2005 8:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'm guilty of being a market-loving ideologue

Well, to hell with that. Completely unregulated free markets don't work because that's what happens: institutions and continuity are destroyed when, inevitably, something goes wrong. ~ jrbh

Is not the public clamor for regulation - the 'political economy' as it were - a market in and of itself? It's true; ideas, emotion, altruism and benevolence are part of the decisions that go into any market! This notion actually has a place in the study of Economics; they call it Public Choice Theory.

I understand if you do not share my views; it's cool. You may even have a more influential position in this 'market place' of ideas than I do. My point was that I prefer self-regulation (even if it's a community that chooses to remain tight - as long as membership is voluntary) over outside regulation - ala an Eliot Spitzer style. I feel this way because of what, too many times, becomes undesireable & unforeseen consequences that rear their ugly heads in the future.

As I stated in a prior post, I do not fear market-type outcomes. Let me add, "...as long as I retain my freedom to leave that particular 'market'." That doesn't mean that I won't do my damnest to try and influence that 'market' in the direction I want it to go in (of limited-regulation) while I'm one of its participants. I applaud anyone else who trys to use their influence just as long as they're genuine and upfront as to their motives.

by LowcountryJoe on Mar 19, 2005 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Self regulation is everyones preference and

lack of it got congress on MLBs hidquarters big time

Can BB function on a rich team? Will A's payroll increase? Will A's wear "GAP" uniforms? Will A's build ultimate complex? Answers to these questions and more...

by A s Eh on Mar 19, 2005 1:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

hindquarters (I.E.; asses)

Can BB function on a rich team? Will A's payroll increase? Will A's wear "GAP" uniforms? Will A's build ultimate complex? Answers to these questions and more...

by A s Eh on Mar 19, 2005 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Albeit "hid"quarters is good too!

Can BB function on a rich team? Will A's payroll increase? Will A's wear "GAP" uniforms? Will A's build ultimate complex? Answers to these questions and more...

by A s Eh on Mar 19, 2005 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Whats more dangerous?

If it comes out that Sosa, Palmero, and Thomas or any combination of the three lied to congress they can face federal prosecution. (Martha Stewart thought she could get away with a lie too.)

So, if this "investigation" goes beyond congressional grandstanding (though I believe it had some good), McQwire's truth-by-dodging tactic may end up being the best move.

If they ever come up with a swashbuckling school, I think one of the courses should be Laughing, Then Jumping Off Something. - Jack Handy

by Captain on Mar 19, 2005 8:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I don't "fear" market outcomes,

I loathe them. Important distinction :)

I'm more or less a capitalist, but if there's one thing the history of capitalism teaches, it's that completely unfettered markets are a disaster for everyone but a very few people at the very top. They're also profoundly radical: continuity and tradition are impossible in unregulated markets.

The pseudo-academic, pseudo-serious "free market philosophy" is the most damaging thing that's happened to the world in the last twenty years.

by jrbh on Mar 19, 2005 11:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

"more or less a capitalist..."

I'd say "less." Where exactly in history have "completely unfettered markets" proven "a disaster for everyone but a very few people at the very top?" Can you give me even one example?

"I'm my biggest fan ..." Eric Byrnes

by FoolshGame22 on Mar 19, 2005 12:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Compassionate Capitalism got us from

WWII to 1990's

Can BB function on a rich team? Will A's payroll increase? Will A's wear "GAP" uniforms? Will A's build ultimate complex? Answers to these questions and more...

by A s Eh on Mar 19, 2005 1:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes -- the 2nd 1/2 of the 19th century

and into the beginning of the 20th, including the Great Depression. Industrialization in this country was horrific for the overwhelming majority of workers -- or do you favor free-market solutions like 8 year-olds working in coal mines or hired Pinkerton goons murdering strikers in cold blood? Capitalism is designed to concentrate more and more power and wealth into fewer and fewer hands. That is the antithesis of democracy, and it was the awful effects of that process that compelled people to demand basic social reform: using the collective power of government to limit the property rights of the wealthy by punishing them for at least the most extreme forms of exploitation and selfishness.

The US used to be, economically at least, a libertarian society, with virtually no laws regulating economic activity or limiting property rights. That society was ruled to be unacceptable by the majority of people living in it at the time -- that's why that legal regime didn't last. If you want total deregulation, I think it's your responsibility to demonstrate we won't have another Gilded Age and frequent depressions, because the empirical record of libertarianism is that those are the results.

by Nick on Mar 20, 2005 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Please, give this some thought

I don't "fear" market outcomes,I loathe them. Important distinction :)
I'm more or less a capitalist, but... ~ jrbh

At first glance these two statements appear to be contradictory but they're not. Some of the wealthiest and notorious capitalists that I'm aware of openly profess their Marxist idealism and spew class warfare rhetoric. It seems that they've mastered the art of marketing their ideas and exerting a tremendous amount of influence over their loyal consumer base. A few of these 'capitalists' do this for the sole purpose of gaining a following so they can inspire change (like Soros) but many others actually solicit money from their base by producing and then preying upon fear-based emotion...just so that they may enrich themselves through this exploitation of their constituents. How that loyalty remains I'll never know; maybe that Kool-aide has a fantastic flavor.

But hey, there's a market for everything isn't there?

by LowcountryJoe on Mar 20, 2005 4:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think McGwire's the "bad guy"

in all of this, but I sure think somebody should have coached him better on attitude as well as they did on his few words to use!

by baybluesgirl on Mar 19, 2005 11:52 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think the point of both discussions is...

...that most systems - a baseball game, a congressonal hearing or a market economy - don't work when the people involved are dishonest.

There is nothing wrong with rewarding achievment, but not achievment at any cost.

by Mission1929 on Mar 19, 2005 11:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

And a preponderance of dishonesty...

... chaos, and from chaos, ...dictatorship.

In the micro-world that is a congressional hearing a single "dictator" will "order" the behavior changes that all parties will accomplish, or else.

Can BB function on a rich team? Will A's payroll increase? Will A's wear "GAP" uniforms? Will A's build ultimate complex? Answers to these questions and more...

by A s Eh on Mar 19, 2005 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

An example:

...late 19th and early 20th century America.

by jrbh on Mar 19, 2005 1:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

A generalization, not an example...

Point to one specific example and I'll bet it was not "unfettered," but rather the result of government granting favors to their buddies. Got one yet?

"I'm my biggest fan ..." Eric Byrnes

by FoolshGame22 on Mar 19, 2005 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Rich people

getting the government to do them favors is an inevitable result of vast disparities in wealth. That's why capitalism is always in tension with democracy. Limiting this tendency is exactly the kind of "fettering" we need!

by Nick on Mar 20, 2005 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Teddy Roosevelt, Upton Sinclair, et. al.

thought it was a good example. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

by jrbh on Mar 19, 2005 2:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Upton Sinclair was a Socialist...

with a socialist agenda. Good example!

http://www.americanwriters.org/writers/sinclair.asp

Was "unfettered capitalism" the cause of the perceived ills of late 19th century and early 20th century America? Teddy made some good political hay out of it, I'll grant you, but he was wrong, just as the socialists of his era were. I refer you to:

http://www.liberty-tree.org/ltn/myth-robber-barons.html

"I'm my biggest fan ..." Eric Byrnes

by FoolshGame22 on Mar 19, 2005 3:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So what?

So Sinclair was a socialist. So what? And indicting Sinclair as a source by denigrating his socialist politics -- I don't consider calling someone a "socialist" to be an insult, far from it, but it looks like you do -- is odd just before linking to what appears to be a Libertarian/Randian propaganda site.

by Nick on Mar 20, 2005 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs