I grew up as an avid baseball fan. Growing up in Southern California I was something of a "born and bred" Dodger fan. The earliest picture of myself that I know of shows me wearing a T-Shirt that says, 'Welcome to Los Angeles, Dodgers" from 1958. I played every level of baseball through college and I learned how to keep score by listening to Vin Scully on the radio. If baseball is, as the book edited by Christopher H. Evans and Williams R. Herzog II states, The Faith of 50 Million (Westminster/John Knox Publishers, 2002), I would be counted as one of the faithful. That is why this recent mess of steroids and performance enhancing drugs (PED) is so utterly repulsive to me and this is one fan's outcry for change.
The story of PED's has been running its course for a few years now, with ever-increasing intensity. The recent book by Jose Canseco that "names names," although in a most unverifiable manner and the tragic demise and death of Ken Caminiti, finally seemed to bring the issue to a head. Baseball, both management and players were forced to revamp their laughable drug policy (the same basic policy that stood by and watched players like former Dodger pitcher Steve Howe destroy his career and nearly his life, essentially doing nothing in the process) into a slightly less laughable policy. Congress had hearings, but of course little happened there except sound bites and the opportunity for the lawmakers to rattle their sabers once again. The relation of Congress to baseball has become quite comical. In regard to baseball, Congress has become the "little boy who cried wolf" with every scandal or anything they don't like about what's going on with baseball there is the talk (at least a few times a year) of removing baseball's anti-trust exemption. That threat is now utterly hollow; no one believes that they would ever actually do it. Although why the exemption is necessary to baseball and no other major sports league remains mysterious to me.
Jose Canseco refused to answer questions because he had not been granted immunity from prosecution, other players, like Sammy Sosa, said they were "clean." Two players, Jason Giambi (who has admitted using PED's in the BALCO Grand Jury proceedings) was subpoenaed and then excused and Barry Bonds, the most notable of all the players in the vortex of this scandal was not even subpoenaed. One thing, one sad thing, did come out of the hearings; that was the inexplicable silence of retired player Mark McGwire. While condemning PED's he refused to talk about himself or anything he had ever seen in his career regarding PED's. In one day he went from one of the most notable and well-loved former baseball stars to one who will probably now never, and if he did use PED's should never, see his plaque in the Hall of Fame.
There are no easy answers about any aspect of this mess. Some players started fooling with PED's for whatever reason. Management (like Kevin Towers, general manager of the San Diego Padres who oversaw the downfall of Ken Caminiti) liked the results they saw and looked the other way. As an aside, for his actions I think Towers should be fired and banned from baseball (management needs a wake up call in this regard as well). The players union, who still view themselves as a mini-ACLU, are more concerned about the "privacy rights" of players and how they could continue to enlarge contracts each and every year, instead of actual concern for the overall welfare of players and the well-being of the game that was providing them with their almost fantasy lifestyle.
There is also no easy solution. Major League Baseball went to the Congresional hearings insisting that the new policy would take care of the problem. The players who might shed light on the truth won't because of peer pressure and fear of criminal prosecution. Most experts from other sports and sporting organizations believe the new MLB policy is far too weak. A sentiment that was shared by Senator Jim Bunning, one of the great baseball pitchers and a member of the Hall of Fame.
In most sports, notably track and field and Olympic sports, if you violate the drug and PED policy, you lose your medal and you're suspended for a year. Baseball should do the same thing. First offense, a one-year suspension period. If you want to add peer pressure against PED's then you could add the proviso that games in which that person played in the season up to when the positive test came in would be forfeit by the team. How that would work might be messy, but it would certainly have the effect of the other clean players on the team no longer "looking the other way" towards the cheaters.
The use of PED's by players is cheating, pure and simple, no different in effect than swinging a corked bat or throwing a spitball. It is an "ends justifies the means" mentality combined with the logical extension of the arguments of the abortion rights crowd, "it's my body and I can do whatever I want with it." If the results were just to their own bodies, then I doubt I would care all that much, but the issue goes beyond that. Younger and younger players at the college and even the high school level are dipping into PED's to get over the top and compete at what they think is the highest level. These kids want to both reach the top and they are being fed the lie that PED's are the only way. And as a tragic result, some have died.
Baseball players are role models, whether they like it or not. I get disgusted when I hear players say that they are not role models and don't want to be. Some of the more moralistic sounding players talk about telling kids that their parents, etc. are the real role models. Well, that is simply bogus. Kids look up to successful athletes and want to emulate them, they always have and they always will. There should be a required, and enforced clause, in all players contracts that states that they understand that they are role models to youth and will behave accordingly. If they don't want that kind of pressure or scrutiny (which is also called accountability) then there are a lot of other jobs out there.
PED's are clearly a mess and a scandal in baseball right now, so what is to be done? My suggestion is that simple immunity from criminal prosecution for players is granted. The agents, trainers and other hangers-on that were involved in the PED scandal are and should be fair game for prosecutors. But to clean the game up now, there has to be a completely candid and forthright admission on the players of all that has been going on. That does not mean the players get off without penalty. I think any individual records set by players who used PED's should be stricken from the books and those players should never be eligible for the Hall of Fame. MVP or other personal awards should be revoked and given to the runner up (the Olympics does this all the time). A regular and effective testing system must be in place and the penalties should be simple: first offense, suspension for one year; second offense, suspension for two years, and a voided contract; third offense, lifetime ban.
Baseball has to stop looking at the simple bottom line at the turn-style to determine whether or not their sport is successful. A enterprise can be successful on the outside and rotten to the core on the inside. Success for a sport cannot simply be measured by the dollars coming in, it must also me measured by the quality of the message of character building and personal values it is sending out every day.
I daresay that the overwhelming majority of major league baseball players are good, clean and concerned about the image that they personally project and that the game in general projects. But the scandal now is such the evil of the minority is overshadowing the good of the majority and drastic action is required to reassure The Faith of 50 Million.
The case of Terri Schiavo has apparently now reached a crisis point and as the writing of this entry (19 March 2005 at 1600hrs pst) by order of a Florida state court her feeding tube has been removed and she is now on a path of starvation and dehydration. A process that may take 10-14 days to finally kill her.
The facts of this case are widely known, though misunderstood by many. Terri Schiavo suffered a heart attack some 15 years ago and has been in a somewhat vegetative state since. She is not, however, comatose, and whether or not the state is permanent or if there is some hope of recovery is disputed. She left no will or written instructions as to how she would wish to be treated in such circumstances although her husband, who is acting as her legal guardian, has stated that she told her at one time that she would rather die than be kept alive in such circumstances. Her parents and family dispute this claim.
Her husband Michael has been attempting for several years to have her feeding tube removed so she could "die with dignity." Judge George Greer, the Florida judge who has been presiding over the case, has consistently ruled for the husband, although he has never even bothered to actually visit Terri in the hospice where she receives care.
What is notable here are two things: (1) she is not being kept alive by means of artificial breathing, heart, kidney or any other extraordinary means, she is only provided nourishment and fluids; (2) it is unclear what actual brain activity Terri has, because the most thorough tests have not been allowed by the husband, nor ordered by the court. See a more thorough story on this aspect of the case in an article by Rev. Robert Johansen. It is also a fact that there has (1) never really been a thorough diagnosis of her condition; (2) nor a thorough investigation into the original incident (as noted by her sister in an interview on the Larry King Show on 18 March 2005).
The motivation of the husband is certainly suspect. Even though still married to Terri, he has a girlfriend and a child by that relationship. Of course, adultery is no longer a crime or apparently even a good enough reason for Judge Greer to move guardianship of Terri from the husband to the parents or some other competent individual. There is also a large sum of money involved from the malpractice settlement, which, is under the husband's control. One has to wonder why else, does he just not cede guardianship to the parents and move on with his life?
Congress is now attempting several avenues to supercede the actions and rulings of this judge. If these efforts fail or become too prolonged to have the desired effect; I, for one, would like to see President Bush (who has come out strongly in favor of not allowing Terri to die) issue an executive order and send federal officers to place Terri in a place of protection outside the reach of both her husband and this incompetent judge (where she could both be treated properly and receive the testing that every expert would deem appropriate). Someone is about to be killed, or at least allowed to die, who should not. Life is the most basic of civil rights, an "unalienable right" that the founding fathers called a "self-evident" right. While such extreme action may sound high-handed and some might argue an abuse of power, better this than to allow an innocent person to die needlessly.
If Terri had left a will or some other undisputed document that detailed her wishes then that would be final for me. If she did not wish extraordinary measures to be implemented to keep her alive under these circumstances that is her individual right under all applicable laws. However, in this case there is no such document, and the hearsay evidence presented by her husband is certainly suspect at almost every level. This is not a "right to die" case as the husband, his attorney and the ACLU have purported it to be. It is a case where "the right to life" is being trampled in the most grievous manner possible. It is also not a case of preventing the government from intruding into the private affairs of people, it is about the legitimate and biblical role of government to protect those who are otherwise helpless to protect themselves.
The Bible is clear that government exists to be a "minister of God to you for good" (Romans 13:4). One local branch of government is failing, and failing miserably, in their God-ordained purpose and it is up to the other and higher branches of our government to ensure that good is upheld in this case and any action they take to accomplish this is justifiable.
19 March 2005: Note, that while I'm leaving this entry on my blog, the accuracy of this interview with Philip Bennett has been challenged by Bennett. In an email to Hugh Hewitt (www.hughhewitt.com) Bennett states that his statements were almost entirely corrupted and misconstrued in the published piece. As I noted in the original post, The People's Daily certainly has an agenda, and, as essentially a government run propaganda machine, is not to be trusted. Bennett states in the email that he has a tape recording of the interview. It would he helpful, if Bennett released the entire transcript of the interview. It seems that Bennett would use his own paper to publish an accurate transcript of the interview since a lot of what was attributed to Bennett not only damaging to him personally, but damaging to the overall integrity of the paper.
-------
ORIGINAL ENTRY
As someone who thought of entering journalism as a career at one time, I am fascinated by the spiraling decline into irrelevancy that the American media, particularly the print media, seems bent on taking, particularly in the last decade or so. Across the board subscriptions are down at alarming rates, the distinction between personal opinion and the objective reporting of fact has gone the way of the dodo bird and I continually wonder if the people who write the story headlines are required to read the actual story.
Today The People's Daily, the Chinese Communist newspaper published an interview with Philip Bennett, the managing editor of the Washington Post today where all of the reasons that the print media is on a steady decline were exemplified in one fell swoop. The article carries a quote from Bennett that serves as the headline I Don't Think the US Should be the Leader of the World. Now, as a note, I have not seen Bennett anywhere else in print affirm or deny the statements in this interview. And clearly The People's Daily does have its own government-driven agenda.
What Bennett says in this interview is almost too much for a single blog entry to handle. This is a paper that lives in the past, what the introduction calls, "the glory of Watergate." The Post and its reporting were, in large part, responsible for exposing the Watergate scandal and forcing President Nixon into resignation. Of course that was nearly 30 years ago and amazingly, the Watergate story is mentioned multiple times in this interview. This is a paper, like the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, and a host of others, that has allowed its thinking and editorial direction to slide so far to the left on the spectrum, while thinking they are simply objective centrists, that they have lost touch with reality and have lost connection with the overwhelming majority of the American public.
Here are some samples of Bennett's rather odd thinking.
Early in the interview he affirms that, "The internet is a US -centric device that has made English much more influential in the world." Of course this matches a recent contention of the Chinese government that called for international control of the Internet, claiming that it is a tool that the US has monopolized for its own purposes. China is a government that does not want its people to be informed as to the truth or even exposed to diverse opinions. The Internet is one the driving forces that the communist regime has been unsuccessful in either controlling or shutting down. Of course, the Internet is equally a "burr in the saddle" of the American media, who are only now beginning to realize what the Chinese government already knows, the ability to quickly and effectively spread information will cripple the influence of any "pre-digested" form of news; whether that news comes from an oppressive government or an agenda-driven media. Read Hugh Hewitt's Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation for a thorough examination of this concept.
When asked in the interview if the "world order should be democratic" Bennett is amazingly unable to give a direct answer. He says, "Democracy means many things. How do you define democracy? As a Chinese journalist, you may have your own definition of democracy which corresponds to your history and your way of seeing the world. I may have another definition. Someone else may have their own definitions. Democracy means a lot of different things." He quotes Winston Churchill who called democracy, "'the least bad system" of government. He stated, "So democracy is not a cure that could turn everything bad into good." He lauds the Chinese government at one point stating that they, "have economic development which has put more people out of poverty over a short period of time than any other country in the world in human history." One of those wonderfully vague and entirely unsubstantiated assertions that seem to be the core of a lot of what passes for reporting these days.
It is clear that every system of government has within itself the seeds of its own destruction. This is because imperfect and fallen people are running whatever system may be in place. Biblically it is also true that whatever form of government exists in any given place, it is there at that moment in time because God established it (Romans 13). But for a top media executive to adopt an entirely postmodern construct rendering him either incapable or unwilling to even defining democracy in absolute terms is another reason that mainstream media is falling into further disrepute and disrepair.
He makes interesting and self-contradictory claims in this article. At one point he presents the standard print media mantra, "We don't have any political point of view that we are trying to advance. We don't represent any political parties, we are not tied to any political movement. On the news side of the paper we try not to give opinions." He then goes on to say, "Major American newspapers endorse Democratic candidates every time. I think that endorsement means nothing. I don't think people will vote according to that endorsement. It is just an old tradition which really doesn't have a lot of meaning any more today." So, political endorsements, which are nothing more than the expressed written opinion of the editorial board and the publisher of the paper, are essentially meaningless? The question then is, does anyone care about anything on the editorial page of the paper, or is it just political endorsements that are meaningless? When the paper writes any editorial is that just, "an old tradition which really doesn't have a lot of meaning anymore?" Why does Bennett bother to participate in the editorial meetings, as managing editor why doesn't he just do away with "an old tradition" he does not think means anything?
He makes another interesting observation:
Furthermore, there is a mood of great suspicion about the media. Every time when we publish a story about Iraq that suggests the war is not going well for America, I get lots of messages from people saying that we the Post are not patriotic and we are reporting negatively on the war only because of our political bias against the Bush administration. I think there is a perception among some of our readers that we are hostile to the Bush administration or representing our own political point of view in our news coverage. I think it is impossible to make that perception go away. Over the time it could damage the reputation of a newspaper.
This is a fascinating admission. Earlier in the interview he states that, "Most big, metropolitan and urban newspapers were built in a strong democratic tradition because they came from urban environment and traditionally voted for the Democratic. So they tend to, on the editorial side, [to] support Democratic views." A simple point here is that the "editorial side" runs the newspaper. These are the leaders and the ones who ultimately give assignments and promote those who work on the "news side." This notion that there exists, to use a legal phrase, a "Chinese Wall" between the news and editorial side of a paper is utter nonsense. Reporters know where there bread is buttered and if they want to promote and get choice assignments and become regularly bylined reporters, they see where the editorial board is heading and they go there. That is human nature, pure and simple.
He does admit that in the area of religion that the mainstream media is "out of touch." He admits that they do not cover religion "very deeply and extensively." But he offers no indication that he has taken any steps to change this, at least in his own paper.
The People's Daily interviewer asked an interesting question of Bennett, "Do your correspondents have difficulties in getting access to information [from the Chinese government]? Bennett amazingly replied, "Yes, but we have difficult[ly] in the access to the information here in Washington DC too. I don't expect the Chinese government to completely open up just because American journalists want them to become more open." To compare the freedom of the press in both gathering information and reporting stories in American and China and drawing these kinds of parallels just demonstrates how skewed Bennett's views are. Of course, I'm sure he also does expect the US government to be entirely open and transparent on every issue, simply for the very reason that he and other journalists want them to.
The entire interview is an interesting read, and there are some startling admissions from a managing editor of one of the nation's important newspapers. If they cannot define what democracy is, it is no wonder that they don't see it emerging in Iraq and Afganistan. If they don't see democracy as the best means to improve the lot and lives of people, it is little wonder that their stories will be suspicious and terpid towards the president's goals in foreign policy. Here is a suggestion for a journalistic experiment. Let Bennett and his counter-part at the People's Daily switch jobs for about six months. After those six months would Bennett be in prison and would his counterpart actually want to go back to China?
Hunter S. Thompson, the guru of "gonzo journalism," has now been dead for several weeks and probably just about everyone has forgotten about him. However, his death and some parallels to the demise of another writer got me thinking about the issues of not only the decline of literature (and what passes for it) but the larger problem of growing old without God.
Thompson was in his 60's and, by all accounts, in declining health. He was famous for his hard life and abuse of a wide range of pharmaceuticals, using them for purposes for which they were not intended. His end came when he likely came the realization that he could no longer indulge the flesh at his accustomed pace, his life subsequently had little significance or real meaning, so he put a gun to his head and killed himself.
In this respect he is identical to Ernest Hemmingway, who at age 61, facing similar issues of health and the painful experience of growing old, ended his life in the same manner in 1959. Hemmingway had only shortly before that boasted of the great triumphs of his life in the area of "wine, women, and song" in an interview in Playboy Magazine.
These two illustrate my first point rather well. Hemmingway was, of course, a great writer. His ability to convey both the images of location and the emotion and personality of his characters was, in my opinion, quite unique and in many ways unmatched. His novels and short stories are still widely popular and I daresay the majority of colleges in this country offer at least one literature elective on the works of Hemmingway. His best works were out of his own experiences in World War I, the Spanish Civil War, and safaris in Africa. And even when his fame needed no boost he worked, at great personal risk, as a war correspondent during World War II, landing in the opening days of the Normandy Invasion. He was a man who was both possessed of a great talent and one who "grabbed life by the horns" and lived to the fullest, according to the standards of the world. Yet when it was all over, he could say with Solomon, "vanity of vanities! All is vanity" (Ecc 1:2).
Thompson, on the other hand, was not a great or, in my opinion, even a good writer. His popularity laid in his connection the radically existentialistic 1960's and those still vainly grasping onto that philosophy of life. His essays were more often than not a cynical rant against anything that he considered a traditional value. Like Hemmingway, Thompson wrote out of the experiences of his life; however, his experiences were entirely egocentric and horrifically narrow (and by most accounts often drug induced). But unlike Hemmingway there is no sense of worth or service or a "geater good" in Thompson's writings. Whereas Hemmingway could almost be considered "larger than life" Thompson, was "smaller than life." If Hemmingway could be characterized by the great magazine of his era Life, Thompson would be the poster-child for the more recent magazine Self.
"Gonzo Journalism," the term coined for his style, was not journalism; it was simply a cover that allowed a purile view of the world to be presented as reality. I doubt that there are any schools of journalism that offer a course on "Gonzoism." Thompson's works, even his most famous book, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (a horrible screed that was turned into an even worse movie), I have no doubt will soon be out of print. Like Hemmingway though, he could agree with Solomon at the end of his life and declare that a life given over to hedonism is simply "futility" (Ecc 2:1-3).
Like Hemmingway and Thompson, King Solomon wrote about growing old in the Book of Ecclesiastes. It is a tragedy to be separated from God because of rejecting the gospel at any stage of life, because life if fleeting and no one, regardless of age, has the assurance of another breath, much less another day on this earth. But when one is young and strong and healthy the reality of eternity and the realization of what is actually important seem easier to set aside. As the 1960's song goes,
those were the days my friend,
we thought they'd never end,
we'd sing and dance forever and a day,
we'd live the life we choose,
we'd fight and never lose,
for we were young and sure to have our way
Solomon exhorted his sons to "remember also your Creator in the days of your youth" (Ecc 12:1) and then discusses the experiences of growing old (12:1-7). Better to accept the message of the Gospel and live a life in the fullness of God's power giving the strength of your youth to the service of the Creator than to waste those precious years on serving self, sin and Satan.
One might think that those in their old age would come to their senses, but as the same 60's song laments, "friend we are older but no wiser, for in our hearts the dreams are still the same." For Hemmingway and Thompson, the dream was still the same, live for self, live for pleasure, live for excitement, live for anything...except God and His glory. And in the end they were both "older, but no wiser." In the course of growing old the dream turned to despair, the strength of youth was gone and the great lie of Satan to live for self ultimately consumes what is left of the soul and another person goes to a Christless eternity. "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world" (1 John 2:16).
The same passage ends with a warning and a promise, "And the world is passing away, and also its, lusts; but the one who does the will of God abides forever (1 John 2:17).
The decline in literature from Hemmingway to Thompson is demonstrable; one was a great writer and one was not; one was majestic and one was shrill; one lives on with a mark of worldly fame, the other will certainly not; but in the end both ended the same way: growing old, a moment of decision, a gun to the head and then the instant realization that God is real and the message of the Gospel is true.
For the Christian, Paul's words in Ephesians 2:3-5 are a great source of encouragement from what God saved us from and for the non-Christian words also to encourage that while there is breath, the message of the Gospel of Christ is there to save, from the youngest to the oldest:
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature chidlren of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alove together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).