Bonds: Used to Ster-ilize Our Awareness

On the cover of all of the nation’s newspapers, news websites, and television stations is this breaking ‘news’ that is of utmost importance to the nation: Barry Bonds has been indicted.

Barry Bonds is a very polarizing figure, you either hate him or you appreciate him and his contributions to the game of baseball. I’d place Bonds’ approval rating just ahead of President Bush and Congress. The problem with this is that people care more about Barry Bonds being honored as a hall-of-famer and getting considered as one of the best players ever, as well as the implications of having a player that used steroids as the all-time home run leader.

I understand that as Americans, we like to fight for what is right and we like hard-working guys that play by the rules. And if he’s an underdog, well that’s even more American. But is this really more important than our President and Congress who in the past few years have prepared and enabled martial law, created massive domestic surveillance, invaded two countries (and wants to invade a third) that didn’t attack us directly costing thousands of American lives and millions of civilian lives, not to mention 1.6 trillion dollars, all while our dollar is plummeting?

Don’t get me wrong, I love sports, but I understand the role that sports plays. It is a leisure activity that provides entertainment. When a story about Barry Bonds is the leading story and gets more air-time/inches in a newspaper than real news, there is a serious problem with people. I don’t really know how to say this eloquently or nicely… Wake up! Get with the program! Face reality! You’re living in a dream world that is about to come to a crashing halt. However, since Barry Bonds is so important to everybody, I would like to use his case to show the bigger problem with our society: the media.

Most everybody believes that Bonds took steroids even without the evidence of a failed drug-test (I think the growth of his body and his head in one off-season are enough evidence). Was this wrong? Sure. However, what Bonds is being indicted for is perjury and obstruction of justice because unlike Jason Giambi, he lied and said he knew nothing about what he was taking and knowingly withheld information pertaining to the BALCO case.

Even through all of this overwhelming evidence, Bonds has found many supporters, and most of those supporters are African-Americans. One such defender of Bonds is Charles Barkley. After hearing him talking to Bob Ley on ESPN over the phone, I was inspired to write this article. Barkley was contacted to weigh on the subject in using his expertise (in what I don’t know). He called the Bonds case a ‘witch-hunt’ and cited Mark McGwire, Marion Jones, and Giambi as cases to prove his point. Barkley is not a legal expert and, in my estimation, not a very smart man either. As earlier stated, Bonds indictment has everything to do with his involvement with the BALCO case and withholding information and nothing to do with his performance on the field. McGwire was not cited in that case thus he does not apply. Jones and Giambi however were involved in that case, and to jog Barkley’s memory, both cooperated and publicly apologized for their actions. Bonds did neither. Hence the reason why Bonds is in trouble and the others are not.

Barkley specifically said he did not want to play the ‘race card’, however race is unfortunately still a very big part of the way we identify ourselves and others. So is race truly behind his defense of Bonds? One can only speculate, but linking the Bonds phenomenon with OJ Simpson and Tim Duncan, I would suggest that in many cases race is directly related to people who defend or attack Bonds, at least that is what the media has demonstrated to me.

The OJ Simpson murder trial experienced the same racial polarization, with mainly African-Americans defending OJ Simpson while mainly White-Americans called for his head. When OJ was found not guilty, the African-American community felt vindicated and celebrated the fact that a black man beat the justice system for once. The problem is that the African-American community rallied around the wrong case. For all the African-Americans that were unfairly treated by the justice system (the historical case of Emmitt Till, the staggering statistic that more blacks now live in prison than college dorms, or the most recent unfair treatment that griped the media: the Jena Six), African-Americans, steered by the media, chose to support the guy who was accused of killing his ex-wife and her boyfriend in cold blood with a preponderance of evidence that suggested he was in fact a murderer.

So how then does Tim Duncan relate? This guy has done everything right. He was the 1^st overall pick, he led his team to the finals three times, has averaged 20/10 nearly every season of his 11-year career, except one when he averaged 18.6 ppg and 11 rpg, he’s one of the best leaders in any sport, he plays the game ‘right’, he’s a good guy, and has a stellar record with public service and charity. How has he been received and rewarded? Not particularly well. He lost his shoe-deal after winning his 2^nd MVP, he’s often referred to as a ‘white’ player or an Uncle Tom, and doesn’t get half the media recognition of guys like Ron Artest and Stephon Marbury, both horrible representations of the human race and the African-American race. Duncan, who has seemingly done everything right and by the book gets punished and shunned by the media, while the bad guys are embraced and dominate the story lines so we all know their names.

Going back to Barkley, I maintain his argument was sloppy, misguided, and guided by a hidden agenda. Welcome to American society, where truth, thoroughness, and full disclosure are not only unimportant, they are discouraged. Again, this is another phenomenon created by our infotainment media culture, which has served to dumb down our society, perpetuate racial divides, and alienate us from our government, which was created for the people, by the people and now exists for the rich, by the rich. The media is here to make sure WE THE PEOPLE don’t get in the way. They give us 500 channels, Barry Bonds, Bill O’Reilly, and we give them power to control and herd us.

My Response to the 'Fruitcake'

If you haven't seen this article by Kevin Drum it's probably a good thing. It's just another case of a corporate journalist not doing their homework and perpetuating dominant old-world ideology while thinking they're clever. Our boy Kev called Ron Paul a 'fruitcake' and went on to tell his supporters out there to 'grow up' and stop acting like 'political infants'. So here is my reply to Mr. Kevin Drum:

Dear Kevin,

I have to say I laughed incessantly after reading your article. It was delightfully glittered with hypocrisy, idiocy, and regurgitated old-school rhetoric.

Case(s) in point:
"It's cheap and easy to take extreme, uncompromising positions when you have no actual chance of ever putting them into practice" - Ah-durrr Do you realize that he is a Congressman?! He has been exercising these positions for his entire political career. His consistent voting record directly reflects these positions he's articulated.

"uncompromising positions really don't mean a thing. They don't reflect either well or badly on him" - Do you remember the Kerry is a flip-flopper crusade that went on during 2004 and enabled the crap that we're stuck with to get re-elected?!?! I will say you are right on one thing, unfortunately a consistent voting record and entrenched morals and virtues don't go over too well with voters. Usually it's more about what church you belong to, what gender you are, what race you are, and how 'presidential' you look.

"Ditto for his "record breaking" fundraising day, which is just a function of (a) the growth of the internet as a political money machine and (b) the curious but well-known fact that technophiles are disproportionately libertarian." - So the fact that a grassroots campaign donation effort that came thousands of middle-income donors instead of special interests means nothing?! It means nothing that people not affiliated with his campaign AT ALL organized a drive to raise millions of dollars that they have no stake in other than the hope that this guy might lead our nation? Also, I'd like to see how you ascertained that 'technophiles are disproportionately libertarian'. Do you have stats? I'll bet the house that the answer to that is NO and that this was an assumption...

"In the last Republican debate I saw, this noted truth-teller gave a strange and convoluted answer about his economic policies that the audience plainly didn't understand." - His answer was about as direct as they get actually, considering how little time he has to explain such a complex notion as Economic Theory and how a system that is 94 years old has and is screwing Americans out of their money for the gain of private international bankers. And how did you come to the conclusion that the audience didn't understand? Again... an assumption. More likely, the audience was silent because they were supporters of other campaigns... this would also explain why Rep. Paul was getting booed (as he addressed after the debate when talking to Sean Hannity and Alan Combs)

"Next time I expect to see some straight talk about how we should return to the gold standard and get rid of the Fed. This should be followed by a question about whether he supports the free coinage of silver at 16:1. Then some questions about the tin trust." - So I see you are somewhat well-versed in History by your glib remark there at the end... Kudos to you! Next time go all the way and get the real story. Do you know how the Federal Reserve was established? (If not I recommend 'Secrets of the Federal Reserve' by Eustace Mullins) Do you know how the Federal Reserve system works? Do you know that it creates debt that the American taxpayer is responsible for that goes to private banks right as soon as money is printed out of thin-air (and not backed by anything as you well know). Just because an institution was created decades ago (almost a century now) does not make it anymore legitimate. Read the Constitution and pay attention to the part that says CONGRESS is the sole authority on currency, then try and explain how the Federal Reserve System, which has its Directors appointed by private banks and the executive branch, is within the Constitutional framework.

"Seriously, folks. Can we all please grow up?" - coming from the person who used 'fruitcake' in the title of their article. I'm sure to you this was some clever play on the fact that "we" need to grow up. Yeah, not funny... you look like an uneducated moron when using language like this. You are professional journalist, act like it! Go out and investigate the government instead of perpetuating the falsehoods and disinformation they feed you, like Ron Paul has no chance of winning and has extreme policies. You know what an extreme policy is? How about using Nuclear Weapons on a country that didn't attack us, like Iran... who is expounding this extreme policy?

You embody everything that is wrong with the Corporate Media and Journalism. Assumptions, infotainment, ascribing to typical Beltway explanations, perpetuation of the status quo and authority, and NO QUESTIONING OF CURRENT AFFAIRS. You make me sick, and more importantly, 'yous guys' have made this country sick. Ron Paul would be a great first step in curing this country's apathy, economic woes, crisis in values, and elitist control. You either don't realize this and are acting in ignorance, or you are aware of this and are a tool of multi-national elitist agenda.


Sincerely,
Sean Karpowicz

Big Man on Campus

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was welcomed at the University of Columbia for a “robust debate” on “global issues,” as outlined by Columbia University President Lee Bollinger.

What the Iranian President was subjected to instead was an all-out attack by the University President, attending students, American policymakers and the media. In his introduction, Bollinger would go on to refer to the Iranian President as a "petty and cruel dictator" that lacked “intellectual courage.”

The American media was not quite as kind. Headlines that greeted President Ahmadinejad included “The Evil Has Landed” and “Little Man on Campus.” Indicative of these headlines, the coverage was harsh on the Iranian President and overtly unfair. Known inconsistencies and past errors in reporting were repeated with alarming consistency and vigor throughout the media. The infamous desire for Ahmadinejad to “wipe Israel off the map” and his criticism of the holocaust “myth” were talking points and news-leads in most newspapers and television broadcasts.

"Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian," clarified Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan. "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

Similarly, his infamous words about the holocaust have also been said to be mistranslated and construed as the media wanted them to appear: hateful, intolerant, and flippant. Monday would be the Iranian President’s chance to clarify his statements and set his words straight.

However, America was not interested in listening to Ahmadinejad. Instead, his visit was used to further two goals: inflame public opinion towards the Iranian leader and his representative country and to perpetuate the façade of free, unabated speech in America.

"He's the head of a state sponsor of terror,” said President Bush. “Yet, an institution in our country gives him the chance to express his point of view, which really speaks to the freedoms of the country.”

Ahmadinejad was quick to see the hypocrisy of this freedom of speech.

"In Iran, tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite as a speaker we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment,” said Ahmadinejad. “And we don't think it's necessary before this speech is even given to come in with a series of [insults].”

Luckily for Ahmadinejad, he was not arrested for voicing his opinions publicly, unlike American citizens have been under the Bush administration. One such incident took place September 18th of this year, when Leah Bolger, David Barrows, Christine Rainwater, Anne Kitridge, and Anne Katz, who was reciting the Constitution, were arrested by Capitol Police while attending a rally sponsored by Veterans for Freedom in Upper Senate Park on Capitol Hill where U.S. Senators Joe Lieberman, John McCain and Lindsey Graham spoke.

A popular critique of Ahmadinejad’s appearance was his supposed dodging of the questioning, especially on the issues of nuclear war, terrorism, and his views on the holocaust. Yet his answers resonated clearly.

“If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the senate or congress, how would you treat them… The Iranian nation is a victim of terrorism. For 26 years ago where I worked, close to where I work, in the terrorist operation, the elected president of the Iranian nation and the elected prime minister of Iran lost their lives in a bomb explosion. They turned into ashes. A month later in another terrorist operation, 72 members of our parliament and highest ranking officials, including four ministers and eight deputy ministers' bodies were shattered into pieces as a result of terrorist attacks. Within six months over 4,000 Iranians lost their lives assassinated by terrorist groups. All this carried out by the hand of one single terrorist group. Regretfully, that same terrorist group now today in your country is being operating under the support of the U.S. administration, working freely, distributing declarations freely, and their camps in Iraq are supported by the U.S. government…

We need to address the root causes of terrorism and eradicate those root causes.
live in the Middle East. For us, it's quite clear which powers sort of incite terrorists, support them, fund them. We know that. Our nation, the Iranian nation, through history has always extended a hand of friendship to other nations. We're a cultured nation. We don't need to resort to terrorism.
We've been victims of terrorism ourselves, and it's regrettable that people who argue they're fighting terrorism, instead of supporting the Iranian people and nation, instead of fighting the terrorists that are attacking them, they're supporting the terrorists and then turn the fingers to us. This is most regrettable.”

Media pundits cleverly pointed out the lack of a specific reference to a terror organization. A moment of reflection easily illuminates this organization as the American government and specifically, covert operations conducted through the US military and the CIA, some would say the largest organization of state-sponsored of terrorism.

On the topic of nuclear war, Ahmadinejad had this to say:

“Our nuclear program, first and foremost, operates within the framework of law, and second, under the inspections of the IAEA, and thirdly, they are completely peaceful. The technology we have is for enrichment below the level of 5 percent level, and any level below 5 percent is solely for providing fuel to power plants. Repeated reports by the IAEA explicitly say that there is no indication that Iran has deviated from the peaceful path of its nuclear program. We're all well aware that Iran's nuclear issue is a political issue; it's not a legal issue.
The International Atomic Energy Organization -- Agency has verified that our activities are for peaceful purposes. But there are two or three powers that think that they have the right to monopolize all science and knowledge. And they expect the Iranian people, the Iranian nation, to turn to others to get fuel, to get science, to get knowledge that's indigenous to itself -- to humble itself. And then they would of course refrain from giving it to us too. So we're quite clear on what we need. If you have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, what position are you in to question the peaceful purposes of other people who want nuclear power? We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period. It goes against the whole grain of humanity. So let me just tell a joke here. I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs or are testing them, making them -- politically they are backward, retarded.”

Though not addressed at the speech, Ahmadinejad clarified his nation’s stance on war. "Iran will not attack any country," Ahmadinejad told the AP. Iran has always maintained a defensive policy, not an offensive one and has "never sought to expand its territory."

He also believed that the U.S. is not preparing for war with Iran. “I believe that some of the talk in this regard arises first of all from anger. Secondly, it serves the electoral purposes domestically in this country. Third, it serves as a cover for policy failures over Iraq."

Another point of contention in the Iranian leader’s dialogue was his statement about homosexuals in Iran. His exact quote from the translation read:

“In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon.”

Another suggested interpretation of this statement is that he was referring to the homosexual culture that has gained legitimacy and been embraced in American society, not that Iran does not have any homosexual individuals.

Perhaps the most contentious issue, however, is the Iranian leader’s views on the holocaust, which he has been accused of denying altogether. He had this to say about his belief:

“Can you argue that researching a phenomenon is finished forever, done? Can we close the books for good on a historical event? There are different perspectives that come to light after every research is done. Why should we stop research at all? Why should we stop the progress of science and knowledge? You shouldn't ask me why I'm asking questions. You should ask yourselves why you think that it's questionable, why you want to stop the progress of science and research. Do you ever take what's known as absolute in Physics? We had principles in mathematics that were granted to be absolute in mathematics for over 800 years, but new science has gotten rid of those absolutisms, come forward other different logics of looking at mathematics and sort of turned the way we look at it as a science altogether after 800 years. So we must allow researchers, scholars to investigate into every phenomenon, God, universe, human beings, history, and civilization. Why should we stop that? I'm not saying that it didn't happen at all. This is not that judgment that I am passing here. I said in my second question, granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people?

When criticized by the person asking the question that research into the facts of the holocaust would represent a denial that something terrible occurred in Europe in those years, Ahmadinejad responded:

“Allow me. After all, you're free to interpret what you want from what I say, but what I'm saying with full clarity. In the first question, I'm trying to actually uphold the rights of European scholars. In the field of science and research, I'm asking, there's nothing known as absolute. There's nothing sufficiently done, not in physics for certain. There's been more research on physics than it has on the holocaust, but we still continue to do research on physics. There's nothing wrong with doing it. This is what man wants. They want to approach a topic from different points of views. Scientists want to do that, especially an issue that has become the foundation of so many other political developments that have unfolded in the Middle East in the past 60 years. Why do we stop it altogether? You have to have a justified reason for it. The fact it was researched sufficiently in the past is not a sufficient justification in my mind.”

While Ahmadinejad was grilled by American citizens, American citizens have not been as rigorous in questioning their own leaders. A report released Sunday by Newsweek stated that former Cheney Middle East adviser David Wurmser told a small group several months ago that Cheney was considering asking Israel to strike the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. A military response by Iran would then give Washington an excuse to launch airstrikes of its own.

It is telling that Americans now are more critical of foreign leaders than their own. While Ahmadinejad is subjected to intense scrutiny, Bush administration officials have been given a virtual free pass to trample on our constitution, arrest dissenters, and even legitimized the use of martial law without any oversight.

The founding fathers expected we the people to subject our leaders to this same type of inquiry into their positions and policies and we have failed them. James Madison said it best, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."