Friday, December 14, 2007

What's Worse Than a Juiced-Up Professional Jock?

My Congresscritter, that's what. Lots, lots worse.

I suspected it wouldn't take long for Marky-Mark to make himself heard, and it didn't:
If baseball doesn’t voluntarily tighten its anti-drug procedures, Congress will impose new requirements, Rep. Mark Souder, R-3rd, warned Thursday after reading parts of the report that chronicles rampant steroid use among professional players.

Souder, a lifelong fan of baseball, was part of the congressional committee in 2005 that investigated accusations of illegal drug use in the professional sport.

At the time, Souder said he was furious that baseball is abusing its public trust and that drug-using players are setting a bad example for high school and junior high school players. He said that anger hasn’t abated.

Souder said the only surprise in former Sen. George Mitchell’s investigation was the risk some well-known players were willing to take.

“The amazing thing about this report is it’s not just marginal people (who are identified as steroid users). They are people who are in our fantasy baseball teams. I must say, I don’t think a single one of these are my players, even from the last three or four years. I was suspect of a lot of people.

“It’s surprising to me that in this era, with all the scrutiny and supposed testing, stars are still using the substances,” he said. “That shows the desire to continue your stardom – for people like (Roger) Clemens and Andy Pettitte – the desire to recover from your injury and the desperation to make a team will even have you take great risks when scrutiny is higher.”

Souder said if baseball doesn’t adopt Olympic standards about drug use, employ outside investigators, use surprise tests and do it year-round, Congress will enact legislation to require it.

He said the names of current players who show up in Mitchell’s report demonstrate that steroid use isn’t a thing of the past.

“Baseball still has current cleaning up to do,” he said. “Yes, people talk about the ‘home-run era’ and how managers and trainers looked the other way and said the laws were vague. But now what’s their excuse?”
In my ideal world, the torturers of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and the various secret CIA shops-of-horror would be ordered to release their current victims and concentrate on waterboarding this pudgy little freak who "represents" me in the U.S. House of Representatives. The objective: make him reveal what text of the imaginary U.S. constitution empowers the FedGov to "enact legislation" -- or do any single other accursed thing -- about professional gladiators and what substances they choose to fuel themselves on. This clown obviously knows or cares nothing about the document that he has taken far too many false oaths to defend. But it might be entertaining, admittedly in a perverse way, to see what he'd shriek out in an attempt to halt his "simulated drowning." I'm guessing it would be something about the regulation of interstate commerce. At that point, let's get out the duct tape and pliers, and give him a George Clooney manicure from "Syriana."

I won't watch, though. There's limits to everything.


Phil Marx said...


I strongly disagree with your calling Souder a pudgy little freak.

Point number one: Souder claimed conscientious objector status during Vietnam. I had a professor who said a man in his unit was a C.O. This man went everywhere the rest of them went. He did not carry a weapon, but if a man fell he was the one that would run out and drag him back in. Well, Souder got over his conscience enough to not object to the war in Iraq. Then after public opinion began to turn against the war, Souder suddenly lost his hawkishness.

Point number two: Souder promised he'd serve only twelve years. But he later amended this to say that the redistricting (which usually occurs every ten years) nullifies this. So he can now effectively run for life.

The first point speaks to his courage, the second to his veracity. Mark Souder is, in my opinion, a coward and a liar. He is the worst person we could have "representing" us.

As I said, I strongly object to your classification of Souder - you're being too kind.

Bartleby said...

Well, I don't know that "pudgy little freak" is being too kind. I think you're correct that I shouldn't have called him that, though ... simply because it's beside the point. Coward and liar is much more apt, and amply supported by the available evidence.