News Beef [Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2009, 8:43 pm]
Today, I offer my opinions on the events surrounding some of the people who have been in the news lately (mostly sports-related), if only because I feel the need to release the thoughts somehow. Of course, my own musings are a mere drop in the bucket compared to the other sound-offs out there, but that's okay with me - I don't think the bucket will be overflowing anytime soon.
Yes, I was disappointed. I understand, we all make bad choices, and it's nice when our lives aren't so harshly defined by them, but unfortunately when people are in the spotlight, they aren't often given that luxury. We don't know the circumstances based on one single photo. Maybe he's been doing that kind of thing for years. (I highly doubt he was doing all that much of it during his record-breaking streak, but whatever). Maybe that was the first time he'd smoked anything and he inhaled once and swore off any such actions again. It was probably more in between those, but that's just the thing - we don't know. I'm glad he's been disciplined for it, and I hope that it'll be a lesson learned.
Nadya Suleman (aka, octuplet mom):
This one will be brief. She's taken a lot of criticism, and I can understand where people are coming from - they don't think someone should intentionally raise their children off taxpayer money, and that's understandable. However, it's one thing to criticize her methods, and another to ridicule her desires. So many times the things I hear people say are "Why would anyone WANT so many children?" What business is it of yours what she wants? I honestly have a lot of sympathy for her on that level. If she really wants to raise, love, and nurture a brood of children, there's nothing unusual about that. There's nothing unnatural or strange with wanting a lot of them either. Again, the methods weren't the greatest, but there's no point in attacking her personally for it. Focus on the real problem at hand, which is financial responsibility, not the desire for a family.
There's a little less sympathy on this end. Ooooh, so much I could say. Most of which has been said already. One of the big problems with steroids is that they've pretty much tainted the whole era. Would it be right to count the record-setting of one man and not another, just because we can't prove the first one used steroids? I've heard it suggested that they start a "steroids wing" in the Hall of Fame, but again the same question comes up - who knows who did it? Given the degree of honesty that's been displayed up to this point (which manifests itself only when said MLB subject is trapped like a cornered animal), we probably never will.
Vitality - Tuesday, Aug. 11, 2009