Though I would never have admitted it to Kyle, now that Ben has said it, I feel better about writing it: I agree with the basic premise and the essential truth of what Kyle is saying. Ethically, it makes sense to me. So, in a similar way, does the aforementioned X2's ethics. It's difficult to argue against--with the proviso of it being used in very specific situations, such as the ones Ben mentioned, and a few others I can think of. Steroids are too powerful and too revolutionary a medical technology to be a singularly black or white issue. There is always gray, but particularly when we deal with a dichotomy such as this, where the two opposites held in tension with each other are so extreme. This kind of technology--especially technology that alters the human body in some drastic way, but any technology--is Janus-faced by its nature. Technology, because it is inherently attached to progress, is the proverbial double-edge sword. I don't think this can really be debated. I mean, the extremes in this case are not as drastic as those of other double-edged technological advances, such as the ability to split the atom and so forth. But on an individual human level, steroids is up there with cloning, genetic engineering, chemotherapy, and--I think you have to throw it in there--stem cells. I think there is a certain commonality to these issues. But I think that may in fact be several other future weeks worth of blog topics, and too great a tangent to tackle on the weekend. But, time to digress.
WARNING: TOTAL NOT-SEQUITER ALERT
Anyway, I'm exhausted from work, and I don't have much more to say at the moment. It's time for my slippers and a glass of red wine. But let's do a little looking ahead. Just a heads up, I am working on some ideas for next week. (Yay sentence fragment!) I'm going to get away from sports and get a little heavier. Right now, I'm headed in the direction of a semi-memoir op-ed piece on life teaching in the Bronx. I'm also going to touch on some more historical and philosophical stuff I've been learning in my grad classes recently, such as the underpinnings of Jefferson's classical liberalism and its legacy in our public (but not nationalized) school system. And then I'd like to pose some questions about the pressing fiscal crisis' impending devastation of the public school system and hypothesize what the long term effects for our society might be.
Now that I think about it, I guess I change my mind. That sounds like the book I am about to start writing. (Right?) Does that sound like something you guys would have something to say about? Just curious, my fellow graduates of urban public schools.
WARNING: EVEN LESS FUCKING SEQUITER ALERT
These are just as important--a trio of YouTube videos you need to see.
First, this is the infamous "Read a Book." At least, I believe that's what it's called. I may be intentionally omitting a certain racial epithet. I'm really not sure. Anyway, this is a must-see animated music video parody. It's about a year old, but I just discovered it. It aired on BET, and I think it's pretty self explanatory. (No, I don't think it's the real Little John singing). The sociological implications are pretty astounding. Anyway, just shut me up and watch it. Note to overly-sensitive people: there is some bad language in this video. But at least we don't have to worry about racism: a black guy made this video, and therefore it is not offensive. (Mmmhmm. I did. I went there).
Read a Book
Then watch this, which is perhaps even more ridiculous in its own right. Who is that anchor, and what the fuck is his problem? American punditry blows and can never, ever be taken seriously. At least not CNN. This guy makes Anderson Cooper look like Tom Brokaw. Better yet, Walter Cronkite. No, no, Edward R. Murrow. Mmm, no. Tom Brokaw. Something seems right about Tom Brokaw.
"Read a Book" Creators on CNN 2/2/08
Next, enjoy watching video proof that the NFL's parity is, as we've always guessed, the result of prescribed game outcomes. And by parity, I mean parody. This is hilarious, and a must-see for NFL cynics and anyone with a sense of humor.
Super Bowl XLIII Writers' Room
BASEBALL NEWS
The Orioles have certainly had an interesting offseason. Ty Wigginton at $3 mil per for two years is the latest good-sense signing the team has made. Uehara and Rich Hill can't be worse than last year's rotation (after Jeremy Guthrie), Zaun is a fine stopgap for Wieters--we should only need him for about a month, I hope--and Cesar Izturis is a nice glove at short. Chris Ray is coming back, and we have a lot of potential in the bullpen with David Pauley and some of the pitchers signed to minor league contracts. And potential is all you can really hope for, or claim to have, when it comes to your bullpen, I don't care who you are. And of course, nothing warmed my heart more than signing my favorite player Nick Markakis to a very reasonable extension. This is the happiest I've been with the Orioles front office in some time. I mean, we'll still be lucky to win 75 games, but I can at least respect the approach so far.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Zach, Under the "Even Less F%$#@*& Sequiter heading you post a warning to 'overly sensitive people' that there is less than savory language in the post.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is an issue of being overly-sensitive, I believe it is a simple issue of language and its use. Sensitivity has to do with feelings and while my feelings may be hurt if someone uses 'bad language' this is more of an issue of the why? Why is it necessary to use it? Has the former language lost its effectiveness in its use of adjectives and adverbs and these are simply new ways of adding to what already exists? Or...have we lost our ability to use the language as effectively as possible, turning, in our laziness, to a handful of words that do little more than grab attention for a second before fading into space as sound waves?
We've had this conversation before in snippets, I know. Johnny Carson was a great comedian but never used the language of some present day comedians. Are they better off for it?
Or is it simply to shock and nothing more, nothing less?
I want to be clear that I have, from time to time, used 'bad language' but I'm wondering whether or not in the process of public discourse it is more or less effective? Does it halt conversation at its point of use and cut off opportunities for future words shared? Just babbling.
JSM