On a Quote by Cynthia Nixon

It's interesting, but as I explore the net I often find things that piqué my interest or curiosity. Of course, this isn't necessarily interesting in and of itself, but what makes it so is the fact that it may concern a certain topic or subject matter that in other circumstances don't nearly interest me in such a fashion, but in other situations I feel the almost unbearable need to respond. I experienced this rather recently when I ran across a quote from self proclaimed lesbian Cynthia Nixon:

'Gay people who want to marry have no desire to redefine marriage in any way. When women got the vote, they did not redefine voting. When African-Americans got the right to sit at a lunch counter alongside white people, they did not redefine eating out. They were simply invited to the table.’

Again, perhaps just another celebrity who holds to the delusion and deceives themselves, in the end serving their pride, in thinking that they're a ring leader or central component in the movement of social "progress." We see a lot of this in today's culture, and in reality it isn't that surprising, for a lot of times these snippets of false wisdom are prompted by mediums, whose own bias already foresees the reaction.


Before I go much further though, let me give credit to Cynthia, or her ghost writer, or her publicist, or her handlers, or her assistants, because her quote is actually more well constructed than most I find by celebrities. Not in a logical way, but because its construction is designed in a manner that it is almost like a trap set to spring when anyone may disagree with her. I admittingly don't know much about Mrs. Nixon apart from her role on, "Sex and The City," the fact that she is a lesbian, and, in fact, is herself married. Thereby, her level of arrogance concerning the quote and this issue are in question, for some celebrities are more arrogant than others. So it occurs to me that my introduction may be a little harsh considering my lack of knowledge concerning the character of Mrs. Nixon, and I will retract a bit on those particulars, offer apologies if applicable, and just confine myself diligently to the quote rather than Mrs. Nixon herself.


When we look at this quote we find its construction to be on very shaky ground and unstable as it turns out. First off, I would like to point out the three main components of Mrs. Nixon's argument. She starts by saying that those who are gay or lesbian have no desire to redefine marriage. We, for the sake of argument, will call this premise, "A." Second, or premise "B," she addresses women's suffrage, adding that they did not redefine voting. Third, or premise, "C," she addresses the civil rights movement, the emancipation of African-Americans, their being recognized as equal or being granted equal rights with whites, including every right to dine in any establishment white people were privy to. Thus, to recap:

A: Gays do not want to redefine marriage in any way.
B: Women did not redefine voting by being granted the right.
C: Civil Rights and the movement towards the equality of African-Americans in society, and that their inclusion to be able to eat alongside whites didn't redefine eating out.

Mrs. Nixon attempts to interlink all these examples and almost uses premises B and C to equate to A. Thereby:

1. B
2. C Therefore, A.


It is a very poorly constructed argument in general terms, but it does succeed in that it suggests that if you disagree with premise A, then you MUST disagree with premises B and C. Thereby, you are against women having the right to vote, and racist. In fact, it could be said you are both racist and sexist. This is the trap that springs if you are to disagree with Mrs. Nixon and those who are opposed to gay marriage might feel a tinge of guilt and or shame when reading over her statement. Furthermore, what is illustrated is that you may even be a enemy to equality in general.


This could just be called an argument from guilt, but at the same time this guilt and disagreements with gay marriage must be reconciled in some fashion beyond just Nixon's argument. Unfortunately for Mrs. Nixon, there is another reason her argument is a poor one, for the "trap" essentially backfires. It contains the implication that change or redefinition is a bad thing, which is counterintuitive to what she wants to state in her quote. Let us briefly ask ourselves what is entailed when something is, "redefined?" The ramifications of a redefinition are that something in the original understanding of the idea or context has shifted or changed.


For example, not to be sardonic, but let us consider the word, "gay." This is a word that has been changed over the years. The word was once used to imply jovial merriment, but now it has changed, or been redefined, to refer to the homosexual. This is rather a simplistic example but it still rings true in the more complex. When we define something, we not only define what it is, but also define what it's not. Allow me to give another illustration. Artists are trained not only to define form by emphasizing their subject in a figure that is either linear or impressionistic (though there are vast varieties and mediums which can define form, such as colorism, and indeed sculpture, but I've only chosen two for our purpose), but a prudent artist is encouraged to recognize what is called, "negative space." That which is outside or apart from the subject, untouched but utilized to give the object the desired form. Thereby, if one had the time, in theory, a positive definition could be reached just by excluding the negative or by elimination.


Thus, to be happy is not to be angry, is not to be mad, is not to be depressed, etc, etc, etc . . . The definition of something marks its boundaries and limits, and the redefinition stretches them or moves them, creating a new definition out of the conception. Furthermore, to define is to give something identity, and you cannot change something and give it a new identity, and call it the same, any more than you can call a circle a square. They both have unique characteristics which defines and identifies them from other concepts.


Thereby, she is wrong about the redefining of marriage, for marriage has long since prior been the union between a male and female. Pushing these boundaries gives it a whole new identity and definition. We see in B or C however that change or redefinition is not by necessity a bad thing. Due to her application of premises concerning equality, we see that this is really the motive behind her statement, a complete equality despite the existence of predetermined definition. Yet, to allow gay marriage, and to treat gay couples, as hetero couples by marriage is to turn that definition into something which it was not intended to be. So, of course it becomes redefined, it's form has changed.


Even so, we can be even more simplistic to argue Nixon's point. When we ponder or reflect upon gay marriage, it becomes apparent that we add the attribution or particular of, "gay," to "marriage," in order that we can differentiate the concept of gay marriage from marriage proper. If marriage wasn't redefined, then we'd have no reason, nor even the perception, that there was a redefinition occurring, thereby no additional attribution would be needed. Due to the fact that both these terms exist gives evidence that there is a change and redefinition of the marriage institution.


Another part of the issue resides in the fact there is another fallacy in Mrs. Nixon's quote, which is as controversial as the gay marriage proposals. This deals with ethics and morality. It is a necessary condition that by accepting Nixon's remark, you must also believe that homosexuality is a trait born in human beings, and so vital a part of their make up, as to be equal unto race and gender. That is what is suggested anyway. Yet, if you don't believe this and believe sexuality is a choice, then her argument further falls apart.


In my view homosexuality is a choice, as is manifest in general nature, and suggested by the cagtagorical imperative, a secular theory proposed by Immanuel Kant that attempts to explain the existence and values of morality. Briefly, it states that we reason, whether consciously or not, and apply all actions as an absolute world wide. So, murder is immoral because man would quickly become extinct if all men murdered, had the freedom to murder, and were murdered. Therefore, according to the categorical imperative we conclude that murder is morally bad. B and/or C are certainly not choices for they cannot be redefined. Indeed, if one attempts to do so, they fall under a different definition or classification, like transgender. Therefore, it is unjustified that Nixon makes the juxtaposition she does. For what your race is and what gender you are is endowed onto you, and you have no way of shifting back or forth, nor experimenting, as is evident in the homosexual community. A predisposition doesn't equate to being, "born that way," nor does it affect ethical values. Premises B and C are steadfast and, apart from dramatic surgery, are unchangeable. It was this that prompted society to justly make laws and civil protections for both parties that Nixon mentions. Hearts and minds needed to be changed concerning civil rights, and that was on the side of society, not on the side of women or African-Americans, for they cannot be changed or redefined, it was the redefinition of social practices, for lack of better terminology, that established equality.


Lastly, before I end this entry, let me say that though I disagree with gay marriage, or that being homosexual is a state one is born into, I don't hate homosexuals. That is I don't condone any act of violence, outward hatred or the spewing of slurs, and alike conduct. I believe in civility and treating each other respectfully, despite our differences. I suspect if we acted in such a detestable way to everyone we disagreed with, then we would shy away from all human contact whatsoever, and this isn't realistic or reasonable. Even concerning our best friends, family, and acquaintances we share different ideas. People have a hard time understanding that you can disagree with someone and be civil all at the same time. Though, honestly, we do tend to surround ourselves with people we have common interests with.


This being said, I am sure many of you found yourself angry at this entry and that wasn't my intention, though it is inevitable, only to respond to the quote and express my thoughts concerning gay marriage. Yet, if you are angry and made it this far, I thank you at least for reading and following through, for most I suspect would stop half way and write me a nasty response full of colorful vulgarities. Due to the division and emotion this topic breeds, I await such e-mails. However, I thank you again, and I pray that this country and the world could start being civil even in light of disagreements and with that I bid you a fond farewell.

On The General Fallacy of Blaming Ideology

After listening to the media coverage of the horrible events that occurred in Boston on XM radio, my only source for news on a boat in Alaska, of which I get bits and pieces almost equivalent to headlines or bylines, I find that just as quick and shocking as those were, the media’s attempt to place blame before any facts were or are known, and indeed before any compassion for the victims was made evident, provided an element of shock to me. Various ideological labels were thrown about by various news organizations in an effort to assign a blame. My main question concerning this is whether or not it is reasonable to A, make such quick judgements and B, if assigning blame towards suspected associations is both legit and accurate. I regard question A to be a much easier question to answer than the latter.

The desire to hold someone accountable for such an atrocity is certainly reasonable and should be part of our inherent nature. Yet, there have been those times, and those circumstances, where such judgements are rushed, or globalized, leading not to justice, but rather injustice. This includes, but certainly is not limited to, the examples of the opinion of the general public, law enforcement, and media.

Yet, though I write this after the incidents in Boston, I do believe law enforcement, “got their men.” In a particularly rare twist the media and the public helped out law enforcement, by giving them the clues to track the perps down. This is a rarity in that the interactions between all these groups are sometimes muddled and frequently lead to outrage and discontent whether it be justified or not. Obviously I cannot address every example, for they are numerous, but it seems the law enforcement “tool” of the public and media, can be both a blessing and a curse.

This is due to media drawing its own conclusions, though occasionally using the word, “alleged,” have obviously already made up their own minds on the guilty and culprits, most the time independent of evidence. It is interesting, but in media this responsible party is generally a reflection on those whom they consider villains. What this does in the ring of popular opinion is cause strife between ideologies. For instance, immediately after the bombing, Chris Matthews blamed it on a right-wing culprit due to its lack of sophistication. He even had a guest on his show who echoed his conclusion. This can rile up the emotions of disagreeing philosophies and bring about conflict.

Thus, before a culprit was even named, an ideology was blamed responsible, a total askew and backward way of thinking on Matthews’ part. It truthfully shows us more about Mr. Matthews than the actual events and the protagonists behind them. What about in cases of profiling? We know that in certain groups can commit atrocities, or too just singular individuals can commit crimes and subscribe to a particular ideology, which can be manifest in their crimes and actions. There are those specialists who are versed in identifying these horrible ideals which lead to the despicable nature of their crimes. When this is known, or suspected, it provides a profile law enforcement can use to apprehend the guilty. Even so, this is not always accurate.

What is apparent is that those in media are hardly educated enough to point out a perpetrator and/or the philosophies he/she may subscribe to. In fact, in such media outbursts as such Matthews is guilty of. Furthermore, despite the presence of profilers in law enforcement, these men and women are not always instrumental in the capture of a criminal. At times, as is the case with the Boston suspects, the criminal is first apprehended and then their motives and idealism become clear. As of today, in fact, a day after the arrest of the second brother, his motives are still not clear, and Obama told the public wisely, “Not to jump to any conclusions.” Chris Matthews would be wise to listen to the president whose voice sends a tingle up his leg, those I guess it beats a trickle down his leg. Just sayin’. Perhaps the President too knows that the more rash the conclusion, the least likely it is to be true. Rash conclusions reflect more on those concluding than what is the case in reality.

Certainly we can see the danger in rushing to judgement, but what about the judging of ideals or a persons inherent beliefs? At what time, if any, is this warranted and at what time is it not? This is of course is a somewhat difficult question to answer, for there are those ideals which contain a violent aspect and these are ones that may need to be addressed independent of the general rules.

I find it might be helpful to start off this portion of my essay with an illustration. Let us say you belong to a local YMCA, and one of the members goes on a shooting rampage, killing innocent people in the process. Now, should your whole local organization become suspect for such atrocities? This is rather a silly example, but I choose it for a purpose, because its sometimes what we do, which is equally silly. There are plenty of ideologies, philosophies, dogmas, creeds, denominations, and categories, for almost every general belief structure out there. Each one, in addition, has its own subsections, divisions and partitions.

Let us suppose Chris Matthews was right for a change (speaking of making generalities, nudge, nudge) and there was a right-wing culprit responsible for the attacks in Boston. Should that reflect on all those who subscribe to the right-wing ideology? Certainly there are those that would believe this to be the case, but mainly only because they already have a predisposition, feelings of anger, discontent, or paranoia concerning those who belong to the right-wing of American society. Yet, it isn’t a reasonable conclusion, for it disregards those right-wing individuals who are as outraged and sympathetic concerning such attacks. It is an unjust globalization of an ideology. This remains true if one were to attribute the bombing to the left-wing faction of society, or even Americans in general, it would be equally unreasonable.

So when does it become justified? Simply, we need to narrow our scope of focus, and apply and observe applicable conditions. For instance, there are groups that exist within the world where their philosophies encourage violent behavior, and are a integral component of it. Thus, it being an essential part of their dogma, a conclusion that these groups possess violent tendencies, would be a reasonable one to make. Yet, there needs to be specificity, for these groups may take on the guise of another or be adjunct from a greater, deserving of its own classification. The more general and wide the scope we draw conclusions from, the more these conclusions are alike with racism or sexism, which is dangerous indeed.

On The Tragedy in Boston, Media, and a Terrorism Definition

Today there was a terrible bombing in Boston, which injured over a hundred and killed at least three people. These are dangerous times we are living in, and who knows, one day living in this country may be akin to living in the Arab nations where violence surrounds and abounds.



Again the media and government seems almost split and contradictory it its collective personality. While they in the media within the immediate aftermath had no problem speculating between the political affiliations of the perpetrator, or perpetrators, i.e. left-wing or right-wing, any possibility of an organized terrorist connection, they seemed hesitant to address. Yet, again, at the same time, the imagined political ideals that such a person might have, were discussed. This frighteningly suggests and shows, not only a strong partisan divide in this country, but the extent of the hate or anger that one side feels towards another. I fear this divide and strife will only get worse, and indeed we have already seen civility and tolerance, which everyone demands but nobody practices, begin dissipating into a thing of the past. This is in both media and the general public, though there are those examples to the contrary. Lastly, I would like to point out this is based on the short coverage I did see and wasn’t in front of a TV or radio all day getting continual reports, so therefore any disagreement may be well founded for all I know.



Now I would like to address this word, “terrorism.” I find it a little odd, yet still a bit understandable, as to why the President and/or White House would be so hesitant to say the word or any variation thereof. Furthermore, after a brief Google search I found many definitions of terrorism, but not one concise meaning, which I found curious. One website explains this by suggesting that terrorism is a very relative term and is dependent on whom is using it. Also, one says it need be done especially as a means of coercion. However, I would like to humbly suggest a definition myself, that occurred to me when reflecting on all these acts as they occur all over the globe.



I was driving in my car a number years back, and I found myself stuck at a light behind a car which had a bumper sticker that read, “War is Terrorism.” Well, that kind of got this whole thought process going and I began to ponder the nature of war, and of terrorism, and how they might differ, if indeed they did. I have come to the conclusion that they do. My definition of terrorism would be, “Any act of violence, or attempted violence, designed to cause harm to a innocent person’s being, life, or property.” In short, terrorism is an act which targets the innocent. In addition, these acts usually testify to some cause and/or group. Furthermore, the terrorist seeks for his act to be infamous in the public eye as a spectacle, so he may use outlandish means or claim as many lives as they can in order to spread panic and fear among the innocent, which pleases the perpetrator through the chaos it brings down.



Alright, so maybe my definition isn’t as simple as I set out for it to be, but terror and the terrorist have these like traits when an act is labeled as one of, “terror.” Thus, at President Obama’s press conference, I was surprised at the absence of the word. He may have came out and said that it was by all means an act of terror, for there were innocent, unaware people targeted, but at the same time, perhaps he didn’t want to confuse people by making them think he was referring to, “organized terrorism.” That is a group like Al Qaida or Hamas without absolute proof first. Perhaps it’s time we change our definition of what terrorism is, when those not involved in any conflict and are thereby innocent, are targeted, hurt, or killed, by those employing warlike means.

I thank you all for your time and my prayers and thoughts go out to all those affected by today’s tragic events.

Love you Boston!

On Bread and How its Ripping You Off

The observation and joke has long sense been the inequity between the measure of hot dog buns in relation to the sum of hot dogs bought and or sold within their preset packaging. If one were to host a barbecue, for example, and buy only one package of each, not only would you discover that your a cheapskate and terrible host, but you would also find a number of hot dogs left after you and your few, and probably only friends, were served. Though, I have not examined every kind or brand of hot dogs, and hot dog related product, this can generally be said to be indeed true. We have all learned in our experience to cope with the contradictory reality within the bun/dog relationship.

Though I risk sounding by this essay a little too much like Glenn Beck, I will refrain from doing so completely by never mentioning George Soros (other than right now), or utilizing a chalkboard to make my point. Yet, the truth is that the hot dog bun is not the only baked good out there ripping you off. This can to a degree be readily seen, as the thrifty shopper is well aware of, while they stroll down the bread aisle of their favorite local supermarket and spy the unreasonably high cost of any yeast infused product. We find not only the prices to be extreme, but in addition find that there is an underlying malicious intent instilled within the loaf and that pre-wrapping which prepares the parcel for sale.

For eons, bread has been a staple product in the diet of people the world over. In the past, great care was taken in its preparation, and exuberant joy would emit from children and adults alike, whenever a freshly baked loaf was displayed. Yet, despite age, all would rush to the treat with childlike enthusiasm. The pride and care they would take in their carbohydrate packed culinary creations was evident to everyone who bit into the earthy loaf. Alas, that we cannot rekindle the adoration of bread as they had in those bygone eras.

Instead, by mass production, and bread makers, the latter that produce something resembling in shape and form a Mountain Bar, or perhaps more akin to a cubist work by Picasso, than a sumptuous loaf baked by the late Julia Child, we have lost that piece of romanticism we used to attribute to our bread. It's as if our regard for bread has moved from Thoreau to Marx.

The horrific truth is that excluding the hotdog/bun inequality, you may still fall victim to the great bread conspiracy, whether you like complex carbohydrates, wheat, italian, or white, you are privy to this scam, and I have fallen victim to it many times. When one strolls down the bakery isle of their favorite store, this scam lies in wait, and we may not even contemplate the horrible truth. This truth rests in the occasional unequal number of slices per loaf. In those bygone days of homemade baked goods, one could measure out the slices in size taking into account the amount of guests, that each would get an equal share.

Most people, thanks to the Earl of Sandwich enjoy the treat that bears his namesake. The vast majority of the time, this requires two pieces of bread and the necessary filler in between. Thereby, it seems logical that all mass produced loaves would in fact have an even number of pieces of bread that one may engage in consuming assorted sandwiches until the loaf is gone. Alas, this isn't the case and too frequently one ends up with an odd number of slices, where a sandwich can only be made by dividing the slice. This isn't too difficult a task this much is true, but we must remember the high prices of bread, and this price doesn't take into account the amount of slices in each packaging. So, you may be indeed buying a loaf of bread for full price, but getting shorted on one slice, probably to the amusement of the management of any bread company.

I believe the grocers to be in on this as well, and though I haven't studied the subject fully, I suspect a break down of the bread, bun and hotdog integrity, and sense an arising crisis among consumers. I would encourage you all to write your congressman about this important issue.

On Juicing in Sports and Jaegermeister's Discouragement of it

Nowadays, sports is made up of more juicers than a months worth of late night infomercials. While some fruit juicers were endorsed by real athletes that naturally pushed the limits of the body, like the late Jack LaLanne, the sports world has been for a while now, turning against natural abilities in an effort to turn sport superstars into something more sinuous, and thereby more entertaining. All this accomplished not through athletic discipline, but through the use of performance enhancing drugs. This is a sad state of affairs (much like my own athletic ability), but lest my conclusion be thought to be superficial, I will explore just a few reasons why this is unsportsmanlike, dangerous, and even what it says about society today.
Within popular opinion, and even within the editorials and articles in publications like, ESPN, SI, or the Sporting News, one may come across the argument that people just don't care, shouldn't care, or that the pressures of a sportsman encourage that all athletes should, "bulk up." It is unfortunate that the idea of sportsmanship has reached such a low point, that this would even be encouraged, excused, or permitted. Giving someone an edge by a means that is unnatural, or opposed to the rules and the inherent ideas behind competition, is an idea that we most apply to sports like Football, Baseball, and its pop culture kin. Yet, to see the fallacy in these ideas and the overlooking of such trespasses against athleticism, it may be useful to reflect on what may happen when we apply these principles to other forms of sports, jobs, or competition. When we do this we find the fallacy of this kind of thinking to be more explicit, for it is applied in a sense which we can identify with a little better, than an impersonal sportsman we may see on television. To the general public those who participate in such sports, not only achieve the status of celebrity, but also one amounting to a kind of superhero who has developed their body, the means of which can be irrelevant, to do what most the rest of the spectators can't. Thus, there is a degree of awe when one watches two competing teams or individuals battle it out. To be able to identify with such sportsman or sportswoman can be quite the task indeed, for their skill is generally beyond the Standard of human capability, in not just strength, but also stamina, dexterity, discipline, endurance and all the like. Yet, again, when we take this principle of performance enhancing drugs down to the common man, we find sportsmanship, discipline and even skill to be on the decline when one permits the use of steroids. Furthermore, this may be just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
One of the oldest "sports," is the hunting of game. The respectable nature of the hunt, is expressed even on bottles of Jaegermeister, and, in fact, quite eloquently. Jaegermeister, which means, "master hunter," states on the label, "It is the hunter's honor that he protects and preserves his game, hunts sportsmanlike, honors the Creator and His creatures." We see in this quote that sportsmanship, honor, and integrity are all emphasized.
Now when applying the principle of heightening one's abilities, through artificial or unfair means, and putting it into the context of hunting, the sportsmanship is profoundly degraded, as well as, in this case, gruesome. Instead of a hunter, pursuing prey with a rifle or compound bow, with heightened abilities, it would be much like going hunting with a bazooka, land mines, or painting a deer with a laser, and having the creature waxed by an air strike. In the same way, it would be like fishing with dynamite.
I think many of us would agree that such an elevation of ability and/or tools would be most unsportsmanlike indeed. What about bowling? What kind of sport would it be if one competitor had a ball half the width of the alley (though someone might point out a person would need to be athletic, superhuman or on steroids to handle such a ball, but thats beside the point - settle down!)? Let's not forget our southern friends, what about Nascar? How fair would it be if someone would have the use of a jet in the race? These examples may seem extreme and rather silly, but I use them to emphasize the point, that not only is the use of these controlled substances dishonest, but the decrease of honesty, by means of unnaturally enhancing skill, and thus providing one extra tools, is directly and adversely proportional to the sportsmanship these sports are supposedly founded on. Thus, if dishonesty and artificial enhancement are on the increase, in an equal degree, the sportsmanship is on the decrease.
One may point out some fault in my examples that since each "sporter" uses a tool, and it is these tools that are increased in ability, not the sportsman, these examples cannot be equated with steroid abuse. However, in such physical sports, which by the way I was never good at, and I "was" more a fan of "Dungeons and Dragons" anyway, the body is one of the greatest tools in all of sports, and it is this tool that is altered by juicing up. The principle of enhancing your gun or weapon in hunting, is one in the same with enhancing your "guns," or tools in the body. The examples might be different, but the principle is coherent without any absurdity. One not need apply some alteration to, "The Duke," to make these examples corollary.
Due to all this, we see that steroids equate to an advantage. An advantage in sports, produced by artificial means is cheating. Plain and simple. Even if you worked at McDonalds and a guy strung out on speed could do 30 more burgers than you an hour, and thereby gets a raise above you, would you not feel cheated? For your performance would be lowered by the juxtaposition the management may have between you and the strung out individual. Yet, even McDonalds doesn't allow such behavior and such a person would be immediately fired, but we don't even hold the standard of McDonalds in sports apparently, except within the possible example tailgating with fat encased treats roasting on a bar-b-cue, clogging arteries and shortening one's life span. (I believe there is a correlation between your life span and the decrease thereof according to how many tailgates you attend, and every time you indulge in grade "s" quality "beef" from the golden arches.)
Another popular argument for the use of steroids, is that sportsman are under a lot of pressure to perform. No doubt this is true, but this pressure has always been present in sports, since the earliest times. I believe it can be argued that the very concept of competition presupposes a pressure to outperform another. This pressure isn't just limited to sports, and you may have indeed experienced it in your own workplace or social life, but such pressures, do not equate to the permission of drugs. The pressures of life may not be pleasant, but they are ever present. They are mentioned and experienced throughout time, from the Bible to Queen and Bowie. Certainly, these pressures don't excuse inappropriate behavior.

David Bowie and Queen - Under Pressure by stevanhoggPressure in athletes is not a new thing. From to the first olympians to the jr. high athlete, pressure is apparent and a factor in their participation. Yet, they participate knowing full well this pressure exists, and if one cannot handle pressure, then they should cease to be an athlete. I have no sympathy for those who engage in an activity where pressure is so explicit, then later complain about it. When we put it in context, the pressure of being a sportsman and missing out on a trophy or national title, isn't so bad. Several ancient cultures engaged in sports where the loser was killed. Not only does Rome have a history of this, but also the Mayans. Now thats pressure. Again, pressure is presupposed and a necessary condition of competition. In all forms. Even the contestants on the Price is Right are subject to pressure, which must be excruciating when anyone ever bids one dollar.
Another argument goes that so many people in sports do steroids and it has been done for so long anyway, that enforcement now would be absurd. Well, performance enhancing drugs hasn't been done forever, rather athletes, like many in society, were once concerned and focused on honor. In fact, honor was sometimes the initial cause of competition. Honor is unfortunately an outdated ideal. Why have honor when you can have 5 million dollars? Yet, I ask why not have both, for there are great athletes of the past and today who never used performance enhancing drugs, and still had the ability to entertain in and through competition. This should be the case today in all examples, but we are far from it, for the idea of honor has been degraded by the pursuit of goods, pride, and the most carnal. Yet, it wasn't too long ago where honor was so important many would actually give their lives or sacrifice their health to achieve that ideal. Of course, one would argue that steroids can be the means to the end to that ideal, but the use of such drugs makes keeping that honor intact an impossibility.
The permitting of this and what it says about our society and culture as a whole, I feel is quite scary and, in fact, dangerous. For those who don't care about this issue, and many shrug it off, we see it fits a constant and current trend in pop culture, and that is the excusing of behavior for means of entertainment. This obviously goes beyond the sports world and one can indulge in any kind of activity they want, as long as they have the ability to entertain. Cash helps too. Not only is enforcement lax concerning such actions, but if one becomes privy to some consequence, this consequence is not as strict as would be directed at the majority of common the common man. This gives many celebrities, and sports figures a free pass to engage in things that the common man could not possibly get away with. While we conclude our politicians should be free of any mistake whatsoever, in entertainment and sports they are encouraged, for to the American, there is nothing more entertaining then a train wreck.
Steroids being present in sports, produces another question concerning the Hall of Fame and those that break records. Should the records stand equal and comparable to those included into the cathedrals of sports greats? I say no, for I feel it is disrespectful to have these inclusions, that they may be compared against, or along with those who have held sport to a higher standard and played the game naturally. Just as in my terribly poor McDonalds analogy, this comparison represents an unfair advantage, even among these monuments of likeness which extend at times beyond the life of the individual,, for there is an evident belittling of the greats by the inclusion of the fakes. If indeed one wants to build an edifice for those who are on steroids, may it be separated from the rest, that they may not be considered one in the same, for they are most certainly not. At least include a relief of a syringe on those who have altered their performance from these drugs.
Yet, there are bound to be mistakes for due to lack of enforcement, it can be difficult to identify those on these drugs. In fact, the chemists who produce these drugs are always trying to remain one step ahead of detection. Then how do we spot a juicer? Well, in football, its easy. When another player swats another on the rear end in the, "good game," or, "adda boy," fashion, and the recipient cringes, well they have more then likely recently had a large needle in their butt. With added enforcement of the principles behind sportsmanship, and a stricter no tolerance attitude, or at least some form of punishment which actually punishes the guilty, I believe sports can be saved, however it would be a long road, for the deterioration of sportsmanship is not just due to the use of steroids, but rather other behaviors that threaten the purity of these great games.

Some of these behaviors and lack of sportsmanship may in some cases be linked to the use of steroids, though this is according to some, not others, so since I am not a scientist, I can't claim it to be conclusive by any means. This element is kind of based on who you ask. However, there have been many studies done, in the lab, and outside the lab, which suggest there may be a relationship between steroid abuse and aggression. This was indeed tested outon monkeys and found to be the case in that example, but I believe monkeys have anger issues to begin with, especially when it comes to throwing feces.
To be fair, sports have always contained an inherent emotional nature, and "trash talk," on the playing field or court are common place. While one school holds this connection to aggression and steroid use to be true, another disputes the idea. All I know is if athletes start throwing feces, the results can be considered conclusive concerning the relationship between steroids and aggression.
The term, "steroids" is a colloquialism for "anabolic-androgenic steroids", or "AAS." What is undisputed about the use of these drugs is the physical effects that one may encounter after frequent use. Yet, as said before, the psychological effects are under current study and debate. The structure of the heart, liver problems and high blood pressure have all been associated with the use of AAS, and it goes without saying that these being in good condition are necessary conditions to be a successful athlete, especially if one considers the long term.. Though this is dangerous enough, we find if one gives credibility to the psychological aspects of steroid abuse, then the true danger and dark side of AAS becomes clearer and should negate any discussion into its allowance into sports whatsoever, for it in a sense the debate becomes ridiculous, for it becomes outweighed by the danger.

Some of the psychological charges against AAS make the claim that it may make the user, "hypomanic." In 2005, CNS Drugs quoted:

"Significant psychiatric symptoms including aggression and violence, mania, and less frequently psychosis and suicide have been associated with steroid abuse."

I know it may appear that given recent events regarding the Kansas City Chiefs' Devon Belcher, that I may be hinting, either implicitly or explicitly, at this particular tragedy, yet this is not the case at all. To editorialize and make connections that I have no proof of concerning the murder-suicide in regard to steroid abuse, would be very disrespectful to those involved, and even broader, to those who have been emotionally effected by the tragic events. So why write about this topic now? Simply because I started writing this particular entry before the Belcher tragedy. I am no way suggesting that Belcher used steroids or that the events and the substance have any relation to each other. Thus, again, these two topics are divorced from each other, but when we look at the list of possible psychological effects from steroids, we may come to find that such events are possible and induced by the substance if one is to adhere to the "inconclusive" conclusion of the aggression, violence, mania, psychosis and suicide cited by CNS Drugs, which may be (or may not be) onset by AAS.

If this is indeed the case then we can expect those personal fouls, or unnecessary roughness calls to increase in correlation to any increase in the abuse of AAS. These symptoms, of course will not be contained in the arena or stadium, but also outside the field of play. I rather recently had the opportunity to interview a therapist I met about his impressions concerning a possible connection between steroid abuse and violence. Specific details were of course omitted due to the patient-client confidentiality, but he did indicate he counseled several non-pro sports individuals whom used steroids and noted that there were examples of anger, abuse and aggression within the home that suggest, to him anyway, that a connection is apparent.
Another danger about the use of steroids in athletes, concerns not the athletes themselves, but those who look up to them, respect them, and consider them as role models. This is a huge responsibility that the athlete must be aware of, whether they like it or not.

The very fact that there are even fans indicates this role model element to be a necessary consequence of their participation and success in sports, despite the fact that some may want to deny it. A dangerous fact concerning the addition of steroids in a particular individual, or the disclosure of those who use of such substances, reflects not only on them, but also those who idolize them.
Now the truth is the responsibility of a young sportsman doing steroids doesn't necessarily rest fully upon the pro-athlete. Indeed, the responsibility rests with the budding athlete. Yet, it could be said that pro-athletes influence young minds that the use of steroids equates to greater success. Some statistics suggest, that up to three percent of all high school student athletes use steroids, and to a young athlete it is much more dangerous a prospect, than say that of an older pro-athlete. Why this is, is simply because their bodies are in a greater degree of development than that of an older athlete. In fact, AAS has the ability to change the structure of the heart, specifically the ventricles, which may cut short the athletic future of a young athlete or even his life.
It is for these reasons I feel a stricter approach by those in sport management, law enforcement and society as a whole needs to be adopted in order to curb the abundant use of performance enhancing drugs. Lives are at risk, not only in the sense of death, but also the quality of life. Again, one's ability to entertain should not reflect on the degree of punishment they receive for any trespass against law or regulations set by any authoritative organization. This, personally, hints to me a loss of character within our country and indeed the world, which can only be repaired when we understand and realize the dangers or consequences that can arise from our complacency for what is wrong, merely for the sake of entertainment.