Dski's World

714 v. 755; 60 v. 73. Which are the bigger numbers and to whom do they belong? The smaller numbers belong to Babe Ruth, the larger to Hank Aaron and Barry Bonds, respectively. Since the larger numbers are supposed to represent records, why do many sportswriters and so-called baseball traditionalists wring their hands about the demise of Babe Ruth’s home-run records? Babe Ruth does not own the single season or all-time home run record. Hasn’t owned the single season record since 1961 or the all-time record since 1974. Babe Ruth owning a home-run record is REAL old news. Still Certainly, the pundits don’t slip up when it comes to the single season record. They’re letting Roger Maris have that one, although they gave him a hard time about it when he got because they claim it took him extra games to do so. But, excuse me, Hank Aaron shattered Ruth’s former all-time home run record and they find fault with that. “Took Aaron more at-bats.” Still they don’t have the balls to say that Hank Aaron’s record deserves an asterisk. Why? Probably because the 41 home run distance between him and Ruth kills the debate.

I bring all this up because there’s a groundswell of lamenting when it comes to Barry Bonds breaking the home run record. Not so much that he’ll catch Hank Aaron, but because he easily will pass Babe Ruth on the home run chart – most likely this season. I repeat, the focus is not so much on Hank Aaron but Babe Ruth. Bonds said it himself last year. Many sportswriters found themselves in a hissy fit saying that Bonds was playing the race card when he did this. But don’t they subtly do the same when they mention Babe Ruth, as opposed to Hank Aaron, when it comes to talking about the all-time home-run record? And to the extent they do mention Hank Aaron as holder of the all-time home-run record, they always seem to slip in Babe Ruth’s name – as if he and Aaron are joined at the hip.

But really to me the race card comes through in other forms. After playing it outright is something no white supremacist will do without being called out. So they find other means like steroids. The cry for outlawing steroid use is very loud right now. I don’t think the timing is coincidental. Several years ago, the late Ken Caminiti, former MVP, said that steroid use was rampant in baseball. A couple of years later, Jose Canseco, another former MVP, said the same. Both admitted they used steroids. Their revelations about steroids in baseball certainly couldn’t have caught anyone but the “unsuspecting” fans by surprise. It was the admissions that caught everyone off-guard because no one can say with a straight face that no baseball official, GM, owner, manager, or coach knew that their players were on the juice. Speaking of juice, media writers, who were probably in know, claimed the ball was juiced when home run records were falling. The ball! Mark MacGwire was known to be taking steroid-like substance when he overcame Roger Maris’ single-season record, but there was no investigation digging deeper to see if he was on anything illegal at the time. There was only back-slapping about how much his chase of the record was good for baseball. But with Barry Bonds on the cusp of passing Ruth, there’s a new drug policy in effect and bogus Congressional hearings (more on that in a moment) about it. Is this a coincidence?

Sportswriters act as if steroids are a recent phenomenon or the only drug problem. Excuse me, but medical supplements and drugs have been helping, and hurting, athletes for many years now. Where is the discussion about painkillers in all of this talk? I suppose Curt “Pompous Holier Than Thou” Schilling didn’t receive medical compensation to cope with his ankle injury in the playoffs last year. Any player who cannot play without some medical supplement is receiving artificial performance enhancement. In that sense, Bonds is no different than Schilling, IF he used steroids.

Bonds may or may not be on the juice. I don’t know and I certainly don’t care. That’s a health decision he made. I certainly don’t think that he received any more help using steroids than Ruth did in not facing Black ball-players back in the day. That’s what all sportswriters and baseball “traditionalists” neglect to point out when they say that Bonds’ records should have an asterisk. The asterisk is supposed to signify that the record is not authentic, and thus, won’t be recognized as one grounded in legitimacy. The premise supporting this notion is that steroids provide the players an unfair advantage. So I ask the question, do steroids provide Barry Bonds the same advantage against the best players in the world when Ruth faced maybe half of the best the players in the world? Ruth faced no nonwhite baseball players when he was dominating his white counterparts. Not that nonwhite players didn’t strongly desire to play in the major leagues. It’s just that the owners wouldn’t let them.

Would Ruth have similarly dominated if he faced the pitching of a Stachel Paige on a regular basis? Would there have been such a gap between him and his competition for the home run crown if Josh Gibson was allowed to play in the major leagues? That’s just two banned nonwhite ballplayers. So who had the greater advantage: Ruth or Bonds? Last I checked, while steroids may make you stronger, it doesn’t help with hand-eye coordination – the necessary component in hitting the ball. Aaron said as much himself during a recent interview.

And the Congressional hearings were so bogus. Did they really expect anyone, besides Canseco, to admit using steroids? And where was all this grandstanding when corporations were stealing billions of dollars that wiped out pensions and jobs for commonfolk? How come there was no similar urgency when questioning the veracity of the President’s claims underlying the Iraq Theft/Invasion? Didn’t the hearings come at another time of convenience? What was going on the same week of the hearings? Check it out because I’m sure it won’t do most of us any good as a society.

Bonds wasn’t present at the hearing but I bet that’s because they have something else in store for him and him only. I bet they got a bombshell ready to drop on his ass. And don’t be surprised if it drops right around the time he hits home-run 709, 710.

It ain’t Babe Ruth’s fault that white baseball fans and writers can’t let go of him almost a hundred years later. It’s not his fault that they look at his career through rose-colored glasses. It’s not his fault that they disrespect Hank Aaron and Barry Bonds to protect his accomplishments. But it’s our fault if we don’t correct it.

If there are asterisks placed besides Bonds accomplishments, then the same should be done for all Major League records that predate the time when there was at least one nonwhite ballplayer per Major League team.

I am a child of the Seventies. And, if you notice, there are many of us. Especially when it comes to music. And music is my lifeline. I listen to Seventies music and see my mom, her sisters, and her friends laughing, drinking wine, and having a good time. And in my own way, I had just as good a time. But that is going on thirty years ago. Has it really been that long? God, it doesn't feel that long ago. And it's sad in many ways. That good ass music reminds us of that age we were when that stuff came out. And those musicians are dying. And so will our parents. Which means that we are just as old, if not older, than our parents were when those albums were playing. Can we stop Time? Can the Ocean be described? I don't like the answer to those questions. But we always have Memories. Memories are a wonderful thing, indeed. Do you agree?

A few years back, I jumped all over the Academy Awards for what I thought was “Pay Back the Niggas” Night. Y’all remember that night, don’cha? Denzel got an overdue Best Actor Oscar even though as good as he was it wasn’t his best performance. Sidney Poitier got a Lifetime Achievement Award even though, as much as I love Sidney, he ain’t done nothin’ for years. Whoopi Goldberg, former winner, hosted the show. But you knew it was Pay Niggas Back Night when Halle won. I’m sorry. Halle, who is fine, fine, fine, did not deserve no Oscar. Then again, maybe she did for makin’ it look good when fuckin’ Billy Bob Thornton’s ugly ass. The con of receiving the Oscar was driven home by her pitiful performance during her “Thank You” speech. And the awful performances in aftermath confirm the bullshit (I guess, I’m ruining my trim points, but, hey, I gotta be honest). The name of the essay was “Oscar’s Dark Night Out.” After its publication and distribution, I received so much flak for my commentary. The blind criticism outweighed any constructive response, which is cool. I like being attacked.

In spite of my observations then, I can say, which I’m sure is a surprise to many, that I am very happy for Jamie Foxx's and Morgan Freeman’s victories. Jamie became Ray Charles, even though I suspect that Leonardo diCaprio may have given an equally worthy performance. Honestly, Jamie may have given a more nuanced performance in Collateral. But his win was a celebration of Ray Charles’ life. A life whose end was overlooked by the sickening red, white, and blue tributes to war criminal/racist/asshole Ronald Reagan.

I was more happy for Morgan Freeman. If you come from the same generation as I do, you were probably part of that first wave of PBS babies. Mister Rogers Neighborhood, Sesame Street, and the underrated Electric Company. Legends Bill Cosby, Rita Moreno, and Morgan Freeman were on that show. Now, Morgan may never live down Drivin’ Miss Daisy, but he’s a helluvan actor who brings dignity and class to all of his roles. He’s a professional who never gives a bad performance. He seems to approach his roles with minimalism. Never going over the top. Letting the unspoken fortify the spoken. Nuance is where he makes his living. And too few actors understand that.

Finally, we should have gotten a clue as to who was doing the Oscars by the designation of host. The only reason I watched the show was because of Chris Rock. And Chris was chosen because of his outspokenness and outrageous nature. He seemed a little tight to me though (what was up with Sean Penn?). But that’s because he was serving food in massa’s house. Maybe next time, if there is one, he can relieve himself of that constraint and play more the Court Jester than the House Nigga. Not that he played a house nigga, but it seemed like he held back. Fuck that shit. Let it all hang out!!!!! White folks been sellin’ us us for years. They love us. Fox News and cornrow-bashing be damned. Don’t be fooled. They just don’t want another OJ. Or Kobe Bryant. Or Michael Jackson.

Halle, please forgive me. We can still hook up.

WMD. "W Must Distract." Attacking Iraq was all we heard about once the heat was turned up on Bush and his close alliance with corporate criminals. Before that the "search" for Osama bin Laden stalled. Then the incestuous relationships between investment bankers and other financial institutions were exposed. Loose "accounting" practices wiped out jobs and retirement funds Then all of a sudden WMD in Iraq threatened the American way more than the bottoming out of the economy. When the media got around to doing stories on Enron CEO Ken Lay’s massive contributions to the Bush presidency, his role in rewriting environmental laws, his private meetings with Bush and Cheney in the White House, and their close friendship when Bush was governor of Texas, the drumbeat for war deafened calls for reform of independent oversight of corporate accounting and investment practices.

WMD. “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Were supposed to be in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was “ordered” to get rid of them, as he was supposed to ten years earlier, or get bombed to smithereens. Under-the-radar fact was that he disposed of them over five years earlier. Why didn’t Saddam get on international television and declare this? Was he still on the U.S. payroll and complicit with the takeover of Iraq?

WMD. “Were Missiles (Un)Detected.” Many in the CIA doubted there were any. U.N. inspectors, who were in Iraq, kept telling Dubya that there were none. Not good enough. “They’re there. He’s playing Three Card Monte with them.” But billions of dollars worth of satellite surveillance didn’t pick up any such movement. Either the WMD weren’t there, or the equipment doesn’t work. And if the latter is the case, why are we spending so much money on it?

WMD. “War (for) Money (and) Death.” Led to an unprovoked invasion killing thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children. Led to over one thousand deaths of young Americans and multi-thousands irrevocably physically and emotionally damaged by the Invasion. (The term “war” in this context is a misnomer. It’s not a “war” when it’s one-sided. After all, when a bully beats up some defenseless nerd who doesn’t resist, is that truly a fight? Problem is this nerd had buddies that laid in the cut and struck back – hard!) The result is U.S. control of the world’s second largest oil reserve.

WMD. “War Mongering Demagogues.” “Either you’re with us or against us.” (Drawing a line in the sand). “We need to spread democracy throughout the world.” (That kind of fell through the cracks when it came to a democratically twice-elected Aristide in Haiti). “Iran and Syria, you’re next.” (What happened to North Korea, who grabbed its crotch and declared, “We have WMD!” in a dare to the U.S. to take action?)

WMD. “Wheels of Mass Deception.” Fox News and all of its outlets. CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PTL, talk radio, newspaper columnists. Not one gave the Peace Movement equal time. Not one publishes the letters of dissenting soldiers when they keep pouring in. Always seem to be critical of anti-war voices such as Michael Moore, Al Franken, Al Sharpton, and Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! in a concerted suppression of dissent. “If you don’t have anything good to say about the war, keep it to yourself.” Support the soldiers instead. Like the late, great Ossie Davis once said, we support the troops by calling for their return from an unwinnable military exercise. Besides, what happened to First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech? Conservatives skip past the that and go straight to the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. (If you haven’t already done so, read The Iceman Inheritance by Michael Bradley for background on why this might be the case.)

WMD. “Witness Massive Deconstruction.” In light of Power Theft Part II, we now have to deal with the dismantling of Social Security and tort reform. Social Security doesn’t pay much anyway, but it pays something. A guaranteed source of income for those who put in decades of hard work as cogs in the machinery known as America, Inc. Money that’s supposed to be placed in trust for retirees. Now, Dubya wants to place that money in the “trust” of his boys on Wall Street to “invest” that money in stocks and bonds. But what companies and whose bonds? Then there’s tort reform, which, after abortion and gay marriage, is a major weapon of mass distraction. Limiting the amount of money one can recover when their trust was misplaced. As if lawsuits are costing companies and so-called professionals big dollars. It’s only costing the insurance companies money when these people are negligent in carrying out their duty to keep you and me safe from harm. And if they can’t ensure that their products and services won’t cause harm, get out of business. Otherwise, they have to pay a penalty and compensation when they harm, or end, someone’s life. And money, regardless of the amount, is really no substitute for damaging one’s quality of life.

WMD. "Ward Must Die." At least that's what a lot of so-called patriots seem to think about Ward Churchill. American Indian activist and scholar now faces a fight for his academic freedom and freedom of speech because of one phrase in one sentence at the end of a single paragraph that falls near the beginning of a twelve page essay. People are jumping all over him for comparing technocrats working in the American war machinery in the Twin Towers to the German Nazi Adolf Eichmann. He was really pointing out that they performed similar functions in war mongering, but it was an expression meant to be provocative. In being provocative, he was trying to make a point that should have evoked intelligent discourse about the United States' role in killing millions of people over time. But in this dumbed-down world of sound-bites, idiot talk radio, "reality" television, and Fox "Unfair and Imbalanced" News, the message got lost. Instead, the focus was on comparison to a Nazi war criminal. If one pays attention, after the word "Nazi" are the words "war criminal." And what separates Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rice from Eichmann? The word "Nazi." Because they are all war criminals. And Professor Churchill's point was just that, and he expounded on Malcolm X's point that sometimes the chickens come home to roost with the larger point being that what goes around comes around. And car bombings, beheadings, and planes crashing into buildings may only be the tip of the iceberg. Because the real terrorists sit in the White House overseeing programs that "shock and awe" their enemies. Has anyone stopped to think what single word is synonomous for the term "shock and awe" in the context of war? Right, "terrorize." The people crying loudest about Mr. Churchill's analogy have yet to read the essay. If they had, they would have gotten the larger point he was making because there is a lot more to the essay than the phrase. The fact that that phrase comes near the beginning of the essay exposes the person who called him out on it. Because it demonstrates they read no further than that paragraph.

WMD. “(The Alleged Existence of) Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Never did find them. And that news was a whimper in the Wheels of Mass Deception. Small column, less than five paragraphs on page twelve in the lower right-hand corner of your city’s major newspaper. Nada a word on talk radio. An afterthought on television news channels. If lying about some fellatio leads to impeachment, how does lying about weapons of mass destruction lead to re-election when it will continue to cost billions of dollars as well as thousands of lost and damaged lives indefinitely?

Welcome to Dski's World. I decided to jump in the ocean of cyperspace and pitch my tent. To say what I want to say and how I want to say it. Hopefully, you'll find it funny and insightful. I will post comments twice a week about current events and philosophy from a counter-racist perspective. Thanks for tuning in.