Bonds Trial a Sham, Waste of Government

If you sat through Wednesday's news that disgraced slugger Barry Bonds was convicted of obstruction of justice in the federal government's case against BALCO (which was also a symbolic trial of the entire Steroids Era in baseball) and wondered what the point of the whole thing was, you're not alone.

Prosecutors couldn't get Bonds on perjury -- the jury deadlocked on all three charges against him. They only managed to get the obstruction of justice charge because jurors felt Bonds evaded questions during his grand jury testimony.

By that logic ... shouldn't Dick Cheney be behind bars?

So, with a potentially bogus obstruction of justice conviction -- which carries a maximum of sentence of 10 years in prison, even though Bonds is unlikely to face jail time -- and what's likely to be a length appeals process (oh, and the government can file the perjury charges again, if it so chooses), the question begs asking: what's the point?

Dave Zirin, sports editor for The Nation magazine, takes the whole thing to task in his recent column, The Great American Witch-Hunt: How Barry Bonds Became a Convicted Felon. A snippet:

As BALCO founder Victor Conte—who is no friend of Bonds—said to USA Today, "This verdict absolutely makes no sense to me. Of all of these counts, the one that makes the least sense to me is the obstruction charge. Tell me how there was obstruction of justice. This is all about the selected persecution of Barry Bonds. This is not fair. I was the heavy in this. I accepted full responsibility and the consequences and went to prison. How is that obstruction? Doesn't make sense.”

It doesn’t. After all the public money, drama, and hysterics, this is what we’re left with. He was “evasive." Keep in mind that we live in a country where the US Department of Justice has not pursued one person for the investment banking fraud that cratered the US economy in 2008. Not one indictment has been issued to a single Bush official on charges of ordering torture or lying to provoke an invasion of Iraq. Instead, we get farcical reality television like the US vs. Barry Bonds.

This was a trial where you longed for the somber dignity of a Judge Judy. Since Anderson wouldn’t talk, the government was left with two real witnesses: Kimberly Bell, Bond's mistress, brought in to discuss his sexual dysfunctions resulting from steroids, and Steve Hoskins, the business manager whom Bonds fired for alleged theft and fraud. But their real star was a once-anonymous IRS official named Jeff Novitsky, who has proudly seen Bonds as an all-consuming obsession, US Constitution be damned.

Look, I'm no Bonds apologist. But doesn't anyone else find a bit strange that the majority of the government's focus in prosecuting steroid use in professional sports has largely focused in on him? Is it because he's the sport's all-time leading home run hitter? Someone who allegedly manufactured his numbers in a sport where numbers mean more than anything?

Is it because Bonds was never friendly with the media? Is it because, heaven forbid, Bonds is black? Where's this level of outrage and condemnation for someone like Roger Clemens or Mark McGwire? The former is accused of taking steroids and lying about it; the latter has finally admitted he juiced.

I know Clemens will have his day in court, but the outrage surrounding his case doesn't even come close to Bonds. But think about this ... if the federal government wants to get in the business of prosecuting steroids in baseball (which, as Zirin pointed out, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder said they wouldn't do), why not focus more on the dealers who supplied the drugs?

Why not focus on the owners and Major League Baseball officials who looked the other way as players bulked up, balls went flying out of ballparks and more money flowed in than anyone knew what to do with? They're just as culpable as the players in this, if not more so.

Frankly, the government has gibber fish to dry than a player who was a surefire Hall of Famer before greed and jealousy led him to take performance-enhancing drugs. While the federal government has been pouring in millions of dollars to prosecute Bonds, not one grand jury has convened to investigate the financial firms who led us into economic collapse.

Tank the economy, get a pass and a bailout. Take steroids to hit a baseball farther, and face potential jail time.

Doesn't that seem screwed up to anyone?

This post also appears on my sports blog, Last Four on the Clock.

A Message For My Readers

You may have noticed a decided lack of posts on this blog in recent weeks (okay, months); there's a good reason for that, and I want to ensure everyone that I haven't abandoned this blog -- or the idea of fighting for progressive values that are important to me.

Ultimately, life has been beyond hectic recently.

I work in sports information (i.e., athletic media relations) at Hampton University, and this year, both the men's and women's basketball teams won their conference and advanced to the NCAA Tournament. As great as it was seeing these programs and these student-athletes succeeding and bringing notoriety to the school, it also meant a buttload of work.

Between press releases, press conferences and a trip to Albuquerque, N.M. that lasted nearly a week, I've admittedly let some things fall by the wayside. I've posted to my sports blog occasionally, and I'm still trying to keep my NASCAR blog up-to-date since we're a couple months into the season there, but this page has been a casualty of a busy life.

I've also done a poor job of late keeping up with what's going on; I know the basics of the fight for collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin, just as I know Ohio and Michigan have attempted to pass similar union-busting measures. I'm aware of the pending government shutdown, which -- depending on who you talk to, is the fault of President Obama or the Tea Party.

But, due in part of my lack of time, I haven't delved deep enough into the issues to truly get a grasp of them -- and if I don't truly grasp something, I'm not going to write a blog post about it. I don't wanna give an opinion that might be off-base or try to talk about something I don't really understand.

I'm weird like that.

Since Keith Olbermann left MSNBC, I've effectively stopped watching. I tried to hang on enough to watch The Rachel Maddow Show, refusing to punish her for something she ultimately had no control over ... yet I've stopped watching her show. This wasn't a conscious decision, but with Olbermann off doing his own thing, it just hasn't been there for me.

Which is a shame, because Maddow has the distinct ability to make me understand complex situations that I might not otherwise be able to grasp. I still frequent my usual media hangouts -- I still receive my issue of The Nation every week, and I still visit The Huffington Post whenever possible -- but this has suffered as well.

I think, now that things are starting to calm down at work, I'll be returning to this page soon. I just need to re-charge the proverbial batteries, decompress a little. I am not abandoning this page or the struggle it represents; I'm merely taking a step back to make sure I have the energy and resolve for what will undoubtedly be a tough battle ahead.

Take heart, fellow progressives. I'm not going anywhere ... I just need to re-fill the tank.

I will be back.

Setting Some Ground Rules

There are some things that have gone on of late in the world of politics and media that really irks the hell out of me. They're not necessarily things that require their own post, but I figured I'd lump each item into one column and establish what I'd like to see as some ground rules going forward.

So without further ado ...

If You Quit Political Office Without a Damn Good Reason, You Forfeit Your Relevance: I find myself constantly perplexed and annoyed with the mainstream media's continuing fascination with Sarah Palin. Everything she says or does, no matter how asinine or irrelevant, gets seemingly endless play -- and I just don't get it.

As much as I vehemently disagree with Palin's political views -- and as much as I detest her tendency to make every single thing that happens about her -- both of those are her right as an American citizen, and they make her no different than other prominent conservative figures in today's media and political landscape. But the other figures have one thing going for them Palin doesn't:

They didn't quit on their people.

Need I remind everyone that Palin was once the governor of Alaska, before she decided to bail on her constituents with two years left in her term? And for what? A gig on Fox News? Traveling the country to make speeches for outrageous appearance fees? An eight-episode reality show on The Learning Channel?

Palin didn't quit for personal reasons; she quit to make herself money. She can run for president if she wants in 2012, but her chances of actually winning office are the same as mine. No one, liberal, moderate or conservative, is going to put someone who walked away from her state in the White House.

I can deal with the fact that Palin's politics differ so radically from mine; I cannot, however, accept the fact that she's a quitter. She forfeited her relevance when she walked out on Alaskans, and it's about time everyone ignored her.

You Cannot Call Yourself the Pro-Life Party if You Introduce Legislation That Would Kill People: Elected Republicans today like to call themselves pro-life, champions of unborn fetuses everywhere. In one breath, these elected officials scream about the virtues of small government and keeping government out of people's lives. But the second a woman gets pregnant, they want that small government to become quite large.

As if that weren't hypocritical enough, Republicans in Congress -- having failed to redefine "rape" -- have introduced a bill that would allow expectant mothers to die rather than perform a potentially life-saving abortion. The bill, ironically called the "Protect Life Act," would allow hospitals that receive federal funding and oppose abortions to deny a woman the procedure -- even if that procedure would save her life.

The GOP will claim the bill is only designed to ensure that federal funds won't go toward abortions -- which is already the case. But it goes much further than that; am I the only one who sees the intellectual dishonesty in calling yourself "pro-life" and then proposing legislation that would effectively give hospitals permission to let women die?

Yeah, pro-life ... until you're born, then I guess you're on your own.

If You Call Yourself a Champion of Small Government, You Have to Vote as Such: I disagree vehemently with almost everything the Tea Party stands for, and in a lot of ways, I cringe at the thought of them in Congress. But several Congressmen who associate with the Tea Party helped defeat an extension of three Patriot Act provisions on Tuesday, joining the Democrats in opposition.

The bill, which needed a two-thirds majority under special rules to pass, fell 277-148. Democrats have long argued against the Patriot Act by calling it an unconstitutional assault on civil liberties, so for them to vote against extension was little surprise. But For 26 Republicans -- including several Tea Party identifiers -- to join in the opposition is worth note.

The Tea Party identifies itself as a group of small-government conservatives. How small that government's supposed to be really depends on which Tea Party group you're discussing, but the umbrella notion is that of small government.

The Patriot Act, in a lot of ways, is the antithesis of small government.

The Tea Party Republicans who voted against this extension deserve credit, not just because I agree with their vote, but because they stuck to their small-government principles and let their votes match their rhetoric. The issue's not dead -- the Senate has until the end of the month to take up the issue -- but on Tuesday, at least, act reflected word.

We need more of that in Washington.

If You Championed an Idea, You Can't Call it Unconstitutional When the Other Side Endorses It: Remember when President Clinton tried to pass health care reform back in 1994? One of the ideas that Republicans floated out there, and managed to get included in the bill, was an individual health insurance mandate -- requiring every American to buy health insurance.

Fast-forward to 2009; President Obama and the Democrats were again trying to pass health care reform, and one of the centerpieces of that package was ... an individual mandate. The argument went that by requiring everyone to buy insurance, people wouldn't wait until they got sick to buy coverage and insurance companies would reduce premiums.

It's an argument that makes sense, even if you don't agree with it.

But out come the Republicans -- Congressmen, state Attorneys General and judges alike -- calling the individual mandate (and health care reform at large) unconstitutional. States sued to exempt themselves from the law, arguing the Constitution did not allow the federal government to require citizens to purchase a product.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who championed the individual mandate in 1994, also called the idea unconstitutional. Did he really have a change of heart in the last 15 years? Somehow, I doubt it; to me, this is more a case of the GOP trying to placate its base once President Obama accepted the individual mandate and began arguing in its favor.

You can argue whether or not the individual mandate is a good idea -- I don't think it is -- but if you're on record, as a person or a political party, in favor of the measure, then you forfeit the right to call it unconstitutional later -- especially when you're the party who's always waving the Constitution in everyone's face.

Which brings me to the last one ...

You Cannot Claim to Worship the Constitution, then Pick and Choose the Parts You Like: Today's Republican Party -- both establishment GOP and Tea Party members -- love to flaunt the Constitution, using it as the basis for nearly every position. They cite the Constitution in fighting gun control, opposing health care reform ... even going so far as to invoke states' rights.

Which is fine; the GOP is well within its rights to paint itself as the party that protects the Constitution. But if you do, you have to protect the entire document, not just the parts you like. You cannot scream about how Democrats are assaulting the Constitution, then turn around and talk of getting rid of the 14th Amendment.

Or the 17th Amendment -- you know, the one that lets the people directly elect their Senators.

The Constitution is not something you can pick and choose from ... you either defend the entire document you claim to champion, or you don't. It's intellectually dishonest -- at best -- to wrap your arms around the document and profess your undying love for it ... only to turn around and ask for part of it to be removed.

That would be like talking about how perfect your girlfriend is ... only to tell her you want the birthmark on her cheek removed. Or asking her to get breast implants. If she's so perfect, why ask her to change?

Olbermann Gets Current

Recently ousted MSNBC host Keith Olbermann announced on Tuesday that he will joining Current TV in the late spring. Olbermann will host and executive-produce a one-hour, five-night-a-week primetime show on the network.

He will also become Current's "chief news officer."

The move is quite a get for Current TV, a station co-founded and chaired by former Vice President Al Gore. Sadly, there's the issue of Current's reach; as of this writing, my cable provider (Cox) does not offer the station.

To find out if you have Current TV, visit the network's website.

The move comes on the heels of Monday's announced deal in which AOL purchased The Huffington Post for $315 million and named founder Arianna Huffington president and editor-in-chief of the newly-created Huffington Post Media Group -- in which she will take control of all of AOL's editorial content.

I'm not sure how I feel about the AOL-HuffPost merger, since the consolidation of the mainstream media today is actually a pretty big problem (right, Comcast-NBC Universal?), but I'm willing to give Huffington and her website the benefit of the doubt.

But Olbermann's move to Current TV could be huge -- not so much for Olbermann (who is still being paid the balance of his four-year, $30 million contract with MSNBC), but for Current. Olbermann has become one of the most reliable and trustworthy voices on the left -- not that being on the left got Olbermann this gig -- and it's nice to see that he'll be back.

Particulars will likely be worked out over the next month or so -- namely, whether or not Olbermann's new show will be available online, much like Countdown was. Given Current's limited reach as far as cable and satellite providers are concerned, that would probably be a great way to expand Olbermann's audience.

Particularly us Countdown fans who don't get Current TV. But who knows? Maybe the inclusion of Olbermann will give Current the interest level necessary to get other providers to pick up the network.

Olbermann will be the same as he always has been -- bombastic, witty, sarcastic, hard-hitting -- and he might just have the clout to bring Current to another level ... and make the 24-hour cable stations even more irrelevant than they've already become.

One can only hope.

Olbermann Out at MSNBC

In a move that shocked some, but not others, Keith Olbermann announced on his MSNBC show Countdown with Keith Olbermann on Friday that he was leaving the network and his show was ending. He offered no reason, other than to say that he was informed late in the week that Friday was his last night.

The network claimed the move had nothing to do with NBC Universal's recent acquisition by Comcast (a corporation with well-known right wing ties) -- which is suspicious because the denial was issued before anyone officially asked the question.

A side effect of media consolidation is the homogenization of voices. The fewer media entities in existence, the less diverse the viewpoints being expressed.

I stumbled across Countdown one night by accident; I was initially confused when I saw Olbermann talking about the war in Iraq. Growing up, I'd seen Olbermann co-hosting SportsCenter on ESPN with his friend Dan Patrick. I knew Olbermann to be a goofy sort who loved baseball, but I never thought he'd find a career in politics.

But there he was, verbally ripping the Bush administration a new one over its lies and propaganda. I wasn't nearly as liberal back then as I am now, and I had no idea Olbermann was, either. But even then, I saw the visceral anger -- I could feel his disdain for what he thought was the abandonment of American principles.

Even if I didn't agree with him that night, his steadfastness stuck with me.

As I became more engrossed in politics in the lead-up to the 2008 presidential election, Olbermann -- and MSNBC as a whole -- became my network of choice. Even then, I saw Fox News for what it was and wanted nothing to do with it, and CNN was simply too milquetoast for me (I find it's self-proclaimed centrist nature with relation to the other two networks pathetically laughable).

Olbermann introduced me to several media figures who I trust to this day, including Rachel Maddow, Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post, Chris Hayes of The Nation, Lawrence O'Donnell and Arianna Huffington, among others.

Sadly, he never converted me to Chris Mathews.

Before long, Countdown became nightly viewing, even though it meant missing my share of basketball games and what few hourly dramas I enjoyed (sorry, Bones). Eventually, I watched Countdown and then The Rachel Maddow Show and, for a short time, The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell. Anyone who follows this blog knows how much I love these shows -- not just because the hosts are liberal, but because they cut through the right wing noise and support their assertions with facts.

And yes, Olbermann can be funny. Not Jon Stewart funny, but he held his own.

Insiders suggest Olbermann's ouster is a result of his defiant attitude following his suspension back in November -- but if that's the case, why wait until now to fire him? Why not just toss him to the curb in November? I think it has more to do with the Comcast merger, and I think none of MSNBC's other liberal hosts should feel too comfortable.

Olbermann was by far the network's ratings winner -- he had the highest-rated cable news show not on Fox News. If he could be unceremoniously tossed, how long do we have to wait before the other liberal voices are shown the door?

For almost eight years, whether he meant to or not, Olbermann was a reliable voice on the left. He was the first to stand up against the war in Iraq and the first to hold the Bush administration accountable for its lies and its alleged war crimes. He was passionate and instrumental in setting up the liberal narrative for health care reform, and even though he was an ardent supporter of President Obama, Olbermann was by no means a cheerleader.

His Special Comments were always must-see programming -- I've posted quite a few of them on this page. Even when he was over-the-top, even when he resorted to the same name-calling that the right wing calls home, Olbermann's heart was always in the right place.

I hope Olbermann finds a new home soon; we need voices like him in the media. The right wing always pointed to him as an example of the so-called liberal media, when in fact his voice from the left was one of few.

We need that voice, and damn MSNBC and Comcast for silencing it.

President Obama's Speech in Tucson

President Barack Obama delivered a 33-minute speech Wednesday night toward the end of the memorial service in Tucson, Ariz. for the victims of Saturday's shooting that left six dead and 14 injured, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

In many ways, President Obama's speech was to strike a tone similar to the one President Ronald Reagan gave after the Challenger disaster, or the speech President Bill Clinton delivered after the Oklahoma City bombing.

The speech was a success, rousing and emotional. The president called for us to be more civil and respectful of one another, and though the cynic in me doubts that will happen (I don't see the right wing media machine -- which I do not believe accurately represents many of this country's Republicans -- allowing it), it's a laudable and emotional message.

It's a message that needs to be repeated often. Video of the speech, in its entirety, is below.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Stop. Just ... Stop.

I know it's been a while since I've written on this space -- and that a lot has happened that I could've covered -- but between the holiday and an uptick in activity at work, a lot of things have fallen by the wayside ... this blog included.

But after the horrific events of Saturday, in which Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and several others were shot outside a supermarket in Tuscon, Ariz. -- an event that left Rep. Giffords in surgery for hours, a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl killed -- now seemed like as good a time as any to pause and offer insight.

You won't find anything particularly revelatory in this post, nor will you find me calling everyone on the right wing every name in the book -- that's been done by virtually everyone else in the blogosphere and anyone in the mainstream media who tacks the slightest left of center. I do wish more voices on the right would join the chorus calling for the proverbial cease-fire -- to my knowledge, only one GOP Senator has made such a call -- but I'm not surprised that we haven't seen one.

I'm not here to take Sarah Palin to task for her poster during the midterm campaigns where she placed crosshairs over what she thought to be vulnerable districts for Democrats -- including Rep. Giffords -- because frankly, that speaks for itself. I'm not here to rail against Fox News for its rhetoric designed to mislead and frighten its audience with relation to the Obama administration and Democrats as a whole. That point has been made ad nauseum, and will continue to be made as long as there is a Fox News.

There were the "Second Amendment remedies" that Sharron Angle referred to in her Nevada Senate race against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- the idea that if one didn't get their way at the ballot box, it was okay to turn to guns, because that was what the Founding Fathers intended.

Never mind that bugaboo about majority rule.

At this point, all we know about the alleged shooter was that he was anti-government -- the media narrative will automatically try to pigeon-hole him (if it hasn't already) into the Tea Party movement. I've heard media reports theoretically tying the shooter to Jesse Kelly, Rep. Giffords' opponent from the most recent election who held a campaign rally and encouraged supporters to bring their guns.

Tempting as it is for me to do the same -- a side effect of my partisan leanings -- I'm trying not to automatically lump the shooter in with the ultra-conservative, corporate-backed Tea Party movement that fueled Republican gains in last November's elections.

The only thing I know for certain is that words have consequences. Whether we mean for our words to do actual damage is largely irrelevant; though we may have the Constitutional right to say whatever we please, we also have responsibility for how those words are received. Relay an inflammatory and violent message long enough, you become at least partially responsible for it when a less-than-stable individual acts out in a violent manner.

Take Bill O'Reilly. The Fox News host is adamantly pro-life -- which is fine. It's a free country, and he's entitled to that opinion, just as I'm entitled to be pro-choice. But when O'Reilly goes on his highly-rated cable show and proceeds to call Dr. George Tiller "Tiller the Baby Killer" on several occasions and show such obvious personal disgust for a doctor who is providing a women a perfectly legal medical procedure, don't you think he bears some responsibility over the fact that Scott Roeder walked into a church in which Dr. Tiller was attending and killed him?

I'm not saying charge O'Reilly with murder, but last I checked, there was this thing called incitement. I'm not a law expert by any means, but I remember the term incitement being the one instance where the courts did not have to apply First Amendment protections. Basically, if you said something that led a person to commit a violent act, you were held responsible for that.

But the 1969 Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio makes the subject of incitement a little more complex; the Court ruled that inflammatory speech cannot be punished unless the speech in question is intended to incite and will lead to "imminent lawless action."

If that sounds like a ruling that leaves the door open to plausible deniability, you're probably right. If you can't prove a person intended for their words to bring about violent or lawless behavior, then their First Amendment rights are protected.

Short of recordings of Palin discussing the idea for her crosshairs poster or leaked video of a production meeting for The O'Reilly Factor, how do we prove they intended to have their words leads to the lawless actions of the less stable among us?

Not think they wanted that to happen. Prove it.

Fox News is never going to admit publicly that it means to incite violence with its rhetoric; when Glenn Beck hosts a segment on his show in which he poisons former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in effigy, he'll simply explain it away as a light-hearted moment in his circus of a show, that no one should make anything of it.

Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that's not the case, Beck gets away with it.

The long and short of it, the responsibility rests on all of us to make sure our personal and political discourse never deteriorates to the point where we're encouraging violence against others. We are all human beings, and we are all Americans; it's senseless to incite violence and hatred against each other over political debates. Bringing guns to political rallies does not further our democratic process; it damages it.

Democracy may not be a spectator sport, but it shouldn't be a contact sport, either. Everyone -- from our mainstream media to our own selves -- need to do a better job of making sure our language is civil. We can still get our respective points across without calling for each others' heads.

Can't we?