So Who Does More Steroids–Afghanistan or Iraq?

That hearing split along partisan lines, with most Republicans attacking McNamee and most Democrats challenging Clemens.

I don’t really understand why we’re having Congressional Committee hearings about steroid use in major league baseball in the first place, but that might be explained by the natural attention of politicians to be busybodies. But what’s truly baffling is that there would be Republican or Democratic positions on the issue. Have I been failing in my duties as a mini-pundit? Also:

Any referral from the committee is primarily a symbolic gesture.

Sadly the New York Times article I’ve been quoting from gives no explanation of why the hearings are being held. Wikipedia says that “[the committee] has jurisdiction to investigate any federal program and any matter with federal policy implications,” but that doesn’t really explain the hearings. A choice quote from Waxman, the democratic head of the committee after being appointed in 2007:

“The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose” what to investigate.

The committee is also investigating professional wrestling’s policies on anabolic steroids. I’m not making that up. This is the sort of shit that brings out my inner libertarian.

*(Title reference to Get Your War On)

Advertisements

3 responses to “So Who Does More Steroids–Afghanistan or Iraq?

  1. Gary B. Blank

    A cynic could argue that having them spend so much time grandstanding about steroids (or any performance enhancers) in professional sports at least keeps them from screwing up something else. It might also suggest that many Congressman want to avoid doing anything substantive in an election year that could be used in a campaign ad in their district or state. After all, who is going to blast them for being against drug use in sports? A particular group of sports fans? Even if they did, I’d bet a significant number of those nonvoters you talk about in another entry include those sports fans.

    Were Marx alive today, he would not claim that sports not religion is the opiate of the masses. Funny that we are against drugs in the greatest social drug of all.

  2. Gary B. Blank

    Pardon me, but that penultimate sentence should read: “Were Marx alive today he would claim that sports not religion is the opiate of the masses.” I incorrectly edited myself before sending it.

  3. I think you’re right that they’re not likely to be losing opportunities to get real work done. Any good legislation that goes through the current congress gets killed by a special interest, filibustered or vetoed.

    As for the idea that a paralyzed congress is a good one because it can’t hurt us, it’s interesting, but I’m not to the point of thinking that yet. I still think there’s good legislation being proposed (and even garnering majorities). It’s just not getting passed.