Steroids: Move On Dot Org

Is it me or do we need to finally stop talking about steroids? I get that when we talk about sports 24 hours a day on tv, radio, print, and the internet we need to find something to fill the headlines… And, I also get that our in-your-face society loves to see a person’s career and life ruined by allegations and press coverage, but I think it is finally time to stop talking about steroids in sports (especially baseball) and move on!

ALL PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES USED STEROIDS!! And by all, I mean around 60%… I would, with no real evidence, guess. Yes, I believe over half of all professional baseball players have at one time or are currently (while trying very hard not to get caught) using some form of performance enhancing substance. College athletes are pressured by coaches and agents to get bigger so they can be drafted, high school athletes are pressured by coaches (and parents?) to bulk up in order to win scholarships. I must say that I do not like the idea, nor do I condone it at all, but I certainly don’t think it is newsworthy anymore. I avoided using drugs to help myself when I was playing high school and college ball because I did not want to go down an illegal and unhealthy path; granted, I was never going to make it anywhere… but I knew it existed.

I would favor any and all strengthening of drug testing policies but it is laughable to beat two or three athletes to death while ignoring the bigger issue. Barry Bonds is the perfect example. I like Barry Bonds, and I was excited to see him go on that home run record chase. It is my understanding that he has never failed a drug test right? We don’t like his attitude off the field and can’t explain how one man’s body could change shape so drastically over the course of 5 or 6 years. I don’t care whether he used steroids or not, my point is he was outsmarting pitchers who used steroids, hitting through middle infielders and speedy outfielders using steroids, and stealing bases off catchers who used steroids. He was still the better athlete (even if we’re only looking at a juiced-up sample). Bonds broke Aaron’s record… none of the other 2 or 3 hundred professional steroid users did it… he is obviously better than them…

Again, I know it is not fair and not the way the sport is supposed to be played. I hope some day all the players are clean and I’m glad the commissioner continues to support expanded testing. We can’t simply put an asterisk on the stats of the players we don’t like, or the ones that are big stars. It quite literally has become the steroid era, if anything we have to put an asterisk on the era as a whole and when talking about stats from this time simply remember, “Oh yeah, that was when everyone was juiced… they were the best then… damn, glad we cleaned that up.” This cycle of secret names, scandals, wondering if the players are lying or not, tears, forgiveness, and tell-all books has to end.

And while talking about forgiveness: why is it that we so soon forget that players had broken the law, were bad team players, and put their health at risk once they apologize? It’s like saying “I’m sorry” is some sort of panacea and the public loves them again. Roger Clemens (I had a poster of him in as a Red Sock in my room as a kid), we all hate him, he cheats on his players, he cheats on his wife. He’s such an asshole. Andy Petite, close friend and teammate of Clemens, shed a few tears, said he was sorry, now we can’t wait for him to get back on his feet. Alex Rodriguez, what a chump, did drugs to live up to his $250 million dollar price tag, not a nice guy anyway, tried to explain himself, not good enough. Jason Giambi, teammate of Clemens and Rodriguez (maybe we just put an asterisk on the Yankees organization…) said he was sorry, grew a mustache, let’s give him an MVP award…. Are we really just looking for the apology?

Steroids are bad and I hope they are gone from athletics soon. But let’s not create these long lists of names, let’s throw out the  decade, or put an asterisk on the whole thing, and move on!

Gay Rights are Human Rights

I have never been more proud of political commentator Keith Olbermann then I was last night when he devoted his “special comment” to the embarrassing and disturbing passage of Proposition 8 (legislation overturning Civil Unions to gay and lesbian couples in California in the latest election.)

Olbermann actually personified my position and feelings on the issue quite accurately. He began by situating himself as a straight man with no close gay relatives but with friends and colleagues prohibited from enjoying the same freedoms he does because of their sexual orientation. This is exactly how I feel; I am not a gay man, nor do I have any gay relatives, that I am aware of, but I do have many gay friends that I would like to believe are just as American, and indeed, just as deserving of all the rights and responsibilities provided by those unalienable rights in our Declaration of Independence.

I also like how Olbermann used the analogy of other minorities getting married as a point of contention because that is one of the first defenses I use when I discuss gay rights as well. Basically, if we as a country think that African Americans should marry “white” people or marry each other (something once illegal in this country) then so should we defend the right for gay unions; if those with a mental or physical handicap can enjoy governmental sanctioned marriage then so should a lesbian couple [I am in no way suggesting that homosexuality is a handicap.] Or, since it is Veteran’s Day, what if there was a law saying all those that served in our nation’s armed forces could not marry? In my opinion, this is the exact same issue. It is the controlling body of the country personifying their fear of a group of people they are afraid of or don’t understand.

Actually, I do not even think we have the right to put it on the ballot. This is not an issue that you can poll the general public about. It does not matter what the majority opinion is, the Bill of Rights was actually created to protect the minority. We would need no First Amendment if everyone spoke the majority opinion all the time, for example. Again, I would argue the majory of the South in the late 19th early 20th century would be opposed to African American unions but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be protected by our country. All that voted for Proposition 8, Amendment 2 in Florida, and the countless other public measures designed to inhibit freedoms to Americans should literally feel ashamed of yourselves. What gives you the right to think you have the power to legislate humanity? That does not sound like the “small government” conservatives hold so near and dear…

The following is a clip of Olbermann’s “Special Comment.” He more clearly and effectively conveys my ideas, giving more attention to the idea of love (or lack there of in the world) and the need to allow the ember of love to burn. Please take a look at this video. We must remember they have done nothing to us and their lives do not affect us in negative ways. We cannot legislate sexuality, we cannot legislate freedom, we cannot legislate love.

What does America Want in this Election?

I’m starting to realize that the reason I haven’t written a new political post in such a long time is not through lack of topics or shortage of entertainment but I’m simply bored with the process. I think we have come to the point in the election cycle where we are quite literally counting down the days to November 4th. Who really hasn’t made up their minds yet? I really don’t believe there is a such thing as “Independents” that must be won over, at least not this late in the game. You either love Obama’s charisma and new ideas or praise McCain’s patriotism and stand-alone attitude. Nothing new about the nominees will be revealed in the next few weeks; independents: (what ever that means) it’s time to fish or cut bait. You’ve made your decision or if you haven’t than you simply haven’t been paying enough attention and need to stop hiding your ignorance behind the veil of ‘waiting for some unknown event.’

Which brings me to my next point. It’s starting to hit me that the election is not about ideas, it’s not about personalities, it’s not about parties, so I don’t know what it is about. I belive I am safe in saying it is not about ideas because one side (yes, the side I favor) seems to have an open plan of action to get the United States back economically, fiscally, and environmentally; while the other side does not hide the fact that it has agreed with the failed Bush policies 90% of the time–that’s not their attack plan. Obama has a plan while McCain simply wants to scare you out of voting for an “unknown.”

But is the election really about candidates either? If we can remember how close the last two presidential elections were than we certainly see a connection with the tightening in this race. It seems the American people do not care who is running, they remain equally divided. I think both sides would argue the candidates they have put forth this election are dramatically more appealing than their 2004 counterparts. If it is obvious that one person can unite and excite so many (i.e. Regan and Clinton) and one person can destroy an entire country and popularity system (Dubya) than why is 2008 still so close?

Personally, I think it is because it is not about candidates and it is not about current issues. When it comes down to it we don’t care about your Iraq policy or new forms of energy; we really still just care if you are going to tax us or not (note McCain’s new attack ads warning of Obama taxing. Yes, he will tax the top 5 or 10% but lower taxes for everyone else. That’s how Democrats work, not just Obama. Move on dot Org!); are you going to be pro-life or pro-choice; will you support gay rights or conserve Christian moral values? I would aruge that this is what the last election was about and it seems what November 4th is shaping up to be as well.

I guess what I am trying to say is that it is time we look at candidates and their current issues and not the philosophies of their respective parties. Don’t vote for a person because that is who your party nominated, vote because they will be the best woman or man for the job. I hate to say it, but if you don’t think they will be better than I would suggest not voting rather than voting for something you don’t believe in. Ok, time to get biased: McCain may be a Vet but still gets D ratings by veteran advocacy groups. He may be a “maverick” but still agrees with 90% of Bush’s failed policies. He may be more “experienced” but he will still be the oldest President ever to hold the office, if elected. He wants to stay in Iraq at the cost of Billions of American tax dollars and thousands of real American lives.

Obama may be young, he may be inexperienced, but he is smart, he is charismatic, the world loves him, and he has a plan. He is who we need now. Just think about it… Don’t vote for old party ideals (of either side). Vote because you pay attention to world and domestic issues and you seriously know your candidate is better for the next 4 or 8 years.

Who’s at Fault? The who-done-it psychology game.

The Castle the Baroness is running away from!

I recently completed a Graduate Teaching Assistant training program. One of the exercises they made us do in small groups involves the following scenario. We were to read the case and then place blame on the characters in order of responsibility for the Baroness’s death; 1 being most responsible, 6 least. What I found so interesting was the fact that there were so many possibilities for interpretation. It became a psychology test. There were four members in our group and we all had completely different interpretations; which is unfortunate considering the next task was to come up with a group consensus.

I will give you the prompt than my order and explanation. Let’s see if anyone agrees or has a better order. It may seem mundane at first but give it some thought and see how many times you change your mind…

“As he left for a visit to his outlying districts, the jealous baron warned his pretty wife: ‘Do no leave the castle while I am gone, or I will punish you severely when I return!’

But as the hours passed, the young baroness grew lonely, and despite her husband’s warning, decided to visit her lover, who lived in the countryside nearby. The castle was located on an island in a wide, fast-flowing river, with a drawbridge linking the island and the land at the narrowest point in the river.

‘Surely my husband will not return before dawn,’ she thought, and she ordered her servants to lower the drawbridge and leave it down until she returned. After spending several pleasant hours with her lover, the baroness, returned to the drawbridge, only to find it blocked by a madman wildly waving a long, cruel knife. ‘Do no attempt to cross this bridge, baroness, or I will kill you,’ he raved.

Fearing for her life, the baroness returned to her lover and asked him to help. ‘Our relationship is only a romantic one,’ he said. ‘I will not help .’

The baroness then sought out a boatman on the river, explained her plight to him, and asked him to take her across the river in his boat. ‘I will do it, but only if you can pay my fee of five marks.’

‘But I have no monley with me!’ the baroness protested. ‘That is too bad. No money, no ride,’ the boatman said flatly. Her fears growing, the baroness ran crying to the home of a friend, and after again explaining the situation, she begged for enough money to pay the boatman his fee.

‘If you had not disobeyed your husband, this would not have happened,’ the friend said. ‘I will give you no money.’ With dawn approaching, and her last resource exhausted, the baroness returned to the bridge in desperation, attempted to cross to the castle, and was slain by the madman.”

So which character (the baron, the baroness, the boatman, the friend, the lover, or the madman) is the most responsible for the baroness’s death? My order might be a little abstract but, again, there is no right answer. You might want to make a list now and see if it changes the more you think about it… mine did.

I put the baron first. I thought anyone in such an abusive situation/relationship has the option to get out. If he was so worried about her I think he should have treated her better and made her want to stay instead of scaring her out of leaving. Second, the friend. This one I had to be convinced of by my group but a good friend should be considerate of their friends’ situations, especially life and death ones, regardless of circumstances. Thirdly, the madman(woman?) did physically end the baroness’s life but his/her mental instability prevents me from putting him/her at the top of my list.

Coming in fourth position, I have the lover. He is much like the friend because his relationship comes with certain moral responsibilities. [During my initial judgment I changed the characters' name to 'sex slave' or lust companion' to see if lover carried certain connotations.] I look at long lasting friendships being stronger than lust so, while the lover still has some responsibility, he does not have as much as the friend. Following the lover, I put the baroness in the fifth position. She should have foreseen certain risks when engaging in extra-marital relations and could have made smarter choices. She tried hard to avoid her death so one has to give her some credit for that. Her husband’s warning does not say that he was going to kill her, so death was not in her mind when she set forth looking to get out of the castle.

Lastly, the boatman should have helped a person in need… in a perfect world. So while he could be held responsible, his relationship to the baroness is not as strong as the other characters’ and should be placed near the bottom, if not at it.

Hope this was fun!

Swimming and Gymnastics… they’re great… but why?

The opening weekend of the Olympics has not disappointed. American women swept the medal count in the Saber competition, Michael Phelps is three for three on his chase, and the men’s gymnastic team brought home a bronze for their country.

My question is who decided that America wanted to watch gymnastics and swimming so much? I think most of us can agree that the Olympics is comprised of mostly sports not widely followed in this country: archery, rowing, and weight-lifting, for example. But I would not put swimming or gymnastics in the top 15 “most popular sports” in the United States.

Who (and why?) decided that those two sports (and I guess Track and Field in a week or so) would get all the prime time attention? There are plenty of sports out there, I want to experience them all! It can’t simply be because they’re team sports right? The average person knows no more about swimming than they do about the rules of water polo; no more about gymnastics than hand ball. It couldn’t simply be the human interest stories; all Olympic athletes, regardless of sport, have overcome some type of obstacle that would “entertain” a prime time audience. The swimmers and gymnasts aren’t more attractive than some other athletes, so I don’t even think it’s sex appeal. These sports aren’t even purely “American” the way we can view basketball and baseball… I have no idea what makes them different.

I think we would find anything they presented in an entertaining, sexy way, during prime time interesting. We would quickly learn the rules and critique which moves, shots, forms, and executions were the best. We watch it because that’s what they show. It seems a viscous cycle. I love watching those big three too, but I enjoy all forms of Olympic games. I don’t want to have to wake up at 4:30 in the morning to watch some fun fencing or badminton. NBC, be a little more fair with your prime time distribution please.

Which Art is at the Top?

This is a conversation that I have had with a number of people, inside and outside artistic circles. I want to try and categorize, or rank, the following artistic disciplines: theatre (dramatic works and/or enriching musicals for the stage), opera (self-explanatory), dance (mostly ballet, but not excluding serious Modern and/or Jazz styles), and music (orchestral symphonies).

Now, the scale is what I find difficult to explain. It is not exactly the pretension of the audience and artists or the strict adherence to rules of decorum. It is not exactly the skill level of the performers and/or respect given to them. It is not exactly the difficulty in translating a narrative for the audience. But it DOES seem to be a combination of all of these.

Most people (I would say over 90%) would probably agree with the following order: opera, music, dance, theatre. Some may switch music and dance. It is interesting to note that most everyone I have asked has put theatre at the bottom (this includes theatre people!). It seems theatre is the easiest form to relate to, connect with, produce, etc. But, I think that is the beauty of theatre. And most everyone has opera at the top of their list (not surprising, given the lack of available opera in this country and negative impressions regarding entertainment value and accessibility.)

My list still has theatre at the bottom but differs as follows: dance, music, opera, theatre. Every time I see a dance performance my stance on it strengthens. When I think of ballet I instantly picture 60-year-old Russian women beating their students with rulers and the students bandaging their bloody feet every night. Movies like Center Stage have instilled in me an impression that the audience is comprised of retired dancers who see it as their privilege to critique the works and see us lay people in the audience as an annoyance at best. Dancers train from as young as 3 or 4 and devote their lives to their craft. I bet if you asked a dancer to rank these arts they would put dance at the top. I also think there is a strong distinction between beauty and skill and conveying of meaning. I find the art fascinating and enjoy it very much, but even with Masters-level training in Theatre Studies still find it difficult to translate or interpret the meaning of the pieces. I believe it is an “Old boys” or “Old girls club” that is hard to break into and there is a conservative resistance to change or progression within.

Opera and symphonic music have higher levels of respect given to them: most everyone dresses up for these performances, they are usually more expensive, and ten-minute curtain calls are not uncommon (and sometimes expected). The commercial followings for these are most assuredly smaller than theatre but I still feel their accessibility is stronger than dance. [I have a soft spot for opera, especially the foreign versions, mostly because the story is simple and I think it is neat to hear people sing when I have no idea what they are saying.]

I guess what I am trying to say is theatre is the easiest to produce and relate to (mostly why I enjoy it so much). Audiences can connect to music either because some have training in music or maybe it is that you really only have to use one of your senses (although, I am hypnotized when watching a pianist work) to appreciate it. Traditional opera employs simple stories and elaborate/grandiose sets and costumes to attract audiences. While dance, in my opinion, is a different beast all together; beautiful and easily recognizable skill, yes, but a tough task to fully unwrap what they have packaged for us.

Please let me know what you all think. Have I made my opinion clear or simply confused everyone? Does anyone have a better way of explaining what I am trying to say? Does anyone strongly agree or disagree with my order? I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts!

Treat Yourself to a Home-cooked Meal

Tonight I engaged in something that I hope will become a normal occurrence in my life: sitting with friends, in a semi-formal environment, to share our time, and the foods that we have prepared. I know it has been said countless times before, but food that you make from scratch tastes so much better than its manufactured counterpart; physically, because the ingredients are better and handled with care, and mentally, because you know you have accomplished something by creating a dish.

I was invited to a dinner party and didn’t really know what to make. I wound up preparing a fairly simple artichoke dip from a recipe taken from “The Joy of Cooking.” The pleasure I received shredding the cheese, chopping the ingredients, staring at the dish bake in the oven, and watching my friends scarf it down was one I haven’t felt in quite some time.

The main course, again prepared by one of the dinner party guests, was as elegant as it was reserved, a variation of chicken with noodles. But by the time I attempted to eat the “White chocolate fruit tart,” prepared by the host, my senses had had enough. I’m not sure if it was the relaxed atmosphere or the fact that our taste buds had been rejuvenated from their dormant state by the foods we had eaten already but that dessert actually shut down my brain for an instant. [I am reminded of the misanthropic food critic at the end of Disney/Pixar's Ratatouillie when, after he tasted the rat's concoction, the audience is transported to the point in his childhood when he first recognized the power of good food.] I’m not saying it had quite that effect but it was close…

Add to the edible spread an evening, without television or other distractions, spent with friends, in a warm environment and you definitely have the recipe for happiness.

I challenge you to fix yourself a nice meal and take the time to savor the food. It does not have to be something slaved over for hours. Find a simple food that you enjoy eating and preparing, pair it with a nice (non-expensive) wine and simply relax… if only for a few hours. You won’t regret it.

Am I in the incest minority?

Today I started reading Marc Hauser’s book on the history and theories behind modern morality, Moral Minds. I have been on this kick recently (I just finished Can We Be Good Without God, for example). I want to know why we are the way we are and how much or little does it have to do with religion.

In one of the sections the author asks us to rank to situations on a disgusting scale (1 being normal and 10 being incredibly disgusting). The first first scenario involved a guy walking into a bathroom only to find his mom sitting there licking ice cream off the toilet seat and she turns up to you and says “do you want some.” Now, I thought that was a little weird but still funny and harmless so I gave that a 6. Interestingly enough, the author gave it a 6 as well.

The next story involved a brother and a sister. She is on the pill and he has had a vasectomy so there is no chance for a kid. They just engaged in a very sensual sex act and have confessed their love for each other. The author gave it an 8 and goes on to explain the history of the incest taboo in our culture. I was happy that the two of them had found love and knew there were no health questions with kids so I gave the situation a 3.

I guess the question is: am I in the complete minority here? Am I a weirdo? I can tell you I have no desire to have sex with my sister. I know we do not like incest in this culture, but I guess its hard to find love so why deny it if it’s there. I think father/daughter incest is a different issue and I don’t agree with that. Let me know what you all think. If I’m crazy, I’d like to know… haha, cheers.

Welcome, enjoy, converse…

Welcome to The Fucci Files. This is my first attempt at a blog in any capacity so please excuse any banality, I’ll learn to entertain soon enough. I wish to use this venue as an outlet for my thoughts, frustrations, ideas, opinions, and all around philosophies. Please feel free to comment, question, argue, add, or simply view my ramblings. I welcome any and all conversation and want you to feel comfortable doing so.

I want this to be more than a diary. I hope to spark thoughts and emotions with readers and hopefully find like-minded people along the way. Most of the posts will probably be about politics, sports, theatre, or films… while those may seem an odd combination that is what I am interested in at this point in my life.

The blog list you see to the right is compilation of a few sites I find particularly interesting. They are kept by intelligent, witty, and imaginative friends of mine.

Thank you and enjoy!

Trent