Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tomegun
Of course you don't feel sympathy for Bonds - you probably don't like him either (an opinion many share that has been formed by the media). . . .
On the surface it may seem as though he is getting the same treatment, or worse, as Bonds, but I think you should review the last 5 years or so; Clemens has a lot of catching up to do!
|
Yes, tomegun, when it comes to Bonds, I'm just a lemming. Whatever the media feeds me, I accept without thinking or evaluation. I must not like Bonds only because the media tells me not to like him, not because I have seen him interviewed and found him to be a self-absorbed prick. I wish I had the courage and insight to like, and feel sympathy for, Bonds.
Fortunately, when it comes to Clemens, I have wisdom and fortitude. Apparently, the media has been telling me all my life to like him and fawn over him and think he's just swell. But I have found Clemens to be a self-absorbed prick and I don't like him or feel sympathy for him. Strange.
Tomegun, are you serious about "review[ing] the last 5 years"? The evidence, such as it is, about Bonds came out a long time ago. The evidence, such as it is, about Clemens just came out. Should the media have criticized Clemens as much as Bonds based on an assumption that someday some evidence would materialize? Frankly, I think Bonds has a lot of catching up to do. Pete Rose (yet another self-absorbed prick whom I do not like and for whom I have no sympathy) has been vilified since way back in 1989, whereas through much of the 1990s Bonds was praised as one of the best players, if not THE best player, in baseball.
And while we're at it, Larry Craig is getting a free pass from the media, too! I mean, they only started getting all over Craig this year when poor old Bill Clinton has been criticized for dropping his pants for many, many years.