Monday, August 22, 2005

Hate mail is awesome: part deux.

Well, it has finally happened. I got some hate mail. I mean an actual letter, from a preacher no less. I don’t think I will respond in the newspaper because I just don’t want to turn my little column into a point/counterpoint type affair. So I decided to let you in on a few of the gripes he had and answer them.

Apparently the good reverend was offended by my latest steroid column. I think he thought I was condoning the use of steroids. I think I said I would never condone the use of steroids, I did. I think I said someone would have to be crazy to inject something like that into their bodies, I did.

He also seemed to be mad that I called Canseco a kook and I didn’t believe his book when it first came out. I shouldn’t have to defend that. Have you seen the Surreal Life on VH1 starring a one Mr. Jose Canseco? He has already dressed in women’s clothing twice on the show and has proclaimed his love for lip gloss and wishes men could wear it all the time. A little kooky, huh?

As for not believing Canseco’s book when it first came out, who did? This was a man who had a ball bounce off of his head and go over the fence for a home run. This is a guy who claims the game of baseball has blacklisted him from the game, when many who let him try out for them late in his career have claimed he was lazy and thought he deserved to make the team for what he had done and not for how hard he tried. This was a man who wasn’t taken seriously even before he wrote this book. I even questioned my own judgment in not believing Canseco at first. I now am leaning more to his side, as are many.

The fact that I commented about how Canseco committed the unforgivable sin of ratting out his former teammates, the reverend couldn’t understand how I could feel that way. I think we all know that I am not the only one who feels that way about the locker room. There may be some crazy things going on, but we all know that teammates protect teammates and when one breaks the confidence of the locker room, he is never looked at the same way again. This is nothing new.

I realized when I wrote the piece that I contradicted myself in it, but that was how I felt. The good reverend pointed out that I couldn’t have things both ways in the case I said I could be entertained by someone, but I didn’t have to respect them. I know that is contradictory, but I believe it is true and that is how I felt and if I want things both ways, I can have it. I like some Michael Jackson songs and think he, at one time, was a musical genius, but I sure as heckfire don’t respect him very much. Many of us may feel this way about entertainers. Entertainers are supposed to do just that, entertain us, not raise our kids or shape our morals or beliefs.

The good reverend wanted me to take the moral approach and I thought I did for the most part. I think he brought up some good points, but I feel how I feel; I believe that I am not the only one who felt that way about things.

I said I worked on a don’t ask, don’t tell policy and if I remember correctly, back in the summer of 98 when Sosa and McGwire and even Luis Gonzalez were blasting home run after home run, we weren’t clamoring to find out if they were “juiced.” We were content just to enjoy the show. I believe that the majority of fans still feel that way

No comments: