Since we’re lucky enough to live in a world where countries settle all their differences through sports, I think it’s important to ask ourselves which of America’s professional sports leagues stands to lose the most from its latest developments. From baseball’s Barry Bonds problem to football’s Michael Vick problem to basketball’s some-ref-named-Tim Donaghy problem, the MLB, NFL, and NBA have all taken major hits this week. The question is, which league took the biggest? And will it be enough, in this age of overglamorized athletes, to cause one of the leagues to fall?

Let’s take a look.

Baseball: The same week toxicology reports revealed wrestler Chris Benoit was high on testosterone when he killed his wife and son and hung himself from the Bowflex in his basement, the national pastime’s most detested villain, Barry Bonds, hit two homers in a game against the Cubs, bringing his lifetime total to an astonishing 753—just two shy of the all-time record set by Hank Aaron. As Bonds prepares to surpass Aaron’s record once and for all, reports indicate baseball commissioner Bud Selig will not be present for the historic event.

Why is this important? Because Bonds has never been punished for violating Major League Baseball’s performance enhancing drug policy. True, his head has grown roughly 900 sizes since he joined the San Francisco Giants. But if he’s never been punished for using steroids, that means the league doesn’t recognize that he ever took them. If Bonds is technically innocent, and Bud Selig skips Bonds’s record-breaking 756th home run anyway, Selig is basically saying the record doesn’t matter, in and of itself.

If this record doesn’t matter, then nothing about baseball matters. Not even the sport’s most socially significant moments—such as Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier.

Way to promote your league.

Football: Unlike baseball, which is screwing up the Barry Bonds issue in spite of having years to prepare for it, the NFL is dealing with a story that sort of came out of nowhere, was largely ignored for two months, and then exploded on the scene. That story is the indictment last week of Atlanta Falcons QB Michael Vick on federal dog fighting charges. If the allegations against Vick are true, he’s not only been using his property to stage an illegal gambling ring, but he’s been raising pit bulls to maul each other to death for the sport of it. Dogs lucky enough to survive losing matches have been beaten, choked, drowned, and electrocuted.

It’s safe to say that a growing number of football fans would like to see each of these things done to Michael Vick himself. This is a problem for football, as Vick has been one of its poster children. To the league’s credit, however, commissioner Roger Goodell has told Vick not to attend Falcons training camp. Goodell is handling this situation much better than his baseball counterpart, Selig, is handling Bonds.

Even so, the NFL can survive this crisis much more easily than baseball can survive Barry Bonds. After all, we’re the same country that didn’t really mind Abu Ghraib.

Basketball: Finally, there’s the NBA, where it was revealed last week that referee Tim Donaghy was in bed with the mob, calling fouls to meet point spreads as well as betting on games. This story is big, because it strikes at the very credibility of basketball. If we can’t trust the refs, do the games even count?

But the thing is, no one trusted basketball refs anyway. Next to government employees, they’re perhaps the most criminally incompetent workforce around. Furthermore, if the NBA stands to lose from this crisis, it’s only because they’ve been putting out a terrible product that no one wants to watch anymore anyway. If anything, they should be thankful for Donaghy’s mafia involvement. Gambling is the only thing keeping basketball around.

Verdict: So what’s the verdict? Will the NFL fade away due to Michael Vick’s dog fights? Will the MLB prove so inept as to render itself meaningless by way of Barry Bonds? The answer to these questions is no. And even the NBA won’t prove to be this week’s losingest professional sports league. Truth be told, that honor belongs to the one sports league that had a good PR week: Major League Soccer.

This week, MLS introduced international superstar David Beckham to its Los Angeles Galaxy franchise. Like Pele and a dozen guys whose names I can’t remember before him, Beckham is the one-man show that’s supposed to revolutionize what Americans think about the world’s favorite game. This will never happen. When it comes to soccer, all PR is bad PR, because Americans just don’t care about it. Even hockey had a better week than soccer, by simply keeping quiet and pretending it wasn’t there.

As long as we have soccer in this country, football players could kill each other on the field; baseball players could jump in the stands, shooting needles in the butts of those in attendance; and basketball could just keep being basketball. None of these things are good things, but all of these things are better than soccer games ending in nothing-nothing ties.

I don’t care how crazy or drastic you think this sounds. I don’t care if it makes you cringe. There’s nothing extremist about it. The Constitution gives us a way of holding these guys accountable for a reason. In the late 1990s, we spent a whole year talking about Bill Clinton’s penis. If we could impeach Bill Clinton for not having sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, then impeaching George Bush should be the simplest, most straightforward decision we’ve ever made.

There are people who will tell you impeachment is “not what this country needs right now.” I disagree. I think it’s exactly what this country needs right now—while there’s still time to fire this president. If this were about his last 18 months in office, I’d say it wasn’t worth it. But it’s about something more than that. It’s about making sure no one ever tries to duplicate what he did in his first six and a half years.

The Bush Doctrine took us into Iraq under the premise that we should deal with grave and gathering threats before they strike us. By that very same logic, if we don’t impeach Bush, we’ll be telling future presidents it’s okay to be even worse than him.

If we don’t impeach Bush, we’ll be telling future presidents to use torture, hold people without trial, and break international treaties.

If we don’t impeach Bush, we’ll be telling future presidents to start whatever domestic surveillance programs they desire, and get us into whatever wars they feel like getting us into.

If we don’t impeach Bush, we’ll be telling future presidents to issue hundreds of “signing statements,” so they don’t have to follow the new laws they’re attached to. In fact, if we don’t impeach Bush, we’ll be telling future presidents to ignore laws altogether.

At every level, and in every conceivable way, the Bush administration has fought checks and balances, fought for more power, and fought to consolidate government functions under the concept of the Unitary Executive (i.e., absolute rule). This president has sought to redefine the Constitutional powers of his office, and he’s openly, regularly defied both the courts and the United States Congress to stop him from doing what he feels like doing, whenever he feels like doing it. If we fail to impeach this president, we’ll be saying we’re a-ok with that.

Well, even if you are a-ok with that—even if you think George Bush has the best of intentions—we still need to hold him accountable, because the whole idea is he doesn’t think he should be. If we don’t impeach this president, we’ll be telling both him as well as his successors we honestly just don’t care.

Luckily, Iraq and immigration are finally finishing off George Bush’s remaining supporters. Since we know we can’t count on Democrats to do this, it’s time for Republicans to step up.

If you’re a Republican, do your party a favor—do all of us a favor—and lead the charge for impeaching this president. We don’t know who, and we don’t know when, but we know there will be someone worse if we don’t.

I love when state governments go into suspended animation; I wish it would happen more often. In fact, I wish it would happen perpetually. Let all 50 states shut down their state governments. What a great way to prove that life would go on.

The whole idea behind Pennsylvania’s recent shutdown was that 25,000 “non-essential” or “non-critical” state employees would be temporarily laid off until a budget was passed. Fortunately, this meant the police, emergency workers, liquor store clerks, and slot parlor professionals all stayed in business. These are the only people you really need.

But what I want to know is, if 25,000 state employees are considered non-essential, why are those 25,000 people state employees to begin with? We have a system for non-essential work in this country. It used to be called the free and open market; in modern times, we refer to it as Craigslist.

This must be what politicians are talking about when they talk about “job creation.” More people would create their own jobs—or start their own businesses—if we just got rid of the prohibitive taxes, fees, and various other hurdles that prevent them from doing so. But getting rid of those fees and taxes would de-fund the state government, wouldn’t it? So we’ll just make up new state jobs instead.

Just take a look at some of the things affected by these occasional state government shutdowns and you’ll realize exactly how ridiculous this is.

In the recent PA shutdown, for example, Pennsylvanians were turned away from state parks, where the budget crisis back in the capitol somehow meant you could no longer take a leisurely walk. This is insanity. You don’t need the government to hold your hand when it’s up and running. What difference does it make if it’s down? Countless Americans jog through state parks each and every single day. How many of them ever feel the presence of their government? When you’re out there exercising, the government feels like it doesn’t even exist.

Then there’s motor vehicle centers. That’s another service that was affected by Pennsylvania’s shutdown. I’m not sure why these things have anything to do with government whatsoever. In fact, I’m not even sure why states issue driver’s licenses. You already force us to have auto insurance, don’t you? Shouldn’t our ability to drive be the insurance company’s concern?

I think it’s misleading to say Pennsylvania furloughed its “non-essential” employees. Really, they only furloughed some of their non-essential employees. Others stuck around to continue working on the budget.

I just don’t get the concept of full-time lawmakers. I don’t understand why we perpetually need new laws. Do we really need a constant stream of fresh legislation to keep our society vibrant? Because as far as I can tell, it’s our legislative bodies that keep slowing—or even shutting—things down.

Don’t be surprised if I do this at some point within the following article.

At any rate, back to immigration:

You know how they say misery loves company? Well, the same can be said for tortured thinking. Tortured thinking inspires more tortured thinking, which inspires more tortured thinking, which usually results in involvement by Congress. You can see this principle in play in the immigration debate—and not just from the pro-closed-borders perspective, which is what I was certainly arguing lo these last two weeks.

A new trend has recently started emerging in towns like Burbank and Mountain View, California, where local governments have chosen to deal with their quote/unquote “day laborer problems.” For those of you unfamiliar with this concept, day laborers are essentially illegal immigrant panhandlers—only instead of wandering subways panhandling for loose coin, day laborers wander home improvement store parking lots looking for an honest day’s work.

In an effort to stop day laborers from antagonizing ordinary, everyday citizens, the local governments in question have decided that stores like Home Depot should have to build day laborer facilities on their premises—complete with benches and restrooms (since sitting and peeing in the grass just won’t cut it). Naturally, Home Depot wants to subsidize these facilities about as much as they’d want to subsidize hookers selling their wares behind the dumpster. So in order to stop local governments from forcing their hand, Home Depot’s parent company has appealed for help from Congress.

Let’s take a look at how this all breaks down:

1. Illegal immigrants aren’t sure how to get jobs, so they gather at Home Depot, where they’re likely to find some.

2. Local governments aren’t sure what to do about these gatherings, so they write up a fun law that tells Home Depot, “Here. You fix it.”

3. Home Depot isn’t sure how to make sense of paying for something that isn’t a part of their business, so they ask Congress.

4. Congress isn’t sure what to do about anything ever, so they vote themselves a pay raise and then go home.

There’s really only so many things Congress can do about solving a problem all the way on the other side of the country. They can spend untold billions trying to close the border, which makes no sense, since the border is just an imaginary line. Or they can find a way to protect Home Depot from local governments, which would still somehow end up costing us untold billions, and which wouldn’t solve the aforementioned quote/unquote “day laborer problem,” since illegal immigrants would still be coming here.

The real issue when it comes to immigration is the rise of Spanish in an English-speaking country. (I need only refer you to the second article in my Immigration Series from the Summer of ‘07, where I’ve made this point perfectly clear.) If we accept that Congress should find a solution to the immigration issue—and to be quite honest, I’m not sure I accept that—then any solution they come up with will be totally fruitless, unless it starts with assimilation.

Local governments shouldn’t pass the buck to Home Depot. And Home Depot shouldn’t pass the buck to Congress. This is flawed thinking on top of flawed thinking, and spending untold billions on closing the border would only complete the cycle. The answer here is for Congress to divert whatever money it’s spending on immigration towards building day laborer facilities in home improvement store parking lots. These facilities would double as assimilation centers, teaching English and the U.S. Constitution to anyone who comes here looking for work.

This plan isn’t perfect, but it’s more sensible, and more pro-business, than anything else I’ve seen floated around lately. Plus, if Congress gives home improvement stores the money to build these facilities on their own, the stores can hire the day laborers already waiting around for labor in their parking lots. Everybody wins. Well, except for the unions. But that’s another story for another day…

It’s amazing how rarely we frame this debate in terms of what it is. There are people in this country—and O’Reilly is one of them—who would close the border, line it with soldiers, and build a brick wall reaching all the way up to Heaven. These people invariably paint a picture of crazed lawbreaking aliens who come here to break laws and be crazed as if killing and raping Americans were what they were bred to do.

Unfortunately, crazed lawbreaking aliens aren’t what this issue is really about. If it was, I could see supporting a closed-border policy. But it isn’t. It’s about us.

You may be asking, “How do you figure?” Or maybe you’re thinking, “Darn right it’s about us. It’s about protecting the people who already live here.” Even in theory, this is nonsensical. Like closing our doors to an influx of foreigners could possibly save us from murder and rape?

To understand what’s at stake in immigration, you have to understand what immigration is. The only way to describe it is freedom—freedom to travel where one wants to travel; freedom to work where one wants to work.

Some people aren’t going to like this definition. That’s fine. You don’t have to. Just admit the description is true.

Immigration, in a sense, is the very stuff of freedom. If humans can’t go where they want to go, they aren’t entirely free.

America is [mostly] a nation of laws. America should be a nation of laws, and people who want to be Americans should respect the laws we’ve established. But the problem with immigration isn’t that immigrants are disrespecting our policies. It’s that our policies disrespect individual freedom. Laws that infringe upon liberty are difficult laws to respect.

The hysteria over “getting control” of our borders resembles a furor that has never worked for any people in any country ever. It didn’t work for the pure and innocent Germans who accepted restrictions on evil, greedy, go-where-they-please Jewish people. And it didn’t work for post-World-War-I Americans who accidentally banned the most useful crop in history under the guise of a devious Mexican weed called marihuana that was causing scary black men to get high and elope with fancy white girls.

Whenever a country salivates over the chance to hand in a freedom, that country is always, inevitably wrong. Restricting the rights of others to come here renders us a prison from sea to shining sea.

What America really needs isn’t more restrictive immigration policies, but less. Don’t make it harder for people to come here; make it easier. If you want to keep track of who lives here, punish rapists and killers, and stop folks from siphoning all our free services, open immigration is the surest way how.

Who knows? Stop forcing immigrants to immigrate under the radar and you may even encourage them to assimilate faster. This will finally do away with all those bilingual phone prompts we’ve all grown so sick of. And maybe if they speak English, you won’t feel so bad when hardworking foreigners come and take your job.

Just take a look at the websites of the six leading presidential contenders, click on their “Issues,” and you’ll see what I’m talking about. The White House certainly comes with a ton of responsibility. But preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution? Apparently, that’s not one of them.

John Edwards: John Edwards lists five platforms on his website. “Restoring America’s Moral Leadership in the World” is chief among them. This is interesting. I’ve read the Constitution. I don’t remember America’s moral leadership being mentioned anywhere in it. Edwards also wants to eliminate poverty, guarantee affordable health care, strengthen the middle class, and fight global warming. These are all wonderful things. But what office is John Edwards running for? President or Santa Claus?

Hillary Clinton: Here’s another one I’m not sure what office she’s running for. Take a look at Hillary’s issues—does she want to be President or World’s Best Mom? Hillary is campaigning on ending the war (which she helped start), supporting parents and caring for children, and being a champion for women. She’s also promising affordable health care (welcome to 1993). Nowhere does she mention the presidency deriving its very existence from the U.S. Constitution. Maybe nobody told her, because she was busy looking like a bobblehead.

Rudy Giuliani: Predictably, Rudy Giuliani’s website portrays him as strong on national security. He talks about Iraq, the War on Terror, Public Safety, and Fiscal Discipline. On the subject of Marriage, we’re assured Rudy thinks it’s between a man and a woman (or maybe a man and a series of women). Surprisingly, he does mention the Constitution—just not all of it. We’re told he supports the Second Amendment. I guess, when you’re armed, you only need one.

John McCain: John McCain’s website talks about Government Spending, Iraq, Human Dignity, Ethics Reform, the Environment, and Veterans. Basically, like the man himself, John McCain’s website has grown amazingly boring since the last time he ran for president. (Maybe this is a good thing. I still say the best presidents are the ones whose names you only think you remember.)

Barack Obama: Barack Obama gets a pass for not discussing the Constitution, because black people didn’t exist when the country was founded. (Or maybe they didn’t have voting rights. I’m a little bit rough on my history.) For the record, though, Mr. Obama is all about ending the war and strengthening us overseas. He’s also promising to clean up Washington. On second thought, maybe that’s his way of discussing the Constitution after all. Whenever a candidate talks about cleaning up Washington, it usually ends with freedom being used as a dish rag.

Mitt Romney: Finally, we come to Mitt Romney. Mr. Romney has a nice quote on his website: “I believe the American people are the source of our strength. They always have been. They always will be.” Who’s strength? What are you even talking about? Isn’t the government’s strength supposed to come from, you know, the Constitution? Romney’s site goes on to discuss something called the Romney Agenda, which is described as “Strong. New. Leadership.” (Too. Many. Periods.) Other issues include Defeating the Jihadists and Competing with Asia. Strangely absent: Driving Miss Daisy.

The next time these candidates get on a stage together, I’d like to see Wolf Blitzer and Brit Hume take a seat and let the Constitution moderate instead. That ought to be interesting. It wouldn’t even matter that it’s a paper document and can’t talk. These candidates would have nothing to say to it anyway.

Columns by this author can be read regularly on TheRealityCheck.org.

Sincerely,
John Edwards

Dear Ambulance Chaser,
The answer is “Neither.” Unfortunately, he isn’t running
• • •

Dear Conventional Wisdom,
I saw a bird pooped on President Bush during a press conference last week. Do you think this is some sort of omen?

Sincerely,
The Bird Who Pooped On The President

Dear Larry Bird,
Of course it’s an omen. Those droppings were God’s way of letting us know George Bush is indestructible. You think Kim Jong-Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could’ve survived such a fly-by pooping? I don’t. Hell, Abe Lincoln and John F. Kennedy couldn’t even survive being shot in the head! George Bush is rubber, and you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces off him and sticks to you. I, for one, am glad that bird pooped on his suit jacket. If I had wings, I’d poop on him, too.
• • •

Dear Conventional Wisdom,
Hi from the Democrats in Congress. Just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on benchmarks for the Iraq War? (Don’t worry. Our beliefs won’t be changed by your answer.)

Sincerely,
We Lied—Our Beliefs Depend Entirely On Your Answer

Dear Enemies Within,
Let me see if I understand this. Back in the day, American downtown areas were decorated with benches. People used to paint those benches and place signs on them that said “Wet Paint.” Invariably, middle-aged men would be tricked into sitting on those benches, only to learn, upon standing up, that their backsides had been “marked” by the freshly painted planks of wood. Your idea for ending the war is to build a series of benches leading from Baghdad all the way to the border? It’ll never work. Paint dries quicker than you think.
• • •

Dear Conventional Wisdom,
What do you think of Rosie O’Donnell leaving “The View” three weeks before the end of her contract?

Sincerely,
Steve in Wisconsin

Dear Steve in Wisconsin,
I think Rosie O’Donnell’s views are reprehensible. Rosie O’Donnell believes 9/11 never happened. She thinks Pearl Harbor was part of a plan to keep lesbians from adopting kids. We’re talking about a woman who thinks our troops are just mind-controlled robots following orders from The Great Mind-Controlled Robot Controller In The Sky. I’m glad Rosie left “The View” early. My only regret is she wasn’t wiped out sooner—preferably by the asteroid that took out the other dinosaurs.
• • •

Dear Conventional Wisdom,
Who do you think should’ve won “American Idol”: Jordin Sparks or Blake Lewis?

Sincerely,
Ryan Seacrest

Dear Ryan Seacrest,
Blake Lewis. Next question.
• • •

Dear Conventional Wisdom,
I see JDM is still doing this “Conventional Wisdom answers your letters” shtick. Any chance that’s gonna stop soon?

Sincerely,
A JDM Reader, Who Regularly Reads ReadJDM.com

Dear Reader,
Sure. Just as soon as we stop having drinking holidays that happen to fall the day before JDM’s deadline.
• • •

Dear Conventional Wisdom,
What do you think of Farmers Branch, Texas, banning landlords from renting to illegal immigrants?

Sincerely,
Don Juan Retardo

Dear Final Question,
All I know is, anyone who tries to sneak in over the Mexican-American border is crazy. Just buy a plane ride to Canada and drive right in over the Rainbow Bridge.

Sincerely,
Stanley in Omaha

Dear Stanley in Omaha,
The GOP didn’t lose both houses of Congress. That’s just what the media want you to believe. Look, I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: You can’t trust political polling. Especially when the polls use a lever and take place in a booth. You think it’s just a coincidence the Democrats “won”? The pollsters skewed the results by giving voters a choice between the parties. That doesn’t sound like baiting the question to you?

• • •

Dear Conventional Wisdom,
I see Donald Rumsfeld stopped squinting long enough to resign as Defense Secretary. What’s he going to do with his spare time now? We have a job for him here at Burger King.

Sincerely,
The Guy Who Manages Donald Rumsfeld’s Hometown Burger King

Dear Dejected Lowlife Sentenced to a Lifetime of Burger Flipping,
Donald Rumsfeld is going to do the same thing Donald Rumsfeld has always done. He’s going to put his pants on two legs at a time. He’s going to count his chickens weeks before they hatch. If Donald Rumsfeld were an airplane, he would be cleared for a safe landing. I have no concerns about Donald Rumsfeld. You should worry about yourself.

• • •

Dear Conventional Wisdom,
Knock-knock. Who is there? Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney who? I don’t know. Wanna go “lame duck” hunting? Ha ha ha ha ha!

Sincerely,
Dan Quail

Dear Dan Quail,
If I were a gun, I would aim for your heart.

• • •

Dear Conventional Wisdom,
There’s been a lot of speculation over Hillary Clinton running for president. What do you think? Will she or won’t she?

Sincerely,
Chelsea Lewinsky, City of Chappaqua

Dear Miss Lewinsky,
Running “for” president? More like she’s running from it. This woman has been stalling to answer this question for years now. There’s a good reason for this. Hillary Clinton understands the name Hillary Clinton is divisive. She stands a much better chance of winning the White House if she waits till after she wins to announce her candidacy. We can’t let her get away with this.

• • •

Dear Conventional Wisdom,
Settle a bet. My brother and I think George Bush is gonna start a new war out of anger. I say North Korea; my brother says Vietnam.

Sincerely,
John McCain (not the senator)

Dear Mr. Senator,
You and your brother are equally retarded. Why does everyone assume George Bush is ducking Russia and China? The heavyweight title has been fractured for too many years now, and George Bush is the only champion with the cojones to challenge them both to unify the belts. You’ll see. George Bush is the Lennox Lewis of our generation. Except without the dreadlocks. Oh, and the pawing jab.

• • •

Dear Conventional Wisdom,
How comes the new James Bond has blonde hair?

Sincerely,
The Old James Bond

Dear Double O’Seven,
Let me put it this way. Before you were born, there was a television program known as Bewitched. In it, a guy named Dick York played a character named Darrin. Then Dick York left the show and Dick Sargent played the character. Two guys played Darrin, and both of them were Dicks. Does this answer your question?

Unfortunately, this idea stems from the false belief that baseball’s cherry of innocence was somehow popped during the steroid era of the late 1990s. It wasn’t. Baseball has never been a pillar of absolute virtue. There have always been cheaters in our national pastime, just as there have always been cheaters in our nation.

The only reason we talk about Bonds the way we talk about Bonds is because he’s seen as an unfeeling bastard. If his achievements are to be “called into question,” it has nothing to do with cheating and everything to do with his being a jerk.

I realize it probably sounds like I’m excusing Bonds’ alleged steroid use here. In a roundabout way, I suppose that I am. But there’s a reason why we refer to the last 10 to 15 seasons of baseball as the “steroid era,” and it’s not because one man happened to be using steroids. It’s because a lot of men happened to be using them. Perhaps the public ought to feel gypped about that. Perhaps we ought to look back upon 1998, for example, and feel we were lied to during Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa’s historic-if steroid-powered-pursuit of Roger Maris’s single-season homerun record. But as far as I can tell, most people don’t seem to feel that way about McGwire and Sosa. They certainly think they were lied to during the drama of that wonderful season. But they don’t feel they were lied to.

Both men may have enhanced their proverbial performance through steroids that year, but if either of them currently held the single-season homerun record-or were in pursuit of Hank Aaron’s career total-we wouldn’t be asking ourselves whether we should “count” it. We would be talking about their on-field achievements as metaphors for whatever it is our military is doing on the field of battle.

We would never talk so lovingly about Bonds’ on-field achievements, and this is because, unlike McGwire and Sosa, Bonds has never looked happy while signing an autograph.

His steroid use isn’t what makes him a villain. It’s just the pretext we need to hate him for being one.

For this reason, all talk of “striking” Bonds’ records “from the record books” is both foolish and counterproductive. Bonds may be remarkably contemptible, and the idea of him holding two of baseball’s most cherished records may not sit very well with us, but what we have in Bonds is a man perfectly willing-perhaps even happy-to shoulder every last bit of anger or distrust we may have over the issue of steroids. We have a man for whom being loathed is part of his character. We should be taking advantage of this. Instead of striking his records from the books or pretending he never set them, we should be glad that he set them-even while thoroughly hating him for it. This is the only way to accept steroids’ impact on baseball while at the same time not really accepting it. And in the end, that’s the only practical way to proceed.

Just imagine what it would mean if we decided to pretend Bonds never accomplished what he accomplished over the last few years. If steroid use has been nearly as rampant as it’s been reported, you would need to strike not only Bonds’ accomplishments from the record books but every other steroid users’ as well. How could you possibly do this? How could you possibly know who used what, and when, over the last 10 to 15 seasons?

Furthermore, even if you could know it, how would you implement such information? Would you go back and take away every hit and every homerun, etc., etc., of every player who ever juiced? Because that would affect the outcome of every game they ever played in. You’d have to go back and re-tabulate all the scores of every game played by every team since the Reagan era. This would dramatically change the standings in each of those seasons, which, in turn, would dramatically change each season’s playoff picture. There’s no way to know who would’ve won the World Series in any of those years.

You’d basically have to recruit all the players who comprised every roster over the last two decades and have them come back and re-play every game. Not only would this be impractical, but there would be some major complications involved in the process. For instance, what would you do about players who are dead now? Would you recruit them and force them to play the games anyway? Because surely players who play the game dead affect the outcome just as strongly as steroid users. Don’t you think?

This is why Barry Bonds isn’t the worst thing ever to happen to baseball-and why, under the circumstances, he’s probably the best. You can’t go back and undo the steroid era, because that would make the entire dynamic of baseball history useless. But at the same time, you can’t let all those seasons stand, as is, either. Because then baseball history would be living a big fat lie.

Barry Bonds provides a convenient solution that neatly addresses both sides and all of the issues. If anyone was going to break the records he’s broken during the steroid era, he’s the one who should have broken them. After all, even before steroids, he was already the best player of his generation. By emotionally dismissing his achievements, however, we can dismiss the steroid era without really dismissing it. And until we accept the fact that steroids are here to stay, this is the only reasonable way to proceed.

Three Saturdays each spring, countless Americans gather ’round to watch a bunch of horses they’ve never ridden or even seen up close in person compete in the Triple Crown races. We curl our toes and clench our lips. Our hearts beat quickly. And for an annual total of roughly six minutes, most of us do seem to care.

But most of us don’t really care about thoroughbred horse racing. We just think we care about thoroughbred horse racing.

What we really care about is Triple Crown racing. Which, as we all know, is the only racing that counts.

When a horse by the name of Barbaro won this year’s Kentucky Derby in decisive, almost arrogant fashion a couple of weeks ago, all the familiar “Will this be the year?” Triple Crown talk started up full force again. No horse since Affirmed in ’78 (or was it Yastrzemski in ’67.?) has worn the proverbial three-pronged headpiece, and every year America gets behind whichever horse seems like he could.

Had Barbaro simply tried and failed like so many others, his story would be. well, like so many others. He would be this year’s version of last year’s “whichever horse almost won it last year.” On May 20th, however, his story took a much different turn.

The stage was set at Pimlico Race Course for the 131st running of the Preakness Stakes. With a buzz in the air and the race about to begin, Barbaro broke through his gate a moment too early, and had to be re-corralled.

A minute later, the race finally-officially-got underway. And the planets, it seemed, prepared to align.

Within seconds, however, Barbaro stumbled, and fractured his right hind leg.

In an instant, his run at Triple Crown history was over. His racing career itself was over. And like any horse with a leg injury, his life was suddenly in jeopardy.

I have to be honest. After watching Barbaro’s fate unfold at the Preakness, I was somewhat depressed the rest of the evening. I’ve been following all the updates on his condition since it happened, and I was relieved to learn he did well in surgery. At one point the night of the Preakness, I actually found myself praying for this horse to survive his injuries. I know I’m not the only one who did this. Countless Americans have vowed to keep Barbaro in their prayers.

All this sympathy is good, in my opinion. I’m glad that it’s happening. But when you stop and think about it, it’s really pretty weird.

I mean, here we are, praying to the same God credited with creating the universe-and for what? A horse most of us have never ridden or even seen up close in person? Why would we do this?

And more importantly: If most of us don’t really care about horse racing, what gives us the right-when it comes to Barbaro-to honestly, truthfully care?

It would be easy to cast off these feelings as collective guilt here. Human beings routinely force horses to run around in circles for no real reason. Deep down, most of us probably realize this is bizarre. But I think what it really comes down to is the same question I find myself asking every time I watch horse racing, which is: “Do the horses enjoy it?” Obviously, that question is impossible to answer. But if you looked at Barbaro’s face when he broke through the gate too early, it really looked like he cared about winning. He probably didn’t, but after breaking his leg-and shattering the dream-a minute later, all that mattered was he looked like he did.

In that moment, Barbaro wasn’t a horse anymore. He was a boxer trying to beat the ten count. And he was more than that. He was anyone who ever wanted something so badly that they totally screwed things up.

Am I blowing this way the hell out of proportion? Absolutely. But that’s the whole point. The Triple Crown, itself, is blown out of proportion. Sports are blown out of proportion. So are most things we hear on the news. There’s a reason for this. And in case you haven’t noticed, it’s because life is pointless. Not that we’re necessarily here for no reason-that’s not what I’m saying. But who among us hasn’t felt useless at some point? Who hasn’t opened their eyes in the morning and said to themselves, “Again?”

People fear change, but they hate the inevitable. That’s why we root for things that aren’t supposed to happen. Sometimes this means rooting for a Triple Crown horse. Other times, it means rooting against Barry Bonds making homerun history.

Barbaro surviving is another thing we root for. After all, it’s against the odds. Most horses who suffer his injuries are euthanized right on the track.

All things considered, horse racing exists for the sake of gamblers. But all things considered, all of us gamble everyday when we get out of bed. We bet on our lives having some kind of meaning. We look ourselves in the mirror, and look like we care if we win. In the end, most of us can identify more with all those nameless, faceless horses who get euthanized. We toil in anonymity. And we die largely underreported deaths.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care about Barbaro. Quite the opposite. I think we should. It just means that caring about Barbaro means caring about more than Barbaro. In a way, it means caring enough to keep caring-whatever the odds are.

So feel better, Barbaro. And hey: Get well soon.

Columns by this author can be read regularly on TheRealityCheck.org.