Your Congress on Steroids

Nick Gillespie | May 20, 2005

Over at Ragged Thots, NY Postman Robert George beholds Congress pumping ire at steroids and turns away like Lou Ferrgino on a bad day:

Want a double-standard? Consider this: DeLay is strongly critical of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy for using international law as a guideline in several court cases. Yet, the law House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis says could be introduced as early as next week would conceivably overrule any negotiated labor agreements by an American sports league and their players -- in favor of an international standard.

And after going for sports leagues, what's to stop Congress from determining that the "marketplace" is taking "too long" in other industries as well?

Lock up your kids, ladies and gentlemen. This is not a pretty sight. This is your government on steroids.

Whole thing here.

Reason's own Matt Welch has a thing for steroids. Or maybe just jockstraps. Figurative jockstraps.

Comments

|5.20.05 @ 9:39AM|#

Let me repeat the comment I made in the "China Envy" thread--this is the first step toward the government-mandated drug testing of ALL employees. Just you wait.

|5.20.05 @ 9:58AM|#

Professional athletics represent the US, so they must be Drug Free. Amateur atheletes aspire to be pros, so they must be Drug Free. Olymic amateurs (they are amateurs, for this argument) must be Drug Free. Therefore, all sports competitors must be Drug Free, including amateur baseball, softball, flag football, tennis, bicycling, ice-speed skating, competetive horse-riding, dog sports, ...

Next, in order to set the proper example, anyone involved must be tested.

The suppliers of sports equipment must be tested. Therefore, Dick's Sporting Goods must certify all their employees are Drug Free (for the good of the US, of course).

So, if Dick's employees are Drug Free, why not employees of McDonalds? IBM?

I'm with Jennifer. This is the first step.

|5.20.05 @ 10:09AM|#

Amen, Jennifer.

And while we're at it...let me repeat the comment I made on the "Banners's Red Glare" thread - let's hear it for those small government, fiscally responsible alternatives to nanny state, tax & spend liberals.

To everyone who's rubbed mine and other people's noses in the "conservatives are better than liberals" crap for the past 25 years...screw you.

It's not a contract with America anymore...it's a contract on America.

First, you trusted politicians. That was smart.

You believed them when they mopped the floor with liberals and let them twist every issue - no matter how complicated - into a "liberals bad/conservatives" good pigeon hole. Real keen of you folks.

You trusted that just because they quoted the Bible, they were acting out of sincere Christian values. Hah!

You actually believed that they were sincere when they proclaimed smaller government and less government intrusion - despite the fact that it obviously didn't jibe with their agenda of more governmment intrusion on any issue they declared to be a "moral" one.

You let 'em take over...and take over they have.

They're no better and possibly a damn site worse.

Goodby liberal nanny state. Hello conservative nanny police.

|5.20.05 @ 10:14AM|#

I certainly hope David isn't doing research on the internets.

|5.20.05 @ 10:21AM|#

Once, just once, I want the CEO of a big corporation or someone else called before congress to bow down and kiss their feet to tell them to f**k off (Galloway doesn't count). Unfortunately this will never happen because such people have way more to lose than any such temper tantrum might get them.

It would have been nice to see David Stern yesterday to say something like, "Senator, are you sure you want to test your popularity against Lebron James and Shaquille O'Neal?"

|5.20.05 @ 10:21AM|#

What did I do?

I tend to agree with Jennifer, too. The true slippery slope is a law that gov't can expand on.

Are there any words scarier to a libertarian than "Bi-partisan coalition".

|5.20.05 @ 10:26AM|#

I meant Davis. Rep. Tom Davis. Typo.

|5.20.05 @ 10:26AM|#

Lets put DeLay and Bill Romanowski in a locked room together and let them hatch it out.

I hear Romos powers of persuasion are incredible

|5.20.05 @ 10:45AM|#

If these jerks were around back in the day, they would have made aspirin illegal.

|5.20.05 @ 11:02AM|#

Some people have called me a paranoid chicken little to assume this might lead to universal drug-testing, so I want to say here what has me so worried about this:

The first drug tests were mandated for people like airline pilots or nuclear plant operators. There was no evidence that ANY accidents have been caused by pilots or nuke operators who were too stoned to do their jobs, but still, there was at least a semi-valid public-safety argument to be made for these tests.

Then they said all Federal employees, or employees of companies with Federal contracts, had to be tested. Bad, but you could make the argument that if the Feds are the employers, they can set whatever conditions for employment that they'd like.

But athletes? There's no possible public-safety argument to be made, and these guys are NOT working for the government. This is just mission-creep, pure and simple.

|5.20.05 @ 11:12AM|#

"There's no possible public-safety argument to be made"

Didn't you hear, Jen? It's for the children.

|5.20.05 @ 11:34AM|#

Stretch-
As a former high-school teacher, let me assure you that the children have FAR better drugs than you or I can ever hope to find. Nothing sucks quite like being a teacher, looking for a new connection, and knowing damn well that there's about nine pounds of primo Canadian bud within fifty feet of you, but you can't get any because you're not stupid enough to make a teenaged student your connection.

Hypothetically speaking, of course. My personal behavior has already been above reproach.

|5.20.05 @ 11:47AM|#

Two points:

The foreign precedent argument is way off base, because this is a US law being debated. It's perfectly reasonable to import ideas from elsewhere and then pass them into US law. This just happens to be a really bad idea.

The Federal employee argument for testing might actually apply to athletes, because they all work in government-subsidized facilities, at least for road games. The government therefore has an interest in what happens in those buildings. Sure, it's usually a local government, but the Feds are just helping out with the interstate aspect of it.

See how easy it is to justify government intervention?

|5.20.05 @ 11:52AM|#

Great, Bubba. So now they can test me because I use government-subsidized roads to get to work. Christ. Don't give them any ideas.

|5.20.05 @ 1:07PM|#

Last night, in front of a group of impressionable 19 year-olds, I delivered a lecture on optics while high on the performance-enhancing drug known as caffeine.

I even told them that I was enjoying a nice rush from a stimulant grown by Colombian farmers.

I feel so irresponsible. They should be able to learn about ray tracing, zoom lenses, and depth of field from somebody who's drug-free.

|5.20.05 @ 2:02PM|#

So, playing catch in the back yard with the 11 yr old can be conceived as amatuer sports, since he might end up as a professional.

And since I have a part in this activity, I could possibly be considered an athlete.

Must be time to pee in a cup.

|5.20.05 @ 2:06PM|#

Make that "amateur"

|5.20.05 @ 2:16PM|#

Jennifer--

You just bust the kid, and say, "I'll let you off this time, but I'm going to have to confiscate these buds." Hypothetically speaking, of course.

|5.20.05 @ 2:39PM|#

Chuck--
Hypothetically speaking, I DREAMED of the day I could do such a thing, but no luck. The kids who were busted at my school were busted by authority figures who actually went through their pockets or backpacks or such; I never did that because I don't have quite enough Gestapo in me.

|5.20.05 @ 3:10PM|#

The day They take away my caffeine is the day I drink the poison kool-aid.

|5.20.05 @ 3:15PM|#

free form, you are clearly an addict. You need Professional Help. We should both go join a rehab program.

I mean, really, impressionable 19 year-olds should not be learning about geometrical optics from drug addicts. Faculty members are respected role models (well, I hope I am!) and I'm setting a bad example with my addiction.

Remember: Freedom is drug-free! Or that's what my nephew's homework assignment said.

|5.20.05 @ 3:23PM|#

Freedoom would be chocolate-free if the government jailed you for possession of a Hershey bar. Christ. I forgot how much I hated the political bullshit of public schools.

|5.20.05 @ 4:19PM|#

Freedoom? Don't let Walters hear that one. I can see a whole new ONDCP ad campaign coming...

|5.20.05 @ 4:38PM|#

Jennifer-

If the War on Fat keeps escalating then it's only a matter of time before my nephews and nieces have to color signs that say "Freedom is Fat Free!"

|5.20.05 @ 4:43PM|#

Thoreau-
God forbid. Then the Andrea-Dworkin-type feminists would point to statistics showing that the average healthy man has less body fat than the average healthy woman as proof of a worldwide misogynist plot.

|5.20.05 @ 4:52PM|#

Jennifer-

I'm waiting for the feminists to argue that our "War on Fat" is encouraging anorexia among young women. Interestingly, I seem to recall hearing a "Fat Warrior" criticize feminists for putting so much emphasis on anorexia for so many years. The argue was that feminists concerned about anorexia were encouraging people to disregard the (literally) growing danger of obesity. There was also a class warfare angle: Obesity is (supposedly) more of a problem among lower-income women, while anorexia is (supposedly) more of a problem among young women from upper-income families. (I say "supposedly" because I haven't examined the numbers myself, and I know when to put my disclaimers in on this forum.)

I'm sure the "War on Fat" will yield plenty more dilemmas for liberals as it continues. And if the War on Drugs is any indicator, liberals will simply ignore those dilemmas and contradictions and push ahead with the "War" for the sake of The Children. Just as they cheer for the drug war despite the way it disproportionately affects young black men.

|5.20.05 @ 6:38PM|#

Isn't it getting near our turn to announce the next "war"? I propose a War on Phony Emergencies. They're reaching crisis proportions in America.

|5.20.05 @ 8:25PM|#

Thoreau-
Well, the feminists have long been arguing that society's obsession with the beauty of thinness leads to anorexia, and so far as that goes I suppose they're right; most people, especially young ones, like to be considered attractive and will try to do so. Is this a misogynist conspiracy, or just life? If this were a parallel universe exactly like ours except that FAT was considered attractive, I'm sure the anorexics would instead be horking down multiple cartons of Ben and Jerry's each day and then clamping their mouths shut to avoid throwing up, and then the type of feminist that gives feminists like me a bad name would gripe about how society's obsession with an unrealistically fat standard of beauty was making these women eat themselves to death.

And Parallel Universe Terri Schiavo didn't kill her conscious self through bulimia, but via super-brain-freeze induced by fifty pounds of Haagen-Daaz. Meanwhile, Parallel Jennifer is still skinny but now the guys DON'T think it's cute, and instead make cruel jokes like "I heard her ass is so skinny it doesn't even have its own Congressman."

Holy shit. Sounds like the government just lost another small battle in its war on me taking drugs.