Not sure if this happens to everyone, but at the end of the year when the holidays approach — Thanksgiving in particular — I tend to step back and reassess what I am doing to positively affect the lives of those around me.

We hear a lot of talk about how a “carbon footprint” left behind by humans will effect the Earth in the long-term. But what about the long-term effects of charitable, selfless acts — or the lack thereof? I call this impact the philanthropic footprint because it seems just as important on the long-term well-being and survival of humanity.

(I’m thinking of a phrase that flows better than “philanthropic footprint,” so suggestions are welcome.)

Of course, until my older years it was mostly ideas and not nearly enough activity. One year I would donate old clothes to GoodWill; another, volunteering at a church event.

This year, I have done my best to step up my own philanthropic footprint by:

• Donating multiple bags of clothing to a church program providing assistance to children in Nicaragua
• Attending and donating to a breast cancer fundraising event hosted by a friend
• Participating in a charity bowling tournament, Bowling For Hope, hosted by Trevor’s Treasures, a charitable organization aimed at providing gifts to children in the long-term care section of the pediatric ward of hospitals.
• On October 15, 2008, I shamelessly promoted a few different charities aimed at stopping poverty around the world in cooperation with a great event, Blog Action Day. I can only hope next year’s event is just as successful.
• Volunteering at D.C. Central Kitchen

I have tried to step up my philanthropic footprint in the world, and the best way I know how to encourage others is to make an example of myself.

Cheesy line of the day: Today is always the perfect day to begin working on your philanthropic footprint!

Yesterday, I took the day off work to join a friend and his company in volunteering at the D.C. Central Kitchen. The DCCK is an organization that makes over 4,000 meals a day to distribute among various homeless shelters and halfway houses across the district. According to their orientation leader, as well as their website, they are not just a “soup kitchen” that provides food alone:

As a community kitchen, we recycle over one ton of surplus food each day that would otherwise go to waste and turn it into 4,000 meals for the hungry in the greater Washington, DC region. Among the people preparing these meals are the students of our Culinary Job Training program; once homeless and hungry individuals themselves, these aspiring men and women are equipped with professional and life skills. DC Central Kitchen uses the existing ingredients of our society to strengthen bodies, empower minds, and build communities.

My particular group prepared items for a salad, peeling carrots, chopping up and cleaning lettuce, peeling carrots, cutting onions, chopping tomatoes, cutting up cheese squares and — oh yeah! — peeling carrots!

(As you can assume, my least favorite part involved my favorite orange vegetable! Peeling carrots down to little bits was a tedious process but well worth it in the end, of course!)

In the end, we mixed the items together and created dozens of salads we packaged up into big catering trays, set to head out shortly after we finished. We did these things under the command of a very friendly older woman who joked with us despite our inaccurate tomato-cutting, mishaps in following storage directions and overanalyzation of the most simple tasks. Most of the supervisors there were graduates of the work program offered by DCCK, many whom were homeless, incarcerated or were otherwise without work or training until the program provided it.

Many charitable organizations have the central idea correct, which is helping out those who are in need. Soup kitchens generally provide food to the homeless, but fail to take a step further and find out how they could use their program to assist in the long-term. DCCK is on the right track with their long-term connection, providing cooking, computer and career training classes throughout the year, in order to change the lives of those who could use the help.

This idea reminded me of the old Chinese proverb that holds true through time, addressing this very issue:

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”

Let’s end poverty, folks!

Blog Action Day 2008 is a day in which members of various online communities yap about a particular cause in order to raise awareness and effect change. This year’s topic is poverty.

Not sure if you know this, but… there is no insta-cure for poverty. Seriously.

But as fellow human beings who do not — or should not — take joy in the misfortune of others, the least we can do is take a moment to focus on a way to help, if we are so fortunate enough to be in a position to do so.

For my part, today I am officially scheduling a pickup of multiple bags of clothing I have been putting off for a while. If you have items you would like to donate, but are either too lazy to make the trip to a local Goodwill or Salvation Army drop-off or just don’t know where or how to do it, I will help! Shoot me an email, or give me a call (if you have the digits!) and I will help you arrange. This may not seem like much, but the saying “one persons trash is another person’s treasure” is quite true. That’s why Craigslist is so popular!

Here are some ideas of items you should think about donating:

• Shoes you’ve outgrown
  Stop clinging to those fresh pair of Nike kicks you can’t fit into without curling up your toes. Someone out there is shoeless and those relatively decent tiny toe-squeezers may brighten up their day. Just. Let. Go.
• Jerseys of players who no longer play for the same team
  In the back of many a closet lies the forgotten team members of yesteryear. I had a few of these stuck in my closet that I will never wear again. They are included in my donation stash and you and yours may want (and need) to part ways as well. Remember, your old throwback Stephen Davis Washington Redskins jersey may be junk to you, but bring joy to some other kid who has never had a jersey before in their life.
• Hats!
  Your head may have expanded through your years of education. Why not give up those that you used to love wearing, but can no longer fit? One day you’re a collector, the next a pack rat.
• Plain Old Old Clothes
  Maybe your style has changed from geek to chic. Maybe you used to wear small shirts to make you: look muscular (dudes) or chest-clinging “Angel” tees (girlies). It is time to let go. Why not donate that stuff to someone two can appreciate the retro style and/or actually fit in that extra SMedium t-shirt?

Feel free to leave a comment about other suggestions for folks to donate. Like I said, let me know if you need my help. Or, if you find a place online to donate, post it in the comment section. At any rate, let’s do our part for THE CAUSE!

To me, it is a matter of human decency. America is grand because we one of the most charitable nations of the world. I take an enormous amount of pride in that. You should too.

The economy is bleak right now and some of us are swimming in bills, but if you can do one tiny thing today to help out the life of someone else, do it!

Resources

• Blog Action Day List O’ Resources
• CharityGuide.org: How to make a difference in 15 minutes
• Change.org
• Military Order of the Purple Heart
• Salvation Army

For as much as we want to regulate who views what at various point of their lives — thinking in terms of children and the parental point-of-view — censorship is incredibly difficult.

For better or worse, various outlets are free to publish their views within the legal protection of the First Amendment in the United States Constitution.

America’s freedoms are one of the main reasons why millions of immigrants risk their life and limb to find their way into the states and establish a home. Though government officials are still trying to figure out where to draw the line (or build a wall) when it comes to the immigration issue, it is a known fact that America is a popular destination place for many folks throughout the world. While the U.S. openly opposes governments who censor their people’s right to speak out against ruling parties, like all good things, limits will be tested, even in the “land of the free.”

Today, NYTimes.com reported that an injunction was set against a website, Wikileaks.org, for giving access to certain leaked documents that apparently upset a Cayman Islands Bank owner. The site considers their domain injunction similar to having the New York Times print blank pages, or the power company ordered to shut off their power:

To find an injunction similar to the Cayman’s case, we need to go back to Monday June 15, 1971 when the New York Times published excepts of of Daniel Ellsberg’s leaked “Pentagon Papers” and found itself enjoined the following day. The Wikileaks injunction is the equivalent of forcing the Times’ printers to print blank pages and its power company to turn off press power. The supreme court found the Times censorship injunction unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision.

According to the Wikileaks website, their description is as follows:

Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.

We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information. Historically that information has been costly - in terms of human life and human rights. But with technological advances - the internet, and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.

The U.S. domain name, wikileaks.org, was shut down — albeit temporarily, I believe — as the injunction was set against the U.S.-based domain owner company. The site is still available via alternate domain names from around the world — wikileaks.cx and wikileaks.be, among others.

From the standpoint of the government(s) who stand opposed to this kind of site, I’m sure their objection would come by way of the documents being provided against non-disclosure agreements signed by the leaking parties, and the legal implications that may be tied to it. Maybe one of these leaked documents is not a truly genuine, certified one, and it implicates parties that should not be; then that proves to do more harm than good. Or, for instance, if the document leaked contains personal data or financial information — SSNs or bank access numbers — then the courts should definitely seek to ensure the Right to Privacy Americans have.

On the other hand, as I sift through the site I can see the rationalization of why the site owners can find objection to such an oppression of their site, which may have some serious redeeming value in the oversight of corruption. If the overall purpose is to expose corrupt officials and governments, or at least force transparency for the countries involved, they have a serious case and hopefully this will get dealt with as soon as possible; we would hate for the lines of freedom and censorship to be so blurry that a wrong move is made one way or the other that may prove to be hard to reverse in the short-term.

In many cases we are stuck at a Catch-22. We demand just as much freedom as we do privacy. Where does that line in the sand get drawn? It appears with this case we are figuring this out very slowly.

Or maybe this is too impossible task altogether.

Today we take a step back from our regularly scheduled workdays to commemorate one of the most prominent martyrs of the civil rights movement.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a man who constantly promoted the importance of peaceful protests, was killed by an assassin’s bullet 40 years ago, in Memphis, Tennessee. This holiday is to commemorate Dr. King on his birthday; if he were alive today he would be 79 years old.

Dr. King stood for civil rights, and equality among all men and women. His passion was contagious among followers, as he spoke with the confidence and inspiration of an impassioned pastor perched atop an elevated pulpit. Dr. King’s famous “I Have A Dream” speech ranks among the top 100 speeches of all-time, according to AmericanRhetoric.com.

What the men and women who followed Dr. King accomplished in spite of his untimely death is truly remarkable, and would make Dr. King proud.

Dr. King spoke of living in a world where all men and women would be treated equally, no matter the color of their skin. Right now, as we are buried in Election 2008 campaign updates on a daily basis, how proud would Dr. King be to know that a mere 40 years after his death an African-American and a woman are the leading Democratic presidential candidates? How proud would he be, knowing that last year two NFL coaches shared the honor of being the first African-Americans to lead their team to the Super Bowl? How proud would he be, knowing that numerous not-for-profit associations were created in his honor, and in the honor of equality for mankind?

His speeches reached every bit of the world, and all walks of life — from sports, to politics, to entertainment — and days like today where Dr. King is remembered, we must also remember that the work is never done. But we cannot live in fear that things can’t change. Dr. King preached that wholeheartedly until the day he died.

No matter your skin color — black, white, brown, yellow, pink, or a mix — Dr. King stood up, fought, and died for your rights as a human being. Let us all be grateful for where the world has come, and be mindful of what it takes to continue to reach the “dream” Dr. King spoke of.

I’m reminded of when Scoop Jackson and Jason Whitlock quarreled over their differing approaches to encouraging the younger black generation into journalism. After many back and forths between the two, Jackson wrote on his ESPN Page2 rebuttal a phrase Dr. King would have been proud to hear from black professionals, and one we should all remember today:

“The first step in creating a Civil Rights movement is being civil.”

We live in a time where inequality remains, racial stereotyping persists and the need for a united people is a must. Not just African-Americans with each other, but with mankind as a whole. Working together, opening up a dialog for the state of equality is what the world needs.

As the saying goes — “Together we stand, divided we fall.”

I will end with an excerpt of Dr. King’s final speech, commonly referred to as the “I’ve been to the mountaintop”speech.

“And then I got to Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers?

Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn’t matter with me now. Because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”

* * * * * * * * * *

EXTRA LINKS

• MLK Jr. wrote essays for The Nation back in the day. Here’s one. (The Nation)
• Mitt Romney misspoke when he said his father marched with MLK in Michigan back in 1963. (The Phoenix)
• Democratic contenders will speak at a Dr. King rally today. (Yahoo! News)
• Eugene Robinson asks us, “What would Dr. King think?” (The Washington Post)
• A collection of MLK Jr. art from the years after his passing. (New York Times)

Found at: http://allhiphop.com/blogs/rumors/archive/2007/08/13/18406671.aspx

With all of the struggles, battles and obstacles African-Americans and non-white persons overcame through the years, an accusation of “bojangling” packs a lot of punch.

So when Kansas City Star and AOL Sports columnist Jason Whitlock took the first swing and said former ESPN.com Page2 colleague Scoop Jackson was bojangling for “The World Wide Leader” dollars, I was sure they would go to actual physical blows. I’ve never seen either in person, but having seen them on TV, I’d assume Whitlock would come out on top — literally.

Here is the timeline:

- Whitlock gave a very tell-all interview with a sports blog site, thebiglead.com a month ago attacking Scoop, Mike Lupica and those in the African-American community he calls the New Klu Klux Klan.
- Scoop responds by way of his ESPN Page2 column.
- Jason reiterates his side in an interview on BlackSportsNetwork.com.
- Scoop follows suit, interviewing with BlackSporstNetwork.com days later.

The fallout from Jason’s candidness came from the very top of ESPN, “The World Wide Leader.” They cancelled all of his ESPN appearances (he had guest appearances on PTI, Rome Is Burning, and was a regular on The Sports Reporters) and had he not already left his columnist post at ESPN.com Page2 for AOL Sports, surely he would’ve been cancelled there as well.

Say what you want to say about America’s stand for our freedom of speech, but in the business professional world speaking out will get you fired. You’ll get canned especially quick if you do so in a manner raising racial tensions, which have a tendency to make everyone – corporate heads, nationally televised audiences of various colors and sponsors especially – uncomfortable.

So for not biting his tongue, or curbing his criticism, Whitlock paid the free speech tax. But I can’t say I am completely opposed to his criticism as much as I am the way in which he brought it out.

Scoop was named lead writer of ESPN Page2 a year ago while Whitlock was already a member of the team. Scoop took over a main section of the front page, while Whitlock found himself in a less prominent role but remained on the same national stage.

Eventually Whitlock couldn’t take any more comparisons of his work with Scoop’s, so he let thebiglead.com know how he felt in the best way he knows it: candidly. And in doing so, it appeared that Whitlock succumbed to jealousy, rather than appear to have reached a point where he needed to assist a fellow African-American colleague on issues he holds in high regard.

And the bigger issue Whitlock alludes to in each of his interviews has plenty of substance. He talks about hating how African-Americans who yield the attention and power of the world fail to take full advantage of their stage. He says that only 20% of black athletes are setting bad examples that the media feeds on, which inevitably contribute to the defamation of black culture started years ago, before segregation. And that hip-hop music is guilty of the same, degrading women, promoting materialism and violence, which are counterproductive to bringing equality to America.

In his ESPN.com article response, Scoop was tame, civil, sugar, spice and everything nice. He said all of the right things, it seemed. He played the “bigger man” card, refraining from a response to Whitlock’s implications of he and some other black writers as “buffoonish,” “assimilated,” “unskilled,” and “untrained.” He says Whitlock misinterpreted his message in the blood-boiling article that appeared to have sparked the fire that has ensued. But even after he refuted each point in which he felt Whitlock was in the wrong, he came to an agreement in the end.

He agrees with Whitlock’s call for a new Civil Rights Movement. But, as he ends his article, he so eloquently writes that “the first step in creating a Civil Rights Movement is being civil.”

Words can be no truer. As much as Whitlock is opposed to Scoop’s tactic of dropping cold, hard statistics on students as a form of motivation (the “scare tactic”), that is his style. And it works sometimes. Probably just as much as Whitlock’s method of telling kids that they can be anything they want to be if they put in the proper work. Two different persons, personalities, teaching styles, but where are the cold, hard statistics to show which would work better?

I’d suggest pitting them in two separate classrooms and teaching the young minds of America in a study stemming from the Central Florida Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports (A study which did not gain as much attention when it came from a white journalist, Norman Chad at The Washington Post). Have the two teach kids their diverse ways of achieving their professional dreams and then follow-up through interviews and progress reports to find out what works and doesn’t. There have been studies similar to this, but not on as large a stage as that of “The World Wide Leader.”

But without that we’re simply left with two talented African-American journalists possessing the potential to spin their disagreement into a large-scale movement.

And that movement could be achieved using the study and time tested, yet to be refuted, greatest social unifier in the world – sports.

Katrina used to be a perfect name for a beautiful baby girl.

Now the name Katrina conjures up feelings of pain and suffering in the hearts of those affected by the now-famous storm of the same name.

Tonight at 9 p.m., HBO will air one-half of the four hour documentary “When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts,” with the second half to be shown tomorrow at the same time. The film will air in its entirety on August 29, the one year anniversary of the disaster.

Director Spike Lee is back on the scene, directing what may turn out to be his most powerful film yet.

“Levees” is a historical piece, which documents the lives of those affected by the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. But the film also is surrounded by controversy, as the film proclaims racial bias was to blame for the government’s slow response time.

Lee, when asked why he thinks the response was what it was, quoted another celebrity who stirred up controversy a year ago with a statement on NBC during a live telethon to raise money for Katrina victims.

“Well, I would just say, what Kanye West expressed, that George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”

As with any argument, immediately writing off the film because of its accusations of racial bias is careless.

Already on message boards people are speaking out against Lee and “Levees” for that exact reason.

Was it a coincidence that the slow response happened in an area that was predominantly African-American?

Evidence points heavily towards “Yes.”

In that same interview with HBO, Lee draws an example from another recent natural disaster.

“Recently, there was another horrific earthquake, a national disaster in Indonesia. And, once again, the United States government was there within two days. Now it’s great that we were in Indonesia in two days. But…let’s get a globe, and see what the distance between the United States and Indonesia, and to New Orleans, and the people in the whole Gulf region.”

Why was the response to Indonesia much faster and more thorough than the U.S. response to Katrina victims? Is it a coincidence that the most affected region, the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans, is also populated by impoverished African-Americans?

If the Katrina-affected regions were populated by middle- and upper-class white persons, an outcry of wrongdoing would be much louder and heard at the higher levels.
Who can deny that money makes people move faster?

But the fact is, fellow Americans lost family and friends in what was part caused by a storm, and part by neglect from the higher-ups after. The least we can do is hear the story.

More recently the government acknowledged that the levees which broke during the storm were not properly kept, and were the reason for the magnitude of loss following the storm.

Losses could have been prevented and lives could have been saved had the government spent more time immediately helping victims, rather than debating who is at fault for the blatant neglect.

Too often politicians try to shift blame in order to clear their own image of wrongdoing, in order to stay in power. But at some point it is more important to just take care of the American people who elect leaders, and voters will in turn be grateful.

What’s over is over, and the film hopes to make light of Hurricane Katrina, so a similar mistake will not be made.

The worst act of all following Katrina would be not learning from what went wrong and the mistakes that were made.

Record numbers of supporters sent in donations and volunteered to help with the devastated regions, but “Americans have very, very short attention spans,” according to Lee. “Levees” looks to bring the Gulf region back into the public eye and back in the public’s minds.

“I think when we look back on this many years from now, I’m confident that people are gonna see what happened in New Orleans as a defining moment in American history. Whether that’s pro or con is yet to be determined.”

Even though the levees failed to support the city of New Orleans, the government should go out of its way to make sure that they are never caught in the same position because that would be the definition of “un-American.”

Listen to both sides of the Bonds arguments.

Notice the racial divide?

Doesn’t it feel like 1995 all over again?

Thankfully though, this is not a case of murder. Instead, this is the national pastime, which a case of integrity is on the line, rather than a life.

Let’s look at the similarities:

• Both are African-American
• Both assumed guilty by the public
• Both find themselves sparking a racial divide

Bonds accusers tend to be white. They’re positive he’s abused an amalgam of steroids and every other enhancer he could get his hands on (see the #1 Bonds accusatory book, “Game of Shadows”) and has damaged the integrity of the sport almost single-handedly. To them, Bonds is as guilty as OJ in ‘95.

Bonds defenders tend to be black. They may or may not believe Bonds used performance enhancers, but they do not agree that he is the baseball villain that the books and accusers make him out to be. They see Bonds as the scapegoat for the dark cloud of steroids which has lingered over the MLB for the past decade. For the most part, to them, Bonds is as innocent as OJ in ‘95.

We remember the jury’s ruling - not guilty.

Upon hearing the ruling, people were filled with the mixed emotions you would expect. Black people cheered, while white people felt cheated by the American judicial system.

But why? Just as Chris Rock said, black people did not receive an “OJ innocence prize.” White people didn’t get a penalty charged against them. But still, the cultures clashed. Riots happened, and racial tension was as evident as ever - almost as much as it is now.

The Bonds BALCO inspired investigation, commissioned by MLB commish Bud Selig, looks to end similar to the OJ trials.

In the OJ trials, people debated responsibility for a loss of life. With Bonds, people debate responsibility for tainting the integrity of a business.

In fact, this business even looks and plays a lot like the same sport kids played when they were little, back when the business was still viewed as “just a game.”

I won’t lie, I’m a Barry Bonds (the athlete) fan.

In his younger days with the Pittsburg Pirates, his mix of power with speed was nearly unmatched.

The only other player during the time who could match this same mix was former best seller Jose Canseco.

Both are members of the 40 homers, 40 stolen bases club. Jose Canseco is an admitted steroids user. Bonds admitted only to taking what he thought was flaxseed oil for a short period of time, but is rumored to have been a steroids abuser.

Fans hate Bonds (the person) but love Bonds (the athlete). That is until lately, as he’s approached Fans don’t care about Canseco in either respect. But Canseco has what Bonds does not - a championship. Who else was on the Athletics’s championship team? Mark McGuire. Along with Canseco, he sat with other suspected steroid users Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro, and made the news by repeatedly saying that he didn’t want to talk about the past and rumors of steroid use in his playing days.

McGuire was scrutinized for dancing around direct questions of whether he was guilty of steroid use. But in none of the talk did people say McGuire’s records should be stricken from the records. Neither did they say the championship Canseco and McGuire helped earn should be revoked. But with Bonds, people have practically screamed “off with his head!”

Records, MVPs, and pennants, all results of Bonds’ outstanding performance as a player, all are part of talks to either be accompanied with an asterisk, or removed from the record books alltogether.

Why is Bonds treated different than Canseco and McGuire?

Aren’t they all accused of the same crime, yet only one has admitted to any wrongdoing?

Call Barry Bonds what you will, but you’ve looked in awe as he sent pitches from all angles into McCovey Cove at PacBell Park.

You cheered on the 1998 home run chase for Roger Maris’s 61 in a season that two players - Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa - led and eventually conquered with 70 and 66, respectively.

Even when the Maris family waited around at the various stadiums for McGuire to tie and then break 61, you were touched by the sportsmanship that went onto Maris’s own flesh and blood.

But now, as Bonds zones in on George Herman “Babe” Ruth’s 714 all-time home run record - second, by the way, to a man named Henry “Hammerin Hank” Aaron - you say his records should be removed because it’s “quite apparent” that he used performance enhancers?

I say get real.

Unless the MLB is willing to expunge records from multiple players, including Raphael Palmeiro (who actually tested positive for a performance enhancer), Jason Giambi (who admitted to using enhancers, and soon was allowed back on the Yankees and back into public eye and affection), and Jose Canseco (wrote the book which was powerful enough to involve Congress’ precious time in cracking down on steroid abusers), then the consensus should be that no matter the player, the records should just be noted that steroids may/may not have affected records during the last 15 years.

But do we really think that the accused were the only juicers throughout the past years?

I think not.

Why not put an asterisk on old records for Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth who participated in baseball while black players were banned from the game?

Isn’t that a similar issue? The integrity of the game was tainted back then, because discrimination allowed for one set of players to define the record books that could have been altered in many ways.

I’m a Bonds fan, but I believe he took performance enhancers. His body grew throughout the last few years, as he got older, and while he wears baggy clothes, I’ve heard his physique is that of a bodybuilder. But even if

For now, I have to agree with Yankee great “Mr. October” Reggie Jackson’s comment on the Dan Patrick Show, “If these guys have not tested, it is unfair to commit them to guilt.”

It’s forgotten by many, but in America, you’re innocent until proven guilty.

OJ Simpson never got that luxury. Neither has Bonds.

But as much as baseball fans want to burn Bonds at the stake, even if the investigation turns out to reveal rampant steroid use in baseball, they have a monumental decision to make.

Do they go on and let Bonds chase Aaron and Ruth’s all-time home run marks, or do they ban him, and his records from baseball?

The MLB is in a corner. If they crucify Bonds, even more questions about who else juiced in the game arise.

No one seemed to speculate about his total until after Bonds concluded the 2001 season with 73 home runs, his career total reaching 567 - 147 shy of The Babe’s record, and 188 less than Hammerin Hank.

Now that he’s 7 homers away from The Babe, the investigation could turn out to be the newest formal “witch hunt” in baseball. But as long as Bonds is the lone scapegoat used in arguments for revising old baseball stats, and not McGuire, Palmeiro, Caminiti, and McGuire in the same sentence, the race issue will remain.

It’s not as simple as deleting the single records of these players who may have “cheated” the game for their own benefit. In accomplishing their individual feats, teams won pennants, championships, and gained notoriety helping gain revenue. Because of that, all of those records and awards were compromised and have to be adjusted the same way as the individual record. It’s only fair.

We fans should’ve seen this coming, but we looked the other way because home runs are exciting.

Essentially we feel cheated for what we ignored and brushed under the rug years ago.

Serves us all right.

While there is no easy way to handle the looming steroid cloud, baseball can do itself a favor and scrutinize all players during the steroid years, and not the more popular, easier to hate ones like Bonds.

Until the cloud is cleared, we have no choice but to be skeptics of all over-achievers, including fan favorites.

Roger Clemens, who competed for a Cy Young award years after many people thought he was over the hill and done, needs to be investigated.

Jim Thome, who went through alternate years of great statistical years and injuries but now is off to a wonderful start with the White Sox, needs to be investigated.

The young, Bonds-like swinging slugger Robert Pujols, considered the second best batter in baseball (first is Bonds, if you didn’t know), should be investigated for, if nothing else, putting up amazing statistics that rival that of Bonds.

If we’re going to start a witch hunt, don’t let color or personality factor in. Let’s get them all, so we don’t have to relive 1995.

Timothy Hopkins runs TimothyLukeHopkins.com, and frequently writes and edits articles for www.mindritesports.com. He can be emailed at TimothyLukeHopkins@gmail.com.