Steven Goldman: Josh Hamilton And His Persecutors

I think most people who want to point the finger at Hamilton are the type of people who are deluding themselves about their own power over their self-destructive urges. We want to believe that we have the power to grit our teeth, pull up something within us and say ‘no’ but all of us have areas in our lives where that is extremely difficult or impossible. Some of us have more destructive (or visible) areas than others. But they are still there.

The one who believes most firmly that you can control alcohol intake by simple choices is the alcoholic still in denial, telling himself “I could quit if I wanted to.”

Not so much for his baseball contract, but for his family.

I’m sorry, but I must ask this: Exactly who are these people who are persecuting and judging Josh Hamilton? I haven’t heard from any of them. All the writers and analysts I’ve heard or read have expressed great compassion for Hamilton.

The person who is judging the player most harshly is Hamilton himself. At the press conference, he acted as if he were confessing to a mass murder rather than acknowledging a lapse.

I found the entire episode pathetic. No, I don’t mean Hamilton’s sincere mea culpa. I’m referring to the idea that he and his team actually felt a press conference was required so he could express public penance for an entirely private matter.

This underscores the rather insane cult of celebrity that has emerged in this country and the absurd idea that athletes are role models who somehow must attain a moral perfection that is beyond the reach of anyone. Hamilton honestly felt he owed apologies to everyone when, in fact, he owes them to no one, except perhaps himself and his immediate family. The entire press conference was outlandish.

I like Steve and his writing, but I think he’s way off base here, calling Joan Kroc an idiot and basically making Alan Wiggins seem like a victim of circumstances. Kroc wanted a clean team, free of drug abusers, in the 1980s. Is that really a bad thing?

I’m certainly sympathetic to the plight of drug addicts and alcoholics—addiction is truly a terrible thing—but ultimately it’s up to the addict to stay clear of their addictions. We should offer all the support and help that we can, but there does need to be a level of responsibility and accountability on the part of the drug user or alcoholic.

Drug use continues to be one of the great evils of our society, along with racism, violent crime, hazing, and bullying.

I agree with you, aronofsky40, celebrities should be held as morally accountable as anyone else. So, let me pose a question. When was the last time you egregiously erred at anything and called a press conference to announce your repentence? Celebrities are held to a ridiculously higher standard. Some even accord them the status of heroes, when, in fact, they are merely highly skilled individuals who play a game that provides a marvelous, but, in the overall scheme of things, utterly unimportant diversion for those of us who love it.

I respectfully disagree with Stephen Saffron. The fact that Hamilton publicly espouses a religious belief does not mean he has assumed the mantle of role model, any more than my sharing (but only when asked) my Buddhist beliefs places me in that position.

If addiction is not a moral failing—and I don’t see why it can’t be both an illness AND a moral failing—then what about drug dealing? Can we at least view that as a moral failure?

Yet, there’s been so little public criticism of that Chicago Bears player who was found to be dealing drugs in the Windy City earlier this season. I wonder why that is.

I stand with David Cronenberg, Henry Miller and others on the question of morality, Bruce. For the most part, it’s up for grabs and represents little more than the biases we’re taught as children, usually by the unimaginative and narrow minded who are passing on, without questioning, the same biases they were taught. That’s not to say I don’t find anything immoral. Murder, unless in self defense, strikes me as immoral. But beyond three or four other crimes, I don’t find much immoral. I don’t have an addictive personality, but I’ve been around enough people who do and have read enough about the science of it to feel that being an addict is no more immoral than having diabetes.

But, putting the question of morality aside for another day, I return to my original objections. The idea that this incident merited a news conference, that it was important enough to be considered news and this athlete thought he owed anyone, other than himself and those in his family he may have hurt, an apology. I find that notion absurd. He doesn’t owe us and his team anything other than a good effort on the field.