November issue Muscular developement

This is the first time I picked up the magazine since I moved back to Michigan. I fogot how much I liked it. Some of the authors do a great job defending issues concerning steroids in the mainstream media today. Putting up powerful arguements and responding to the accusers. Romano pg. 72, Dan Gwartney pg 286, and Jose Antonio pg.298, all were seemingly very convincing putting forth strong arguements with well researched defence.

Here is a example from the Romano Factor

Pg.74 Romano does a great job exposing the contradiction that exists in our society today.
"Accountability seems to be a dying attribute among high profile elite de facto role models. The ones who tell the truth - like Canseco - we scorn! While it admirable Palmeiro would be cooperitive in his investigation, why the hell didnt he just tell the truth to begin with? Whats worse taking banned drugs to cheat or lying about it?

That last sentence is strong. The sentence begins with "whats worse" imposing the Law of Non Contradiction, eigther "this or that". The question demands a objective answere, The subjective (I believe) will not answere the question correctly. Romano stacks the deck for a very strong arguement. I challenge anyone to attempt to objectively show which is worse. The law of "Cause and effect" applys to both lying and cheating. The only way to render the last sentence meaningless is attack Romano's premises that lead to the conclusion "Palmeiro lied", but this would seem highly improbable considering the strength of the evidence. Ramano must be very witty,
he raised the perfect question concerning the moral issue / exposing the double standard / and raising the question of why?



Concerning the Romano factor for those who read it- here is a quote that fits well with the article By

Ravi Zacharias

"where else could we have seen the human mind so brilliant in its ability to manipulate the system and destroy the judicial process by the genius combination of emotion and distraction? This is the hallmark of modern-day debating techniques. If an idea can be found with which to galvanize common anger, that anger can be wrested to advantage over the real issue being discussed." .


Chesterton

"G.K. Chesterton said it well. "For under the smooth legal surface of our society there are moving some very lawless things. We are always near the breaking-point when we care only for what is legal and nothing for what is lawful. Unless we have a moral principle about such delicate matters as marriage and murder, the whole world will become a welter of exceptions with no rules. There will be so many hard cases that everything will go soft."

http://www.rzim.org/publications/jttran.php?seqid=36