The Mumbai terrorists, pumped up on steroids and cocaine.

"This explains why they managed to battle the commandos for over 50 hours with no food or sleep."

They also, apparently, took LSD, and it's hard to see how that could have helped.

"Bigger, Stronger, Faster."

Those before and after pics were taken on the same day — as demonstrated in the new documentary "Bigger Stronger Faster." It's an excellent documentary, mostly about steroid use — but also about hypocrisy, competition, and fakery.

The subtitle is "The Side Effects of Being American." Watch the trailer to get a decent idea of how that angle works:



If you want to laugh at Henry Waxman, this is your movie.

From the review by Beth Accomando:

Since [the director Christopher] Bell hangs out with people like his brothers that have no problems with using steroids, the pro-steroid camp definitely gets to have a say in the movie. So some people will probably see the film as biased in favor of steroids. Contributing to the perception of the film as pro-steroid is the fact that the people Bell does let talk about the negative side of steroid use often come off looking like idiots....

But in the end I think Bell is not so much pro-steroids but rather eager to open up a debate about the drug...

Accomando interviews Bell. Excerpt:

BETH ACCOMANDO: Were you surprised by people like Congressman Waxman who seemed so ill-prepared for the interview?

CHRIS BELL: It's weird because I'm not a journalist and I wasn't a documentary filmmaker when I started this journey so I was super nervous because I had never interviewed a congressman before and when I asked him why are steroids illegal and he turns to his assistant and says, "Are they illegal?" And I thought oh my god this is the guy who called the baseball hearings and he doesn't even know what he's talking about. That's really interesting to me because we really uncovered how we don't always have the facts when we are making the laws in this country. So I question in the movie why steroids became illegal in the first place. So I wanted to explore both the myths of steroids and the bad side effects of steroids and the possible positive medical applications as well.

This made me go back and watch the old Bloggingheads segment I did with Stephen Kaus. Skaus wanted to talk about the steroid controversy, and I was just trying to be a good sport about his topic. So it's a little odd that I went to the movie. But, basically, I like documentaries and it got great reviews. I recommend it.

There's a lot of interesting materials about the Bell family and the culture of male competition. Much of this was presented as "American" — as if Americans care about winning more than others or are more willing to cheat to win (or bullshit that it's not really cheating). There were a few ham-handed attempts to connect muscular sports competition to American foreign policy, but there was plenty of material about drugged-up muscle men from other countries to undercut that theory. (Like this guy.) I mean, the Michael Moore influence was definitely present, but Michael Moore can't bench press 705 pounds.

Bloggingheads! The Forgotten Carrots Edition!

It's me and Stephen Kaus.

Topics:

Covering the Bhutto assassination: NBC drops the ball (08:47)
Would a second Clinton presidency offend Jefferson’s ghost? (07:09)
Hillary’s secrecy about her First Lady days (08:36)
Prosecuting steroid use in baseball (10:42)
Ron Paul’s many weird ideas (11:16)
Ann schools Steve in the art of blogging (09:20)

Cancel all your baseball memories.

They were all on steroids.

"It is with a great amount of shame that I stand before you and tell you I have betrayed your trust."

How painful to see the destruction of a heroine. Marion Jones — winner of 3 Olympic gold medals — has pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators and admitted about taking steroids.

Assisted suicide and federalism.

Here's the AP report on the physician-assisted suicide case that comes up for oral argument in the Supreme Court today:

In 1997 the court found that the terminally ill have no constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide. O‘Connor provided a key fifth vote in that decision, which left room for state-by-state experimentation.

The appeal is a turf battle of sorts, not a constitutional showdown. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft , a favorite among the president‘s base of religious conservatives, decided in 2001 to pursue doctors who help people die.

Hastening someone‘s death is an improper use of medication and violates federal drug laws, Ashcroft reasoned, an opposite conclusion than the one reached by Janet Reno, the Clinton administration attorney general.

Frankly, I think this is an easy case (for federal supremacy), but it's a hot-button issue, so it will be interesting to see what is said -- especially by the new Chief -- at the argument.

The NYT has this editorial:

[T]he Court of Appeals was right to resolve it more simply, through a careful interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act. Mr. Ashcroft claimed that the law gave him the power to overrule Oregon's assisted suicide policy. But when Congress passed the act, it clearly intended to prohibit ordinary drug abuse, not to set out a federal policy on assisted suicide....

In his zeal to stop assisted suicide, Mr. Ashcroft, a self-described legal conservative, turned his back on two principles that are sacred to legal conservativism. First, he refused to strictly, or even accurately, construe a Congressional statute. Instead, he inserted meaning in it that did not belong there, giving himself power that he should not have had. Second, he ignored conservative dogma about deference to the states, especially on matters like regulating medical practice, a core state concern.

There is some appeal to the idea that the courts ought to narrowly construe broadly written federal statutes where the states have undertaken specific policy experiments in areas of traditional state concern (such as health). (I have a forthcoming article that sees Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion in the medical marijuana case as suggesting this new approach to preemption.) This might seem like a good idea, but to be principled, you can't turn it on and off. The NYT likes assisted suicide and reviles Ashcroft's conservatism, but if this is to be the approach to federalism, it would have to apply even when you loathe the state's policy and love the federal law. I can't help thinking that the NYT would be back to wailing over the horrible "federalism revolution" if its policy preferences were the other way around.

UPDATE: Here's a very early report on the oral argument:

"The most natural reading of the (federal) Controlled Substances Act is ... this falls within the authority of the attorney general," said Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of the Bush administration....

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor immediately challenged Clement, asking if federal drug laws also prevented doctors from participating in the execution of murderers.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said he found it "odd" that the attorney general determined physician-assisted suicide to be an abuse of drug laws, when the state of Oregon strictly limited how the drugs could be administered and in what cases.

"I don't think it's odd," Clement replied, noting that federal laws regulating drug use have been in place for more than 90 years.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here's more on the oral argument:

"The practice of medicine by physicians is an area of traditional regulation by the states, is it not?'' O'Connor asked U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement....

New Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. directed most of his questions to Oregon Assistant Attorney General Robert M. Atkinson, who represents the state. Roberts signaled skepticism when Atkinson said the federal government couldn't stop states from authorizing doctors to distribute morphine for medical use or steroids for bodybuilding.

"Doesn't that undermine the uniformity of federal law and make enforcement impossible?'' Roberts asked....

Members of the court's liberal wing joined O'Connor today in expressing skepticism about the federal government's bid to block the state law.

Justice David Souter said Clement's argument would make the attorney general the "sole authority to determine whether any state may or may not authorize assisted suicide and would do so in a way that any other attorney general can flip back and forth.'' Souter called that a "bizarre result.''

Justice Stephen Breyer told Clement that the argument against the government's case is that the Controlled Substances Act "has nothing to do with assisted suicide.''

Breyer later prodded Atkinson, without success, to draw a distinction that would allow the federal government to fight abuse of morphine and other addictive drugs but not to second-guess states that want to let doctors facilitate suicide.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a swing vote on social issues, called the dispute "a hard case'' and directed questions to both sides.

Clement said the Controlled Substances Act gave broad enforcement authority to the attorney general, saying ``the abuse Congress was concerned with is not solely addictive abuse.'' He pointed to the ``date-rape drug,'' a sleep medicine that some rapists have used to disable their victims.

Justice Antonin Scalia suggested he agreed with that argument, saying Congress had a broad aim when it passed the law in 1970.

"I think that assisted suicide would have been as unthinkable at the time this was enacted as prescribing cocaine for recreational use,'' Scalia said.

STILL MORE: Here's David Savage's report in the L.A. Times, which portrays Roberts as especially active:

"What's the closest analogue to this?" the chief justice asked Clement, pressing for an example of where the U.S. attorney general overruled the states and their doctors on how legal drugs are used.

Clement paused and then responded that the Food & Drug Administration had objected in the 1970s when several states allowed the use of laetrile as a cancer treatment.

"That's the FDA. What about the attorney general?" Roberts repeated.

Clement could not cite a specific example of where the attorney general had overruled the state medical authorities on the use of prescription drugs. Roberts' question highlighted that Ashcroft was claiming a new power to regulate medical practice.

Oregon state lawyer Robert M. Atkinson picked up on that point, saying that "for the first time in our history ... a single, unelected federal official has decided what is accepted state medical practice."

But Roberts also challenged Atkinson's claim that state authorities could ignore the federal drug laws.

Suppose one state decided that it would permit people to obtain morphine from their doctors because "it makes people feel better," Roberts said. "Doesn't that undermine the effectiveness of the federal law? How is the federal government supposed to enforce its prohibition" on abusing morphine if one state permits it? he asked.

EVEN MORE: The Linda Greenhouse article in the NYT about today's argument doesn't even mention Roberts. [MORE: The longer version of the article at the link now does mention Roberts at the end, but not in connection with the suicide case.]

Finally, Satan!

So what do we want from a third season of "Joan of Arcadia"? The last episode of season two laid out some options. Do we want Joan to go all Buffy? Do we want Helen to become our Arcadian Arquette? Me, I just want more Glynis.

But I must say I adore the new devil character. Remember in first season when we all thought the principal was going to turn out to be Satan? Now, Satan -- Ryan Hunter -- has finally arrived, and this is a well-written, well-acted character. The actor is handsome in a disturbing way -- like Eddie Haskell on steroids. He murmurs things to people as he slips by and you just think: snake! The things he says are aptly expressed objections to the rule of God -- offers of freedom. He makes a lot of sense -- that's what's so frightening to Joan:

We don't have to be bossed around by some love-starved, egocentric diety. I didn't ask to be born, but now that I'm here, it's all up to me. I like it that way. My life is a gift? Okay. Thanks. You can't ask for it back.

Joan asks God for help. At least Joan of Arc had an army. She's all alone. God points out her nerdy brother and four geeky friends, who are, at that moment, studying physics and throwing food at each other. I try to think of a movie/literary allusion that just beyond my grasp. The hero needs to fight, and he goes about getting some pretty unpromising looking people to join his group. Am I just thinking about Jesus getting the disciples together? Robin Hood? The Wizard of Oz?

UPDATE: A commenter points out that the situation at the end of "Joan" is not so much the one of going about assembling a motley crew (and "Lord of the Rings" would be another great example of that), it's about looking at the group you've already got and seeing how bad your chances are.