These days it seems like we politicize just about anything, so what do we make of Nancy Pelosi's statement on Barry "Balco" Bonds' breaking the home run record:

"Tonight, Barry Bonds etched his name into baseball's history books and took his rightful place among sport's immortals," Pelosi said. "It was a great night for baseball and a great night for San Francisco -- the crowd went wild. It was particular exciting to see Willie Mays embrace him on the field and see Hank Aaron congratulate him on the Jumbotron. As a season ticket holder, I am particularly glad it happened on the Giants' Italian night."

Just a typical politician playing to the locals to get reelected or further evidence of the moral decline of modern liberalism? Also, why does being a "season ticket holder" make her glad it happened on Italian night? I don't see the relevance, especially since she wasn't at the game. Why not just admit that she's glad because she's Italian-American?

Actually, in fairness to Pelosi, I find it very difficult to work up a lot of moral outrage over the whole Bonds business. I once wrote on my blog that:

As fans, why does it matter whether a player is on the juice or not? So Barry Bonds hits a few more homers than he otherwise would? Who cares? Indeed, since baseball is otherwise one of the most boring games known to man, isn't that a good thing?

The only rationales for caring I've ever been able to see are (1) paternalism to protect players from themselves and (2) drug use by some creates a market for lemons. I'm somewhat persuaded by the latter, but at the end of the day it's just not much of an issue for me. I wouldn't watch baseball or cycling whether the players were juiced or not, while I would watch football and basketball whether the players were juiced or not.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.