Flare Sci-Fi Forums: John Rocker

This is topic John Rocker in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/410.html

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

John Rocker was suspended until May 1 by commissioner Bud Selig on Monday for racial and ethnic remarks that
"offended practically every element of society." This effectivly keeps Rocker out of spring training and out of the first month or so of the season.

To read the rest of the story, go here.

His comments: "The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the foreigners. I'm not a very big fan of foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get in this country?"

You can read more of what a wonderful fellow he is by going here.

The question then is this...do public figures like Rocker have a greater responsibility because they are public figures? Does the right to free speech not apply if you have a public persona? Or did Selig cross the line by his suspension?

------------------
Ohh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts, and plagues and poison monkeys. Nature started the fight for survival and now she wants to quit because she's losing...well I say "Hard Cheese"!
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Yes, famous people, especially role models have a greater responsibility than others.

------------------
"Men, I want you just thinking of one word all season. One word and one word only: Super Bowl."
Bill Peterson, Football Coach

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Ah, very well Jeff, but that then begs a question or two.

When did famous people give up their First Amdendment right to free speech?

When does a famous person cross that line and become a role model? John Rocker is surely famous, but I think one could argue whether Rocker is a role model.
Moreover, what makes an athlete a role modle? Why do people who can throw a baseball faster than I can or who can shoot a basketball better than me become role models? I think that we have ignored the societal implications of that question for a very long time. Certainly there are athletic qualities that one can seek to imulate; there is an intense work ethic that any great athlete must have to become a success.

And yet, we have placed athletes and celebrities in general on such a level. Starting with the worship of the "great athlete," embodied at the start of the modern athletic era by Babe Ruth and carried on through the years by other athletes.

Why? Does being able to throw a baseball faster than the average schmoe add something to society on a tangible level? Does a dunk have more intrinsic value than a painting?

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

I didn't say anything about losing one's first admendment right. Celebrities have a moral duty, that's all. Celebrities need to make that decision for themselves. If they choose the immoral path, then they let down those that look up to them, and eventually lose the fame.

Here's another point: Should hate be against the law?

------------------
"Men, I want you just thinking of one word all season. One word and one word only: Super Bowl."
Bill Peterson, Football Coach

Posted by DT (Member # 80) on :

Jesus, if John Rocker is a famous person, Kerry Lightenberg must be a freakin star.

Anyway, this is a joke. John Rocker may be an idiot, but why does he deserve to be suspended? What's funny is that when Jesse Helms makes laws to keep those people out, he's a politician (well, a Republican).

My favourite part is his comment about the 7 train being like a trip through Beirut. It's funny, the government can back the state which is systematically murdering the citizens of Beirut and no one (except for us "left-wing radicals") criticizes. John Rocker makes a comment comparing NYC to it, and he's a pariah.

Yeah, we've got our priorities straight.

------------------
"Don't have a mind" - Kurt Cobain
Breed, Nirvana

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

To reply to the last thing in the original post... Selig did cross the line. He crossed the line by merely suspending him. He should've banned the little **** comepletely! And that has nothing to do w/ being a "public figure", or whatever. Rocker has a job. Selig is his boss. If someone in my employ said something like that, he'd be out on his ass so fast, he wouldn't realize it for a week!

------------------
Col. Maybourne: "Teal'c... It's good to see you well."
Teal'c: "In my culture, I would be well within my rights to dismember you."
-Stargate SG-1: "Touchstone"

Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :

The First Amendment is a legal right, however, employment is a contract. If making a public pronouncement of that nature violates one's contractual obligation to present a certain corporate image to the public, the employer is within his rights to terminate employment. The athlete in question did not go to jail and is free to seek employment elsewhere. He is even free to get a lawyer and attempt to prove his actions did not violate his contract. I'm sure that saying what he did was not spelled out as a "don't do" item in his contract, but I suppose "Don't murder anyone -- it's bad for the corporate image" isn't in there either.

If you've ever been employed, you realize that employers pay for your labor, but also for some aspects of your behavior. When I worked at Kentucky Fried Chicken (well before they changed to "KFC" to avoid using the word "Fried") I had to get to work on time and wear the corporate uniform -- a paper hat, a white shirt, and a silly-looking bow-tie. Big deal. "Don't insult the customers" wasn't spelled out, but most people recognize the counterproductivity of such behavior. If New York is comprised of a large number of "imported people" (most of MY ancestors were), it doesn't project a good corporate image for this athlete to complain about all these potential customers talking in their native languages, etc. Sheesh! Maybe they don't care if he can understant their convos? It's none of his #$%@ business anyway, the dolt!

In conclusion, the dolt is not in jail and did not lose any of his rights, unless you consider being paid vast sums of money a right. In that case, where do I sign?

--Baloo

------------------
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
Come Hither and Yawn...

[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited February 01, 2000).]

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Sure, John Rocker has his right to free speech, but rights have responsibilities. You cannot use your rights to offend or disturb other people or society in general. Having John Rocker speak like that is like having a mass murderer say he has the right to kill and maim people. "I have rights!!! It's in the Constitution man!!!"

------------------
I can resist anything.......
Except Temptation

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

In the above quotation, Rocker might be expressing frustration at the use of multiple languages in many areas of the US and how they diminish the country's national identity.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
John Linnell: "This song is called...it's called..."
Audience: "Louisiana! Montana!"
John Linnell: Don't tell me what it's called..."

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

I think Baloo has already spelled this out well, better then I can.

Rocker has a right to say what he pleases. Baseball has a right to discipline it's employees, including Rocker. I think the first amendment is supposed to protect you from the government, but free speach is an illusion. It only exsists on paper, and, on occasion, in court.
Baseball is a business, controled by the owners. It's not a bunch of teams playing in a leauge, but one big business. I like the Braves, and Rocker is a hell of a pitcher, and should not have been suspended. He will have to go back to New York next season, and New Yorkers can take care of themselves. They don't need Selig.

I just went and read the article. The comment by "Metswin", at the end of the article, says it all. Next time Rockers in New York, "Metswin" is bringing "D" battries to the game.

------------------
Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!!
Gandalf

[This message has been edited by Kosh (edited February 01, 2000).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Can someone explain to me how a player who makes a remark that happens to offend some people can get suspended, but someone who sells drugs doesn't?

Baloo, I'm surprised at you! You, of all snopes afficianados, should know that KFC changed their name to remove "Kentucky", not "Fried". Nor "Chicken", as they are not using genetically-engineered substitutes.

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

So, the best that we can come up with is that we must be good little automatons lest we offend the corporate power base with our opinions?

Fascinating.

Posted by HMS White Star (Member # 174) on :

I think the John Rocker thing is pretty funny, on one hand a Mr. Rocker says Racist comments (which are wrong and a really dumb thing to say since he is in front of a reporter) and he suspended from Baseball for a month. One the other hand there is a football player charged with murder and what does the NFL does to him, nothing. Why is there an out cry when a player makes racist comments (which are wrong), and not when a player is charged with murder and flees to avoid being put on trial. What gives, when has society made breaking the law a lesser infraction than making offensive comments.

------------------
"Think of all the delightful aspects of the reproductive process: menstruation, pregnancy, labor. And the part we're trying to eliminate is sex?" Cecil Adams the guy who does Straight Dope.

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

There was a neat comparison to Rocker and a Canadian reporter who made similar comments by mistake. She got FIRED instead. Everyone up here says that Rocker got a simple slap on the wrist.

I agree that Rocker should be fired. If you didn't know, the Baseball Player's Union is taking up the case. They should prevent tarnishing baseball's image by just simply cutting him loose.

Moral of the story: Make offensive comments, and you get fired. Unless you're one of the upper class (Theoretically, they COULD get away with everything, including murder. Just look at OJ Simpson).

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

That's why I want to be a Rock Star.

Nobody will suspect me after the anthrax...

------------------
I bet when Neanderthal kids would make a snowman, someone would
always end up saying "Don't forget the big heavy eyebrows." Then they would all get embarrassed because they remembered they had the big hunky eyebrows too, and then they would get mad and eat the snowman.

-Jack Handey

Posted by DT (Member # 80) on :

TSN - Selig is NOT his boss. Ted Turner is.

Baloo - Yes, but MLB has an anti-trust exemption, thus, he can't find employment at an equal level because a suspension by Major League Baseball is an expulsion from the industry in this country (except for a very low level which MLB is fighting to control).

Tahna - You completely do not understand the First Amendment, do you?

I think Jay hit this on the head. We all have to be company drones. Fuck Major League Baseball. I'm not going to buy another product or go to another game. Ever. Fuck them, and fuck Ted Turner for not fighting this. I hope that redneck chokes on his money.

And if that offended someone, GOOD! I'm so sick and fucking tired of watching what I say. I disagree with John Rocker's statements, and thanks to his remark about Ruskies, I'd punch the asshole in his face if we were in a bar. But I am now a fan of his, if only to support the fight for free speech.

------------------
"Don't have a mind" - Kurt Cobain
Breed, Nirvana

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

I think the Senator from Pennsylvania has given himself over to hyperbole this evening.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Of course, he'd probably defend your right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre, too.

Personally, I don't think we fire enough athletes, and the only compassion I have for Rocker is that there's bigger jackasses than him still playing the game.

It's an interesting dichotomy DT has set himself into...

If you don't like what a man says, you're not allowed to fire him... but you are allowed to commit assault and battery against him? Intriguing thought...

No economic sanctions, only military intervention!

*chuckle*

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

But First, the question I seek answered is when does a person cease to be a "spokesman" of sorts for their given profession.

Let's say that someone resembling Baloo, who stands in his silly looking bow tie behind the KFC counter, most certainly acts as a representative of that fine chicken establishment. Let's go further to say that were he to call someone rude names whilst handing them their bucket of chicken I think we all believe that he has crossed the line.

But the question is, does he still represent the company when he is walking home from work and calls someone else rude names? Perhaps he is even wearing his company shirt when he does it. Or does he cross the line when someone who knows him and knows that he is a worker bee at the chicken place hears him call someother person very bad names?

The last two represent Rocker more than the first. If what some of the arguments on this thread are true, then we are never wholly free from representative status of our corporate big brothers. By extension, never wholly free to discuss thoughts and ideas that don't mess with the corporate line lest we fear reprisal. This frightens me.

And I agree that athletes in this society have too much privilege, but that is a different point all together.

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited February 03, 2000).]

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

The purpose of free speech is that the government cannot decide that it doesn't like what someone is saying, so they jail them or execute them or whatever on no grounds other that what they've said. And this is fine.

However, as DT has so eloquently pointed out, this doesn't stop other people from doing what they will to you because they don't agree w/ you. He thinks it's perfectly fine to jack the guy in a bar for what he said. How is that so different than firing him, or suspending him, as the case may be?

We all have the right to free speech (I'm talking about the US here, of course, since that's the country in question). This means that, even if the government doesn't agree w/ us, they still treat us as citizens, just like everyone else. However, if a private citizen hires you to do work for him, and you start spouting off stuff that he doesn't like, there's nothing stopping him from throwing you right out on your ass. In fact, he has infinitely more right to do that than DT has to sock you across a barstool. There's a huge difference between "Constitutional freedom of speech" and "no matter what I say, everyone has to act like they agree w/ me".

------------------
Col. Maybourne: "Teal'c... It's good to see you well."
Teal'c: "In my culture, I would be well within my rights to dismember you."
-Stargate SG-1: "Touchstone"

Posted by DT (Member # 80) on :

If you can tell me how giving someone a black eye is worse than eliminating (or even temporarily suspending) their ability to earn a living in their industry. I don't think you people understand. Major League Baseball HAS AN ANTI-TRUST EXEMPTION. That means that they have a LEGALIZED MONOPOLY over baseball in this country. It's called the National Association. How many of you know of the Gentlemen's Agreement? Of course I'm sure you'd all support that. Afterall, it's their choice to hire such people. When Kenesaw Mountain Landis vetoed Bill Veeck's purchase of the Philadelphia Phillies in 1937(I'm not sure on the date) that was perfectly legal. Moreover, as MLB itself is a corporation (I was wrong to say Selig is not Rocker's boss, he is, I keep forgetting that bastard is officially commissioner now) they have the right to decide who owns the franchises, as they do have the anti-trust exemption. Why did they veto that purchase? Veeck wanted to do something with the franchise that, as an employee of MLB, they felt was wrong. Particularly, they felt that an employee would be like Fleetwood Walker, an ex-employee, and hurt business. Now, I will tell you that the vetoing of that purchase was one of the most immoral things baseball ever did. Of course, our young "conservative" here will tell you that it was perfectly within their rights even after I explain why that purchase was vetoed, but I'll disagree.
John Rocker broke no laws.
John Rocker did not inhibit the course of a game.
John Rocker did not do anything but act unbecoming of a major league baseball player.
They cannot prevent him from earning a living, even for a month (they made it two) because of that.
There was a time when what Fleetwood Walker did was considered unbecoming of a major league baseball player and a gentleman. He didn't break any laws. And she sure didn't do anything to inhibit the course of a game. But he did not present the corporate image to the public that MLB and its teams, at that time, chose. And when the teams played in the home parks of the Cardinals, Browns, Senators or Orioles (yes, there was a franchise called the Orioles before the Brownies moved) he was considered highly offensive. Per Baloo's statements, MLB had every right to terminate Walker's employment, and not allow anyone else who would present such an image. And Walker was free to seek employment elsewhere. Of course, thanks to the anti-trust exemption, it was at a much lower level and was for considerably less than if he had been playing for, say, the Pirates.
By now, I assume most of you have figured out what Walker's crime was. Moses Fleetwood Walker was a black man. He hurt business. He did not project the right image. He was not considered to be a gentleman by the public at large, and as such, he was not fitting with the Game of Gentleman image that MLB wanted.. As such, his contract was terminated. Men like Cap Anson proceeded to form the Gentleman's Agreement, which dictated that no MLB club would sign a negro to a contract to play baseball (they could clean the floors, of course, so MLB was not denying them employment in any way, just saying they couldn't do certain things in the public eye). Now, they didn't go to jail or lose any of their rights. They were free to find employment in the Federal League (which MLB destroyed, thank you no anti-trust exemption) or any non-National Association league. In fact, that's why the Negro Leagues existed. Of course, they didn't earn nearly as much money (which is why the greatest catcher ever, Josh Gibson, died poor) as their MLB approved counterparts (not neccesarrily white, as even men of African heritage like Babe Ruth, who did not look too black, were allowed to play) but they did earn money in said profession. Now, according to many of you, particularly Baloo, that's perfectly fine. When Landis stopped Veeck from buying the Phillies because he said he was going to stock them with black ballplayers, that was fine. It's his corporation. That would effectively lose them the Philly market (or so they thought at the time) and just imagine the reaction in the southern cities when the Phils were on the road!
First, you can support this idea. Afterall, men like Josh Gibson, Judy Johnson, Mac Walker, Rube Foster, Monte Irvin, and the rest were athletes. We don't fire enough of them, do we? Let's see those jocks make their money doing something constructive.
And let us all keep in mind, that around the turn of the century in America, it was considered wrong to be black. They were a second class.

Yet, some of you may come back with the remark "Well, you can't hide being black, Rocker can hide being a racist" and I can't disagree. Of course, you can hide being homosexual. So, now that we've established Baloo's arguement to be fucked up, and we've shown the power of an anti-trust exemption and how low MLB can sink, let's pose a hypothetical.
Tommorow, John Rocker's teammate Tom Glavine admits to the world on ESPN that he is a homosexual.
Well, Atlanta is traditionally a good-ole-boy town, as is Georgia in general, and the south. MLB doesn't like this, though, as Atlanta is a big market. Moreover, imagine what would happen when the Braves go to St Louis, and other Bible Belt towns. When you consider the tolerance of most sports fans, this is detrimental (or at least they think it is). And it is not fitting with the image of MLB (many in the south would now think he's a fruit and as such, not the kind of person MLB tries to promote). Does Major League Baseball have the right to suspend him for his comments? Moreover, do they have the right to terminate his contract and form another Gentlemen's Agreement? They're not keeping him from seeking employment elsewhere (St Paul) and he would surely be detrimental to business. Should MLB have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

Let's go back in time a bit, to 1951, when negroes were finally playing. Say that our old pal Monte Irvin decided to marry a young woman who happens to be white. Of course, at the time, interracial marriage, especially in that format (ie, black man/white woman) was considered nigh unto a sin. Hell, look what happened to Sidney Poitier when he made Look Who's Coming to Dinner a few years later! This would murder MLB in terms of image. Irvin didn't break any laws (at least not in the north) and he didn't impede the flow of the game. But he's bad for business. The team is boycotted in St Louis. When the Giants went to Cincinatti, they had stuff hurled at them on the field. It's a nightmare! Well, what is MLB to do? Can they suspend Irvin? Do they have the right to tell the Giants to fire him? (he was a Negro League star just a year before) No where does he have a right to marry a white woman, no where, not even in the constitution. So, would it be okay to discipline him?

It's easy for us to gang up on John Rocker because, according to our current enlightened values, what he said was offensive and stupid. And they were. They were as offensive to me as the 306 Mexicans the US government murdered because they tried to gain access to this country (although I think the latter was more offensive). But they certainly don't mandate official discipline from Major League Baseball, or as some here have advocated, the end of his career.

Jay is correct, and in my last post, I overstated my case a bit. But the majority of you overstate your case to a harmful point.

------------------
"Don't have a mind" - Kurt Cobain
Breed, Nirvana

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

There's one main difference between your beliefs and everyone elses, DT. You think that people have a right to employment, and that no one has a right to property. Most other people think the exact opposite.

Tell me: this black man was fired because he could have reduced the business MLB was doing. So what would happen if they were forced to keep him on, as they would be under your system, and they went out of business because of the decrease in profits, due to the fact that that, at that point in time, a considerable segment of the population might have stopped watching? I'll tell you: then NO ONE that played baseball would have a job. INCLUDING the one who would have been fired.

Things simply work better when left to people that know what they're doing. That means OUT of government control.

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Unless the government knows what it's doing.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
John Linnell: "This song is called...it's called..."
Audience: "Louisiana! Montana!"
John Linnell: Don't tell me what it's called..."

Posted by DT (Member # 80) on :

Oh my god. You just DEFENDED the Gentlemen's Agreement. Did I misread this? You JUST DEFENDED the half century long ban of blacks from major league baseball. Did you see that?!
I didn't think you'd even go that far. My god, did everyone else see that?!?! There were even ways for you to defend your position without saying that, but, YOU DID!

I am in so much awe I cannot grasp it.

------------------
"Don't have a mind" - Kurt Cobain
Breed, Nirvana

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

I think both of you lads are generalising just a bit too much. You can't make blanket statements like 'you believe X therefore Y'. It just doesn't stick.

------------------
Samaritan: "A good hot curry will help heal your wounds. That is, unless your religion forbids it".

Man: (Eyes growing wide) "No religion forbids a good hot curry".

-From some movie.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Come see the violence inherint in the system! Come see the violence inherint in the system!

------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Wrong. I thing racial discrimination in any form is wrong, but I prefer racial discrimination on the part of a corporation to the removal of inalienable rights on the part of the government. Lesser of two evils, IMO.

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Well, given the fact that I hate baseball, football, and all forms of so-called professional athletic activity with a passion bordering on fanaticism, I really couldn't give a rat's ass about the suffering of one poor jackass who until a couple weeks ago was making ten times my salary, NOR would I care a whit if the entire industry was put out of business FOREVER.

As for the whole "Gentleman's Agreement" argument...
To paraphrase Churchill, "Never has an analogy been stretched so far for so little."

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

Posted by DT (Member # 80) on :

Ya know, this is why I so fucking don't care anymore. I'm not going to debate people's rights with idiots. I left once for a reason, but I forgot what it was (or to be more exact, I became so desperate for debate I came back).

First, fuck you. That's as nicely as I can say it. You're a petty person, who because you are so devoid of any athletic talent (much like me) you can't allow someone their just due for doing something that brings entertainment into a lot of people's lives. Yeah, like what Leonard Nimoy and Patrick Stewart does is useful. They're just overpaid assholes who don't affect anyone's life for the better except sniveling losers, no different than Pedro Borbon or Mike Stanton.
Here's to hoping that one day, you can gain enough self esteem to give someone credit for doing something even though you can't do it.

And here is to many, many years of sport!

------------------
"Don't have a mind" - Kurt Cobain
Breed, Nirvana

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

You're right. Actors certainly don't deserve to be paid as much as they are. But neither do athletes. If they enjoy it so much, why do they demand millions of dollars to do it? Start paying them seven bucks an hour and let's see how much they still enjoy it...

------------------
Lisa: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Bart: "Not if you called them 'stench blossoms'..."
-The Simpsons

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

I think however that after the advent of free agency, that player demands for salary have spiraled way out control and has lost touch with reality.

I gots to say that 20 million for playing a game or making a movie is far too much; however, the other side of my brain is kicking me and it tells me that the players and actors are finally getting a bigger piece of the collective pie. In other words their efforts have been making HUGE amounts of money for owners of teams and studios for years and perhaps its time for them to get what they should from the "system."

And then getting even more nuanced, and back to a previous question...to what extent does a basketball dunk have more value to a society than a piece of art does? If one looks at the history of baseball for example, during the early part of the 20th century, the heyday of the Yankees and Babe Ruth, one can see how baseball was an instrument to quell worker unhappiness in urban areas.

After all, it was one of the few places in New York that the average worker could go and see so much green grass! Moreover, the daily grind in a factory and life in a widowless tenement were hardly something to look forward to. I imagine that were Marx to see the rise of modern sports, he may very well equate it with religion as a way to keep the masses fat, happy, and in check.

Whereas, good art tends to challenge societal norms, the status quo, ect.

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited February 06, 2000).]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

It's called a free market. It's how I bought this nice computer without having to pay several thousand dollars. If you don't approve, don't contribute your earnings.

I especially love it when rabid right-wingers rant and rave about the horrors of government intervention in the economy, but when a athlete is making millions a year, by God, someone should DO something!

------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

"One of the surest signs of a sick culture is when it begins to believe that its athletes and entertainers are people of importance." -- Heinlein.

No, I don't care for entertainers' salaries, either. You're jumping to conclusions that aren't there, which is beginning to become a pattern with you. I think you have invested far too much emotion into these arguments, and its throwing off your judgement. Otherwise, you're a class act when it comes to argument, and you should stick to it. But stay off value judgements against people you don't know. It makes you look bad. (For instance, I never should have made that crack about the fire in the theater.)

Who should get the highest salaries?

People whose professions involve risking their lives for the security of others.

People whose professions involve innovation, scientific or designwise or medical, whose applications directly benefit humanity.

And Teachers.

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Odd. Most of the people you listed, except for most scientists and some teachers, work for the government, in one form or another. Funny, how most of them get paid very little relative to what they probably should, when working for the entity with the biggest budget in all of history.

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.