posted
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
I think the Senator from Pennsylvania has given himself over to hyperbole this evening.
------------------ 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
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
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.
------------------ 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
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited February 03, 2000).]
posted
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
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
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
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
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
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".
posted
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
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
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
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic
