From: ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Re: The Jesse & Marge Show
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 21 Jan 1993 11:09 EST  

In article <1993Jan18.164448.24446@adobe.com>, snichols@adobe.com 
     (Sherri Nichols) writes...

>In article <15JAN199310042918@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> 
>     ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:

[...on the Schott case and the Mariners sale...]

>>[...] two *related* injustices, that take place in the *same* arena.  And
>>Jackson spoke out against one, but was curiously silent in the other.  That
>>is hypocrisy.  Of course, that may not be Jackson's fault.  It could be the
>>media, deciding what news bit gets what spin.

>Just because they're related in your mind, doesn't mean they're related in
>Jackson's mind.  

I don't pretend to know what's in Jackson's mind.  I am looking at what I
see is the point of view of Joe Fan on the street.

>I still fail to see the hypocrisy in *failing* to speak out
>against one and speaking out against the other.  Had he actively spoken out
>*against* the Japanese purchase, you might have an argument.

Who cares whether I have an argument or not?  I'm not trying to convert
anyone to my point of view - just stating that such a point of view exists
and must be taken into consideration when deciding action.

[...and on Jackson's previous indiscretions...]

>>But I am not willing to make the assumption that people do not change with
>>time.  If he, for instance, has apologized for those remarks, or has 
>>developed working relationships with Jewish folks since that incident, that's
>>evidence of change.  If you still look at Jesse as a hypocrite *for that
>>reason* and not for the other, then I disagree with you.

>I never said I thought Jackson was hypocritical.  I was saying that a
>stronger argument for Jackson's hypocrisy were his anti-Semitic remarks.
>In other words, if you base the argument on things Jackson did say, rather
>than on things Jackson failed to say, it's a much stronger case.  I can
>agree with one, but not the other.

Once again, this is not a court of law.  I'm not trying to convert anyone
to my opinion.  My opinion simply exists, and others share it.  For this
reason, I ask: does Jackson send mixed signals to the fans by responding to
one case and not to the other?  And, even though the case may be made that
the Mariners sale and the Schott incidents have some differences, those
differences in my view are not strong enough to merit being treated totally
separately *by all the fans*.

>I also recognize that the people who want to use Jackson's failings as 
>an excuse to ignore the problem will find almost any other excuse to 
>ignore the problem if Jackson weren't involved.

That's as may be, and we can do very little about that.  Personally, I
don't want to see the problem ignored, but I see others saying "yeah, 
right" when Jesse talks about it.  Some look at Jesse and see a guy who's
gotta grab the camera and mike.

Suppose Jesse modified this perception.  He can do it, y'know.  When he
gets on camera, he says something like "what happened with Marge is only
a symptom of a larger disease within baseball that can ultimately hurt
the game."  To call for disciplinary action against Schott only deals
with the symptoms.  If this weren't true, then what happened to Campanis
some years ago would've been the final word.

He sends his own personal action plan to the owners.  It has 14 points, 
and some of them can't be dealt with right away, if at all.  Suppose
he instead groups the points into "short term" and "long term" and 
offers (for a modest fee, of course ;-)) to work with baseball on an
on-going basis to smooth the rough edges.  This gives him a closer look
at baseball (and the fans) while assisting the owners.  And I think the
owners would buy into it.

Finally, he must appeal to the fans.  Not only to let Marge know what they
think, but to let *him* know what they think.  If he wants to be a baseball
advocate, I think he needs to get closer to the fans.  To call for their
point of view.  To present qualified minority candidates to high-level
positions in baseball.

Caveat: this stuff may all be happening now, but may be too boring to get
to the general media, which in turn keeps the information away from most of
the rest of us.  If there is published evidence that Jesse is following
these or any like approaches, I would appreciate pointers.

Thank you, Ms. Nichols, for approaching this sensitive subject in so civil
a manner.  People have opinions.  It's difficult to look at them without
shades of emotion.

RG

"How are you, honey?"  -  Marge Schott, to Jesse Jackson
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball