From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: The Jesse & Marge Show
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 18:20:13 GMT

In article <19JAN199310332393@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
>I am getting more than a little fed up with Mr. Lustig's name-calling.
>As if that adds weight to his arguments.  This guy is Ward Larkin Junior.

I'm not sure who Ward Larkin Sr. is, so I'll have to play that insult
by ear.

>In article <1993Jan15.170359.1286@Princeton.EDU>, roger@astro.princeton.edu 
>     (Roger Lustig) writes...

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

>>>>Does the fact that Jesse Jackson, flawed though he may be, is speaking 
>>>>out against racism in baseball, make the racism in baseball less wrong?  

>>>No.  But one cannot address the issue selectively.

>>On the contrary.  One can *only* address the issue selectively, if one is
>>to do more than express general feelings.  Jesse Jackson is an activist,

>Why is it necessary to avoid expressing "general feelings?"  It's these 
>that you use to make policy.  

Hello?  Did I say that Jesse Jackson doesn't speak out against racism
in general?  Of course he does.  How often has he quoted the "I have a 
dream" speech?  Go back and read (or better, listen to) it.

Jackson has \often spoken out against all kinds, and against many
specific kinds, of racism.  It is preposterous -- and hypocritical --
to berate him, however, for not speaking out against each individual
racist event.

>Policy is (or should be) made on the basis
>of general good, not exceptions.  In the case of baseball, Jesse makes the
>case that blacks are left out of high-level positions.  This is a case of
>general feelings.  Now, regarding Jesse and the Mariners,

>>>This is where you went off the deep end.  My point is, in a nutshell, we
>>>have two *related* injustices, that take place in the *same* arena. 

>>Bullshit.  The issues are entirely different.  One concerns equal treatment 
>>of players and ex-players.  The other concerns ownership. 
>>The owners have long placed restrictions on who may own a team -- 
>>people who are involved in gambling, have no interest in the city in
>>question, etc. etc. are frowned upon.  Whether this is right is another
>>matter, but the interests involved are complicated.

>In this case, we have no known gambling involved, we have significant interest
>in the city in question, we have the money to keep the team stable and in
>the same place, and we have commitment.  With that in mind, the *only*
>way this issue is significantly different (unless the owners have suppressed
>information) is that the proposed owner is not a citizen of the USA.  

OK--that's true.  Now, how often has Jackson spoken out on matters 
regarding citizenship?  This is simply not where his field of action is.
Also, Jackson speaks out mainly for those who have a hard time,
generally because of anonymity or lack of funds, spaking for themselves.
The proposed owners in question are not exactly lacking in funds or 
public presence.

>The proposed owner in this case is, however, a minority with significant
>activity in the USA.

So the mere fact of their being a minority makes that an issue?  Makes
race an issue?  If you could show me significant anti-Japanese demonstrations
in Seattle, I'd be more impressed.  

>>>Jackson spoke out against one, but was curiously silent in the other. 

>>Nonsense.  Jackson's activism has never had anything to do with foreign
>>business interests.  Nor, for that matter, has ANY equal opportunity
>>activist I can think of.  Can you think of an advocate of racial equality
>>in this country who *is* "consistent" by your definition?  
>>Note also that issues of foreign trade and ownership are highly problematical
>>in just about every part of the country, and every sector of business
>>and government.  And that these issues have precious little to do with
>>racial equality.

>That simply is not true.  But it is outside of the scope of this newsgroup.

Well, then, send me some email showing me how foreign trade and government
involvement in it is based on racism, hm?

>>>Of course, that may not be Jackson's fault.  It could be the
>>>media, deciding what news bit gets what spin.

>>Well, O Evenhanded One, some of us think it's hypocrisy when Jesse Jackson's
>>life's work is caricatured the way you insisted upon doing.  You have 
>>very little idea of what his mission is, or why he does what he does;
>>to pretend that he is, or ought to be, a clearinghouse for all kinds
>>of issues that might involve race, is preposterous.  

>Here's where the name-calling starts.  Whatsamatter, Lustig?  You afraid
>someone might disagree with you?  With your highly thought-out opinions?

Thin skin?  Calling you "Evenhanded" is not exactly a mortal insult, not
where I come from.  Your insistence that Jesse Jackson be a puppet on
a string of your devising, running around to specified events and speaking
out on all of the issues you find related, just strikes me as an odd
way of making a case.  

>Geez, you treat this subject as though it were SLG+OBP, totally based on
>numbers.

Well, it *is*.  There are LOTS of cases of discrimination, cases of racism
in this country.  Non-violent action involves choosing one's battles
carefully, making one's point effectively, attracting attention to
one case at a time, teaching by example.  See Gandhi and King.  

To expect Jackson or any other activist to speak out on everything is to
forget how many hours there are in the day.

>Lemme give you a little information: Jesse set himself up as the champion
>of minorities.  I didn't do it for him.  He set himself up as a race-
>relations specialist.  And, he set himself up as a consultant to baseball
>on the subject.  All I ask is that if he does it in one case, he does it
>in all related cases.  And you have failed to prove the cases are not related.

Did he do that?  Did baseball hire him?  To speak out on all matters of 
race?  Did *he* claim that this was his job?  

Or was he merely speaking about *hiring* practices?  Seems to me, the latter.

Now, can you show that there is general anti-Asian sentiment in baseball?
That it has poisoned player relations, hurt the image of the game? Baseball
and blacks have a long and ugly history, and the old attitudes still seem 
ingrained.  Why should Jackson give equal time to an issue that doesn't
even seem to exist?  

>Apart from that, I have no problem with the position he put himself in.

Sure.  As long as you get to define his mission for him.

>>And to pretend that the issue of anti-black racism in America is just like
>>all other kinds, with no regard for its history, is worse.

>You have carried my argument to an extreme.  Just like Ms. Nichols did.
>I wish that, from time to time, some of the people in this newsgroup would
>address a remark as it is written, and stop trying to read all the evils
>of mankind into it.  You, however, I don't expect it from.

Well, how WAS I to read your remarks?   Baseball's history wrt blacks
is a special, major chapter, and a major factor in the changes in race
relations in our time.  Jackie Robinson is an emblem of our century just
as Rosa Parks and James Meredith were.  Perhaps more -- he is known by 
more people.

and it is still, alas, a central issue in our society.  Affirmative 
action, redistricting, yesterday's holiday -- it comes up again and
again.  

Why should Jesse Jackson *not* focus on this key, crucial issue?

>>>>If you argue that Jackson is hypocritical because of anti-Semitic remarks,
>>>>I won't disagree with you, 

>>>Once again, this is off the deep end.  If Jackson makes these "Hymietown"
>>>and what-not remarks in the year 1984, but *does not change or grow* 
>>>between 1984 and 1992, then he's not only a hypocrite, but a dope as well.

>>How about neither?  He apologized up and down for the Hymietown remark,
>>and has spoken out repeatedly on black-Jewish relations.  As for this
>>case, well, Jesse Jackson doesn't *do* foreign investment.

>Hmmmm.  Now we have Marge Schott apologizing up and down, and instituting
>an equal-opportunity policy that Jackson himself recognized.  Yet we still
>have Jackson calling for disciplinary action on Schott.  Let's make her an
>example to all the others.  Maybe we should consider treating Schott the
>same way we have treated Jackson.

I don't recall Jackson basing any hiring practices on race, the way
Marge in her remarks said she did.  That wasn't just talk -- it was a statement
of policy.  

Schott made her remarks as the employer of a great many people.  They
concerned terms of employment.  

>>And it's not your place to insist that he does, anymore than he should
>>call *you* a racist for not coming to protest with him.

>But I do insist that he does.  Why should Jackson not "do" foreign investment
>in baseball, knowing (as has been pointed out in this newsgroup several
>times) that such investment has significant potential impacts on all other
>areas that he does "do?"

Because he doesn't dance to your tune.  

Now tell me all the things YOU have done to further improved race relations.
Do you walk the walk even a little?

>>>>but to claim he's hypocritical because he wasn't
>>>>prominent in the Seattle situation is bogus.  

>>>Sez you.

>>Well, why don't you make a case for it, instead of just blindly saying
>>"it's the same thing," when it clearly isn't?  

>It's only clear to you, bud.  And I didn't do anything blindly.  My case
>is pointed out above.  I could say my case is clear, too: but I recognize
>the right of others to disagree.

Your case seems to involve holding others to a standard you would probably
have a hard time holding yourself to.  Again, what do YOU do to improve
race relations?  What political activities do you undertake?

>>Employee relations and personnel policies have very little to do with 
>>matters of domestic and foreign ownership.

>Still not true, but outside the scope.

So explain it in email.  

>>>>And even if he *is* hypocritical, it's irrelevant to the problem.

>>>Is it?  Lemme ask you, Ms. Nichols: do you want the problem *solved* or not?

>>Do you?  I know Sherri does.  I also know that boneheaded equating of 
>>the Seattle case and this one will do nothing but blow smoke over the issues.

>More names.  The opinion of anyone who disagrees with you is boneheaded.

No, just certain opinions.  

>I have watched you for a year now.  

That should help my Nielsen ratings.

>The only people you treat civilly are
>the other "stat-heads."  Did it ever once occur to you that there might be
>*people* at the other end of a conversation?  Based on your behavior, and
>that of Ms. Nichols, I am hard-pressed to believe for even a moment that
>either of you wants to see *anything* solved.

Can you point to a single case where I have responded less-than-civilly
to a civil post?  I do not consider your calling Jesse Jackson a 
hypocrite in this matter to be civil at all; keep in mind that the man
actually does something about problems.  

If you actually *had* read any of my posts, you would know that I
do *not* respond to reasoned arguments with anything but reasoned
replies.  

Nor do I limit my replies to the "stat-heads."  I have been known 
to respond to historical, rule, and other inquiries; and to post
all kinds of non-stat stuff myself.  

Could you post a few examples of the things you've "watched"?  

>Oh, I get it.  This is the "Farrakhan" approach to solving racial problems.
>As opposed to the "King" approach, or the "Jackie Robinson" approach.

Now, who's calling names?  I call you "Evenhanded," you call me
"Farrakhan."  What was that bit about "hypocrisy" earlier on?

Roger