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: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:05:12 GMT

In article <21JAN199311094468@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
>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.

Well, that's not exactly the way it came out.  This is the first I've
heard of Joe in this discussion.  I *did*, however, hear JJ called a 
hypocrite -- something that involves an estimation of his mental state.

>>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?  

Those of us who thought you were trying to make one?

>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.

Is that so?  Do all extant points of view need to be taken into
account in any situation?  I think not.  As for the prevalence of
the POV in question, I doubt that most fans remember anything about 
the Mariners sale, nor were the majority of fans particularly upset at
Nintendo's failure to buy the team.  I'd be very cautious when speaking
for J.F.

>[...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.  

Once again, that's too easy an excuse!  We *are* talking about things
that people have or haven't said, *are* talking about reputations and
political issues.  

>I'm not trying to convert anyone
>to my opinion.  My opinion simply exists, and others share it.  For this

Well, *is* this your opinion?  By this time, it's hard to tell what your
opinion is, anymore, and to what extent you're merely speaking for
Joe Fan.

Also, if you're not interested in promoting your opinion, why bring it up?

>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*.

Yet most of the fans don't even make the connection; or do they?  I
can't say I've heard a whole lot of discussion going on that related
the two.  Aside from here on r.s.b, of course.

Anyway, Jackson hasn't even been involved with baseball on a regular
basis before now.  So "sending mixed signals" is an odd accusation.
Especially since about 95% of those who commented on one case or the
other either didn't comment on both or didn't link the two.  (Conservative
estimate.)

>>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.

Sure beats not seeing him at all.

>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."  

Um, that's *exactly* what he did.

>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.

The Campanis case was in *response* to people raising the larger issue.
Campanis was asked what he thought about the hiring issue in general,
and put his foot in it.

>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.

The way they won't even take advice from a commissioner anymore?  The
way Bill White just resigned in utter, total, complete frustration?  
Which owners are we talking about?  The *baseball* owners?  No, Ron,
I'm sorry.  Jackson is trying to shame the owners into action, and
given the shameless way they've generally behaved in the past wrt
hiring, player relations, etc., it's about all that's left.  

Besides, nonviolent action *requires* making a big splash in the media.

>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.

So write him a letter!  I'm sure he'll be glad to hear from you.

>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.

Well, the quotations I saw in the NYTimes suggest that he's gone a little 
deeper than you give credit for.

>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.

Well, for those of us who have been confronted with issues of race relations
since they were old enough to read, emotion is quite simply part of it.
Including loving one's country.

Roger