.
We're about a week or two behind the events here, but in the morning we like to offer the alert reader his choice of bacon and eggs, oatmeal, or calamari with mint sauce.
As you might have noticed, Steve Clevenger tweeted provocatively on the anti-Black Lives Matter side of the rioting issue in North Carolina. Now, most sportswriters tend to need little information past "did I like the tweet or did I dislike it," as was the case with this "Take Out the Trash" article.
.....
Niners Nation has some good reads up, like 40-50 of them, asserting Colin Kaepernick's right to peaceful protest. In the immortal words of Mao Tse-Dong, it's all in the way you phrase the debate. :- )
To me the amusing question is: Supposing that, in San Francisco, Kaepernick were taking a knee in order to make any given right-wing statement? Let's say, to show solidarity with the 60-80% of Americans who vote for traditional marriage laws? Do sportswriters then frame the debate in terms of peaceful protest? Or does it then become a debate as to whether the San Francisco 49er's can be associated with bigotry?
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire, attributed. Do a majority of Americans now believe this quaint sentiment to be obsolete? It's okay with me if we're going to discourage "insensitivity" by lopping off hands, or careers, or bank accounts, but what say we grant equal protection under the law. (Never knew what that phrase meant, but I bet I could win a debate in favor of it.)
......
Didn't care about Kaepernick's cornball protest. Did care, however, that the Mariners "took out the trash" based on a single Steve Clevenger tweet. A tweet that, if photo-inverted to use pejorative language against the BLUE lives matter crew, probably would not have been considered out of the ordinary.
Oddly enough, James and I found ourselves shooting around the same corner. See what you think. Would the Mariners have been less likely to "take out the trash" if Clevenger's political position were different? Would you be as supportive of harsh suspensions for Felix Hernandez and Robinson Cano for analogous tweets against Blue Lives Matter?
.......
The crux of Sodo Mojo's argument against Clevenger was that he had been "racially insensitive." That is the logical starting point, apparently, for a Seattle Mariner fan's consideration of the Steve Clevenger situation.
If you're a Mariners fan, you need a moral compass here on racial insensitivity and the punishments to be associated. Twenty years ago we had this debate over John Rocker. This one ain't 5% as important, but it remains interesting because the country remains interesting.
Okay, fine, "racial insensitivity" is the starting point for the M's fan's discussion here. You can't discuss Steve Clevenger, or Twitter Inc. it seems, without understanding "racial insensitivity." (It seemed to me that Clevenger was trash-talking mob violence, rather than skin color.)
But I lost track of the rules someplace. Is it possible to be racially insensitive in two directions, or just one? If only one direction, I'd say "fair" is not going to be a concept that is on the table for analysis :: shrug :: My big thing is "fairness." If it IS a concept on the table, the big question is "Do we treat the local athletes the same, regardless of which candidate they vote for?"
.........
But there's probably something simpler going on. Jim Bouton once said, A ballplayer's security in an organization is directly correlative to his batting average. :- ) Or something like that.
.
Given your past comments on MLB's reaction to comments by Marge Schott and John Rocker, I assume you disapprove of the Seattle Mariners suspending Steve Clevenger without pay, in response to his tweets? Or do you feel Clevenger's public statements crossed a line that justified suspension?
Asked by: jfadams
Answered: 9/26/2016
First I have heard about it. My opinion, which I realize is unpopular, is that employers should be prohibited by law from suspending employees based on what they do or say on their own time, unless the safely of a third party could be compromised by those actions (such as a doctor taking drugs, for example, or a person who operates heavy equipment taking drugs on his own time.)
This is ESPECIALLY true in baseball, because in baseball, you don't have to enter into an agreement with a player for next season, or beyond the current contract. If you are offended by what he says or does, you are free not to enter into an agreement with him. If you enter into an agreement with him, you should be obligated to put up with whatever a person says. -- Bill James
.
As a general rule, you and I are able to express our opinions on social media, without fearing our employers' retaliation. Dr. Detecto can do this despite the fact that a social media organization DOES have the right to control his opinons expressed on social media. ;- ) But when it comes to celebrities, we seem to feel that we're responsible for what they say. :: shrug :: I don't quite get it.
But my basic question is, do you admire Jerry DiPoto more or less for having dealt harshly with Steve Clevenger and his Twitter account? On my end it cost him 10%, 20% of my personal admiration. I know he's very concerned about that. :- )
Respectfully,
Jeff
