Charlie Ward v. John Rocker

[SuaSponte]

Why is the Ward story, compared to the Rocker story, getting so little play?

Sua

P.S. Charlie's wrong. From my reading of the NT, the Italians killed JC.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Why do you think?

Standard racial reasons. White people must watch what they say, but African Americans can say things with impunity.

No big surprise there. That's been proven to be true time and again.

[Stuffy]

What happened, I have no idea as to what you're refering?

[TheNerd]

He's referring to the strange case of Charlie Ward.

(I'm very sorry, but someone had to make that reference).

[Stuffy]

Thanks for NOT clearing that up

[RickJay]

I think it's a combination of things:

1. Ward's comments were printed in a local newspaper; Rocker's comments were printed in a national sports magazine.

2. Let's be honest; if you're black, you can say nasty things about Jews or Koreans or whomever and while you'll get criticized, it won't be as bad as it would be if you were white. Look at some of the things Reggie White said and people still worship him. Hatred of Jews seems to be a semi-accepted thing among a lot of American blacks, for what reason I cannot fathom.

3. Basketball players seem to get away with being more outrageous than baseball players, who are expected to be perfect in every way.

4. Rocket's comments were just stupid and easy to ridicule; Ward's comments were weird and it's hard to understand what the hell he was trying to say.

[gobear]

He's referring to the strange case of Charlie Ward.

Nice Lovecraft reference.

Could someone post a link to the comments, please?

[Milossarian]

Here is a link, stuffin.

Ward's comments don't go quite as far as Rocker's.

I've always maintained that Rocker got worse than he deserved, when his situation was placed into context.

As any baseball fans know, Rocker was involved in one of the most heated, hate-filled rivalries with the New York fans, prior to his statements. I really can't think of any other similar situation between a player and a particular group of fans, in any sport. (The Red Wings and Claude Lemieux come to mind, but that was an entirely different set of circumstances.)

Rocker used the heat and hate from that relationship to pump himself up. Because of that, he kind of personalized it, played it up. That is what I think was behind his Sports Illustrated statements. Mets fans had already said "F__ You" to him, and he was saying it back to them -- intended, I believe, within the context of their rivalry.

He did this poorly, however, and his New York slam came off as bigoted. (Rocker doesn't strike me as the sharpest knife in the drawer.)

So, what are the differences between Ward's comments and Rocker's? Ward clearly meant his. He stood by them repeatedly, until this latest, linked news. Rocker? I'm not so sure he meant his.

Ward's comments remind me a lot of now-retired NFL-er Reggie White's, another Christian zealot who seems a little misguided.

[december]

Hierarchy of prejudice:

Prejudice against Southerners, military people, conservatives, and Roman Catholics isn't bigotry -- it's praisworthy. (E.g. AMERICAN BEAUTY. the "Bush is a moron" crowd, and the Brooklyn Art Museum flap). On the other hand, prejudice BY these people is particularly atrocious.

Vice versa for Blacks.

Anti-Semitism seems to be making a comeback, particularly since it's regrettably fashionable among certain Black leaders, who are, of course, incapable of bigotry, by definiton. (Still, I was pleased to see that despite Joseph Lieberman, Gore got a huge Black vote.)

Charlie Ward could have called the Pope or Jesse Helms a serial child-molester and there wouldn't have been any flap.

[Stuffy]

Thanks for the link Milo

Yeah it sounds like religious bigotry to me. I'm kind of curious about the coments form Airman Doors, RickJay and december but rather than hijack the thread I'll let it drop.

I do agree with the assessment that there's a lot of prejudice against Jews in the black community. There's some historical rationale (I won't say justification) for it, but I would have thought it would have lessened considerably over the past decade or so.

[wring]

Ok, so I don't read the sports pages, but one big difference here is that Mr. Roker's comments were made to a reporter. He had reason to believe that what he was saying could be quoted.

Mr. Ward (according to the link) made his comments in a bible studies class, where he apparently asked a question. Now, I'll grant you that his question (if quoted accurately) demonstrates a bias/prejudice etc. but there's a real difference to me in that one was a public, racist comment directed to a reporter, the other was a private, racist question directed to a 'teacher'.

Of course, my memory of the Roker event could be completely off base (see, yet another sports reference)

[Airman Doors, USAF]

stuffinb,

I thought our comments were self-evident.

Refute them, if you can do it without calling me a bigot.

I'm not sure that you can.

[december]

Ward's comments were made to a Jewish reporter for an article that appeared in last Sunday's Magazine.

[Stuffy]

Airman Doors, USAF

What you spoiling for a fight or something? I rarely use the bigot label (can only remember doing it once in the Pit). However I maintain there's a significant gap between your perception and reality.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by wring
Ok, so I don't read the sports pages, but one big difference here is that Mr. Roker's comments were made to a reporter. He had reason to believe that what he was saying could be quoted.

Actually, he was told by the reporter that the conversation was off the record, which was part of the whole mess; his comments were most definitely not intended for public consumption.

As unpopular as it is to say, I have to agree with Milossarian; Rocker's treatment by Major League Baseball was appalling. He was suspended for a month for what essentially amounted to a dumb joke made in private, and this in a sport where a month's suspension is just about the longest disciplinary suspension I've EVER heard of, not counting gambling suspensions. Frankly, that's absurd; it's ludicrous to allow an employer to suspend an employee for making a bad joke while driving their own damned automobile when he had been personally assured it wasn't going to be quoted. That does't make it right that he said it, but a month's suspension?

I admit that I was of the understanding that Ward had made his comments in private as well, but perhaps I was wrong.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

No, I'm not spoiling for a fight.

That was very prickish of me to say that.

So I'll retract that forthwith, and I issue you a personal apology.

I'm sorry for maligning you. It won't happen again.

[Stuffy]

Happily accepted. Perhaps you and I have a new thread idea. But I'll probably wait till I get back from VA next week to pursue it.

[ITR champion]

The comments by Rocker got reported by the media way more than they should have. So did the comments by Ward. But it's hardly suprising that the right is trying to use this to bolster it's case that Blacks get treated better than Whites when making discriminatory comments. Ward refered to a historical event. Rocker insulted large groups of people. There is a difference.

Maybe the real question is why Ward is being treated differently from Paul Weyrich.

[Jackmannii]

Both Rocker and Ward are dumbasses who made moronic, bigoted remarks (Oh, Charlie? That's "New York" on your uniform. Maybe you and your slightly less offensive buddy Allan Houston would be more comfortable playing for the Hayden Lake, Idaho Running Racists).

Rocker insulted several groups of people, without a religious cover to his bigotry, which might partially explain the lesser reaction to Ward et al. Unfortunately, there are still too many people willing to make excuses for black anti-Semitism, for reasons that seem racist to me (i.e. excusing bigoted behavior on the grounds that the bigots have been oppressed and can't help themselves).

Still, Ward, Rocker and fellow slack-jawed idiots should have the right to be fools without their Commissioners sending them off to Re-Education Camp. And I have the right to boo or boycott the games.

[Jackmannii]

Originally posted by ITR champion
Ward refered to a historical event. Rocker insulted large groups of people. There is a difference.

Ward stated that Jews "have his (Christ's) blood on their hands" (note use of the present tense), also that Jews "persecute Christians every day".

Now all we need is somebody to point out that Ward is merely expressing the views of mainstream Christianity.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by ITR champion
The comments by Rocker got reported by the media way more than they should have. So did the comments by Ward. But it's hardly suprising that the right is trying to use this to bolster it's case that Blacks get treated better than Whites when making discriminatory comments. Ward refered to a historical event. Rocker insulted large groups of people. There is a difference.

Whatever the right-wing thinks (or doesn't think, as is often the case with people on "wings") I'd be fascinated to know what "historical event" Ward was referring to.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by december
Hierarchy of prejudice:

Prejudice against Southerners, military people, conservatives, and Roman Catholics isn't bigotry -- it's praisworthy. (E.g. AMERICAN BEAUTY. the "Bush is a moron" crowd, and the Brooklyn Art Museum flap). On the other hand, prejudice BY these people is particularly atrocious.

Charlie Ward could have called the Pope or Jesse Helms a serial child-molester and there wouldn't have been any flap.

1. Southerners - you are absolutely right, and it is a disgrace.
2. The military - in general you are right. But to portray an individual military officer in a negative light, a la American Beauty, is not prejudice. It is a recognition that individual members of any group can act wrongly.
3. Conservatives - I can't see how someone can be prejudiced against any political viewpoint, for two reasons. First, ideology is a choice, not an innate condition. So, people opposed to an ideology don't "pre-judge", they listen to what a person says, and condemn it. People who make blanket condemnations of opposing ideologies and their adherents are idiots, but not prejudiced. This holds true for both left and right.
Second, calling Bush a moron (which I don't agree with), is not evidence of prejudice against conservatives. It's a judgment about an individual.
4. Catholics - Coming from a Catholic family, the ravings of Donovan and the Catholic Anti-Defemation League have always bothered me. They don't seem to understand the difference between words and acts that are offensive to their religion, and anti-Catholic prejudice.
Movies that portray individual priests as corrupt or pedophiles is not bigoted any more than shows that portray individual Italians as mobsters are.
Movies and plays that portray JC, Mary, or the Apostles as gay, drug users, etc., are deeply offensive to all Christians, but are not bigoted, as they do not create or perpetuate negative stereotypes about Catholics.

Etc.

Sua

[manhattan]

Oh, feh.

A huge difference is that New York fans had the good sense to boo our bigot when he came out on the floor.

When Rocker first pitched after the SI article, he was treated as if he cured cancer, solved the Middle East crisis and found a no-diet, no-exercise weight loss program the previous weekend.

The strength and duration of the dust-up over Rocker was as much or more about how quickly so many people were willing to cheer on his comments as it was about the comments themselves.

[Ukulele Ike]

Originally posted by manhattan
When Rocker first pitched after the SI article, he was treated as if he cured cancer, solved the Middle East crisis and found a no-diet, no-exercise weight loss program the previous weekend.

Which shows the horrible bigotry that most Americans show towards the residents of the Great City a Noo Yawk.

Now I must go cry myself to sleep.

[xenophon41]

Originally posted by manhattan
When Rocker first pitched after the SI article, he was treated as if he cured cancer, solved the Middle East crisis and found a no-diet, no-exercise weight loss program the previous weekend.

The strength and duration of the dust-up over Rocker was as much or more about how quickly so many people were willing to cheer on his comments as it was about the comments themselves.

Feh yourself, Mannie. That's a rather narrow perspective on the Rocker story. IANA spokesman for the rest of the Atlanta fans, but I can tell you we were in general appalled and disgusted at Rocker's comments. Of course, we were also disgusted by the media feeding frenzy and "redneck"-bashing that ensued, along with the moronic and unjustified suspension (IMO, Stern's approach re Charlie Ward is the correct one), and that is why you saw support for his return to the mound.

And only you could use the phrase "good sense" in the same sentence with "New York fans" without meaning it ironically.

[december]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
1. Southerners - you are absolutely right, and it is a disgrace.
2. The military - in general you are right. But to portray an individual military officer in a negative light, a la American Beauty, is not prejudice. It is a recognition that individual members of any group can act wrongly.
3. Conservatives - I can't see how someone can be prejudiced against any political viewpoint, for two reasons. First, ideology is a choice, not an innate condition. So, people opposed to an ideology don't "pre-judge", they listen to what a person says, and condemn it. People who make blanket condemnations of opposing ideologies and their adherents are idiots, but not prejudiced. This holds true for both left and right.
Second, calling Bush a moron (which I don't agree with), is not evidence of prejudice against conservatives. It's a judgment about an individual.

Sua -- I appreciate your partial agreement. Re: American Beauty, as you say, it's hard to prove prejudice against military officers, when the movie had only one such character, no matter how negatively he was portrayed. (Although, if there were a single gay character and he raped a boy, would you not suspect prejudice?)

I was particularly offended by movie's treatment for two reasons. I know several ex-marines, and they all behave toward others with the utmost in consideration and good manners. Also, it was the military that defeated fascism, so it seems particulary unfair to portray an ex-marine as some sort of Nazi sympathizer.

Re: prejudice against conservatives, I only wish every liberal were as reasonable as you. The saying goes, conservatives think liberals are good people with bad ideas. Liberals think conservatives are bad people with bad ideas. IMHO this aphorism has a lot of truth. Even Rush Limbaugh mostly criticizes liberal ideas. He doesn't accuse them of wanting to starve children, kill old people or pollute the planet.

[manhattan]

Originally posted by xenophon41
IANA spokesman for the rest of the Atlanta fans, but I can tell you we were in general appalled and disgusted at Rocker's comments.

You're right. I failed to distinguish between the overall group of Braves fans and the fannies in the seats.

Of course, we were also disgusted by the media feeding frenzy and "redneck"-bashing that ensued, along with the moronic and unjustified suspension (IMO, Stern's approach re Charlie Ward is the correct one), and that is why you saw support for his return to the mound.

Oh, please. Cheering a bigot because they didn't like the press about his bigotry? Even a fan base capable of cheering a team that loses the World Series every year isn't that dumb.

I agree with you entirely that Stern's approach was the better one. But that's kind of my point. Stern could do what he did because he had a reasonable basis to think it would work. Specifically, he said, "He will have to accept the reactions and judgments of fans and all fair-minded people who have been offended." For him to do that, he had to believe that the "judgments of fans" would be negative.

And only you could use the phrase "good sense" in the same sentence with "New York fans" without meaning it ironically.

Heh. I still wonder where this came from. Sure, a few Long Island louts throw batteries or whatever, but most NY sports fans are among the most knowledgable and sensible in the world. We don't have riots in our city when we win a championship. Hell, when the Rangers won in 1994, there were riots in Vancouver because they lost.

[Airblairxxx]

There are, IMHO, a few reasons why Charlie Ward isn't getting slammed like John Rocker, that we haven't touched on.

First, Rocker's comments were made by a caucasian Macon, GA native who already had some notoriety about him. Most people can grasp the knuckle-dragging redneck stereotype that he seems to fit so well. (Whether it's fair or not is another debate.) In contrast, I don't think the American public really has figured out what to make of an African-American who makes bigoted statements; this is why the reaction to Reggie White's comments was similarly muted compared to Rocker's.

Second, Ward's comments, as well as White's, were made in a purely religious context; we Americans are uneasy to condemn bigotry on this basis, probably because we don't have a history of shame stemming from religious discrimination anywhere near the same scale as our racial history.

Third, Rocker was one of the premier relief pitchers and one of the premier characters of baseball when he did his notorious interview with Sports Illustrated. Ward, to put it politely, has been an almost-forgotten NBA scrub ever since he won the Heisman Trophy.

Fourth, Rocker made his comments in the offseason, giving talk radio hosts ample fodder for discussion during the winter dead time when they are scrambling for ANYTHING to talk about. Charlie Ward shot his mouth off when there are NBA and NHL playoffs, baseball is well under way, the NFL draft was receiving the usual hype it always gets, way out of all proportion to its actual signifigance, and MLS soccer has started. (Just had to throw that last one in.) I, for one, didn't know about what Ward said until said the scandal was in the "I'm sorry if I offended anybody" stage. (BTW, what is the point of saying that? If there was a possibility that you offended NOBODY, why are you apologizing?)

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by manhattan
A huge difference is that New York fans had the good sense to boo our bigot when he came out on the floor.

'Course, the NY fans quickly started to cheer him, as he had a good game.

Good discussion so far. There are three issues I think our worthy of discussion:

1. Fans - What does it say when sports fans' anger at a player for bigotry/prejudice quickly disappears when the player starts to produce for the team? The same dynamic applies to drug abusers, wife beaters, etc. Should we separate life on the playing field from the rest of a player's life?

2. Minorities expressing bigotry are subject to less condemnation - this was brought up, and quickly shut down, probably unfairly, because those who posted it are pretty vociferous conservatives. I submit that this is at least worthy of discussion.

3. Conversely, Airblairxxx's suggestion that Americans are loath to condemn religion-based bigotry. (BTW, airblair, while White's was making his comments somewhat within his role as a minister, he provided no religious basis for his views of the "strengths" of various ethnic groups. I think the reason White got little grief was more because, while his comments were idiotic and stereotypical, he at least thought he was saying positive things about each group he mentioned.)

Sua

[Airblairxxx]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
BTW, airblair, while White's was making his comments somewhat within his role as a minister, he provided no religious basis for his views of the "strengths" of various ethnic groups. I think the reason White got little grief was more because, while his comments were idiotic and stereotypical, he at least thought he was saying positive things about each group he mentioned.[/b]

I don't remember much of the specifics of his speech in front of the Wisconsin State Legislature, I will look them up.

Maybe what I should have said about Reggie White was that Americans are uncomfortable with condemning any bigotry espoused by very large former all-pro defensive linemen.

Not especially moral, but very sensible.

[xenophon41]

originally posted by manhattan:
Oh, please. Cheering a bigot because they didn't like the press about his bigotry? Even a fan base capable of cheering a team that loses the World Series every year isn't that dumb.

Right. Too bad we're not as smart as those enlightened Yankees fans who cordially welcomed back convicted coke-head Darryl Strawberry. Twice. It was quite clear that they were merely cheering the return of a valuable team member struggling against an addiction and a frightening disease. I mean, you'd have to be some kind of cretin to take their applause as approval for a recalcitrant drug abuser. They couldn't be that dumb, now could they?


Look, we (Atlanta fans) had a premiere relief pitcher (as Airblairxxx aptly described him) barred from competition for a month by a commissioner bowing to vastly overblown political pressure. You're seriously questioning our justification for welcoming him back?

I agree with you entirely that Stern's approach was the better one. But that's kind of my point. Stern could do what he did because he had a reasonable basis to think it would work. Specifically, he said, "He will have to accept the reactions and judgments of fans and all fair-minded people who have been offended." For him to do that, he had to believe that the "judgments of fans" would be negative.

<...taking deep breaths and counting to ten...>

What's the basis for your assertion that Bud Selig had no reason to believe the judgements of Rocker's fans would be negative?! If I didn't know you for a fair minded individual, I'd take that as some sort of asinine superior attitude copped by a New Yorker against Southern people. Since I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I assume you only paid attention to the [superior] NY sports press, I'll clue you in: the immediate reactions from both Rocker's fan base and his own team-mates were condemnatory, angry and quite public. Selig knew very well that prejudice and bigotry play just as badly in Atlanta as they do elsewhere in the country. He didn't care about the fan base, Mannie. He caved to the national hysteria over essentially simpleminded remarks uttered by a young, stupid and obnoxious athlete blowing off steam in front of a reporter.

In the South, we call what Rocker did "talking big." It's not a respected thing, but it's typical of young, self-important or immature males, particularly of jocks. It was clear to those of us who had any sense that Rocker was going for shock value and had no clue he was talking to the whole freaking sports audience of America. (In fact, "clueless" is a pretty good term to use when talking about Rocker.) We were pissed, but we tried to keep some perspective about the incident. A redneck ball player from Macon talked big. That's all.

[cuauhtemoc]

Originally posted by december
Re: prejudice against conservatives, I only wish every liberal were as reasonable as you. The saying goes, conservatives think liberals are good people with bad ideas. Liberals think conservatives are bad people with bad ideas. IMHO this aphorism has a lot of truth. Even Rush Limbaugh mostly criticizes liberal ideas. He doesn't accuse them of wanting to starve children, kill old people or pollute the planet. [/b]

This is for everyone who thinks that inventing a victim status for oneself and then milking it to death is a strictly liberal thing. Come on, december - Couldn't your ideological opponents say the same thing? "We criticize what we feel are ignorant ideas, but we don't impugn a person's moral character at the drop of a hat just because we disagree with them. Not like adherents to certain political ideologies I could mention..."

For the record, december, I think you are a truly wonderful person with bad ideas. Although I don't know you from Adam I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

[cuauhtemoc]

Originally posted by december
Re: prejudice against conservatives, I only wish every liberal were as reasonable as you. The saying goes, conservatives think liberals are good people with bad ideas. Liberals think conservatives are bad people with bad ideas. IMHO this aphorism has a lot of truth. Even Rush Limbaugh mostly criticizes liberal ideas. He doesn't accuse them of wanting to starve children, kill old people or pollute the planet. [/b]

This is for everyone who thinks that inventing a victim status for oneself and then milking it to death is a strictly liberal thing. Come on, december - Couldn't your ideological opponents say the same thing? "We criticize what we feel are ignorant ideas, but we don't impugn a person's moral character at the drop of a hat just because we disagree with them. Not like adherents to certain political ideologies I could mention..."

For the record, december, I think you are a truly wonderful person with bad ideas. Although I don't know you from Adam I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

[Jackmannii]

Originally posted by december
[QUOTE The saying goes, conservatives think liberals are good people with bad ideas. Liberals think conservatives are bad people with bad ideas. IMHO this aphorism has a lot of truth. Even Rush Limbaugh mostly criticizes liberal ideas. He doesn't accuse them of wanting to starve children, kill old people or pollute the planet.

I know this particular chestnut has been roasted to death on the SDMB before, but I gots to say: The hotter your ideological fervor burns, the more likely you are to routinely demonize the other side, whether liberal or conservative. Can you really listen to Rush (or out-and-out flaming loons like Michael Savage) without getting the sense that they are characterizing liberals as morally corrupt, venal and downright evil?

Veering back to the subject at hand - could another factor in the less critical treatment of Charlie Ward be that he doesn't look like a bad person? Whereas John Rocker, to me at least, has the appearance of a pugnacious jock dumbass. And Reggie White is a gentle giant who loves his mama and eats the soup she makes for him.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Originally posted by SuaSponte

Good discussion so far. There are three issues I think our worthy of discussion:

<snip>

2. Minorities expressing bigotry are subject to less condemnation - this was brought up, and quickly shut down, probably unfairly, because those who posted it are pretty vociferous conservatives. I submit that this is at least worthy of discussion.

I think it was, too, but I ran for my life because I didn't feel like getting torn to shreds for saying something that is very unpopular. That's happened enough to me this week. And I didn't feel like fighting. So have at it, just count me out.

[ITR champion]

2. Minorities expressing bigotry are subject to less condemnation - this was brought up, and quickly shut down, probably unfairly, because those who posted it are pretty vociferous conservatives. I submit that this is at least worthy of discussion.

The article that I linked to earlier in the thread tackled this topic, and showed that in the case of Ward, the treatment he's getting from the media is much worse than it was for a white guy who also accused the Jews of being responsible for Christ's death. It's true that Ward phrased his comments in the present tense and made a ridiculous assertion that Jews are continuing to persecute Christians, but I doubt that he would have been let off easy if all he said was "The Jews were responsible".

On the conservatives vs. liberals, who's more insulting thread, like Jackmannii said, both sides can be. We've all heard ultraconservatives informing us that "all liberals" or "the left wing" are trying to drag our society down a moral sewer or commit soem other such sin. I don't know where December got his ideas from. I have many times heard conservatives accuse a Democrat, usually Bill Clinton, of being directly responsible for some offense such as human rights abuses in China.

When G. gordon Liddy says that he painted the names Bill and Hillary on his rifle targets, is he expressing dislike for liberals or for liberaal ideas?

[Milossarian]

Sua:

I can't see how someone can be prejudiced against any political viewpoint, for two reasons. First, ideology is a choice, not an innate condition. So, people opposed to an ideology don't "pre-judge", they listen to what a person says, and condemn it.

Yes. And they often condemn it instantaneously, with little or no consideration, because it's coming from the opposing political ideology. That would seem to be pre-judging.

Were you astounded when U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) was on "Hardball" last night and asked to grade Bush's first 100 days, she gave him an F? Wow! I almost had an aneurysm with surprise!

Here's a link to pro football player Reggie White's comments to the Wisconsin state assembly.

In an hour-long speech laden with racial stereotypes, White told Wisconsin lawmakers the United States had gotten away from God, in part by allowing homosexuality to "run rampant." Homosexuality is a sin, he said, and the plight of gay men and lesbians should not be compared to that of blacks.

"Homosexuality is a decision, it's not a race," White told the hushed assembly. "People from all different ethnic backgrounds live in this lifestyle. But people from all different ethnic backgrounds also are liars and cheaters and malicious and back-stabbing."

White spoke about why God created different races and shared his conclusions with the Assembly.

Blacks are gifted at worship and celebration, White said. "If you go to a black church, you see people jumping up and down because they really get into it," he said. Whites are good at organization. "You guys do a good job of building businesses and things of that nature, and you know how to tap into money," he said. "Hispanics are gifted in family structure, and you can see a Hispanic person, and they can put 20, 30 people in one home."

The Japanese and other Asians are inventive, White continued, and "can turn a television into a watch." Indians, he said, are gifted in spirituality. "When you put all of that together, guess what it makes: It forms a complete image of God," White said.

And he was there just to talk about non-profit community work.

[wring]

Gee. I guess we've proved conclusively that there are idiots amongst any group. Stop the presses!

[manhattan]

Originally posted by xenophon41
<...taking deep breaths and counting to ten...>

What's the basis for your assertion that Bud Selig had no reason to believe the judgements of Rocker's fans would be negative?! If I didn't know you for a fair minded individual, I'd take that as some sort of asinine superior attitude copped by a New Yorker against Southern people.

Sorry, crappy phrasing on my part. My point, the one I was trying without success to make, is that Stern had the luxury of knowing the fan reaction, since it occurred before he made his decision.

Selig could not have known what the reaction might have been. (Of course, it might reasonably be argued that Selig does not know anything about anything at all, but we'll leave that alone for now, since we'll likely agree on it!) So he had to do something. I agree that he did too much, but candidly, the Braves did too little.

[xenophon41]

originally posted by manhattan:
I agree that [Selig] did too much, but candidly, the Braves did too little.

No argument here. Although some of the Braves players seemed willing to offer Rocker a little "reeducation" (ahem), the Braves management would've been happy to see the whole issue slide off the screen as quickly as possible. I don't agree that the responsibility for disciplining Rocker should've been taken away from them, but I can certainly concede the point that they weren't acting on the issue with alacrity.

[Kimstu]

Just swatting some stray gnats of ignorance here---apologies for being off-topic:

december: Prejudice against Southerners, military people, conservatives, and Roman Catholics isn't [condemned as] bigotry -- it's [seen as] praisworthy. (E.g. AMERICAN BEAUTY. the "Bush is a moron" crowd, and the Brooklyn Art Museum flap).

While I think there are some grains of truth in this thought, I have to take exception to the use of the "Brooklyn Art Museum flap" as an illustration of it. It is not IMHO really very plausible to accuse Catholic artist Chris Ofili of anti-Catholicism just because he used dried elephant dung (a traditional medium in his native Nigerian culture, and one that he's used in several of his other paintings) and small cutouts from pornographic images as part of his painting "The Holy Virgin Mary". According to small reproductions I've seen of the work and descriptions I've read of it, it's not at all presenting the figure of the Virgin in a contemptuous or humiliating way---it's simply the fact of using dung and pornography images in the composition (which IMHO most people would hardly even recognize just from looking at the painting) that has led many people to assume that it must be meant to be degrading.

Similarly, I've seen reproductions of Catholic (or former Catholic, I'm not sure) photographer Renee Cox's work, "Yo Mama's Last Supper," the one that represents the Jesus figure by a naked black woman (Cox herself) at table with twelve clothed male disciples; and I don't see what's bigoted about it either. The naked female Jesus-figure isn't shown in a contemptuous or humiliating way, any more than Ofili's Mary is: she stands alone in the middle of the picture in a stance reminiscent of the typical crucifixion pose, looking vulnerable and sad. Check out this (pretty poor) online reproduction and judge for yourself.

Anti-Catholic? Hardly. Both Ofili and Cox are riffing on religious imagery, as painters have always done, and some of the allusions are definitely meant to be startling. But they're not disparaging religion or religious figures, much less making bigoted statements about Catholics. (Where'd anybody get the idea that Mary and the Last Supper are exclusively Catholic images, anyway?) Mayor Giuliani and other people who complain about these works as anti-Catholic (especially without even having seen what they actually look like) are just indulging in some more of that "victim posturing" that cuautemhoc mentioned.

[Protesilaus]

Here is a transcript of Reggie White's speech, which also provides direct links within the speech to his comments regarding race and homosexuality. And here is the Sports Illustrated article about John Rocker.