Marlins

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I didn't reply to this for a while because I was too busy laughing my ass off at CK calling the Democrats "socialistic".

 

Sociological definition of people in a privileged class denying they have a privilege:

1) privilege doesn't always work

2) they have other social statuses where they are not privileged and believe it evens out

 

White people have been privileged and continue to be. Like it or not, this country was built on African Americans, Chinese, and other minorities. The usage of slave labor was the reason that we became a superpower. We didn't have to pay the people that were boosting our economy! And CK for the most part, what jobs are the minorities taking? Are these new immigrants and minorities taking all the MLB jobs, all the lawyer and neurosurgeon jobs? If they are taking all these important, powerful jobs then how come the majority of management still continue to be white?

 

Our Supreme Court already said earlier this week that the secret deportation tribunals where suspects don't get a trial, lawyer, or contact with their family are Constitutional, so the SC is a bunch of moronic f***chops.

 

And to quote the pro-war crowd, "America...love it or leave it."

[CubKilla]

I hope you're white. When you enter the real world and not the world you've read about in liberal college text books, it's gonna be a real eye opener for you. Don't ever say to me "You told me so."

[mreye]

In the unlilkely event that this is true...it still makes you remarkably unfun to hang out with, white boy.

What the f*** does that mean? :fyou

[mreye]

I think everyone has missed our point on this. We are not, I repeat: ARE NOT against minority hiring. The benefits are many fold. From the obvious of having a more diverse league to bringing more fans to the game.

 

What we are against is the FORCED rule of interviewing minorities because it "looks" good. If the minority is not hired in the end, it does him no good.

 

Should the MLB have a policy that says a certain amount of women, Asians, Irish, Hispanics, Muslims, Russians, Canadians, Icelandianas, etc should be interviewed? No. That would be rediculous.

[method]

I think everyone has missed our point on this. We are not, I repeat: ARE NOT against minority hiring. The benefits are many fold. From the obvious of having a more diverse league to bringing more fans to the game.

 

What we are against is the FORCED rule of interviewing minorities because it "looks" good. If the minority is not hired in the end, it does him no good.

 

Should the MLB have a policy that says a certain amount of women, Asians, Irish, Hispanics, Muslims, Russians, Canadians, Icelandianas, etc should be interviewed? No. That would be rediculous.

Good point. BUT!

 

What percentage of baseball players are women, Asians, Irish, Hispanics, Muslims, Russians, Canadians, Icelandianas?

 

Why is that in a sport that has so many Blacks playing, has so few in management positions?

 

The point behind the policy is quite good. the premise being that if you force teams to interview minorities... inevitably one or two will be hired by impressing thier prespective employers... These may be individuals that may have had no shot at the job whatsoever... but they might now recieve the position by showing they are indeed qualified... note the MLB isnt FORCING them to hire minorites... just interview them

[Jim Fainter]

The most eloquent presentation AGAINST Affirmative Action that I ever heard was by the late Arthur Ashe.

[mreye]

Many are Hispanic, but they don't have a Jesse Jackson.

[mreye]

The most eloquent presentation AGAINST Affirmative Action that I ever heard was by the late Arthur Ashe.

Here's the quote:

 

"Affirmative action tends to undermine the spirit of individual initiative. Such is human nature; why struggle to succeed when you can have something for nothing?"

[Soxfest]

if this is so - do we have a link yet - it would be not for hiring McKeon, but for not interviewing according to the MLB procedures -

 

 

that should not be too hard to understand, even for any republicans out there -

 

you can hire who you want but there is an MLB interview process that needs to be followed according to MLB rules.

 

you can hire who you want but there is an MLB interview process that needs to be followed according to MLB rules.

 

difference between hiring - and interviewing -

 

I get tired of those who refuse because of (name your reason) to understand the difference.

I hope you keep the same attitude when the new Charlotte basketball franchise hires ALL MiNORITIES and interviews nothing but, with a minority owner, he is already on record saying he is ONLY going to hire minorities. Process works both way but it will be ok in minorities eyes when this goes down. J.Jackson will not cry and b**** on this one.

[cwsox]

I think everyone has missed our point on this. We are not, I repeat: ARE NOT against minority hiring. The benefits are many fold. From the obvious of having a more diverse league to bringing more fans to the game.

 

What we are against is the FORCED rule of interviewing minorities because it "looks" good. If the minority is not hired in the end, it does him no good.

 

Should the MLB have a policy that says a certain amount of women, Asians, Irish, Hispanics, Muslims, Russians, Canadians, Icelandianas, etc should be interviewed? No. That would be rediculous.

 

 

You are against minority persons being interviewed but in favor of them being hired.

 

How can they get hired if they are not interviewed?

 

You shut the door and favor the door being shut but then say eveyone is weelcome in the room.

 

It makes no sense, and is just another illogical and nonsensical defense for preserving white male priviledges.

 

What is ridiculous is your argument, and to start tossuing in the "Icelandians" is a sign of when you have no argument, you throw in bulls*** which you know is know is bulls*** and maybe good for a cheap laugh at the Militia meetings but that that is not the issue.

[cwsox]

I hope you keep the same attitude when the new Charlotte basketball franchise hires ALL MiNORITIES and interviews nothing but, with a minority owner, he is already on record saying he is ONLY going to hire minorities. Process works both way but it will be ok in minorities eyes when this goes down. J.Jackson will not cry and b**** on this one.

If he is on record as saying that, then show me the link to it. Prove it.

 

And of course you are confusing the MLB with the NBA, aren't you.

 

MLB has its policies, I am not sure myself what polcies if any are in effect in the NBA, but the NBA is not an issue and hasn;t been for years because they have been equal opportunity employers for years. That is why Michael Jorgan in DC and the Pistons with Joe Dumars as GM, just two examples that easily come to mind, both fired black coaches and hired white ones, and not a word of protest from your favorite boogeyman J. Jackson (do you mean Janet Jackson? Joe Jackson?) because NBA franchises hire on an equal opportunity basis. NBA franchises have been hiring without reference to race for years. Notice how the other facvorite person to attack, Jerry Reinsdorf, who has been accused of only hiring minorities and refusing to fire them for racial reasons, managed to hire a new GM for the Bulls who was white. How did that happen? And there was no protest! That defeats your argument, doesn't it? In the NBA, there is a clear track record of non discrimination. And JR does not hire on acoc*** of race.

 

MLB is a different story. And that is at issue.

[mreye]

You know what? f*** YOU! If you can't have an honest debate without putting words in people's mouths, the you're not worth it.

 

You are against minority persons being interviewed but in favor of them being hired.

 

I never said this.

 

Go back and read what I said. I am against FORCED hiring practices!

 

What is ridiculous is your argument, and to start tossuing in the "Icelandians" is a sign of when you have no argument, you throw in bulls*** which you know is know is bulls*** and maybe good for a cheap laugh at the Militia meetings but that that is not the issue.

 

That is what is rediculous. You and youe other friend can't argue your point with calling us militia members and white boys. It's that kind of close mindedness that started this entire arguement. Argue your point without name calling. I'm not a racist, I'm not a militia member, I'm not a radical. I'm a American who gives a s*** about freedoms! You don't know me! DON'T LABEL ME!!!

[cwsox]

steam away all you want.

 

"forced" practices do not exist.

 

There is a policy that is in place in the voluntary association of MLB. You belong to the voluntary organization, you abide by the rules.

 

In case law, constitutional law, affirmative action exists for very good legal and historical reasons. If that is 'forced" trhan any use of the law if "forced." Tradffic laws are "forced." Laws of anmy kind are "force". You want anarchy, go for it, but I prefer to live in acountry where the rule of law prevails.

 

You have been doing a great job of labeling others for a while and you squeal when you think it happens to you. I never said you were a member of the militia, did I. I said your style of ridicule goes over well there. Dispute that?

 

For white boy references, go back and read all of CKs posts, which you have identified with in your use of the word "we." Those references to white males are stunning to say the least. Closemindedness is your forte, not mine, I easily live in a world of diversity and equal opportunity. And of course, you are a white male, aren't you? I'd be real surprised to have you turn out to be a black female.

 

And you final protest, "don't label" me is exactly why we need to have policies and programs in place so that all people - ALL people - have equal access to things which apply under the constitution. Labels have been used to deny - and now polciies have been put into place to redress centuries of historical and actual wrongs which continue to this day, as shown by your continued opposition to a policy of inclusive hiring practices.

[mreye]

I quit. This isn't worth it. I won't change your mind. You won't change mine. I don't mind debating at all. I just don't like being called names. Look back at my posts. I never once ridculed anyone personally. I play fair. Some on my side of the fence don't. I'll admit that, but many on your side don't either.

[RedPinStripes]

Good...because cwsox can debate anyone under the table.

Only because you agree with all that crap.

[Jim Fainter]

I have a basic question about minority hiring that should be able to be answered without emotional outbursts. When did this multiple interviewing rule get instituted? Was it just this year? When the Cubs fired Don Baylor last year and replaced him with Bruce Kimm, there was no fine.

[RedPinStripes]

I have a basic question about minority hiring that should be able to be answered without emotional outbursts.  When did this multiple interviewing rule get instituted?  Was it just this year?  When the Cubs fired Don Baylor last year and replaced him with Bruce Kimm, there was no fine.

Good point. I never heard of any of this until every major sport became fearful of Jessie Jackson calling an organization "racist" . Funny that he judges people in this area.

[CubKilla]

Good point. I never heard of any of this until every major sport became fearful of Jessie Jackson calling an organization "racist" . Funny that he judges people in this area.

He's gotta fill time when he's not securing his son's liquor distributorships through Anheiser-Busch by threatening race-based boycotts or impregnating staff members while preaching to ex-Presidents the virtues of monogamy

[Soxfest]

I hope you keep the same attitude when the new Charlotte basketball franchise hires ALL MiNORITIES and interviews nothing but, with a minority owner, he is already on record saying he is ONLY going to hire minorities. Process works both way but it will be ok in minorities eyes when this goes down. J.Jackson will not cry and b**** on this one.

If he is on record as saying that, then show me the link to it. Prove it.

 

And of course you are confusing the MLB with the NBA, aren't you.

 

MLB has its policies, I am not sure myself what polcies if any are in effect in the NBA, but the NBA is not an issue and hasn;t been for years because they have been equal opportunity employers for years. That is why Michael Jorgan in DC and the Pistons with Joe Dumars as GM, just two examples that easily come to mind, both fired black coaches and hired white ones, and not a word of protest from your favorite boogeyman J. Jackson (do you mean Janet Jackson? Joe Jackson?) because NBA franchises hire on an equal opportunity basis. NBA franchises have been hiring without reference to race for years. Notice how the other facvorite person to attack, Jerry Reinsdorf, who has been accused of only hiring minorities and refusing to fire them for racial reasons, managed to hire a new GM for the Bulls who was white. How did that happen? And there was no protest! That defeats your argument, doesn't it? In the NBA, there is a clear track record of non discrimination. And JR does not hire on acoc*** of race.

 

MLB is a different story. And that is at issue.

Cw there is no history, NO minority has EVER owned a Franchise in ANY sport. I hope it goes both ways

[Jim Fainter]

About 10-15 years ago the Nuggets listed two black Americans as "controlling" owners. One guy was named Peter Bynoe, and for the life of me I can't remember the other name. I think it was a set up and a sham. Don't want to go into the details, because they are potentially embarrassing, and I'm not totally sure of the facts. I do know they left town amid some controversy.

[SI1020]

In the unlilkely event that this is true...it still makes you remarkably unfun to hang out with, white boy.

 

 

Oh and we need to raise our taxes to the levels currently used in Ther Greater Prussian Umpire.

I hardly ever vote for a Democrat on any level and guess what? I can read write and spell and I'm also a lot of fun to be around. There is too much demonizing and stereotyping. Today's American Left is weak, tiresome, idea challenged and in my opinion BORRRING. Oh and while I'm on the subject taxes are legalized theft. High tax governmental bodies strangle freedom and creativity. Worse than that it promotes dependency and people today are far more dependent on government at all levels than their ancestors ever were. What if almost all families and individuals were prosperous enough not to need the government for many of the basics? I know one political party that would be instantly out of business and another that would be on life support. (Guess which is which?) As far as the Marlins situation is concerned I agree that this is bulls***. However I do agree with CW from a legalistic point of view. Major League Baseball is within its legal rights to set these hiring rules and even though it may appear phony and ridiculous it was necessary for Florida to go through the charade even though McKeon was who they wanted. As far as the "old boy" thing I think that was a little bit of cheap shot CW, although I do agree that they may have introduced themselves to a candidate who might have helped them down the line or in another capacity. I'm not stupid, I know my country's history. Think of how black americans like Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson or my personal favorite the inventor Garret Morgan were held back. It is an injustice that can never be righted. Unfortunately and this is one reason why I left the left, the "cure" often causes many more problems not anticipated by those well meaning idealists who put these new rules and procedures in place. Affirmative Action has screwed up lots of companies and has destroyed and maimed a lot of careers, however well meaning the original intentions may have been. Time is going to change this, the US is no longer overwhelming white, our nation is now 1/3 so called minority. Intermarriage is becoming more and more common, particularly whites intermarrying with Asians and Hispanics. In a half century or less race will be almost irrelevant. Can't happen soon enough for me. Pardon the rant, I've been disconnected from cyberland for several days, I'm making up for lost time. I don't like guilty hand wringing, and in spite of my criticisms of the Left here I tend to get along with most Liberals just fine in person, so hopefully the bashing will be political and not personal.

[cwsox]

I have a basic question about minority hiring that should be able to be answered without emotional outbursts.  When did this multiple interviewing rule get instituted?  Was it just this year?  When the Cubs fired Don Baylor last year and replaced him with Bruce Kimm, there was no fine.

the policy has been around a long enough time that the Tigers violated it when they hired Phil Garner back in what, 99 0r 2000.

 

The Cubs obviously complied with the policy of having an inclusive group of candidates so that when Baylor was fired, they had an inclusive pool to chose from and chose the white Bruce Kimm and all was happy because the process was followed. Which proves it is hire who you choose, just choose from a broad enough base so that it is not an automatic and non inclusive process.

 

If a team has the process in place, an Art Howe can go to the Mets and Dusty Baker to the Cubs and Lou Pinella to the Tampa and all is well. And that is why the most outspoken supporter of the MLB process on this board, me, can be strongly in favor of firing KW. And all I ask is that the Sox make a thorough serach for the best replacement for GM. Interview from an inclusive pool of people that includes some talented folks who are getting finally a chance to show heir stuff as well as the usual suspects in this stuff, and make the decision. And if the process is followed, then who ets hired, we can feel good about.

 

A side benefit - some one from a minority status who would never get an intervoew under the old way gets an interview this way and maybe isn;t really as qualified for the new position as the person who gets hired - but shows that he has good stuff and maybe gets in as an assitant or in some capacity to grow in experience - the process helps identify people with potential who can get slotted into lesser positions to develop experience. And that benefits everyone, for it helps identify talent.

 

The Florida hiring of an elderly good old boy retread - not only were all minority candidates not interviewed, but neither were young white candidates - surely there are white candidates who could do better than professional loser McKeon. The inclusive hiring process identifies all of those outside of the process, minorities and white, so it will no longer be what it was - losing retreads like Garner going from team to team, baseball is full of that in its history - it is an affirmative action that works to identify all kinds of potential, minority and non minority.

 

I faced this issue in the church synod to which I belonged when I was 25 and wanted to start an upward mobile track in the synod just as some spots were suddenly not automaticly filled by white males, now we had females white and minority and men of minority status and that meant that I lost some spots that would have been mine under the old system. I know what it is to lose under an inclusive system. But the new people were good, brought different perspectives, and I refined my skills and what I had to offer and got to where I wanted to go. And I did it far more equipped under the inclusive process than the old way, because the old way, it would have been mine by whiteness and maleness, the new way, I had to build my qualifications and my ability to relate to those outside my own circle. And the Church was blessed with the infusion of new people with new ideas and new perspectives and new thinking whom we never would have had had we stayed in drawing from the same gender/racial pool over and over.

 

I see it in business all the time, too. The military and the major Fortune 500 companies are all behind the U of Michigan in the court case. They want quality to be identified and chosen through inclsuive methods because your pool of applicants is geater and thus you discover people with skills that would never have been found otherwise.

 

CK: our office does not do civil discrimination suits (We refer them, althugh I stay current on the case decisions) so it does not bring mony to my pocket. A constant source of our office income is teens and 20s who drink and drive, open intox, minor in possession, posession of grass, bar brawls, public drunkenness, vomiting in public after alcohol excess - kind of like we have a sideline in treating the Michigan verson of the SnR crew!

[cwsox]

no rant at all SI1020, actually a well written position piece in which you differ from me and I from you but you have laid out much for common ground to be found, you have gotten beyond the cliches and into some real thoughts, and I suspect the fruit of that discussion would lead us to many areas of agreement and finding some here to fore undiscoved common ground, and some places where we differ and understand why and respect those reasons, enlightening to us both. And I apreciate your post.

 

So thank you very much for your contribution to the discussion.

[SI1020]

no rant at all SI1020, actually a well written position piece in which you differ from me and I from you but you have laid out much for common ground to be found, you have gotten beyond the cliches and into some real thoughts, and I suspect the fruit of that discussion would lead us to many areas of agreement and finding some here to fore undiscoved common ground, and some places where we differ and understand why and respect those reasons, enlightening to us both.  And I apreciate your post. 

 

So thank you very much for your contribution to the discussion.

Wow! You really are a gentleman and a scholar and a hell of a White Sox fan too.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I hardly ever vote for a Democrat on any level and guess what? I can read write and spell and I'm also a lot of fun to be around. There is too much demonizing and stereotyping. Today's American Left is weak, tiresome, idea challenged and in my opinion BORRRING. Oh and while I'm on the subject taxes are legalized theft. High tax governmental bodies strangle freedom and creativity. Worse than that it promotes dependency and people today are far more dependent on government at all levels than their ancestors ever were. What if almost all families and individuals were prosperous enough not to need the government for many of the basics? I know one political party that would be instantly out of business and another that would be on life support. (Guess which is which?) As far as the Marlins situation is concerned I agree that this is bulls***. However I do agree with CW from a legalistic point of view. Major League Baseball is within its legal rights to set these hiring rules and even though it may appear phony and ridiculous it was necessary for Florida to go through the charade even though McKeon was who they wanted. As far as the "old boy" thing I think that was a little bit of cheap shot CW, although I do agree that they may have introduced themselves to a candidate who might have helped them down the line or in another capacity. I'm not stupid, I know my country's history. Think of how black americans like Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson or my personal favorite the inventor Garret Morgan were held back. It is an injustice that can never be righted. Unfortunately and this is one reason why I left the left, the "cure" often causes many more problems not anticipated by those well meaning idealists who put these new rules and procedures in place. Affirmative Action has screwed up lots of companies and has destroyed and maimed a lot of careers, however well meaning the original intentions may have been. Time is going to change this, the US is no longer overwhelming white, our nation is now 1/3 so called minority. Intermarriage is becoming more and more common, particularly whites intermarrying with Asians and Hispanics. In a half century or less race will be almost irrelevant. Can't happen soon enough for me. Pardon the rant, I've been disconnected from cyberland for several days, I'm making up for lost time.    I don't like guilty hand wringing, and in spite of my criticisms of the Left here I tend to get along with most Liberals just fine in person, so hopefully the bashing will be political and not personal.

I concur, SI. Politics are weak in this country. It's become not about issues but more ICON ICON ICON. Like, for example "Will King George trump Tommy Boy Daschle and get the tax cut through?" without any debate on the news about what the tax cut entails. Insert any issue into that, I just did the tax cut cuz it happened to be on my mind when I was writing.

 

All families are not going to be prosperous enough. There will always be lower class citizens because of disparities in education options, etc. etc. etc. It would definitely be utopian to believe in such a society where nobody needs the government because we are all prosperous, but that is antithetical to capitalism. One person's gain must yield another losing something.

 

And you are correct, also, affirmative action is not the cure-all for racial inequality, but something does need to be done to curb the social idea of ineqality [because anthropological studies show no real thing as "race", it's just an easy way for people to classify based on physical characteristics...thomas theorem: those things perceived as real are real in their consequences]

 

The MLB does have their ideas of what they want for hiring practices and nobody is holding a gun to the Marlins' head forcing them to be in the MLB. If the Marlins say they are part of the MLB then they need to abide by the rules and regulations put forth by the MLB. Case closed.