|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
“I feel like I betrayed my Latin community,” Guillen said, according to ESPN’s translation of his comments in Spanish. “I am here to say I am sorry with my heart in my hands and I want to say I’m sorry to all those people who are hurt indirectly or directly.”
“I’m sorry for what I said and for putting people in a position they don’t need to be in. And for all the Cuban families, I’m sorry,” he said, according to ESPN’s translation. “I hope that when I get out of here, they will understand who Ozzie Guillen is. How I feel for them. And how I feel about the Fidel Castro dictatorship. I’m here to face you, person to person. It’s going to be a very difficult time for me.
A Cuban-American advocacy group in Miami, Vigilia Mambisa, has said it would boycott and demonstrate against Guillen until the Marlins fire him.
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (4082 - 2:22am, May 23)Last: Joe KehoskieNewsblog: Chase Utley 'scared' by injury, could be headed to DL (3 - 2:06am, May 23)Last: botemanNewsblog: Mitchell: Pedroia, Cano and Magical Thinking (11 - 1:51am, May 23)Last: MontyNewsblog: ESPN: Forging bond with Pete Rose has helped fuel Joey Votto's desire to be great (37 - 1:22am, May 23)Last: Sunday silenceNewsblog: Verducci: Offensive decline leads list of 10 early-season trends to watch (32 - 1:13am, May 23)Last: LionoftheSenate (feels sorry for the Pirates)Newsblog: Jose Canseco to join Ft. Worth Cats as player/coach... or maybe not. (2 - 12:56am, May 23)Last: BenjiNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (1187 - 12:54am, May 23)Last: tshipmanNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for MAY 22, 2013 (171 - 12:50am, May 23)Last: GutsNewsblog: Seamheads.com Adds 1928 Negro Leagues Data (3 - 12:41am, May 23)Last: OCFNewsblog: Arizona Diamondbacks broadcaster Bob Brenly says it’s time for robo-umps in baseball (32 - 12:33am, May 23)Last: Sunday silenceNewsblog: Posnanski: Jeff Francoeur and ANT (81 - 12:03am, May 23)Last: Steve TrederNewsblog: White Sox Ace Chris Sale Eats and Eats and Eats Without Gaining Any Weight (124 - 12:02am, May 23)Last: SquashNewsblog: Gonzales: No plans to dismantle White Sox (13 - 11:51pm, May 22)Last: asinwreckNewsblog: Sources: O's calling up Kevin Gausman (6 - 11:51pm, May 22)Last: Crispix Attacks 2: Swag AirlinesNewsblog: Mike Trout hits for the cycle in Angels' 12-0 win over Seattle (37 - 10:53pm, May 22)Last: Cooper Nielson
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Well Pol Pot has 2-3M by himself, so, including those wouldn't get there.
Edit: But I'm not counting war dead. Italian losses in WW2, Chinese losses in Korea, etc. don't count.
So, Ethiopians killed by the Italians during the occupation would count. Military casualties and collateral damage during the fighting, doesn't.
I'm saying they "picked their side" in the 1800 years before that. It was too late to change. Their enemies hated them already, from the onset in 1789.
But I think this is where feudal times comes into it. They were involved in Spanish politics in the 1930s because they had been for centuries.
EDIT: Coke to snapper
The only bbq I remember while growing up was chicken in a foil-lined bag from the local Piggly Wiggly; I was a kid, but I guess the point was to warm it up at home. The town I'm from had 4 restaurants, 2 of them drive-ins.
Now, this place about 6 miles over, in the county seat (smaller than my hometown, but equipped with 2 as opposed to 0 stoplights, if memory serves), is pretty damned famous for its smoked meats; I'm pretty sure they offer barbecue as well.
But I think this over-states how settled political culture was before 1789. Anti-clericalism had strong roots in Europe long before the French Revolution. You are probably right that it's anachronistic to talk about anyone thinking in terms of "the church shouldn't be involved in politics", but anti-clericalism certianly existed, whether among princes who wanted more independence from the church in their local affairs, or critics of Church abuses, or even members of the clergy themselves who wanted the Church to be a less worldly institution (which I guess you wouldn't necessarily call anti-clericalism)
And once again, I think the Reformation was a much more cataclysmic event in terms of the Church's legitimacy as a political institution, anti-clericalism, repression and oppression on all sides...I guess it's just all a lot messier than the fairly straight-forward radical vs. clergy of the 1790s, and later in the 19th century more generally.
EDIT: I do hope I don't come off as combative by the way. You have no idea how much I appreciate the fact that you seem to be one of the rare people that likes to discuss the pre-modern world in terms more nuanced than, "they didn't have democracy so they were all equally awful societies not worth our attention".
There were a couple of exceptions for a few years after I reached my teens, but these days you can't even find pizza there anywhere except in a grocery store freezer.
Of course. Small-c, though -- it's generic.
I understand that, but why was it "too late to change"? They changed in the 1960s. Why then and not, say, the 1860s?
And it's funny, I would think such a paragon of literacy would know that there is quite a distinction between prisons and jails. Like how you can end up admitted to jail because of a traffic ticket and clerical errors by the state, which is how this ended up at the Supreme Court in the first place.
And once again, I think the Reformation was a much more cataclysmic event in terms of the Church's legitimacy as a political institution, anti-clericalism, repression and oppression on all sides...I guess it's just all a lot messier than the fairly straight-forward radical vs. clergy of the 1790s, and later in the 19th century more generally.
Certainly it's more complicated, but as you know, it's hard to get into nuance in this format.
The Reformation definitely radicalized the Church, and force close alignment with pro-Catholic monarchs like the Habsburgs.
EDIT: I do hope I don't come off as combative by the way. You have no idea how much I appreciate the fact that you seem to be one of the rare people that likes to discuss the pre-modern world in terms more nuanced than, "they didn't have democracy so they were all equally awful societies not worth our attention".
No problem at all. Modernism does weird things to people's perceptions.
Lot's of places in history their was no choice to side with the good guys, just the less bad guys. If any of us lived in 1930's Spain, we have to choose to ally with very nasty people either way.
Because the exhaustion of the two World Wars, and the need to make common cause against the Soviet Communists had sapped the vitriol of their friends and enemies.
In the 19th century, the liberals (who the Church could have made common cause with) were closely aligned with the socialists and radicals, who had violent intentions towards the Church.
By the post-War period, the liberals, and even moderate socialists, had become estranged from the communists, and were making common cause with the conservatives and monarchists. So, the Church could change w/o fear from their old enemies (liberals) and old friends (conservatives).
The Church in Spain was something of a feudal holdover. They had significant properties and privileges (they were only dispossessed of their feudal lands in the mid 19th century, much later than other European countries. And many of those losses had been made good by the 1930s).
Beevor notes that in the 1930s only 20% of Spaniards attended Mass. In Andalucia, the number was around 5%. And yet the Church had enormous influence. It was in charge of education in most rural areas, for example. In some regions they stopped teaching poor kids how to read lest they be able to read socialist tracts later on. They diverted government money meant for secular schools to those under their control. So many teachers resented the Church. Doctors were also under the influence of the Church. By law, when a patient visited a doctor they had to first prescribe confession before any other treatment. Those who didn't do so had to pay a stiff fine. Meanwhile, many among the poor resented that the Church preached acceptance of poverty, while itself being an extremely wealthy institution. This at a time when many of Spain's rural poor were taxed more than the rich, and lived on the edge of starvation.
Meanwhile, the Church argued that it had a unique role to play as guardian of Spain's culture and morals. Cardinal Segura, in a widely-publicized speech, argued that the Catholic Church was the only acceptable religion, that Spanish women should not have been given the vote, opined that the Inquisition was "meritorious", and opposed any separation of Church and State.
That was Rick Santorum.
Of course. Small-c, though -- it's generic.
I now have this vision of hundreds of innocent Primates running around hooked on cocaine. It's another BTF miracle!
Hell of a drug.
And here's how those 1982 Pirates got hooked!
Fellatio doesn't count as love for you?
What's remarkably despicable about your opinions is how you blandly apologize for the most monstrous of crimes with 'Other people are worse'. Nobody here has apologized for Castro or Stalin, but your repeatedly pimp for child molesters, rapists, and cold-blooded murderers.
You missed your calling as a defense attorney.
Just bizarre. Franco is better than Castro? Just absolutely bizarre.
So were Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Good thing we had FDR, he was Episcopalian.
It's really in the hands of the Cuban-American one-issue loudmouths. How I hate one-issue loudmouths and their enablers and the "offense" they take and their myopia.
Yes, insane.
My guess is they'll try to see if the 5-game suspension settles things down. Probably it will. If not, they may fire him.
If I were in charge of the team, I'd fire him now (*). Why take the chance that you're going to suffer a revenue loss because your manager is a jackass with no filter? Even the comments he made about getting drunk after every game in the hotel bar don't reflect well on the organization. Why bother?
Why do people not understand that this is a business decision? Same as if he had posted something idiotic on his facebook page. This has nothing to do with free speech or even politics.
(*) Of course, I'd never have hired him in the first place. The Marlins are engaging the same type of rationale that went into sponsors leaving Rush Limbaugh after the Fluke thing last month, high on their horses and shocked, just shocked, to learn that he says controversial things.
No, not really. Hitler and Mussolini were Catholics who happened to be fascists of another sort. Franco and Spanish Fascism is the only one that really qualifies as *Catholic Fascism.*
It has to do with business AND free speech and politics.
That's the part that gets me. You've got the manager of the team admitting that he gets drunk after every single game. Not "I have a few drinks," but drunk. The fact that there's been virtually no outcry about that is what I find truly surprising about this whole kerfuffle. Sure, he may be a high functioning alcoholic, but it's not like they need the guy to rally Britain against the Nazis here. He's a baseball manager who might be a bit above average, but has a well established tendency to cause PR disasters. Why bother indeed?
If the idea was to have a latino manager in Miami, I'm sure there are plenty of latino coaches who'd jump at the chance and who don't have Ozzie's baggage.
Agreed. But that's still a free speech issue, only between him and the Marlins and not directly related to the constitutional free speech.
Sure it does. It's a one-issue mob shouting down an individual and threatening his career for essentially nothing and a company whose infrastructure was bought by the public cravenly bowing. That kind of thing is entirely political and entirely a proper area of concern for the wider community.
Yes, b/c the alternative to Franco is 1936 Spain was a quasi-Stalinist state that would have killed more people in the short run, and wreaked worse damage on Spain in the long run.
The alternative to Castro was and is, at worst a banana republic (which tend to be less repressive than Castro's Cuba - anyone here not prefer to live under Pinochet than Castro?), and at best a real democracy.
That's pure conjecture and nothing but.
Yes, they are. If these people are paying for the product, and then stop paying for the product because of the political views of the baseball manager, corporations care very much.
Last I checked, Guillen wasn't frisked or arrested, wasn't indicted, his home wasn't searched, he wasn't sitting in jail or on trial for saying this.
The Miami Marlins are not the government.
It is not a free speech issue. You're not using the term correctly.
People have certainly apologized for Castro, specifically saying the US embargo has cause more harm than he has; basically excusing his misrule for the poverty and hunger of Cuba. That apologizing.
I have not "apologized" for any of Franco's crimes, they were wrong. I'm just trying to provide a little historical context about why Franco was better than the possible alternatives in mid-1930's Spain.
Likewise, I have never downplayed the severity of the crimes committed by certain catholic priests and bishops. All the guilty should go to jail. I can name several Cardinals I belive belong in jail.
What I have objected to is the tarring of an entire religion, Church, and clergy with the crimes of a relatively tiny number of its members. Some human beings are evil. That's true in every religion, race, country, institution - any group you can name. But to brand the whole group guilty of those crimes is bigotry.
Where is the outcry about the sexual abuse of children by rabbis and Protestant pastors and school teachers? The abuse rates are as high or higher, and there have been institutional coverups of the same ilk as you had in certain dioceses.
Quite frankly, it's a political tactic by those who hate the Church and Catholicism for its continued support of traditional morality. The same freaking people who brand the Catholic Church evil, object to the term Islamic Terrorism, even though 95% of terrorists are Muslim.
As a side not, this is the last time I engage you unless you drop the personal insults. I don't insult other posters, and I expect the same coutesy.
You're standing with the fascists against a legitimate government. You're not standing against the persecution of religious people, as you previously argued, because Franco and his goons systematically persecuted minority Protestant churches and murdered clergy.
There were no good guys in the Spanish civil war, perhaps, but I think you're letting your tribal allegiance to the Catholic church blind you to the situation on the ground in Spain, and lead you to believe simply false allegations about the makeup of the Republican government and its forces.
Supported by the best modern historical analysis of the period (including the info from the Soviet archives), and the history what happened in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, etc., etc.; anywhere a Soviet backed regime took power.
What would the difference be? Quick googling says "thousands" were executed by Castro and Pinochet also killed "thousands". Based on both regimes, it probably comes down to whether you were rich or poor... assuming you could keep your mouth shut under either circumstance, I suppose if I were rich, I'd be better off under Pinochet and if I were poor, I'd be better off under Castro.
You don't know that.
No it isn't.
And you're right, saying that Franco's crimes weren't as bad as the Republican forces' crimes isn't apologizing (though it is incorrect).
It's hard to separate the entire religion from the crime when the previous leader ordered it to be covered up and had the man who is the current leader enforce it.
Yet, you seem to often have no problem applying the same broad brush to "the left". You're employing an untenable double standard here - the 'right' can be the lesser the lesser of two evils and have both its better angels and evil people; but the left is damned by ideology.
As long as we're choosing lives I'd go with rich and Pinochet. Rich is nice. Though if we're given a truly wide open choice to be anyone in Cuba or Chile I'd choose to be Castro (hopefully I'm not suspended for saying that). Get to be King for a lot longer...plus I get to watch baseball everyday!
That study talked about % of students abused, not teachers abusing. You'd also have to control for the male/female ratio, since teachers are predominantly female, but priests 100% male, and abuse is largely a male crime.
All the data I've seen show that the 1-2% ratio of abusers is very consistent across clergy, teachers, lots of professions. It's part of human evil, not any one profession or organization.
Free speech is a wider concept than just the relationship between a citizen and government.
Pinochet had a generally less oppressive state (not saying he didn't persecute and kill active opponents), and left Chile as the richest and most advanced Latin American nation.
You're standing with the fascists against a legitimate government. You're not standing against the persecution of religious people, as you previously argued, because Franco and his goons systematically persecuted minority Protestant churches and murdered clergy.
There were no good guys in the Spanish civil war, perhaps, but I think you're letting your tribal allegiance to the Catholic church blind you to the situation on the ground in Spain, and lead you to believe simply false allegations about the makeup of the Republican government and its forces.
Not all the Republicans were Stalinist lackey; there were good guys among the real liberals (as well as among the Carlists and monarchists and Basques). My and Beevor's point is that they couldn't keep the Communists under control. The Communissts, and to a lesser extent the Anarchists, had broader more militant support than the liberals, and were willing to use extreme violence.
The Communists were going to take control of the Republicans regardless, and then they would have been a Stalinist puppet state.
Here, I suppose I would have to disagree... I think it gets a ton murkier if MLB had suspended him, but as someone that has certainly signed petitions and participated in boycotts when an advertiser has had a relationship with someone I find detestable, I would say the Marlins suspending Guillen for saying something they found detrimental to be at least close to an OK dynamic. I can find fault with it as an overreaction, I can find fault with the groups who still say this isn't good enough (I mean, we're talking about a known loudmouth, who apparently also has a drinking problem, and it's not as if Guillen has any foreign policy role or influence) - but free speech does not include a right to the microphone.
Ozzie's role with the Marlins is what provides him that microphone, and if it's in their interests to have him avoid saying certain things - I can't find any reasonable way to deny them that right to revoke it... even when I think it's rather stupid that such a big deal was made of this.
No, it isn't. "Congress shall make no law..."
Nope.
I pretty much agree with most of this. But just because it is an issue of free speech doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong for there to be a restriction on the free speech in some cases.
This.
EDITED to eliminate redundancy.
I agree with this, and said just that hundreds of posts ago. I haven't done or seen the relevant studies. I do think it's reasonable to believe that this _won't_ hurt the bottom line, since what seems to drive attendance is winning (and new ballparks).
I'm merely defending the Marlins right to suspend or fire him, and pointing out that this has nothing to do with the first amendment.
I should say here that I think tarring ordinary Catholics with the accusation of supporting child abusers is bad and wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to love the ritual and doctrine of the church, take pride in so much of its history, and to love the church despite its crimes.
I do think that and snapper moves from "loving the church despite its crimes" to "constantly minimizing its crimes", which is problematic. I still don't like the "tu Catholic-que" argument that comes up - it's offensive to Catholics who don't constantly defend the church's actions in the sex abuse case. But it would be easier if snapper stopped defending the church by pretending its crimes are somehow equivalent to those of teachers' unions.
The first amendment is not the beginning and end of the issue of free speech.
You believe that because it supports your assumptions about historical necessity, not because you have evidence that it would have happened.
This is not an issue of free speech and so it's not a restriction of free speech.
Here are a couple of articles that cite researchers in the field, just from a quick Google
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201003/six-important-points-you-dont-hear-about-regarding-clergy-sexual-abus
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_63969.html
Important quotes"
As long as everyone goes by your made-up and needlessly limiting definition of the issue of free speech...
You believe that because it supports your assumptions about historical necessity, not because you have evidence that it would have happened.
Jeeze, no one ever has evidence about what would have happened.
I'm talking about why a reasonable person in 1936 Spain would have supported the coup. I'm not defending the Falangist thugs and murderers; they were just as bad as the Stalinist thugs and murderers.
I'm just saying, reasonable good people had to pick a side (and lots of them ended up on both sides), and each side had noxious, evil elements. My point is that thinking the Nationalists were the less dangerous faction, long term, was eminently reasonable.
Does "institutional coverups" = "moving priests around from diocese to diocese so they can continue molesting without repercussion"?
Again, I ask that without snarkiness. I honestly don't know. I do, however, doubt that a lot of (if any) Protestant churches are monolithic enough to effect such duplicity (the Southern Baptist Church, in which I grew up, definitely isn't; it's more like a network for trying to herd cats), & I suspect the same is true of the education system. Judaism I have no clue about, but I don't get the impression that there's some Sanhedrin sitting around calling the shots & moving around child-molesting rabbis like they were pieces on a chessboard, as could be said (however inaccurately ... again, I have no idea) about the Vatican.
That's the defense?? That Catholic clergy are no better than average men?
Since they hold themselves out to be moral teachers and examplars they should be far better, right?
estimates that 2 percent of all priests have sexually abused minors.
Two in a hundred purport to enhance the lives of children while at the same time ruining them? Let's call it what it is -- that's a shameful figure.
Still didn't say that.
I said they were going to end up as Stalinist puppets because those were the marching orders of the Communist elements of the Gov't, and they were the best organized, most ruthless element of the Republicans.
Beg to differ. An employer has every right to can an employee over an employee's dumb public statements that hurt the employer's business.
Denying the employer that ability infringes on the employer's rights. Ozzie was free to say whatever the hell he wanted, but the Marlins are free to respond however the hell THEY want.
Yes. There is a huge brewing scandal in the Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn about Rabbis discouraging people from taking abuse outside of the religious community. Protestant churches have certainly let accused pastors and youth workers move to other towns and keep working with children.
The dynamic is a little different, b/c generally other Churches are not as hierarchical, and unitary in their organization.
But other religions have done an equally horrible job handling this serious issue.
Yes, it is.
I made nothing up. You just don't understand the issue. You need government action for free speech to be implicated. Jeffrey Loria is not the government.
None of this contradicts what I wrote. The legal freedom of speech that exists now in the United States is not the entirety of the concept and issue of "free speech."
Since they hold themselves out to be moral teachers and examplars they should be far better, right?
No defense, just the facts.
Going back to the Apostles, priests and bishops have always had lots of terrible sinners. We'd like them to be better, but there are evil people out there, and they don't usually note that on their seminary applications.
Two in a hundred purport to enhance the lives of children while at the same time ruining them? Let's call it what it is -- that's a shameful figure.
Yes. Shameful.
That number does seem to have decreased markedly in the last 20-25 years. The bulk of the abuse cases are from the 1950s-1970s.
The more recent data seems to be about 0.5%, so they are doing much, much better at weeding these predators out.
Beevor did say clearly that the Republicans were unwilling to accept a Nationalist victory at the ballot box and almost certainly would have taken up arms had the election gone the other way.
EDIT: He said too that, had the Republicans somehow won the war, the Communists would have taken over in the usual ruthless manner.
Well, unlike the others, Spain would not be bordering the Soviet Union, nor would there be occupying Soviet armies. Look at Yugoslavia -- not occupied, not a Stalinist state.
But more importantly...
This is most emphatically not true. Communism was not popular in Spain; in 1936, the Communists had around 15,000 members, as compared to well over a million in the CNT. The reason Communists gradually gained influence in the Spanish government is that the League of Nations declared an embargo on arms sales to Spain. Germany and Italy flouted the embargo, as is well-known. But apart from 20,000 old rifles sent by Mexico to the Republicans before the embargo was declared, the Soviet Union was the only nation that could give the Republicans military support. That gave them the leverage to increase Communist influence in the Republican government (that influence never reached preponderance, however, until just before the end).
If the western powers had been willing to sell weapons and materiél to the Republicans, then a Stalinist state would have been a most unlikely outcome.
Interesting. Thanks for the info. Having been away from any form of organized (or for that matter disorganized, I suppose) for three-plus decades, I'm appalled but I guess not surprised, humans being who & what they are, especially when authority is stirred into the mix.
So the concept of "free speech" was not an issue before the bill of rights, or after that in any other country?
"You need government action for free speech to be implicated" is the part that you made up.
Citing the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on accusations against the Catholic Church is like citing the Wobblies for accusations against the Communist party. Even so, that article doesn't say what you claim. Important quotes:
"Between 2 percent and 6 percent of Roman Catholic priests have sexually abused minors, according to three researchers interviewed by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.... Plante estimates the actual rate of sexual abuse of minors by priests at 5 percent."
2 percent is the minimum figure cited. Even the crazy right-wing Pittsburgh Tribune-Review thinks it might be higher than that.
You've also consistently said that both sides were guilty of equal atrocities during the war, but all the reputable histories - including Beevor's popularizing text, as far as I can tell - have the crimes of the fascists as far more extensive and deadly than those of the other side.
EDIT: From looking up some scholarly reviews of Beevor, I'm beginning to think that JE is misreading his rhetoric. Beevor is interested in undercutting the "pure Republic" mythos which many liberals and leftists in Spain still pay tribute to. He's not arguing that both sides were the same, he's showing that the Republic and later the Republican partisans in the civil war weren't angels.
You're making stuff up. "Legal freedom of speech"? Nobody talks this way. They just say "freedom of speech." And it has a very specific usage.
Nobody who is informed would think that a private employer disciplining an employee over statements the employee made has anything to do with free speech.
They don't call it the City of Brotherly Love for nothing.
Wrong.
"According to the best available data (which is pretty good mostly coming from a comprehensive report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004 as well as several other studies), 4% of Catholic priests in the USA sexually victimized minors during the past half century."
Well, Cuba and Nicaragua never bordered the Soviet Union either. In the new era of air travel, sharing a common border would help with power consolidation but was hardly essential.
Meanwhile, look at it from another angle: Franco, despite all of the support that he received from Berlin and Rome, and having German troops stationed on part of his northern border after June 1940, never declared war on the Allies.
My kids are all baptized in the Catholic Church, my gf is from Murcia and lives in Barcelona half the year. Apologetics for atrocity sickens me. Snapper is exactly the guy he proclaims to despise.
This is an argument of Zipcodian nitpickery.
FTFY, MCoA. And one can wonder whether even that would have been accurate if the Republican side had won a few more battles.
No, it isn't. "Congress shall make no law..."
Ray's right in the sense that there's no law---nor should there be any law---that prevents either the Marlins or MLB from reacting to what they perceive is offensive speech by Guillen or anyone else. Obviously if either the Marlins or MLB violated any of its own rules or contracts in suspending him, it'd be another matter altogether. But in any case this has little or nothing to do with the question of "free speech" per se. When people voice controversial statements, they have to expect reaction, whether their name is Guillen or Limbaugh. "Free speech" isn't a one way street.
What is a fairly serious issue, though, is the overreaction on the part of the Marlins to what was, to anyone who reads Guillen's comments in full context, a non-political statement of "love" or respect of the fact that a man with so many powerful enemies and plots against his life has managed to survive for 53 years in the backyard of the world's most powerful country. How many times have we used (or heard) phrases like "tough old buzzard" or "bad motherfucker" to describe people we have absolutely no real "love" for? And yet that's obviously the sentiment that Guillen was trying to convey.
I can understand the Marlins' "business reasons" for having to react as if Guillen had actually meant to praise Castro's dictatorial rule, just as I can understand the reasons why other public figures have had to noodle-whip themselves when they find themselves confronted over statements that were either meant in jest or taken out of context. And perhaps given the political reality in Miami, there wasn't anything else the Marlins could do. But it doesn't mean that the media should be jumping all over Guillen as if he were some kind of a moral leper, or that any other outsider should take part in the piling on.
I think the answer is somewhere in between, MCoA. Anyway, once my accountant finishes screaming at me for my tax woes, I will locate my copy of the book and I will be happy to discuss on or off-thread.
EDITED for clarity.
I wouldn't call either of them "Stalinist," which is the term I was responding to. Stalinism died in 1953 with Stalin himself; Castro didn't even come to power until 1959.
But deep evil lies at the roots of its founding by Constantine's sword. Authoritarianism naturally leads to abuse. Maybe Snapper is right to defend Catholicism whole cloth. It can't exist without atrocity and abuse as bedfellows.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main