View Single Post
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 29, 2002, 10:43am
greymule greymule is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
It's a rainy day. I feel like lighting a fire, so here goes.

"Even though the players were not using tobacco, they gave the appearance of using a tobacco product, which is not acceptable" [my emphasis].

I am strongly anti-smoking, and I'm glad it's now banned in public places. I played ball with several guys who chewed tobacco, and I thought it was pretty revolting.

However, Joe DiMaggio smoked. Babe Ruth smoked (and died of throat cancer). Many current players leave the dugout to smoke in the runway. Half the baseball Hall of Fame chewed tobacco.

Is tobacco use a moral evil such that society must obliterate all possible hints of it? What's the matter with having licorice or this ground up mint in your mouth simply because one uses it the way one uses tobacco? How about drinking from an aluminum soda can in the dugout? Doesn't that simulate alcohol use?

Recently, the government commissioned a statue of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the statue was to be based on a famous photograph. However, the photograph showed Roosevelt with his trademark cigarette holder, so they ordered that, though Roosevelt's hand would remain in front of his face, and though his fingers would remain in a "V," there would be no cigarette holder. There were several other modifications to please various interest groups. (They also removed Eleanor's trademark fur stole, either from this memorial or another one, after protests from animal rights activists.)

Does the crusade against tobacco mean that history should be changed and people prohibited from "appearing" to use tobacco? I'm reminded of the comment of one college student after her professor recounted some World War II history that didn't jibe with her ideology: "There are some facts students just shouldn't know."

Should Fed insinuate itself into what is really a political issue? Should the umpire be responsible for enforcing political correctness on the field? I can imagine the case book ten years from now: "The umpire hears a male player complain that male batters get 4 balls and 3 strikes, but female batters get 2 balls and 8 strikes. After the umpire reminds the player that the new system meets federal guidelines by producing male and female baserunners in equal proportions, the player refuses to recant. Ruling: The complaining player is ejected and sent for re-education. The next three opposing female batters are awarded first base."

PS. A survey of local high school students revealed that more of them smoke pot (well over half) than cigarettes. Reason? Pot is easier to buy.
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote