Dismiss Notice
Guest, I have a big favor to ask you. We've been working very hard to establish ourselves on social media. If you like/follow our pages it would be a HUGE help to us. SoSH on Facebook and Inside the Pylon Thanks! Nip

Red Sox accept White House invitation

Discussion in 'Red Sox Forum' started by RedOctober3829, Dec 3, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Devizier

    Devizier Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    9,191
    I'm going to expand on my earlier point:

    Firstly, champions attending the White House is a more recent tradition. It does not need to be a permanent one. Second, the decision to attend is a political statement as much as the decision to not attend. Third, sports organizations have a right, not an obligation, to attend. Obviously that extends to individual players as well. And since these are both optional and political exercises, it is perfectly within reason for fans to critique these organizational decisions. It is probably every bit as rational as critiquing other organizational decisions, or being a fan in the first place.

    I suppose this doesn't need restatement but maybe it does.
     
  2. cornwalls@6

    cornwalls@6 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    708
    It’s painfully obvious that you don’t have a clue as to why your first, drive-by hot take post is being criticized here. And I can assure you LR is the last person whose education you need to worry about.
     
  3. cahlton

    cahlton Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    609
    Thank you for your assurances, cher monsieur! I've been a member of this board since 1999, when it was moderated by a millworker who used the name LanternJaw.

    If you feel that I've done a disservice to the nuanced political perspectives of the sixty percent of MLB players who are white, you go ahead and correct me. And if you feel that "redneck ignoramus" isn't an appropriate descriptor for those people, by all means, present me with a better one. We're looking for a phrase that captures someone who's totally oblivious to the contradiction between his hardcore conservative politics and the debt he owes to the most powerful union in world history. Keep me posted on what you come up with.
     
  4. JohntheBaptist

    JohntheBaptist Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,268
    Respectfully disagree with those saying that this is not an endorsement. It isn't an explicit one, but it is an act of acceptance. It *is* an honor to be invited to the WH, which is why I think they should turn it down. Forego your honor as a means to say that you find the situation unacceptable.

    The Eagles and Warriors did it. Smiling and shaking that guy's hand for a photo op as an organizational decision doesn't sit right with me.
     
  5. In my lifetime

    In my lifetime Well-Known Member Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    863
    In response to the redneck comment:

    Someone is in need of a timeout. Ironic that one broadly uses what can be considered a very prejudicial label while criticizing someone in office for doing the same.

    The team accepted the invite. The players can now make their own decision, which is as it should be.
     
  6. gingerbreadmann

    gingerbreadmann Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    609
    Is the take hot just because of the way it was worded? Genuinely asking. OP's overall point, although I would focus the blame more towards the league and team front offices, rings painfully true. The MLB has a horrible record on race and politics in the recent past, and yes, the MLB itself is responsible for the dreaded mixing-of-race-and-politics-with-sport.

    If we are looking for a term to use for players who are cool with the way things are right now -- which is certainly the majority of them -- the most generous I can come up with is "ign(or)ant bystanders." The Red Sox organization, however, is not a bystander and gives its implicit approval of the Trump administration by publicly accepting this invitation.
     
  7. joe dokes

    joe dokes Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,809
    Smiling? Shaking hands? That'll never do.

    [​IMG]

    http://www.emmytvlegends.org/blog/?p=5173
     
  8. Ralphwiggum

    Ralphwiggum Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    4,750
    Was coming here to post this. The Eagles and Warriors declined, which in both cases was clearly a statement. How is accepting not just as much of a statement? Like it or not, other organizations that have recently won have decided not to go. Deciding to go puts you on the other side of that. This thread would not have even existed under Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan or however far back this tradition goes. But it does now.
     
  9. JohntheBaptist

    JohntheBaptist Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,268
    You're of course right, the attendees can absolutely change the calculus on this with a simple act or turn of phrase. Someone posted the Marge/ Burns dinner image too, so I hear you.

    So I should stop saying "smile and shake his hand" because my issue is with the organization accepting the invitation. I hear where the "accept, let the players decide" people are coming from, just disagree.
     
    #109 JohntheBaptist, Dec 4, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018
  10. joe dokes

    joe dokes Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,809
    Fair enough. I don't see the organization decision as "implicit approval," but I can see where others might.


    Even if going is a political statement (and maybe it isn't because going is more of status quo than not going), that statement isn't necessarily "Hey, you're a great POTUS." I would think that those same players who are described in some bad terms here for liking Trump were well-represented by those who held their noses visiting an Obama White House. And I doubt that many were then accused of being Obama lovers after their visit.

    Rub the team's diversity in his orange face. Dont let him weaponize every goddam thing he encounters.
     
    #110 joe dokes, Dec 4, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018
  11. brandonchristensen

    brandonchristensen mad photochops SoSH Member

    Messages:
    22,071
    Anything that lets me see the 2018 team together again, with players like Craig and Kelly still with them, I’m AOK with.
     
  12. Red(s)HawksFan

    Red(s)HawksFan Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    10,057
    Is it possible that teams take a vote on whether to accept and majority rules? I can see where teams in sports where the majority of players are minorities, like football and basketball, would largely vote against visiting this White House. Just as I can see where a team in a sport where the majority of players are not minorities might vote to visit this White House. That doesn't make those that voted in favor bad people or even necessarily supporters of the president, just perhaps sheltered and unaffected by the administrations actions and policies.

    For me, as long as no one is singled out or harassed for their decision (go or not go), I couldn't care less about the whole thing. I don't blame anyone who doesn't want to attend and at the same time, I can't blame anyone choosing to take advantage of what could be a once in a lifetime opportunity regardless of who's in the Oval Office.
     
  13. cornwalls@6

    cornwalls@6 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    708

    Congratulations on being here since ‘99. That’s awesome. As for an alternative to “ redneck ignoramus” to describe all white MLB players, which you’ve done twice now, I might try “white MLB players”. But apparently your super powers allow you to glean what’s in the head and heart of every single one of them, so we should defer to your special insight.
     
  14. Doug Beerabelli

    Doug Beerabelli Killer Threads Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    9,211
    They should go, and all openly flirt with Melania at the presser.
     
  15. axx

    axx lurker

    Messages:
    6,002
    As for Golden State,There was rumors and such that they were greatly influenced by Obama, directly or indirectly through LeBron, to not go just simply for political reasons. Don't know if he's going to have that kind of influence on a sport which is almost entirely white and Latino.

    I am guessing that the Red Sox at the very least asked Cora if he thought most players would go.
     
  16. geoduck no quahog

    geoduck no quahog Well-Known Member Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    10,267
    Some selective history of this stupid "tradition"

    I think it's great to establish a stupid photo-op that could succeed in getting members of the same sports family to openly clash over which particular nimrod is in the White House the year they win the championship.
     
  17. lostjumper

    lostjumper Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,143
    You would think that people would stop assuming someone's beliefs, intelligence, and personal thoughts based on their skin color, but apparently not. I thought this board was above that...
     
  18. drbretto

    drbretto guidence counselor SoSH Member

    Messages:
    8,837
    It's worse than ever these days.
     
  19. cornwalls@6

    cornwalls@6 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    708
    I guess I differ a bit regarding acceptance of the invitation being a sign of tacit approval. I think they may genuinely believe it’s about the office, being honored at the nations house, etc. And not really being about whoever is occupying the office at a given moment. But I have to say, I’m also disappointed they are appearing. It feels like a missed opportunity to make strong statement against this abhorrent administration, one that I don’t think would have had much, if any, negative impact on their fan base. Not a deal breaker or anything, and I can live with the call they made. But a missed opportunity nonetheless.
     
  20. Sam Ray Not

    Sam Ray Not Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    4,825
    Out of curiosity, for anyone who supports the team going out of respect for the dignity of the office, is there any point at which you would rescind that support, or is absolute?

    To throw out an extreme example: if it were revealed that Trump had proposed death camps for refugees, would you still support the team going?

    Not saying anything Trump has done or said is (or is not) comparable to proposing death camps, just wondering if support is as much about thinking Trump is not that bad (or not bad at all) as about the dignity of the office per se.
     
  21. DeadlySplitter

    DeadlySplitter Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    15,170
    feel like that example is moot because he would be impeached if he actually supported that.
     
  22. JohntheBaptist

    JohntheBaptist Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,268
    I do agree they likely have good intentions. But to @Sam Ray Not's point, this isn't about politics, it is about everyone's line in the sand. I agree they probably do think its about the office, or they want to give the players the chance to decide, or whatever else. But by accepting the organization is saying that the current administration does not cross their line. Not approval per se, but normalization.

    But it seems we basically agree, so just clarifying that one point.
     
  23. joe dokes

    joe dokes Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,809
    I'm sure there is.

    (I'm not about the respect and dignity. Sounds like there's a lot of cool stuff aside from POTUS-time).
     
  24. cornwalls@6

    cornwalls@6 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    708
    Gotcha, and fair point.
     
  25. InsideTheParker

    InsideTheParker Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    23,217
    Could they give him one with XLV on it? (Xenophobic Lying Virtuoso?) Uh oh, too political. But, you know, I agree with all those who say this is not a simple matter of liberal/conservative, D/R. President Orange transcends politics as we have come to know it.
     
  26. drbretto

    drbretto guidence counselor SoSH Member

    Messages:
    8,837
    This is a great example of exactly why this can't be an organizational decision. I know you mean no harm here, but this question is pretty leading, no matter how politely you try to word it. The bottom line when it comes to literally anything to do with Trump right now is that you either think he's the worst possible interpretation of everything to do with his name, or you could be someone who thinks that's all a bunch of spin and he's not actually that bad (or someone in between, of course). And there literally isn't an objective truth strong enough to force any kind of organizational stance.

    So, using your hypothetical example, no one thinks that death camps for refuges are a good thing. You'd have one party that calls something he did a death camp for refugees, and (simplifying and ignoring all the people in the middle of course) another group that thinks that that is a ridiculous interpretation of what he actually did (whatever that may be). And when you think of the world like that instead of buying into the ultra-left narrative, the world actually doesn't seem as horrible a place as it has recently. There's a whole lot of fluffing up every little thing that it's really not that hard to see some people out there who just ignore it all and want to go get their picture taken at the White House.

    I saw this same basic thing in facebook propaganda recently. A far more ridiculous scenario, too. It was leftist propaganda against centrism and it basically equated all centrists as being ok with just a "little bit of genocide" since they don't appear to have black and white views on the subject. But the problem with that is that there's no one that's ok with a "little bit of genocide". It's just a ridiculous stretching of the scenario that has nothing to do with reality. It's just straight up propaganda.

    This is an emotional decision, not a rational one.
     
    #126 drbretto, Dec 4, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018
  27. BigJimEd

    BigJimEd Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,448
    Indeed it is. Multiple posts with name calling all throughout this thread
    This board should be better than that
     
  28. JohntheBaptist

    JohntheBaptist Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,268
    That's not the point.

    Everyone has a line on abhorrent behavior. I would assume that at some point, for everyone, behavior would become abhorrent enough that the "respect for the office" would no longer be relevant. So the question is where the line is for everyone. Accepting is a statement on that, like it or not. I think those expressing disappointment in the decision are let down that this administration does not cross their line.
     
  29. Sam Ray Not

    Sam Ray Not Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    4,825
    The Warriors of course have had two opportunities to decline. The first time in 2017 was more a disinvitation than a decline, depending on your POV: Curry said he personally would not attend but that his teammates should make their own decisions (this was right after the events of Charlottesville, and Steph noted that his declining was based on a personal conviction about "the things the President has said, and the things he hasn’t said at the right time.") At which point POTUS called the whole thing off.



    Curry, Durant, Kerr and co. still wanted some kind of event to honor the country, so the next time they were in DC to face the 'Zards (March 2018), they took a big group of kids from Durant's childhood neighborhood in Maryland on a special tour of the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture. Would have loved for the Sox to come up with something similarly patriotic-but-not-Trump-related, but ah well.

    (The second time wasn't really a decline or a disinvitation — more just a foregone conclusion on both ends. Though the Ws don't visit DC till January 24, so I suppose a White House event could still happen. Lolz.)
     
  30. Hawk68

    Hawk68 lurker

    Messages:
    138
    Too often I am uneasy with the Red Sox and their blatent political agenda. In this decision the Red Sox are right.

    President Trump is our chief executive. Honoring his invitation respects our nation and it's democratic ideals.
     
  31. Bergs

    Bergs Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,948
    Now THAT would have been a funny post. Blatenty.

    Also, what blatant political agenda do the Red Sox have? I must have missed it.
     
  32. Matty005

    Matty005 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    627
    I think it's better for people to say, "I agree/do not agree with their decision." I don't think there is a "right" answer here.
     
  33. joe dokes

    joe dokes Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,809
    They tried to change yawkey way to Karl marx plaza, and had to settle for jersey street.
     
  34. ookami7m

    ookami7m Well-Known Member Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    4,558
    I’m not sure if they’ll have a glove small enough to give him.
     
  35. Bergs

    Bergs Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,948
    Well that only makes sense...RED sox, after all.
     
  36. dhappy42

    dhappy42 Member

    Messages:
    4,857
    Now that would be funny, giving Trump a little league sized glove signed by the team.
     
  37. Danny_Darwin

    Danny_Darwin Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,168
    I've been thinking about this - apologies if this is a half-baked thought, here - and I think this says more about the culture of baseball than anything, which I think is generally pretty conservative in the non-political sense of the word. It's a sport that generally rewards keeping your head down and not rocking the boat, while those who demonstrate some personality are criticized or at least side-eyed, whether it's Yasiel Puig or Bryce Harper (when he first showed up, at least). Granted, this has started to change in the last few years, but it's been slow going. Think, for instance, about how many people wear a version of "their name, but with a -y or -er at the end" for that Players' Weekend thing that was designed to showcase personalities. Contrast that with the NBA, which has marketed its stars thanks as much to their personalities as anything. And I don't really mean to sound like I'm criticizing either league or sport or anything like that, fans like what they like. But I guess I'm wondering if part of the reason this is happening is because the Red Sox didn't want to deal with the controversy within Major League Baseball. Maybe I'm stretching, but I don't think any baseball team is going to make a statement like that at this moment in time.
     
    #137 Danny_Darwin, Dec 4, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018
  38. Bergs

    Bergs Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,948
    Look at the demographic composition of baseball fans and the demographic composition of GOP voters. They don't want to deal with the shitshow. I don't blame them per se, but it's gonna suck seeing it.
     
  39. ManicCompression

    ManicCompression lurker

    Messages:
    88
    Is it possible that some players don’t pay attention to the day to day politics of the country? And maybe they kind of don’t mind Trump because he gave them a huge tax cut?

    I have no idea why we assume certain things about athletes who, by necessity, have carefully manicured images. We don’t know how these guys voted (nor should we) or what their priorities are.

    Yeah, the 2018 team was amazingly fun and it was truly a joy to watch them shred through the league. Why do they also need to reinforce our own political ideologies?

    I know that it’s damn near impossible to avoid an avalanche of political news every morning, but some people do find it very boring and not fulfilling. I would imagine that it’s easy to fall into that category when you have tens of millions of dollars in your 20s.
     
  40. Hawk68

    Hawk68 lurker

    Messages:
    138
    Massachusetts resident and 2004 World Series hero Curt Schilling was not invited to participate during the recognition of the 2004 World Series champions before Game 2 of 2018 Series.

    We are left to wonder why.
     
  41. Ed Hillel

    Ed Hillel Wants to be startin somethin SoSH Member

    Messages:
    20,643
    Maybe because he’s an asshole who collects nazi memorabilia and made a “joke” that members of the media should be hanged? There are plenty of Republicans the Red Sox do business with and salute, let’s not go wah wah pants over a guy with Schilling’s past and pretend it’s purely based on having differing political opinions.
     
    #141 Ed Hillel, Dec 4, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018
  42. SoxFanInCali

    SoxFanInCali has the rich, deep voice of a god and the penis of Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    10,816
    They included all the players that were already attending the game for some other reason. It's not like they invited 24 guys and left out Schilling.

    He was invited to and attended the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the 2004 team in 2014.
     
  43. shepard50

    shepard50 Well-Known Member Gold Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    7,812
    Wonder no more my most mediocre detective friend!
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  44. Hawk68

    Hawk68 lurker

    Messages:
    138
     
  45. Hawk68

    Hawk68 lurker

    Messages:
    138
    In the era of FAKE NEWS is it important to understand sources. The source of the above is Red Sox spokeswoman Zineb Curran. As you know, her job is to communicate the Red Sox official position to the media in a way that protects the company first and reveals the truth second if at all.

    A better explanation would come from someone in Red Sox leadership making an on-the-record public statement as part of an interview. That would provide context and enable understanding of Schilling non participation.

    Absent that, the quote is simply the Red Sox distancing themselves from the issue in order to move on to other business.
     
  46. JohntheBaptist

    JohntheBaptist Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,268
    Weren't you the guy who vaguely came at JBJ for his "character" issues? Character was, in your experience, of huge importance, something like that.

    Forget the Red Sox abhorrent use of their powers of state to censor an individual for a moment. If saying and posting those things isn't a character issue, what is?
     
  47. wade boggs chicken dinner

    wade boggs chicken dinner Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    15,303
    So in this era of fake news, you're holding yourself to know the truth although you cite no sources for your speculation?

    I hate to link to CHB but he did get a quote from an executive, which apparently meets your criteria, and it says: "'We did not reach out to him,'’ said a Red Sox executive. “But it is not out of spite. It was originally just going to be Pedro and David and Wake and Millar, but we heard from a few others and they are included.'"

    How many guys can you have to throw out the first pitch? The explanation above makes sense: Pedro, Ortiz, and Wake are always around the team and Millar did a promo appearannce with Eovaldi the day before. Varitek and Foulke have worked for the organization recently and still may be doing so for all I know. They ended up having eight guys if you count Roberts. It makes sense that they didn't reach out to anyone because if they invited Schilling, why not Manny? Etc.

    Maybe it wasn't the greatest idea to begin with but I don't see posts asking why they snubbed Derek Lowe or Johnny Damon.
     
    #147 wade boggs chicken dinner, Dec 5, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
  48. Boggs26

    Boggs26 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,077
    Also, do we not think that at least a couple of those guys are heavily Republican? Just statistically at least a couple are bound to be. That means the "political" stance that the Sox took in not inviting Schilling was a stance against overt racism, homophobia, and general bigotry. (Edit to add: I don't think there were political motives at all as loud out by other posters) That's a stance I'd like them to take every time. It's complete BS/goalpost moving/straw man building to say that leaving Schilling out is a sign the team makes decisions along political lines...
     
  49. joe dokes

    joe dokes Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,809
    Perhaps you could explain to the rest of us how the first amendment is implicated in the red Sox decision on who to invite to a ceremonial ball toss?
     
  50. Red(s)HawksFan

    Red(s)HawksFan Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    10,057
    When did the Red Sox get elected to Congress?

    You're not exactly covering yourself in glory citing the first amendment as if it has any relevance to what a privately owned company chooses to do with their business.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page