• Baseball right ban Pete Rose • Free speech agrument flawed Baseball right ban Pete Rose I must respond to your column (“One boy’s passion for baseball …” TGI, Dec. 15), in order to defend the decision by Commissioner Manfred to continue
• Baseball right ban Pete Rose • Free speech agrument flawed
Baseball right ban Pete Rose
I must respond to your column (“One boy’s passion for baseball …” TGI, Dec. 15), in order to defend the decision by Commissioner Manfred to continue the ban of Pete Rose from Baseball and the Hall of Fame.
There is no doubt the playing credentials of Pete Rose qualify him for the Hall of Fame. The issue rests solely on his decision to wager for/against teams he played for and managed, as well as his refusal to be completely truthful about his actions then and now. The fact is baseball has been supremely negligent about many issues over the years such as drug abuse, poor player conduct and questionable morals amongst its many Hall of Fame and other players is a separate topic from this discussion.
I was fortunate to work in professional baseball for many years, first as a Minor League umpire, then as a business executive on both the Minor and Major League levels. I can attest to the fact when Pete Rose walked into every clubhouse of the teams he represented, a sign stating the Rule 21 referenced by Commissioner Manfred was posted on the door in its entirety, specifically prohibiting gambling. He also signed every contract which included Rule 21 language, that specifies a lifetime ban for gambling.
Consider how many decisions he controlled as both a player and a manager, which might have affected his ability to collect on a bet, rather than win the game. By all measures, Pete Rose does not deserve to be a part of the great game of baseball, or the Hall of Fame.
JC Crouch, Lihue
Free speech agrument flawed
Hmm, funny how Dr. Chelius (TGI, letter to the editor, Dec. 13) professes respect for freedom of speech on one hand, while taking TGI to task for printing a viewpoint he disagrees with, on the other. Either you believe in First Amendment rights for all (excepting profanity or subversive pronouncements) or you don’t.
In the latter case, you’d be in proud company with tyrants throughout history for whom censorship has been an indispensable tool in silencing the opposition. Don’t you realize that it’s patently un-American? There have been letters to this forum of a similar vein in the past, lamenting over why weren’t “objectionable” opinions being squelched by the paper beforehand.
Not surprisingly, all were written by folks with a decidedly “progressive” take on the issues. What makes them so intellectually intolerant that even argument is to be off the table? Do they believe they’re always right about everything (you know, like what the Italian fascisti said of Mussolini)?
Also, Doc, nice touch equating the hapless object of your scorn with racists and jihadis — an oft-used tactic that’s never been too beneath you citizens of a higher order.
By the way, there was indeed a death in the recent stabbing — the unborn baby — a fact you overlooked; unintentionally I’m sure.
Steve Souza, Koloa
