No David, the blog isn’t screwing up the ASG.  The blog is inanimate, but it’s putting Jason’s views out there for people to read.  Jason has every right to express his views and opinions and I know that you wouldn’t disagree with me on this.  Whether people agree with and follow his opinions is on them, not him.

Quoting what Jack said isn’t “sneering”, it’s being factually accurate.

Yes, I believe (and in fact know) that the web has generated many people who delight in using its power to cause problems for others. A website like this one, like “Votefortheworst,” attracts these people, galvanizes them and serves as a catalyst for destructive conduct. I think tapping into that is irresponsible.  To take a much more serious example, an anti-abortion website that opines that abortion is murder is offering an opinion, but one that puts the photos and addresses of abortion clinic doctors up with an exhortation to “stop the murderers” is engaging in conduct. I may opine about unethical politicians or lawyers, or biased journalists, and I might say that watching a show like “Jon and Kate plus 8” is enabling child exploitation, but I’m not organizing any boycotts: if people want to act on my arguments, they are on their own. If I do try to coordinate action, I have an obligation to do so responsibly, avoid inflicting needless harm on innocent bystanders.

I like satire. I sometimes make my living writing satire, in fact. But satire constructed to louse up its target is more than satire. The fact that something is common or to be expected doesn’t make it right, or immunize it from criticism.

If the driver in front of me throws a bag of trash out his car window, yes, I will think of him as a jerk. This is because doing such a thing is the mark of a jerk. Now, he may in every other way be the salt of the earth….I wouldn’t bet on it, but it’s possible. If I were sitting next to him when he littered, I would tell him, as a friend, that he was acting like a jerk. That’s not a “personal attack,” that’s a fair characterization.

Given a lack of any other data, I thought it was reasonable to conclude that one who engages in what I do regard as jerk-like conduct “has the jerk gene,” which many of us, including me, have an obligation to struggle to rise above.

“the web has generated many people who delight in using its power to cause problems for others. A website like this one…attracts these people, galvanizes them and serves as a catalyst for destructive conduct. I think tapping into that is irresponsible.”

Puh-lease, Jack.  Nice hystrionics.  The All Star Game, for the past 70 years, has been the third most important and culturally relevant day in July (the first is obvious, and the second is my birthday, though that’s only been important for the last few decades).  To suggest that voting in Manny will somehow be a destructive act is rididulous.  The All Star Game is bigger than Manny, and even if it weren’t, it’s unclear how Manny’s place in the top three vote-getters would be “destructive.”

If Jason is successful, here’s what’s likely to happen:  Manny says “no” and stays home and someone else takes his place.  Or MLB steps in and changes its rules retroactively, and the problem Jason is trying to highlight gets solved.  Everyone wins.  You don’t have to watch Manny, Ibanez or whoever starts in LF, another deserving guy gets the roster spot, and Manny gets three days off.  If your enjoyment of the All Star Game is ruined by fans voting in a player who isn’t likely to accept the invitation anyway, you’ve got a very low threshold, my friend. 

On the other hand, if Manny bucks history and decides to attend, there are 17 other starters you can root for, and 49 other players.  I think you can manage.  And if you do have to see/think about Manny, is it really a bad thing?  Should we stick our heads in the sand about MLB’s PEDs problem, or allow it into the sun where we can talk about it, give it greater exposure, and hopefully be inspired to take steps to minimize it?

“Making something occur that probably wouldn’t, to foce a change in a rule to prohibit the unlikely occurrance is a mighty weak reason to cause trouble.  If one person’s enjoyment of the game is diminished as a result, that’s one person too many.”

Not likely to occur?  Manny was in 4th place already, man.  There’s a decent chance he was going to be elected without Jason’s help.

And what about all of Manny’s legitimate fans, Jack?  Aren’t they entitled to their enjoyment too?  And won’t theirs be significantly more diminished than yours? 

Anyway, I’m not saying the game is trivial and doesn’t matter.  In fact, I love the All Star Game as much as you, and relish that it has given me some of my greatest baseball memories (Puckett’s big game in ‘93, Torii Hunter’s catch, Ted Williams on the field, Cal Ripken’s homer in his last game).  I’m saying that Manny’s inclusion can perform a legitimately positive function if it airs dirty laundry and forces the game to work harder to clean up.  I think that might be worth enduring 2 at bats and 4 innings in LF, and the discussion (or the awkward silence)that surrounds him.

Not that he’ll be there.  Again, I doubt he will, and not because he’s ashamed or doesn’t want to cause drama.  I don’t think Manny will get the irony and stay away.  He’ll stay away because he doesn’t want to go to the game and would rather take three days off.  He’s done it before and is likely to do it again.  I’m sure his knee is getting sore just thinking about the A.S. break.

Ok. I think it’s outrageous that that Roland Burris isn’t being run out of the Senate, given that he has now been proven to be a influence-peddling opportunist who perjured himself in his testimony before Congress. To vividly illustrate this folly, I use my immense influence to promote Burris for the Presidency….and he wins (maybe because he ends up running against Newt Gingrich). Now his success sends the message that bribery and dishonesty works (well, it often does, but that’s a different issue)and the Presidency becomes a travesty (which it has been before—-maybe this isn’t such a good example..)

But the POINT is, if you say, “Well, but that’s the Presidency..” then you’re back to the “the All-Star Game doesn’t matter, so it’s OK to manipulate it to make a point” argument. In Baseball World, where I spend much of my time, it DOES matter. Still.

Do the values-deficient Manny fans have the right to vote for their pet? Sure. And the Larry Craig fans, and Octomom fans, and Michael Vick fans, and Barry Bonds fans and John Edwards fans have their rights too—-but we don’t have to make it easier for them to flaunt their atrocious taste and warped principles to the embarrassment and annoyance of everyone else.

The Presidency and the All-Star game are not even close to being comparable.  One is the leader of the free world, the other is an exhibition where men play a child’s game in exchange for millions of dollars.  It is supposed to be a distraction from real and/or everyday life.  And as Sara just said, if the All-Star game really matters, then fans shouldn’t be involved in the process to begin with!

And all of this is the point of Jayson’s website/quest!

[Although it’s beside the point, I think the fans do a decent job more often than not. If they want to vote a guaranteed Hall of Famer or the previous season’s MVP into the line-up instead of some unknown having a great first half, that’s a rational decision.]

I’ll buy the protest argument, as long as the protester, like Rosa Parks, or the war protesters who create traffic jams here in DC and then go to jail, suffers for his goal.

But sitting home at your computer promoting a result you think is “funny,” while making bystanders, fans and others who just want to see a good All-Star game with rosters that don’t make them vomit, as you acquire interviews and annointment by—Buster Olney!!!—-isn’t exactly what Thoreau had in mind.

“sitting home at your computer promoting a result you think is “funny,” while making bystanders, fans and others who just want to see a good All-Star game…isn’t exactly what Thoreau had in mind.”

This is true, but Thoreau didn’t have the internet in the 19th century, so his protest options were limited. It was tough to protest from your living room. 

And we don’t know much about the consequences of Jason’s quest.  Sure, he’s getting media exposure, but with that exposure can come ugly and nasty attacks.  I wouldn’t want to see his inbox right now.  Now, that’s not a tangible punishment, but neither is your discomfort at Manny at the All Star Game a tangible thing.  You are still able to watch the game in relative peace.

Finally, it is still unclear just how inconvenienced or put out anyone would be by Manny’s appearance.  The All Star Game itself means almost nothing (except home field advantage in the W.S.).  The spectacle of the All Star Game, however, has great meaning for a lot of baseball fans.  But Pete Rose has played in the All Star Game.  Dixie Walker, a virulent rascist, is a former All Star.  Ty Cobb would have been an All Star if the game had existed in the 1900s and 1910s.  And we know that players who have used in the past, (Caminiti, Palmeiro, A-Rod, and others)
have played in the game in the past.  And half the teams from the 1960s and 1970s would have been on Greenies.  Face it, the game’s rep may not be sullied, but it should have been.  Instead of putting a fresh coat of paint on a rotting house, let’s fix the house by pointing out the rot and working to replace it.

I see you have zoomed in on the part of TCM’s reply that was most germane to the discussion at hand….

Stop that, TCM!  I’m still waiting for him to explain how “legit” fanboy sites are any more ethical than the MannyBlog, and if you keep teasing, we’ll never get there.