What Klaven Claims You? California Klaven -- Whiteville.

I don't know if I just happened to wake up in Bizarro world this week, or what.  I mean, one of the Olsen twins was notified about Heath Ledger's death before the police were.  Now Jesse Jackson is saying white southerners are getting a raw deal.  WTF?

Seriously, why is this a big deal?  I mean, it's a background check.  It's okay with most whites when we profile other demographics, say Middle Easterners and Muslim terrorist organizations.  What's the harm in checking to see if a white MLB umpre hates non-whites?  Lest we forget the KKK is, after all, a terrorist organization.  More importantly, it's an umpire's job to be impartial.  How else are you going to find out whether or not the umpire in question has biases that might compromise the integrity of the game?  Are you just going to take his word for it?

The second issue is defamation within their own neighborhoods.  Given the way some neighbors operate, I can see the gripe here.  But then, don't choose a profession based judiciousness if you don't want your integrity examined.  And don't blame your sport because they're being a little cautious, since it's not beyond the realm of possibility that an official could be a degenerate (gambler, for example) behind the scenes.  In the end, it's a measure to protect the well-being of the profession.  All it takes is one renegade piece of shit to fuck it all up.  Like Belichick and head coaching in the NFL.  Nobody ever thought about stealing signs in football until he came along.  Now it's all gone to shit.

Comments

[Art Vandelay]

But then, don't choose a profession based judiciousness if you don't want your integrity examined.

Exactly.

Jesse Jackson confuses the living shit out of me. I wouldn't have thought in a million years that a guy like him would be against something like this.

Now it's all gone to shit.

I see what you did there.

[Jack Klompus]

"Jesse Jackson confuses the living shit out of me"

That statement confuses me.

[Dr. Tim Whatley]

How come Jesse doesn't take a stand for me when my company did a background check before they hired me? I am, after all, an airline pilot. Not exactly as important as an umpire, but...

[Assman]

Wouldn't it be great if one or two turned out to be actual Klansmen? Jesse would be like, "Er... like I said... it's a shame this wasn't investigated sooner."

[Jack Klompus]

"How come Jesse doesn't take a stand for me when my company did a background check before they hired me? I am, after all, an airline pilot"

Probably because of all the problems with racist pilots. You never find yourself saying, "Geez there's too many blacks on this flight. I don't think I feel like putting out the landing gears this time?"

[Eli]

" And don't blame your sport because they're being a little cautious, since it's not beyond the realm of possibility that an official could be a degenerate (gambler, for example) behind the scenes."

I guess there's no such a thing as probable cause in Bizarro Land, aka Klompusville. Why randomly pick an issue and apply it to umps without any evidence other than they're white and from Kentucky. I agree with efforts to investigate gambling and/or substance abuse for the obvious reasons, but unless there's a rash of KKK recruiting going on among the umpire ranks that I'm not aware of- I don't get it.

[Jack Klompus]

"I guess there's no such a thing as probable cause in Bizarro Land, aka Klompusville. Why randomly pick an issue and apply it to umps without any evidence other than they're white and from Kentucky."

Well, it's because the douchebags in Elitown who were too busy worrying about sawed-off mountaintops to ask the obvious, yet unpopular questions. Let me ask you this: Someone applies for a job at a school or daycare. Candidate is single, childless. Maybe they they're divorced and lost a custody battle. Shouldn't someone investigate outside of the public records whether or not the candidate has any history of suspicious pedophiliac activity? Do you need probable cause for that? What happens if that person -- known throughout one community to be a shady fuck but never arrested by police -- gets said job in a different community and then rapes a child in that school? Who gets blamed? Now I know that's not apples-to-apples in terms of severity with this example. However, if shit goes down with racial controversy and umpires, you know damn well the folks in Elitown are going to be asking why nobody made the simple inquiries into whether or not the ump was a hood-wearing cocksucker from the KKK. I agree it'd be nice if we could all eat our muthafuckin' Grape Nuts in peace while problems waited for probable cause to appear before they happened, but that just aint reality. And before you go all crazy with 1st Amendment rhetoric -- I know, it's unfair to the people who are innocent to be subjected to such scrutiny. However, it wouldn't be necessary if the guilty were never (or even seldom) able to infiltrate our trust.

[Eli]

"Let me ask you this: Someone applies for a job at a school or daycare. Candidate is single, childless. Maybe they they're divorced and lost a custody battle. Shouldn't someone investigate outside of the public records whether or not the candidate has any history of suspicious pedophiliac activity? Do you need probable cause for that? "

This is the lamest rebuke. Did you get run over by a cyclist recently. First off, there's this little thing they got out now, it's called BACKGROUND CHECK where law enforcement is requested to look through all the police records gathered on an individual to find out if they pose a threat to the public.

Secondly, I'd much rather live in grapenut eating Elitown then Fucknutville Klompusland where my employer takes it upon himself to ask my family questions one reserves for interrogating pyschopaths, sociopaths, and other criminals. Your telling me you would put up with that crap if your asshole cyclist boss decided he was going to "interview" your neighbors on speculations that you're a cylcist-murdering hit and run douchebag.

"Do you need probable cause for that? "

Yes, employers need probable cause before they can go around implicating their employees on whatever concerns them.

"And before you go all crazy with 1st Amendment rhetoric"

And by the way, this would fall under the fourth amendment protections, not the first.

"However, if shit goes down with racial controversy and umpires, you know damn well the folks in Elitown are going to be asking why nobody made the simple inquiries into whether or not the ump was a hood-wearing cocksucker from the KKK."

Big assumption here. Actually, I could care less because I know there's no way the MLB would not stomp that fire out in a heart beat. As with most business organizations they usually end up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

"I know, it's unfair to the people who are innocent to be subjected to such scrutiny. However, it wouldn't be necessary if the guilty were never (or even seldom) able to infiltrate our trust."

My response to this type thinking is always the same: Tough shit. If you want to live in a free and open society you're going to have to take one on the nose every every once in a while. Let the cops do their job but leave the nazi-ass-invasion of privacy- wiretapping- ass sniffing- intrusive fucknut crap in developing countries where it belongs. The greatest threat lies in whiny-ass doucebagville where everyone wants a nice neat little sterile existence free of crime, hate, and inconvenience so they cry about things like the gov't not "protecting" them from their stupid little fears and inconveniences. Well, fuck you, the human race is a nasty little species- get used to it- because nothing is worth losing your rights and freedoms over.

[Jack Klompus]

"First off, there's this little thing they got out now, it's called BACKGROUND CHECK where law enforcement is requested to look through all the police records gathered on an individual to find out if they pose a threat to the public."

Yes, thank you I made that point too. But that's still not really proactive, is it? You're looking to see if the person has already broken the law. Which is fine if you're hiring for the mailroom. But other positions require stricter screenings. Most jobs require 3 references to begin with. But those are typically provided by the candidate -- wherein most cases the candidate is not going to provide names of people who will give them an unfavorable review. So how else are employers to ensure they're getting someone who isn't a complete fuckin knucklehead?

"Yes, employers need probable cause before they can go around implicating their employees on whatever concerns them."

Not entirely true. Employers can decide to not hire candidates based on appearance alone. Be it clothing, hairstyle, neck tattoos, whatever. Employers are allowed to have a certain "image." Skin color, on the other hand, is obviously a different matter. But it's still a hard to prove discrimination with other factors in play.

"And by the way, this would fall under the fourth amendment protections, not the first."

I wasn't even thinking privacy rights for some dumb reason, but yeah. So touche on that one.

"My response to this type thinking is always the same: Tough shit. If you want to live in a free and open society you're going to have to take one on the nose every every once in a while"

I agree with that line of thinking. But isn't getting hassled without probable cause considered "taking one on the nose?" It's almost six of one, half dozen of the other. Someone either gets hassled uncessarily now or someone else gets hassled later because not enough hassling was done previously to prevent it. However the difference is, usually the reactive version of "taking one on the nose" tends to have more severe consequences than the proactive version.

""The greatest threat lies in whiny-ass doucebagville ...Well, fuck you, the human race is a nasty little species-get used to it- because nothing is worth losing your rights and freedoms over."

Likewise, there is this notion that in "protecting" these "rights and freedoms" we somehow have to abstain from asking common sense questions or "nipping shit in the bud" because we're afraid someone might "take one on the nose" accidentally. Plain and simple, it's a fine line.