Keep Standing

by on March 24, 2011 · 7 comments

That’s right, just keep “Standing for Stan” until directed otherwise.  Ignore the protestations of the naysayers, especially the ones named Murray Chass.  Mr. Chass has really jumped the shark and crafted a masterpiece worthy of praise, alright.  Click here for it. 

It’s practically a Michelangelo’s David of what is unsaid.  It’s the Sistine Chapel of subtle omissions.  If you could make an art of implied illusion, then indeed Houdini would write the foreward to this work. 

Chass creates the setting, saddles the horse, walks it to the river, and practically dunks its head in the water. 

Imagine Musial being a part-owner of a “posh restaurant”.  Curt Flood and some other African-American teammates decided to attend a celebration at the restaurant.  The group was refused seating.  When prompted for an explanation, the maitre d blamed the owner for giving him “instructions”.

Of course, all this takes place AFTER Musial has retired, even though all the players involved were former teammates of Musial.  Nowhere does it mention that Musial was actually at the restaurant.  Musial is just one of two owners, so the owner supposedly responsible for giving the worker instructions about not seating African-Americans could have been the one who wasn’t Musial.  Actually, there is no guarantee that any such instructions ever existed at all.  Nothing is said about the existing social morays of the time, and the scene that Curt Flood and teammates could have created in “Stan Musial &  Biggie’s” restaurant that night.  I’m obviously not condoning racism, but they could have created a rather uncomfortable situation for someone there. 

Never fear, though.  Chass doesn’t stop there.  He goes on to tackle the Jackie Robinson issue as well.  His source?  A lawyer who doesn’t actually have any first-hand knowledge, so he might as well be the next-door neighbor to my cousin’s chiropractor’s office manager’s dog groomer’s palm reader.  Better yet, he found another lawyer who has just as much first-hand knowledge, and this one has written a book about how much he doesn’t know.  So, at least we know how low the bar is set.  You just have to be an attorney with no first-hand knowledge of a topic, and you can basically be an expert about nearly anything. 

Please go ahead and read the rest of the masterful work of disinformation.  The trip to Mexico is priceless.  There’s something about a donkey show, collusion, and a pension plan.  There are also some assumptions drawn and nothing directly from Stan, himself.  Maybe I’m wrong about the donkey show (that was probably a different Murray Chass article), but I’m sure he mentioned something about the owners appointing Stan to vote a certain way to exclude certain people, and there was money involved.  Some guys played baseball in Mexico, and they didn’t get service time credit for it.  That’s a shame, but I didn’t see any quotes from Stan in which he had an opportunity to respond to allegations that he colluded with the owners to rip people off.  That’s right.  It’s because there were no such quotes. 

It’s a non-story, I guess.  Much like the rest of the article.  It’s a lame attempt by someone who may have been relevant at some point to lift themselves up by pulling someone else down.  Forget that.  It will only get you so far, especially when you pick on 90-year-olds.  There’s a special place reserved for people that do stuff like that.  It’s “Not The News”, and I promise not to be kind.

I’m Standing for Stan, and I’ll keep standing for him.  If you try pulling me down to lift yourself up, you won’t get very far. 

I’m not that tall…

…and I’m standing in Stan’s shadow.

TIDBIT:  The Presidential Medal of Freedom is NOT given for “being perfect” or “achieving ideal human status”.  Instead, it is awarded to “an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors”.  (or so says the Wikipedia entry for Presidential Medal of Freedom)

MORE BITS OF TID:  You can’t simply fight an accusation of racism with example after example of racial harmony and good faith.  It doesn’t work.  Ask anybody who has ever been accused of being a racist.  It takes a much more cerebral approach, because the label sticks so easily. 

Like it?  Wonder who the heck Murray Chass even is?  Follow gr33nazn on Twitter, because I’ve been wondering the same thing!

email
Cardinals fan since I could hold a fishing pole steady. Accidental blogger. Opinionated. I could care less about what you think of me. Constantly confounded, bemused, and confuzzled (ie I'm a pc and a mac). I'm an IT infrastructure analyst with a penchant for breaking tech toys. I ate a sabermetric primer for breakfast. I love playing "All-powerful GM of MLB". The 2010 Cardinals represented a good, practical definition "cognitive dissonance". The 2011 version got by on duct tape and a prayer, and I'm fine with that. They just need new tape for #12 in 12.
View all posts by Dennis
Follow Dennis on Twitter

{ 6 comments }

DC March 24, 2011

This seems like a poorly thought out post. But that’s just me.

Dennis March 24, 2011

Indeed, it seems to be just you so far, but thanks for reading anyway.

Ann March 24, 2011

A post being poorly thought out is not the same thing as a post being filled with emotion to the point of overflowing due to having such a strong reaction to the absolute bullshit written about the greatest man to ever wear a Cardinals uniform.

But that’s just me.

#TeamTroublemaker

Tara Wellman March 24, 2011

Seriously…because quoting an unnamed lawyer who admittedly has no first hand knowledge of an event gives credibility to what he’s trying to stir up… :-/ Besides, not a single thing Chass actually said directly identifies Musial as the “racist” he supposedly was. This seems to be, as you said, a lame attempt to somehow gain an audience by taking a dig at a national icon. Come on now…

Dennis March 24, 2011

Exactly. This was really low, and I’m glad people are calling him out for it. This wasn’t even “bad” journalism, either. It wasn’t journalism at all. It’s something that dances the line between fabrication and surreal, and it simply proves Newton correct again in my mind. For this action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Tara Wellman March 24, 2011

True. Journalism — even when it’s bad — has some kind of grasp on reality. This, not so much.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: