87 thoughts on “On Curt Schilling”

  1. He may well belong in the Hall of Fame. Being an idiot isn’t a disqualification, unless you violated a cardinal rule of baseball (Hi, Pete). But, sad to say, these things are political, and I don’t mean in an ideological way. At the same time, the fact that there is a debate over Schilling’s numbers when there certainly wasn’t one over, say, Randy Johnson, suggests that he’s on the bubble, and publicly being a bigoted idiot doesn’t help him.

    1. “being a publicly bigoted idiot” is in the eye of the beholder. It’d be one thing if he was a neo-nazi, but expecting men to use the men’s room is hardly bigotry.

          1. I didn’t call you a bigot, or anything else.

            You’re entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and virtually all respected researchers in the field all conclude that transsexualism is real, and that living as the appropriate gender is the best ‘treatment’ for the condition.

          2. What the AMA and APA say about transsexualism is opinion, not fact. And it doesn’t matter what they say, anyway. Those organizations are political lobbyist groups. And their opinions change with the weather, as I suppose everyone knows.
            .
            I’m curious: do you regard the APA’s past opinions on homosexuality and transgenderism as facts, too? Surely you know that those opinions/facts were in direct contradiction to their current ones?

          3. Their earlier stances on queer folks were not based on science or research, but instead on bias and bigotry.

          4. “Their earlier stances on queer folks were not based on science or research, but instead on bias and bigotry.” — That’s a particularly pathetic piece of BS.

    1. It’s not his particular opinions, but how he chooses to express them. He seems dead set on being the biggest loudmouth in the room, and then saying, “Hey, don’t be so SENSITIVE!” when anyone calls him out on being a jerk.

      This behavior probably did not begin when he retired, so there are probably a lot of reporters who he rubbed the wrong way (or worse) when he was an active player.

      That should not keep him out of the Hall of Fame, in my view, but it is what it is. Reporters are humans too.

    2. I don’t think so, myself, but if the voters were to keep him out of one particular room because he thought all transgender people should be kept out another set of rooms, it would have a certain symmetry.

  3. We would however, tell our children to stand up for what they believe. I agree with Curt, but I realize there were better ways for him to express his opinion. I would prefer to keep politics separate from sports. I don’t care what Curt’s opinions are, nor do I care about yours, Joe. It has been hard for me to enjoy baseball coverage this week. An ESPN commentator lost his job over some things he said. Instead of being able to read stories based solely on the facts of what occurred, we also have a side of the journalist’s opinions to go with it (the guy who is supposed to remain objective by the way.) When these things happen we usually have a race of journalists to see who can be the most outraged and offended. NBC Hardball Talk has almost been unreadable this week. Props to you, Joe. You wrote a story and stuck to the story. I can appreciate that you and I probably don’t agree on some issues, but the story was still enjoyable because you didn’t make it about you.

    1. Curt didn’t say anything on air. It was on Facebook or Twitter.

      Meanwhile, ESPN took years and only chose not to renew Bill Simmons’s contract after actions at his website caused someone to commit suicide after the reporter discovered but did not print that she was really a man.

      1. While I believe Grantland handled that story very poorly, I also think that the woman in question had a lot of other problems not directly related to being outed, and the impending story was probably a small factor in her suicide.

  4. In the world of American media, such as ESPN, there are at most a few hundred people who get a good deal of attention for what they say. Very few of them apparently believe what 100 to 200 million of us “silent” Americans believe: that gender determines bathroom assignment at birth. When Curt Schilling speaks out in his un-PC way he is notable not only for pushing back against the surging tide of PC media, he is speaking for those 100 to 200 million of us who side with him on the gender issue. When he offends, he offends because he needs to shout louder in order to be heard over the political maelstrom determined to change us all and cow us into silence. A single voice speaking truth to power in favor of what we grew up with needs greater force than the poisoned tidal wave for change, change, senseless change. Silence may not be an option, and Curt Schilling is to be commended for giving millions of us hope that prominent people are not all mistaken. Are we to be allowed to believe what we grew up with, or are we required to love Big Brother?

        2. No, you made a claim; it’s on you to back that up. I made no claim whatsoever on how many people are cool with transfolks using the restroom that suits their gender.

          Tell me, do you want Buck Angel using the ladies’ room?

          1. I do not know who Buck Angel is. I offer the “common sense” claim that at least one-third of all Americans are confused, dismayed, perplexed, confounded, outraged, stymied by the insistence that we have to allow any adult to use any bathroom he/she/choose the pronoun of your sweetest desire/ wants to use at that moment when caprice or compulsion enters that unhappy head. If common sense does not prevail, then I cede the battleground once and for all to you and your hordes of outrages. You have won and I love Big brother.

          2. My ‘hordes of outrages’? You’re the one carrying on like someone knocked your ice cream on the ground. Take a breath, tiger. No need to be so rabid all the time.

    2. I absolutely agree that Curt Schilling is entitled to express his opinions, and shouldn’t be fired for it. But he’s shouldn’t allowed to be a dehumanizing asshole while expressing his opinions. I think you are overstating the amount of support for his position. It’s 2016. Times change. You may argue that they change for the better of for the worse, but change they do, and sooner or later the times leave everyone behind. I’m a Red Sox fan and live in RI, so I’ve seen Curt Schilling up close for a long time. He has a lot of good qualities. He’s loyal. He’s committed to his family, to service, and to his community. Unfortunately, he’s also an arrogant ass who doesn’t know when to shut up and seems incapable of learning from his mistakes.

    3. rabidtiger : “Are we to be allowed to believe what we grew up with, or are we required to love Big Brother?”

      My dad grew up believing that blacks were inferior human beings and should be treated as such. Should he be allowed to continue that belief?

  5. I don’t yet have a side on this particular law. I don’t mind if women use the men’s restroom while I’m in it, and I’m not sure that other men really mind. Thus, I think this is all about women being upset that men use their restroom, and I’d like to know what percentage of them are upset. And I think women should thus take the lead in these kinds of laws.
    .
    I’m not aware of any data showing that women & girls are in danger when men use their restroom, and would like to see it if it exists. I do know that publishing such data would be hazardous to one’s occupational health, and so don’t think the absence of such data implies that the effect does not exist.
    .
    I do know that I’m getting mighty tired of people like Karyn advertising opinions as facts, and people like another poster, and even Joe, of throwing around the words “idiot” and “bigot” in such a casual fashion.

    1. It’s not Schilling’s beliefs that earned him this outrage, it’s the cruel ways he chose to express them. In that sense, he earned the “idiot” and “bigot” monikers. I don’t think anyone here has called any other poster by those names.

      Regarding the issue at hand, it’s not a matter of men using the women’s restroom; it’s transwomen (who are, by modern accepted terms, women) using the women’s restroom. I think that’s what people miss. I have a friend, Jay, who is trans, and he is a big dude with a beard. If he went into the women’s restroom (as this new law requires him to), people would call the cops.

      This issue isn’t about scary bogeymen in dresses barging into the women’s restroom. It’s about people like Jay living quiet lives without getting scared every time they have to use the toilet.

        1. Because he would be breaking the law, and if someone knew his status and called the cops, Jay would have a pretty bad day.

          If Jay were a transman who was not big and hairy, but instead slender and more boyish, he would run the risk of being beaten up.

    2. It’s more about politicians ginning up outrage and fear, when transfolks are not harming anyone in public restrooms. Mostly, it’s creepy dudes who are not trans harming women and children–and the occasional violent bigot beating up someone who is (or appears to be) trans.

      Trans folks just want to pee.

      1. Hey look, we sorta agree on something. Truth be told, I’m not really worried about “transfolks”. If a transgendered man believes he’s a woman, acts like a woman, and has woman parts I would expect him to act like any other woman in a women’s restroom. The problem becomes when somebody who is not transgendered decides they would like to go into a women’s restroom and do inappropriate things. The problem isn’t necessarily the transgendered, it’s those who aren’t. Unless somebody is checking pants, how do we really know who is and isn’t transgendered? If I saw some un female person walk into a women’s restroom, I wouldn’t feel comfortable with my wife/sister/daughter/whoever sharing a restroom with them.

        1. Here’s the thing, though–no one is pretending to be trans in order to go perv in the ladies’ room. If they’re going in there to creep on women/kids, they were going to do so no matter the law.

          And that doesn’t even touch the transfolks (and non-trans) who don’t conform to gender norms. I’m not trans, but I am a woman who is tall, with big shoulders, a square jaw, and short hair. I get all kinds of looks in public restrooms, and it kinda sucks. Probly worse for folks who conform even less than I do.

          1. “no one is pretending to be trans in order to go perv in the ladies’ room” — You’re a liar, or ignorant, anyway… I just read a story of a case in CA where a man did just that a couple of years ago. I don’t know how prevalent it is, but it’s not “no one”.
            .
            The only “gender norm” that is relevant here is using the restroom that matches your sex.

          2. A case in California, huh? Got a citation for that?

            And no, gender norms are far more complicated than that. It’s really a very interesting subject, and worth educating yourself about.

          4. Okay, you found one horrible case, in Canada.

            Would you like me to find all the cases of cismen going into women’s restroom (not pretending to be trans) and assaulting women and children? Or maybe all the cases of transfolks being beaten and raped as punishment for using a public restroom? Let me know–either way, it’s going to take me a while.

          5. “Would you like me to find all the cases of cismen going into women’s restroom (not pretending to be trans) and assaulting women and children? Or maybe all the cases of transfolks being beaten and raped as punishment for using a public restroom? Let me know–” — If you’re volunteering, sure, go for it. Start with the second, if you don’t mind.

          7. Stress? Self-reporting? That paper is garbage, and doesn’t have any facts about assault/rape/beatings that you’re implying it does. Try again.

        2. OK, that’s fine..just don’t tell me that you’re OK with NON-transgender women using the women’s restroom. Because absolutely 100% of your logic applies to them, as well.

          If a man decides to impersonate a woman and looks enough like one to pass, then having a law against transgender women going in there won’t help. If he doesn’t look enough like one to pass, then well, I don’t think him saying “oh, no, I’m a transgender woman” is going to help his cause. What, precisely, do you think these laws are accomplishing?

          The only thing they’re “accomplishing”, other than allowing politicians to pander, is putting transgender women at risk of being attacked in men’s bathrooms.

          1. Exactly. Also, it’s actually transmen who are in a lot of danger in public restrooms. They’re the ones who get beat up, occasionally raped, in men’s rooms.

          2. There is no need to claim anything. There is audio of a man dressed normally asking at Target, and they said he could use whatever bathroom he was comfortable with.

          5. Well, did the guy go in the women’s room, or not? Because if he did, and he’s more comfortable identifying as a man than as a woman, then I’d wonder why he did that.

            If he didn’t go in the women’s room, then he was merely being a little bit of a jerk in order to make a political point. Which a whole lot of people do, on all sides. So, whatever.

  6. His views are profoundly bigoted and wrong, but he still belongs in the Hall of Fame, for me. I mean, Cap Anson is in the Hall of Fame. It’s not like the Hall of Fame is morally pure; it’s a record of the game of baseball, with all its imperfections, and in the context of the imperfect and strange and weird and sometimes awful story of America.

    1. I absolutely agree with this. I think the guy’s a tool, but he was really really good at baseball, and nothing he’s done is a ‘crime against baseball’ like Pete Rose. Hopefully his falling short has more to do with the current backlog of great players than anything else, and will sort itself out shortly.

    2. “His views are profoundly bigoted and wrong” — Now wait a minute. I thought it wasn’t his views that were wrong, it’s how he chose to express them.

      1. Both his views & the manner in which he chose to express them were bigoted and wrong. More than one thing can be bigoted.

        He wouldn’t have been fired if he had kept his views private, but they still would have been wrong views. Just privately wrong.

  7. As far as I can tell the opinion of most liberals is that when someone is fired for being a communist that is a stain on America, but when someone is fired for opinions anywhere to the right of communism, that’s just common sense.

    1. That’s one of the most ridiculous comments I’ve ever read. Schilling wasn’t fired because he was a conservative or because he held that view of the transgender bathroom issue. He was fired because he made comments that would offend a particular group of people. Do you really think that if someone started making comments calling for the overthrow of the government, ESPN wouldn’t fire him? But there is also a big difference between making general political statements and making comments that seem to target a particular group of people.

        3. I’m saying there is a difference between someone holding a general set of political beliefs (say, communism) that they may or may not express publically and making statements that relate to a particular group. It’s not as if ESPN didn’t know Schilling was a conservative; he made that known pretty clearly. He wasn’t fired for that. The issue is whether someone is being fired simply for having a particular set of opinions (as communists were in the 1950s) as opposed to saying something publically that was considered offensive. Personally, I’m not convinced Schilling should have been fired, but the fact is, he was not fired for holding those opinions but for expressing them in a forum that would embarrass his employer. Now, I agree that there is a level of hypersensitivity in society that I find troubling-and it’s primarily on the left. But what Schilling did is not the same as being fired for being a communist (or, in the historical case, for having been a member of the Party many years before).

          1. As communists wanted nothing less than the total destruction of American society and culture, and had the means to get a small portion of what they wanted in the late 1960’s, I think it’s pretty clear that having communist opinions in the 1950’s was about a billion times worse than anything Schilling has ever said.

      2. There’s a problem here, in that progs think that any general political statement targets a particular group of people. Think that taxes are too high? Then you’re bigoted against poor people. Think that sentences for violent criminals should be longer? Then you’re bigoted against blacks. Think that men shouldn’t use the girls’ restroom? Then you’re bigoted against transsexuals. And on and on.

        1. Sigh. No. Its non violent drug sentences that are disastrous for blacks.

          And transgender women. Are women. Many of them no longer have a penis and most are taking massive doses of estrogen.

          Every single argument being made was made against gay people. Conservatives utterlyou lost that front of the culture war abs werembarrassment proven wrong.

          The last front deals with about %.8 of the population. And this equating trans people with sexual predators was EXACTLY the tactic used against gay men to deny them basic human rights. Conservatives will lose this also because there’s no actual harm done top anybody by just letting people live their lives.

          Any time a law is passed that solves no problem, that nobody was asking for and that targets one specific group of people it’s a bad law.

          The very worst laws in our history have come about this way and some of our greatest shames.

          Anti sodomy laws, detention of Japanese, defense of marriage. All laws that fit nothing but target a group of people without protecting anyone else.

          You can have your opinion. And others can ask WHY you havery it. Examine where it comes from.

          Do you KNOW any trans people? Have you ever spoken to them?

          This is just a depressing affair in general. In 3 years these laws will all be reversed as unconstitutional and nothing will happen and we’ll all forget why we bothered.

          1. I don’t know… blacks commit more of all types of crime than any other race, but their rates of violent crime are a lot higher over other races than of non-violent crime. (This is according to the UCR.)

          3. I don’t know, that’s a different topic, and one a few orders of magnitude more serious than bathroom follies.

          4. If it’s a different topic, then why the hell bring it up?

            Because I think it shows what kind of person you are, and how you think about the world.

  9. Schilling has every right to whatever opinion he wants. But he worked on camera for a huge communications business that, like it or not, is sensitive to comments that might bring opprobrium on it. It’s not that there is some small group of people requiring “political correctness” on air; it’s that ESPN, whatever the opinions of its individual on-air talent is a business that has to be concerned about comments made by that on-air talent that might reflect badly on the company. I mean, if Curt Schilling had said nothing about the transgender issue, he would not be offending people that don’t like it. Schilling had to know, especially given that he had been suspended before, that making those comments was asking for trouble. Someone above ranted about speaking truth to power-which I think is interesting since it generally has been used by the left. Well, fine, if he wanted to do that, he should be willing to accept the consequences which he should have known would likely have included being fired. You can’t have it both ways, especially if you are a conservative and, presumably believe that private businesses should be run as they please. He can’t expect to make comments that he knows are going to piss off ESPN and then expect there to be no consequences. Whether you agree with him or not is irrelevant; unless he is a moron (and I don’t think he is), he had to know that those comments would offend at least some subset of the population and that ESPN would not like that. And, as I said, it’s not as if NOT making those comments would have offended people. If he chose to make those comments because he believed that standing by his principles was more important than working for EXPN, then fine. But don’t bitch about it afterward and act as if you don’t understand.

    1. I haven’t seen an example of Schilling complaining about being fired by ESPN. I’m somewhat of a fan of his, and I don’t think his firing is an injustice. I’m disappointed that Schilling couldn’t practice more self-control.

    2. Yes. Certainly transgender people have historically been in am excellent position of power. Probably why they are amongst the most assaulted, vilified, murdered people in our society.

      Hilarious.

  10. Far be it from me to disagree with someone who actually knows many of the voters, but I don’t think that it is Schilling’s opinions that are keeping him out of the HOF. I think that his (comparatively) low Win totals and lack of Cy Youngs are doing it. He barely cracks the top 100 in Wins, and there are many people with many more Wins above him on the list who aren’t in the HOF and don’t deserve to be, e.g., Kaat, John, Moyer, etc. Tim Hudson and Bartolo Colon both have more Wins than him. I think that the Wins more than anything is what is delaying his entry into the HOF (although I am confident that he will get in at some point).

    Just to be clear: I am not saying that his win totals SHOULD keep his HOF vote totals low; I just think that they are doing so. I have read people who say that they didn’t vote for him because his numbers are “borderline” and point to his Wins as an example, but I have not seen a single person who said that they didn’t vote for him because he’s a Republican (as he claimed).

    1. “I have not seen a single person who said that they didn’t vote for him because he’s a Republican (as he claimed).” — So you think a voter would actually say that, even if that were the reason?

      1. Yes. People admit all kinds of dumb reasons for voting for or against someone’s HOF candidacy. We are talking about writers, after all, many of who are columnists who are paid to express opinions. That’s not typically a group of people afraid to say something polemical that may attract eyeballs, page views, comments, etc.

      2. Are you saying there are no Republicans in the Hall of Fame? I think that’s silly. The fact is, I suspect that a large percentage of (white) baseball players are either Republican or at least relatively conservative in their views. So, if you are only going to vote for liberals for HOF, there aren’t going to be that many to vote for. Despite what conservatives seem to think, I think most (not all) liberals would not hold a guy’s political affiliation against him (unless he belonged to the KKK or something) in voting on the Hall of Fame. And, of course, that assumes that most of the baseball writers are liberal in the first place. Frankly, conservatives seem to project their own feelings about liberals onto liberals’ feelings about conservatives. Not only that, but conservatives seem to think that liberalism is monolithic, ie, that every liberal thinks alike and that they agree on every bit of ideology. There are certainly historical examples of baseball writers voting based on their personal feelings toward a player (e.g., Ted Williams in the MVP voting), but, for the most part, while they make mistakes, I doubt many of them are so unethical, as you seem to imply, that they would not vote for someone simply because he is a Republican.

  11. Joe is probably correct that Schilling made the comments because he was bored. Advocates on both sides of many of these types of issues generally are doing so out of boredom.

  12. There’s two sides having opinions. If you have liberal opinions, and insult people like the tea party like Tony Kornheiser did, you never lose a paycheck. Schilling is a conservative, voicing an opinion that would have been moderate just 10 years ago, and he’s dog meat.

  14. You guys probably know this, but just in case, I’ll take the opportunity to remind you that Schilling has numerous awards for being a good person, or for having high character. I’ll list some of them:
    .
    – the Roberto Clemente Award – “best exemplifies the game of baseball, sportsmanship, community involvement and the individual’s contribution to his team”
    .
    – the Lou Gehrig Memorial Award – “who best exhibits the character and integrity of Lou Gehrig, both on the field and off it”
    .
    – the Branch Rickey Award – “in recognition of his exceptional community service”
    .
    – the Hutch Award – ‘”best exemplifies the fighting spirit and competitive desire” of Fred Hutchinson, by persevering through adversity’
    .
    Curt is an incredibly high-character person. I’m wondering which other baseball players have been so honored for their high character?

    1. I don’t think the guy’s a waste of space. He was a helluva ballplayer, and deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He’s done a lot for the Boston community, and he was probably a good teammate.

      But he’s on the wrong side of history on this issue, and he chose a stupid, public way to express his opinion. He’s said dumb stuff before, and probably heard about it informally from ESPN brass. He crossed the line once too often.

  15. Damn Joe. You’re usually pretty careful about addressing issues that are at all political.

    I applaud the strong language. As for boredom. Maybe? More likely he’s another in a long line of people who possess an uncanny ability to be absolutely certain they are right. About everything. Always.

    I envy that. Truly I do. It must be something to go through life utterly without a moment of doubt that you might actually be wrong.

    Especially when commenting upon something that you know nothing about and which, until about 2 months ago you’d literally never even thought about.

    In reality it’s a combination of that and just plain old mean spirited cruelty. Narcissistic belief that only you and people like you are human beings. The inability to even consider you might be wrong.

    And to the wider world when you find yourself agreeing with Curtiss Schilling it’s a moment to consider if you might just be wrong. He’s certainly been correct about almost nothing since his playing days.

    1. Well ,people that agree with Schilling aren’t agreeing with him because he’s Schilling. They simply agree with him on the issue. I doubt anyone is saying, oh, Schilling believes such-and-such, I think I will believe that too. I agree with your point that people being absolutely certain about things is a problem. In fact, my problem is that I’m almost never certain that I am right, which is why I could never work in politics. In general, I think the world is a lot more gray than it is black and white. But, that works on both sides of the political spectrum too. I think it’s a mistake to believe one side or the other holds all the wisdom in the world. I disagree with Schilling about this issue and generally with his politics, but I would never say that only my side is ever correct about anything or that the other side never has a point.

      I have a real problem with people, regardless of what side they are on, that are smug and sanctimonious about their beliefs. You say that people that agree with Schilling should consider whether they might be wrong. But it seems a bit ironic to me for you to say “it must be something to go through life utterly without a moment of doubt that you might actually be wrong” when, at the same time, you accuse Schilling of being mean and cruel and narcissistic. To me, that suggests that you are utterly certain that you are right on this issue and would never consider whether you might be wrong or whether there is even another position worth considering.

      Having said that, there are issues that I think there are certainly issues in which I think there is only one right answer. And I have certainly expressed strong opinions on various comment sites. And that’s what makes dialogue so difficult. You ask people to consider whether Schilling might be wrong on this issue. Well, those on the other side might say the same about you. So, IMO if one is going to say people should be skeptical about always being certain, then one should also be skeptical about their own attitudes.

  16. Schilling’s political opinions that get him in trouble are the same opinions that Ted Cruz and plenty of mainstream Republicans campaign on. I’m a liberal and don’t support any of those opinions, but I don’t think someone should be fired for being Republican. If TV commentators and other media members in 2016 are expected to post to Facebook and show more of their personalities to viewers and readers, inevitably some of them will post unpopular opinions. ESPN should either accept that risk or tell their personalities not to have social media.

Leave a Reply