Do racial slurs, profanity have place in baseball? How about a brushback pitch?

The outburst that occurred Wednesday between the Chicago White Sox and Kansas City Royals wound up having consequences that has some people convinced baseball has gone too far.

Tim Anderson, the White Sox shortstop who actually got hit by a pitch, wound up getting a one-game suspension – one that he voluntarily accepted by sitting out Friday’s ballgame at Detroit against the Tigers.

SOME ARE SAYING it is absurd that the guy who got hit (in the buttocks) by a pitched ball is somehow being penalized. Major League Baseball officials justified the action Friday, saying it was because Anderson responded to being hit by using inappropriate language.

Based on various news reports, it seems that in addition to the brawling that occurred between the White Sox and Royals (that we all saw on television), Anderson shouted out to Royals pitcher Brad Keller – telling him that he was a …

Well, let’s just say that Anderson managed to combine an insult, a profanity and a racial slur in saying just what he thought of Keller for hitting him deliberately with a pitch.

What makes the incident particularly odd is that Anderson is a black man, while Keller is a white guy. Anderson is alleged to have used one of the most elemental racial slurs meant to offend the sensibilities of black people and turned it around by using it on a white guy!

Both Anderson and Keller (below) … 

WHICH I’M SURE has many people confused. Although it seems that baseball officials are taking the simplistic attitude that n----- (the Chicago Defender stylebook way of downplaying use of THAT word) is always inappropriate – regardless of the circumstances.

Now for what it’s worth, Keller also got a suspension (five ballgames, but because pitchers traditionally only pitch every few days on a set rotation, it means Keller will lose one ballgame).

Some may argue that punishing both guys with a one-game suspension seems fair. While others are trying to claim Anderson is being singled-out for abuse.

Although personally, I think Anderson behaved like a “dink” on Wednesday, and some of his conduct since then has offended my own baseball sensibilities. So I can’t get too upset over him losing a single ballgame. He’ll be back Saturday.

… lost 1 ballgame as discipline for incident

THIS INCIDENT ACTUALLY became significant because of the circumstances. Anderson managed to hit a home run that briefly gave the White Sox a lead, and he reacted by doing what some are calling a bat flip (although White Sox broadcasters described the moment as him throwing his bat aside “like a javelin”).

Two innings later, Anderson came to bat again, and wound up having a Keller pitch bounce off his behind – which caused the Anderson outburst that led to both ballclubs charging the field and throwing punches.

For the record, White Sox manager Rick Renteria and Royals coach Dale Sveum (both former Chicago Cubs managers, for what it’s worth) also got suspensions, with Renteria also sitting out Friday night’s game.

Anderson has consistently claimed to be the victim in all of this, and claims there is nothing wrong with the way he reacted to hitting a home run. “Our fans pay to see a show,” is how he tries to justify it.

AS THOUGH CLOWNISH antics are what some people think baseball ought to become about. Certainly not something I need to see a lot of when I pay the ridiculous prices that get charged for tickets these days to a ball game.

Although what really bothers me about such logic is the notion that batters can engage in egotistical behavior, but pitchers who might try to do similar things are somehow acting inappropriately.

Maybe it’s because I’m old enough to have baseball memories of pitchers such as Bob Gibson or Juan Marichal – both ballplayers who used the threat of intimidation or retaliation in order to try to keep a batter off-balance enough. Just as batters are always looking for an advantage to throw a pitcher off his rhythm.

So if this issue wasn’t already absurd enough over the issue of when a brushback pitch is appropriate, now we have to determine just when a white guy can be dissed as a “n-----?” Groan!!!

  -30-

Can we misconstrue the Klan? Or is racism on the rise amongst our teens?

I’ll be curious to see how the courts wind up addressing a case out of a high school in suburban Barrington, where some people are insisting on discipline for several students they believe were supportive of the Ku Klux Klan.

The ultimate arbiter?

For this incident reminds me of something potentially equally stupid back when I was in high school more than three decades ago – one Halloween when a student managed to concoct an overly elaborate costume for himself that wound up offending certain students of an African-American persuasion.

HIS COSTUME, AS I remember it, was essentially a white sheet – albeit one that had been decorated with elaborate, ghoulish-looking drawings. As I recall, the costume was intended to be symbolic of the rock band Black Sabbath (remember Ozzy Osbourne back when he really bit the heads off of bats and before he became a reality television star?).

But the black students who saw this white sheet walking down the hall presumed that someone had the nerve to wear a crude-looking Klan robe to school, and I remember seeing them chasing this student down the hall.

Teachers ultimately intervened, and the incident didn’t become anything lasting – although I wonder if somewhere out there is a one-time school mate (one whom I haven’t seen or heard from since those days) of mine who’s convinced he saw the Klan, and wishes he could have kicked its derriere.

Or, if some heavy metal rock fan realizes how close he came to getting a beat down because of his absurd choice of a Halloween costume?

IT SEEMS THERE is an incident at Barrington High School that has elevated to higher intensity levels – one that the courts ultimately will have to resolve.

It seems the Internet, amongst its many stupid and trivial images and tidbits, includes a photograph of white girls at a party, wearing white t-shirts and holding their arms over their heads in a gesture that some are choosing to be the equivalent of Klan hoods.

One of the girls, whose party the photo was supposedly taken at, is identified by initials. Which happen to be a string of “K’s.” How unfortunate for her.

For it means the photograph has been spread around the Internet to people who are insisting that the high school district take some sort of disciplinary action against these budding white racist princesses who likely view their purpose in life as the propagation of the white race by creating multiple white supremacist babies. A statement as over-the-top, ridiculous and absurd as this case has the potential to be.

THE FACT THAT this activity was not part of any school activity and took place on property not connected to the school doesn’t seem to sway any of these activist-types. They want action!

And when Barrington Community School District 220 didn’t provide it, they went to court, where assorted documents have been filed in recent months, and a hearing on the issue is scheduled for Monday.

Now I don’t know any of the people involved in any side of this particular case. So I don’t know if any of these girls involved at what was a “white out” party (everybody, including the black people who were invited, wore white clothes) has racist tendencies in their personalities.

Or if the activist types are just looking for a fight that some of my black classmates were willing to carry out many years ago.

BUT YET I don’t want to automatically dismiss the chance of racist perceptions being seen in our society. For they are there. They are real. We do have people with irrational hang-ups amongst us who largely count on the fact that they can couch them in such vague ways so as to make them unnoticeable to the masses.

Who would just as soon believe that such things, if they ever really existed, are a part of our societal past.

Ultimately, it’s going to be the courts that will have to decide what constitutes improper and racist behavior, and whether this incident rises to that level.

Although there’s a part of me that suspects the only real crime here is the parents of a certain teenage girl who gave their daughter a name resulting in multiple K’s for initials.

  -30-

‘Politicking’ police officers? Or just self-expression in an era of confusion?

The Chicago Police Department claims its policy is that patrol officers aren’t supposed to make political statements or take such actions while in uniform – which theoretically prevents them from taking on viewpoints that could be misconstrued as the official stance of the city.

First came the "support"

Which is why three officers in two separate incidents are now facing discipline – reprimands and, for one officer, a reassignment to new duties – because of pictures of themselves showing them engaging in actions that express controversial stances.

OF COURSE, THESE officers manage to cancel each other’s views out, since all were getting involved in the ongoing debate over the appropriateness of professional athletes to use National Anthem rituals at the stadium to express their own views on social issues.

In one case, two officers appeared in a photograph on Instagram with clenched fists and down on a knee, along with an activist who was expressing the view that the athletes were taking a just cause – in support of those who are concerned about police abuse of people based on race.

The Chicago Sun-Times managed to dredge up that photograph, and wound up making it a full-color, front-page cover for the newspaper last week.

Then, came the opposition

Which got the police department upset to the point where they said the two officers would face official reprimands – the kind of thing that gets written up and put in their personnel files. Which means the incident could come up again and be used against the officers under certain circumstances.

ALTHOUGH ODDLY ENOUGH, Mayor Rahm Emanuel said he was not upset about the image of uniformed police officers, both of whom are black, showing support for the activists on this issue. The mayor went so far as to say he hopes the idea of police officers supporting the cause means something is shifting in Chicago’s mindset, something for the better.

EMANUEL: First officers a 'plus' for Chicago image?

But if that was the hope, another incident came forth when officials learned of another officer who had posted a picture of himself where his intent was to show opposition to these types of activists – and support for the efforts of President Donald J. Trump whose rancid rhetoric on this issue is what has triggered the whole debate to begin with.

That photograph shows the uniformed officer waving a U.S. flag while standing in front of his police-marked SUV, with a sign in front of him reading, “I stand for the anthem. I love the American flag. I support my president and the 2^nd Amendment.”

Which, by the way, is the one often interpreted by social conservatives as giving them the right to carry whatever types of firearms they desire.

ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORTED that the officer in question, who is white, worked the past four years assigned to a high school, and also found students at that school who said the officer in question was a positive presence around the campus who often had helped avert trouble from occurring.

Which could mean he’s a good guy. Or maybe just that he’s in an environment where the masses are inclined to believe the protesters are the trouble-makers.

In short, where one comes down on these issues is going to depend on where one stands on many other social issues, particularly that of how concerned they are about the potential for police abuse of other individuals based on race.

I’m sure the Chicago Police Department would prefer it if none of this were to come up in public discussion. They’d rather not have an issue to deal with at all.

THE DEPARTMENT’S INTERNAL Affairs division is reviewing all the incidents, although there is a sense that the latter officer will get disciplined because of the need to create a perception that they’re not overly-harsh on the former officers.

TRUMP: All started with his trash talk

Which I’m sure there are others who will toss out the “politically correct” rant and claim that the latter officer is unfairly being tarred and feathered. Because they want to agree with him – no matter how much his stance (which was more reactionary and meant to hurt others) offends a segment of our society.

Much of the problem lies within the idea of a policy that our police are neutral. The reality is that it is near-impossible to stay out of issues – often, doing nothing winds up being an expression of content with the status quo.

And in a case where the status quo is questionable, perhaps the only just thing is to merely admit where you stand on the issue. Which is what these three officers managed to do; regardless of how some of us would rather not hear anything about it at all.

  -30-

Restroom break ban for high schoolers?

It has been some three decades since I navigated the halls of a high school on a regular basis, yet I couldn’t help but chuckle when I read the reports in the Tinley Park-based Southtown Star newspaper that are making southwest suburban Evergreen Park High School a place worthy of national news attention.

For officials there are implementing a new policy that they say will increase the amount of time that students spend in the classroom. They’re putting restrictions on restroom breaks.

UNDER THE NEW policy, teachers are to keep track of how many times their students ask for permission to go to the restroom during class. Any student who takes more than three breaks per semester from any one class will be required to stay after school to make up the time they used to release potentially-deadly toxins from their bodies.

It’s not quite detention for using the potty. But it has the same feel.

Now I will be the first to admit that I fully believe some students are abusing the idea of restroom breaks – using them as an excuse to leave classes they find particularly dull (or teachers whom they find to be particularly obnoxious in personality).

I’m sure there are some students who would spend as much of their time as possible in the restroom – when they couldn’t be in the cafeteria (particularly since schools these days seem to be watching those lunchrooms much more closely than they did when I was a high school student).

YET THE IDEA makes me laugh a lot because I can remember back to when I was a high school student and I used to go out of my way to avoid using the restrooms at school.

I also remember that I was not alone among the student body. There were many of us who weren’t enthused about the school restrooms.

Now I’m not about to share horror stories of aging facilities that stank from decades of urine and other foul odors. I actually attended a high school that was less than a decade old when I was there. Everything about the building reeked of cleanliness and sterility.

It was a cleanliness freak’s dream.

BUT NOW WE can cue in our minds that old song by Brownsville Station. “Smokin’ in the Boys Room.” There were those students (probably the parents of the current restroom malcontents) who tried to spend their time in the “facilities” rather than try to learn something in class.

Which means that one of the unofficial things that a student tried to keep in mind was which of the restrooms was going to stink not of human waste, but of cigarette smoke. Which ones were likely to be filled with students who might not be too concerned about breaking rules, and might try harassment just for kicks.

Then again, they may want to harass, but might have been so stoned that they wouldn’t have been physically capable of doing too much.

With that in mind, it just became more practical to think of restroom functions as something to be avoided unless necessary.

HOW STRONG WAS this sentiment in my mind?

I recently had to go back to my old high school as a reporter-type person to cover a news event. During the event, I felt that urge that couldn’t be withheld.

So I went and found a “boy’s room” and did my business – when it suddenly occurred to me that I was in one of the restrooms that I would have tried to avoid as a student.

So some 28 years after graduation, I finally “did my business” in one of those rooms (which I must admit stunk from decades of tobacco fumes – even though the whole building now is officially a “no smoking” zone).

I AS A student would have fought to avoid the restroom, while it seems officials at Evergreen Park High School are determined to spend their academic careers in “the loo.”

Have teenagers really changed that much in three decades’ time? I doubt it. Somehow, it seems to me that school administrators have come up with an over-reaction to a problem – one that will do nothing to resolve the situation.

For I don’t see how “after school” sessions will do anything to truly make up for class time lost due to a restroom break. Is someone clocking students to see how long they were on “the potty?”

Does this mean teachers will have to stay after school to try to re-teach what was already taught? Or will students merely sit pointlessly in a quiet room after school?

WHAT A WASTE of time!

But it does show that at least one thing hasn’t changed about high school throughout the years – there are always bound to be some school administrators whose reaction to a situation will be a layer of bureaucratic nonsense.

It’s no wonder that, for me, high school was something to be endured before I could go off to college – which is where life truly became enjoyable.

  -30-

Cop's coffee behavior not a surprise

The first real job I ever had involved working at a Subway Sandwich store in suburban Calumet City that remained open until 2 a.m. every day. I was hired to work the late night shift and often dealt with the on-duty police officers who patrolled the surrounding area.

We were their favorite “restaurant” to eat at, in part because we were open and also because my boss made it clear to me early on that I should give the patrolmen (I don’t remember any female officers) a break financially.

IN SHORT, WE gave the cops a discount, usually charging them something like two or three bucks for a sandwich, chips and drink that would have cost a regular person $5-6 (and would now cost about $8 – I worked at a Subway nearly three decades ago).

My boss considered it a worthwhile financial loss because it usually amounted to a couple of sandwiches per night and because those officers would usually keep a closer watch on her store. It made my boss feel more secure about keeping her Subway store open at late night hours.

So on the surface, it doesn’t shock me in the least to learn that a Chicago police officer had come to expect free food and drink while working.

Although she beat the rap on more serious criminal charges alleging that she stole fruit juice (she was acquitted of a “theft” charge in Criminal Court in 2005), the Chicago Police Board on Thursday noted that a Belmont District patrolwoman was suspended this summer for 15 months because of her behavior when it came to free food.

BARBARA NEVERS ALSO will have to undergo counseling to help her cope with her behavior.

Nevers received the professional discipline (as opposed to criminal charge) for claims that she demanded free coffee from six different Starbucks stores. Police board officials contend that she would sometimes intimidate store workers by flashing her badge, displaying her pistol and screaming at employees that she was entitled.

Her attorneys claim she never demanded anything, but also was not the type of person to turn down a free cup of coffee – if it were offered to her.

What caught my attention about this story was that the Starbucks stores she focused her attention on were all in the Lincoln Park and Lakeview neighborhoods – in short, upscale neighborhoods with some of the lowest crime rates in Chicago.

WE PROBABLY HAVE an officer who thinks she (rather than the upper-income residents) is personally responsible for the neighborhood safety.

But she probably does get a break financially at other businesses on her police beat, which made her think she could also get a free cup of coffee and something to eat to help her cope with the pressures of her job.

The Chicago Tribune reported that one store manager said Nevers would become hostile whenever she was offered just a cup of coffee, and not a pastry to go along with it.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Starbucks managers were willing to tolerate a cup or two of coffee being given out, and that the real issue here is just that a police officer got greedy with her expectations.

THEN AGAIN, WE don’t know how nit-picky corporate management in Seattle was. Would they have gotten worked up if a boss could not account for a cup or two of coffee per work shift? Would the cost of the paper cups really have hurt the financial bottom lines of the six stores in question where Nevers used to hang out while on patrol duty?

If Starbucks’ was really that petty, then maybe they should look at the bigger picture.

I recall that the Subway store I worked in was never held up during the time I worked there. It’s not because it was an overly safe neighborhood, as I know for a fact that some other businesses in the neighborhood (including the 7-Eleven store across the street) were robbed.

But if giving a cop a break on an occasional sandwich helped get us some additional eyes on the business, then perhaps it was worth it.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Two members of the Chicago Police Board thought Barbara Nevers deserved (http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1096630,080708starbucks.article) a stricter punishment than a 15-month suspension.

“I get coffee for free” is the news quote of the day (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-starbucks-cop-web-aug08,0,6874669.story) on Thursday in Chicago.

Nevers at least has the possibility of continued employment with the Chicago Police Department, unlike a Daytona Beach, Fla., officer (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080718/D9206HC80.html) who was terminated after it was learned he was pressuring local coffee shops for up to six cups of coffee free per day.

Police in Fort Worth, Texas, are told they can take a free cup of coffee while working, but they should not (http://www.star-telegram.com/news/columnists/bud_kennedy//story/766626.html) demand it.