It would be naive to deny that racism still exists in this country, but if there's one place where its existence is routinely overblown, it would have to be the world of sports - and more particularly the world of sports journalism. Hardly a month can go by without someone pulling the race card on a major story, it seems. The latest one is just as stupid as all the rest: Scoop Jackson, on ESPN.com, claiming that the "conspiracy" to drive Dusty Baker out of Chicago is being conducted by the white media establishment. I hope Scoop realizes how crazy he sounds.

I don't think anyone is "conspiring" to drive Dusty out of town, and I know it doesn't have anything to do with his being black. There is perhaps some agitation from some corners of the fanbase and the media, with people suggesting that the Cubs aren't going to win with Dusty at the helm. In only his third year, this is perhaps a bit premature. Certainly it's not Dusty's fault that there have been so many injuries (although I'll deal with that fully in a minute), and the fact that this year's team is still in contention to even a minor degree when it's been painfully inconsistent all season long is a small miracle. The inconsistency, again, is not Dusty's fault (at least, it's not all Dusty's fault).

That said, there is certainly a case against Dusty, and again, it has nothing to do with him having the gall to be a black manager in Major League Baseball. It is as follows:

1. Dusty cannot handle pitchers. I said that it wasn't Dusty's fault there have been so many injuries, but is that strictly true? Baker is notorious for his mismanaging of starters, and the frequently soaring pitch counts of guys like Zambrano and Prior is indeed cause for concern.

2. Dusty is resistant to playing rookies. The Cubs have a ton of young guys who could perhaps be amazingly productive, but Baker does not seem to like playing rookies any more than he can help. Ronny Cedeno and Matt Murton - two Cubs of the future who both happen to play positions that are hardly being filled by major studs this year - have a combined 86 at-bats in 45 games (or not even two at-bats per). Meanwhile, Corey Patterson was allowed to stink up the joint in center for half the season before finally being sent down. Why doesn't Dusty want to play rookies? The clear answer is that he feels pressure to win now and doesn't think rookies can do that. But you know what? Some rookies can, in fact, help you to win now. Todd Hollandsworth is hitting .248 - let's put Murton in left. Neifi's OBP is .284 - what can Cedeno do at short? No one's asking you to play someone whose position is spoken for by a Lee or Ramirez. This team has obvious holes; plugging them with rookies really isn't going to make things any worse, and it might even help.

3. Historically, when Dusty's teams have gotten to big spots, their uniforms have shrunk. Dusty hasn't had a team finish a season below .500 since 1996. That's pretty good. On the other hand, he's won three division titles and a pennant in that time and has nothing to show for it. The '97 Giants won the West and went out to the Marlins; the 2000 Giants won the West and went out to the Mets; the '02 Giants were up 3-2 in the World Series and led 5-0 at the seventh inning stretch of Game Six, only to give up six runs in two innings, a collapse nearly as bad as the '86 Red Sox, and lose Game Seven as well; the '03 Cubs, I don't even need to repeat it and would rather not. So yeah, it's nice that the Cubs may win more games than they lose for the third straight season, the first time that's happened since six straight between 1967 and 1972 under Leo Durocher (in which time, of course, they won nothing). But ultimately, what does that mean? The same thing it meant in 1972: more years without a World Series.

Can Dusty still be the guy to take the Cubs to the promised land? It's possible. There are some things that need to be put together better with this team, but it's not that I think Dusty is completely incapable of ever winning a World Series with anyone. It's just worth noting that there are some strikes against him. I don't think that any of them are worth driving him out of town over, at least not yet. But not a single one of them has anything to do with him being black, and frankly, as a white person, I take offense at the suggestion. Does Jackson really think I don't want Dusty to succeed, or worse, that I would delight in him not doing so? I would love him to succeed, just like I would have loved it if Riggleman had succeeded, and Baylor, and Lefebvre, and Zimmer, and all the other mediocre-to-bad managers this team has had during my lifetime. I'm a freaking Cubs fan, Scoop - you honestly think I care what color the manager's skin is who finally takes this team all the way? But by the same token, I'm not going to let Baker hang around for ten winless years because it would be racist to think he might have worn out his welcome. No Cubs manager has lasted more than five years since Durocher left; it would be great if Dusty could keep winning and break that streak. We're just looking at the facts and wondering if he can. Now put the race card away and save it for a place where it might really be called for, huh?