A Semi-Oasis; Is Biden the New McCain?; Where's Conrad Black When You Need Him?
Last Friday afternoon, up to my ears with the NBC/New York Times anthrax bulletins, Junior and I hiked up to Canal St. carrying sleeping bags and backpacks, steeling ourselves for the rush-hour hell of hailing a vacant cab. The destination was his Upper East Side school, where about 25 third-graders were gathering at 6 p.m. for an all-night slumber party, an event that was in the works since last April. A wholesome diversion, I reasoned, even though the notion of sacking out on the gymnasium floor with a battalion of hyper eight-year-olds, high as kites on a combination of sugar, pizza, the last throes of pure innocence, plus preteen bravado, was somewhat daunting.
A father who lapped me by 10 years?a Times liberal who was active in the civil rights movement at the University of Wisconsin's Madison campus?knew that my family lived downtown and his first question was: "Are you talking to anyone?" As in the psychiatrist category, a profession that's probably one of the few that's surged in recent weeks. No, I replied, but Mrs. M and I were doing the best we could. Our boys were lucky they didn't witness the despicable mayhem of that day?they'd already been shuffled up to school?but MUGGER III has occasional bombing-/funeral-related nightmares and Junior has bottled up his despair. One night last week, after he'd fallen asleep to an MTV video, we noticed a sketch our budding cartoonist had completed that day. It was a stark drawing of the Twin Towers, with the letters "R.I.P" on top, and American flags at the bottom of each structure.
Another fellow, whose travel business had plummeted, was almost rabid, rattling on in vain about the United States' dependence on overseas oil, the gross inefficiency of the FBI and CIA since the Berlin Wall fell in '89 and the depressing prospect of an inept mayor replacing Rudy Giuliani next year. Digging deeper, he predicted the certainty of World War III, the Armageddon that's been forecast by philosophers, religious zealots, astrologers and busybodies for the past thousand years.
Who can argue with such dire armchair analysis? I take a more moderate view, believing the civilized world will snuff out the core of organized terrorism in the next three years, meaning that America will suffer random acts of barbarism every year, but not on the scale that lunatics like bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Arafat envision. But don't trust my optimism?I was convinced that justice would prevail when Bill Clinton was impeached (and had the economy been in freefall back in '98, he'd have been out on his ear), and also bet on the Red Sox every spring to finally win another World Series.
I hadn't opened a sleeping bag in more than 30 years, since my days as a Boy Scout back in Huntington, so these rustic accommodations were a drastic deviation from my routine. But as I settled next to Junior on the floor, the two of us wishing all the chattering would stop, it was a tender moment I won't forget. A few hours earlier we'd spoken to Mrs. M, and MUGGER III, very sleepy, said: "Dad, is the sleepover the greatest thing ever? I wish you could've snuck me into the school."
Not all the "campfire" chatter was gloomy: the grownups spoke with pride about their sons' scholastic, athletic or artistic achievements; we reminisced about high school and college; and there were periodic reports on the progress of the Diamondbacks-Cards playoff game. Like most Americans, we all had a pre-Sept. 11 story to tell.
We'd been in Nantucket the weekend before the attacks, gathered with the extended Smith clan to celebrate the marriage of my niece Zoe to Andy Jaye, an upstanding young man who also happens to be a diehard Sox fan. We stayed at one of the White Elephant hotel's cottages off the main drag, right next to the lodgings of my brother Gary's family, who'd traveled from London for the four-day series of parties, sightseeing and lobster-catch boat rides. Junior and MUGGER III were thrilled to see their cousins Quinn and Rhys; the four of them heaved water balloons every which way, including one down my shirt; competed for the treasure inside a piñata at a Friday night clambake; and all groused at being at the kids' table during the wedding reception.
Zoe's a one-of-a-kind gal and my spirits soared as she and Andy recited their wedding vows. Her sister, Jenny, was married last May in California, so it was an appropriate bookend to the summer; as I said in a toast one night, Mrs. M and I can only hope that our two boys will be as close and devoted to each other as Jenny and Zoe are. Once again, it was inspiring to see my brother Jeff and sister-in-law Mary beam throughout the weekend; they're terrific parents who've led a wonderful life together. I remember their own June wedding in 1967 just like yesterday, and I suspect that as I grow older the exact details of that day will become even more clear. Not that I'm ready yet for a second childhood.
Anyway, we flew back in a 16-seater to Newark Intl. on Sunday, Sept. 9, a 40-minute trip that was very pleasant because the plane was at a low altitude and we had a clear view of the ground below. Close to home, the skyline of New York City was splendid as always, and I told the boys to check out the aerial sight of Lady Liberty and the World Trade Center. We could almost pinpoint the location of our apartment building in Tribeca. Two days later, Mrs. M and I watched in disbelief from our roof as the towers collapsed, soot and bits of paper landing on the terrace amidst the olive and fig trees, and we were soon evacuated from the loft, joining the once-in-a-lifetime pandemonium outside.
Mr. Big Stuff
One of my favorite New Republic articles in recent weeks was Michael Crowley's devastating Oct. 22 portrait of Joe Biden (as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the presidential aspirant is racking up more appearances on political talk shows than any other Democrat), in which the author describes the Delaware Senator as a publicity hog who often speaks without thinking. (I guess he learned from John McCain's successful stint as de facto commander-in-chief during the Kosovo intervention in the spring of 1999.)
Liberal journalists have begun to attack Republicans, as well as the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, for "exploiting" the nation's crisis to steamroll partisan legislation through Congress. That means a renewed fight for drilling in the ANWR and the blueprint for an immediate economic stimulus that gives incentives to corporations and entrepreneurs to invest in their companies and create jobs, rather than raiding the "lockbox" to air-drop dollar bills around the country. (Preferably in urban areas and union towns.)
But as Crowley points out, no politician, even in wartime, forgets his or her hobbyhorses. So he recounts an October morning at the Capitol when Biden is met by a delegation of airline pilots and flight attendants who were hoping to gain his support for emergency relief for laid-off airlines personnel.
Crowley: "Biden nods as the men and women cluster around him with fawning smiles. Then he speaks. 'I hope you will support my work on Amtrak as much as I have supported you.' (Biden rides Amtrak to work every day and is obsessed with the railroad.) 'If not, I will screw you badly... You've not been good to me. You're also damn selfish. You better listen to me...'"
Crowley describes Biden's sudden omnipresence on CNN, Hardball, Larry King, Peter Jennings, etc., and recognizes the ambitious Senator's good political fortune. North Carolina's Sen. John Edwards in 2004? John Who? Crowley continues: "[His high profile is] good news for a man who is thinking seriously about running for president in 2004. But is it good for the Democratic Party? Biden is tough and he's an internationalist. Unfortunately he's also legendary for speaking impulsively and leaving others to clean up the mess. 'He lacks the filter,' says one Democratic strategist. Or as a senior foreign policy aide put it: '[Biden] is an unguided missile.' Not exactly the persona you want out front when the country is at war."
Black to the Rescue
(A shorter version of this item appeared last Friday on the "Daily Billboard" at nypress.com.)
Now, more than ever, is the time for Conrad Black to come to the aid of New York City. Black, who owns London's best daily, The Telegraph, and recently divested himself of a 50 percent share of Canada's excellent National Post, is eager to have a larger U.S. newspaper presence than simply Chicago's Sun-Times. As New York faces its most historic crisis?which will be escalated by the probable election of Mark Green (David Dinkins with a work ethic) as mayor next month?Black could provide an enormous service by starting a daily that competes with the anti-American New York Times.
Last Friday's Times was a typical snapshot of why the alleged "newspaper of record" must be challenged. The top two lines of its three-deck banner headline read, "Bush Offers Taliban '2nd Chance' to Yield; Says He'd Welcome U.N. in Nation-Building," a gross misrepresentation of George W. Bush's prime-time press conference on Oct. 11.
Bush said, in an aside during his 45-minute appearance at the White House: "If you cough [Osama bin Laden] up and his people today, [then] we'll reconsider what we are doing to your country. Just bring him in. And bring his leaders and lieutenants and other thugs and criminals with him." Obviously, Bush didn't expect the Taliban to cooperate at this point; just using the words "thugs and criminals" is proof of that. Yet that's the Times' lead headline, as if it were a real possibility.
Reporter David Sanger, reflecting the editorial stance of the Times, wrote: "President Bush has been dragged by events and his allies to a place he never wanted to be: at the center of an exercise in nation-building, constructing a new Afghanistan from whatever is left once his bombing campaign and commando raids are over." Until reading Sanger, I hadn't realized that Bush was conducting the war on his own, with "his bombing campaign and commando raids." The Times, in its condescending editorial "Mr. Bush's New Gravitas," rejoices in Bush's apparent shift from last year's campaign pledge that he wouldn't follow Bill Clinton's "nation-building."
Despite the President's calibrated remarks that the United States won't leave Afghanistan immediately after its mission is completed, and will attempt to forge stability there along with other countries (as well as the absurdly Nobel Peace Prize-fortified United Nations), his administration has not advocated "nation-building." Obviously, the world has changed from last fall: The U.S. suffered the worst attack on its own soil in history. So Bush has necessarily adjusted his foreign policy, but there's no indication that he's intent on building satellite states.
The paper's editorialist wrote: "Only in his insistence on discarding the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty and building a missile shield did he stick to the pre-Sept. 11 presidential script. That will not help him win long-term Russian support for the counterattack against terrorism." Perhaps the Times has a direct line to Russia's Vladimir Putin, and knows for certain that he'll continue to oppose the missile shield, but I suspect Putin, like Bush, is busily reassessing global politics.
In fact, Bush was far more stern about scrapping the ABM than the Times lets on. He said, in perhaps his most vehement language of the night: "In terms of missile defense, I can't wait to visit with my friend Vladimir Putin in Shanghai to reiterate, once again, that the Cold War is over, it's done with, and that there are new threats we face. And no better example of that new threat than the attack on America on September 11. And I'm going to ask my friend to envision a world in which a terrorist thug and/or a host nation might have the ability to develop?to deliver a weapon of mass destruction via a rocket. And wouldn't it be in our nations' advantage to shoot it down? At the very least, it should be in our nations' advantage to determine whether we can shoot it down. And we're restricted from doing that because of an ABM Treaty that was signed during a totally different era... I have told Mr. Putin that the ABM Treaty is outdated, antiquated and useless. And I hope that he will join us in a new strategic relationship."
Missile defense is a key component of America's military future. That should've been in the Times' banner headline.
The Times' voodoo is still lethal enough to fool otherwise intelligent readers, which is why it's crucial to keep chipping away at its facade of objectivity. In the Oct. 1 issue of The Weekly Standard, Noemie Emery did just that, with a fine article headlined "The Grudge Report." You'd have thought Emerie was preaching to the converted in the pages of the Standard, but a mythologized institution like the Times isn't as easy to topple as the Taliban.
Three weeks later a letter from London resident Michael Conti appeared in the magazine, protesting the piece. He wrote, in part: "The newspaper, despite the wrongly worded headlines, prints words from what a majority of its readers agree are world-class reporters and op-ed writers, including William Safire and, recently, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman offer insightful, well-researched opinions that have critiqued both Democrats and Republicans. There are enough one-sided 'news' stories and commentators in print and on the airwaves. Allow us to hear and read more fair journalism instead of more biased yelling and knee-jerk screaming."
Obviously, poor Conti needs rapid medical attention.
Ignore the disingenuous remark about William Safire (the Times' lone conservative columnist) and Donald Rumsfeld appearing on the paper's op-ed pages: for every one-shot from a Cabinet member like Rumsfeld, there are 10 more articles from the likes of Alan Dershowitz, Todd Gitlin and former Clinton officials. What's truly disheartening is that Conti actually believes Krugman is nonpartisan when it comes to criticizing both Republicans and Democrats. In truth, Krugman has written the same column over and over and over, every single one them blasting the very notion of tax cuts.
And since when has Dowd written a well-researched op-ed piece? Yes, I suppose her assistant searches the Internet to make sure Cary Grant did actually appear in the movie Miss "Liberties" is highlighting in a column, but "research" isn't Dowd's strong suit.
On Oct. 14, in "Season of the Witch," Dowd admits she doesn't know what side is up. That's progress. She says?although not citing sources: "Antidepressant sales are soaring, and people are drinking and smoking more. Beyond that, we will need to toughen up and learn to be alert but not inert, to go about our business and pleasure while we are in a wigged-out state of apocalyptic readiness... So now we have to live too much in the future, on watch, even though we're not sure what to watch for."
Just a few more examples. When will the Times acknowledge the continuing clout of weeklies like The National Enquirer and Star?which their reporters famously crib from?instead of ridiculing them as "supermarket tabloids"? Here's a news flash for Times media reporter Felicity Barringer, one of the worst in the business: the Enquirer and Star, like the Times, are available not only at supermarkets, but at every major newsstand and bookstore in the country.
An Oct. 13 editorial blasted Republicans for doing their job. Problem is, it's not the job the Times wants done. Singling out Reps. Tom DeLay and Dick Armey, the writer said: "As a result [of Bush proposing a sensible economic stimulus package], tax-cut ideologues worked all day yesterday, in the shadow of anthrax scares at home and warfare in Afghanistan, to get as much of their agenda as possible approved by the Ways and Means Committee and sent to the House for a vote next week. Republicans may be counting on Mr. Bush's overwhelming popularity to compel wavering lawmakers to go along with what they know is an unsound economic approach. It is up to the Democrats and moderate Republicans to insist that any tax cut finally enacted meet the test of actually helping the economy and providing the most aid to those most vulnerable to hard times."
I suppose editorial page editor Gail Collins would prefer DeLay and Armey were opening Dan Rather's and Howell Raines' mail, or fighting alongside the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, but I prefer them to keep watch over the truly dangerous "ideologues" in Washington. Legislators like Patrick Leahy, Teddy Kennedy, Christopher Dodd and Barbara Boxer. Then there's Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the ninny from Georgia who apologized to Saudi Arabia's Prince Alwaleed bin Talal after Rudy Giuliani correctly refused his check of $10 million because of the donor's statement that the United States was too pro-Israel in its foreign policy.
Send comments to MUG1988@aol.com or fax to 244-9864.