Bermuda's Roman Candles
Bermuda's Roman Candles
Mrs. M, the boys and I take a week in Bermuda each July, mostly to spend time with my brother, sister-in-law and their sons Quinn and Rhys, who summer here, but also because the British colony is an inexplicably overlooked resort. The blue-green ocean is pristine, the bird-watching sensational?on our first day we spotted a cardinal, one of the most gorgeous creatures that flies through the air?tree frogs provide a splendid racket at night and the local residents are uniformly polite and good-spirited. (I defer to the critics at New York Press on current pop trends, but if Interpol or Ben Kweller wants an extra instrument, a sampling of that darned frog-music would guarantee a number-one hit.)
Junior and MUGGER III, younger than their cousins by a few years, always look forward to meeting up with them, whether in Bermuda, London or New York City. Quinn's almost 15, and is an authority on the current rock scene?as well as a teenager!?and both he and Rhys can hit a baseball a country mile. Although as Londoners Q&R are huge soccer fans, they also have an odd affinity for the New York Yankees, and I love razzing Quinn about the Yanks-Bosox rivalry. Not that I have much of a case; still, when we arrived at their house on July 4, I couldn't resist breaking the news that Derek Jeter had been Ty-Cobbed that afternoon by a Cleveland Injun. Not to mention how Roger Clemens is showing his age and that if George Steinbrenner were as canny as John Cassidy makes him out in the July 8 New Yorker, he'd have nabbed Johnny Damon instead of Rondell White.
Needless to say, that's a Boston fan looking for any silver lining. Raul Mondesi wouldn't be my first choice for a mid-season pick-up, but he'll out-perform Shane Spencer and John Vander Wal in the outfield for the Yanks. Shannon Stewart is the prize some team will snare as the Blue Jays dump salaries, and he'd be a perfect #2 hitter behind Damon for the Sox. As for Steinbrenner obtaining Jeff Weaver from the Tigers, that looks like a smarter move than getting Mondesi, even if they gave up Ted Lilly, who's now added to a stellar Oakland A's pitching rotation. If there's a postseason, and the Yanks play the A's, how cool would it be if Lilly one-hit his former team?
Anyway, the four boys, my brother and I will be at Yankee Stadium on Aug. 6 and the competing cheers and jeers coming from our section?Junior and MUGGER III always wear full Red Sox regalia at the Stadium?ought to be a hoot. My brother, who grew up as a Milwaukee Braves fan, especially partial to Hank Aaron and Eddie Matthews, has converted to the Bombers, so at any game we attend it's a noisy three vs. three.
During the barbecue, while the kids romped in a makeshift boxing ring with giant rubber gloves and twirled glo-sticks (at one point Junior defended his little brother, who was being picked on by a kid who apparently lives on fried banana sandwiches), the four adults chatted at the table, catching up on the latest news.
My sister-in-law Teresa, a photographer who has reams of nighttime shots of NYC landmarks from when they spent eight years in the city, hasn't been downtown since 9/11 and is dolefully planning a trek below Chambers St. next month. Meanwhile, a uniformed band marched through the grounds, playing a song that sounded like "Yankee Doodle Dandy" to my ears, and although there was slight drizzle, a spectacular fireworks display started at 10 p.m. sharp. It was convenient to be away from the city on July 4, since I didn't want to hear any explosions?just a couple of weeks ago a blast of thunder literally bounced me out of a chair?and I was happy to hear the next morning that nothing untoward happened in New York that day. Which of course is no consolation to the crowds at LAX, where that Egyptian man armed from head to foot went on a rampage at the El Al ticket counter?does anyone believe the FBI that terrorism wasn't the motive??and marred a relatively peaceful day.
Not long ago, I admired London's far more varied number of newspapers, especially since both up- and downmarket dailies made no pretense of objectivity, unlike the fraudulent New York Times. But in the last six months, a combination of rampant anti-Semitism, declining world influence and extreme jealousy at the United States' shrewd new alliance with Russia has exploded into confetti of sheer propaganda. The Independent's Robert Fisk, a reporter injured in Afghanistan who immediately said afterward he didn't blame his assailants, is only the most prominent ostrich in the British media.
You expect U.S.-bashing from The Guardian, but even The Telegraph and Rupert Murdoch's Times are in a fog when it comes to American politics and policy. In Monday's Times, Roland Watson, a Washington correspondent for the daily, comes up with this doozy: Tom Ridge will replace Dick Cheney on Bush's 2004 ticket. Watson, perhaps a heatstroke victim, wrote: "Since giving up the governorship of Pennsylvania to take up his present role after September 11, Mr. Ridge has had an uncomfortable time in Washington. But he is a decorated Vietnam veteran and pro-choice centrist who is well regarded by politicians of all stripes, and some of Mr. Bush's closest advisers think that he would freshen the Republican ticket."
This is analysis worthy of The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne. First, being "well-regarded by politicians of all stripes" isn't a resume-booster for a Republican candidate. Second, Ridge's mostly pro-choice views would alienate Bush's conservative base; he was more plausible in 2000 when the Texas governor wanted to appear more flexible than previous GOP contenders. But the context is completely different now. Finally, Ridge has been a dud in the charisma department during his so-so stint as Homeland Security head. If Cheney does step down?which I don't believe will happen until after the election?a more logical replacement would be Tennessee's Sen. Bill Frist.
The July 4 edition of the Daily Mirror was a filthy document, one that ought to be placed into a time capsule as a demonstration of just how far America's "special friendship" with England has deteriorated. John Pilger writes: "For 101 days, Royal Marines have been engaged in a farcical operation as mercenaries of the United States whose lawlessness now qualifies it as the world's leading rogue state...
"In recent months, the American rogue state has torn up the Kyoto Treaty, which would decrease global warming [and possibly cause a worldwide depression] and the probability of environmental disaster. It has threatened to use nuclear weapons in 'pre-emptive strikes?' It has tried to sabotage the setting up of an international criminal court, understandably, because its generals and leading politicians might be summoned as defendants. It has further undermined the authority of the United Nations [that impartial body led by the high-living Kofi Chamberlain] by allowing Israel to block a UN committee's investigation of the Israeli assault on the Palestinian refugee camp at Jenin; and it has ordered the Palestinians to get rid of their elected leader in favour of an American stooge?
"There is a desperate edge to most of America's rogue actions. The Christian 'free market' fundamentalists running Washington are worried? I have just visited the United States, and it is clear many people there are worried. And many dare not say so. Their views are seldom reported in the American mainstream media, which is self-censored and controlled, perhaps as never before."
True, some Americans are "worried," but not by the bilge that Pilger lays out. You wonder if Buckingham Palace or 10 Downing Street were bombed to rubble tomorrow by Arab terrorists, what naive journalists in Britain would have to say. Would they advocate that Prime Minister Tony Blair refuse the aid President Bush would instinctively offer? And it's news to me that "Christian fundamentalists" are "running Washington": Last I heard, Sen. Patrick Leahy was still refusing to hold hearings on Bush-nominated judges; presidential candidates John Kerry and Al Gore were making speeches to anyone who'd listen criticizing the GOP White House; and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was calling the President a crook. Some self-censorship.
Although it's clear that journalists don't have a clue about what's really happening at the Pentagon, that doesn't stop them from delivering contradictory stories about the plans for an invasion of Iraq whenever they can get an unnamed source to spill some beans. So, several weeks ago, The Washington Post's Thomas Ricks lit up the Beltway with his piece that no such incursion was in the works. On July 5, the Times' Eric Schmitt detailed extensive plans for just such an offensive. He writes, citing a "person familiar with the document": "The existence of the document, which outlined significant aspects of a 'concept' for a war against Iraq as it stood about two months ago indicates an advanced state of planning in the military even though President Bush continues to state in public and to his allies that he has no fine-grain war plan for the invasion of Iraq."
The days when a president can influence a publisher or influential columnist to withhold information?as JFK did with the Times' Orvil Dryfoos and James Reston in the early 60s?are long gone, and the country's better off for it. There's no need for a covert fraternity between the government and media. But just as Ricks' story was all wet, I think Schmitt was snookered as well. Unless his source?journalists are always looking for the next Deep Throat?is simply a malcontent, it's likely Schmitt was set up, just as Pulitzer Prize-winner Thomas Friedman was earlier this year with the Saudi "peace plan" for the Mideast. It's no secret that Bush plans a regime change in Baghdad, and the Times story is helpful in that it prepares the nation for that upcoming war. And the Times' reliance on a two-month-old document, a lifetime ago in the volatile global conflict, just indicates sloppy reporting.
Nevertheless, this blockbuster investigative report naturally led to a Times editorial the next day, the contents of which might as well have been written by the aforementioned Pilger. The paper said: "Congressional leaders, including top Democrats [imagine that!], have rushed to voice approval for the popular notion of getting rid of Mr. Hussein. They have not, however, lived up to their responsibility for demanding a full public discourse about how to pursue this goal with maximum chances of success and minimum risk to American forces, interests and alliances. Discussion of these issues is possible without giving away legitimate military secrets. War with Iraq, if it comes, is still many months away. What is urgently needed now is informed and serious debate."
Why?
What possible benefit is there in holding countrywide bull-sessions (or "town meetings," as a former president reveled in) about sensitive wartime strategy? No doubt academia and the media would love to pull all-nighters yakking about the Bush administration's wartime maneuvers, with a John Lennon soundtrack in the background, all with purpose of undermining the President's efforts. What, I ask you, is more ridiculous than the sight of Katie Couric and Matt Lauer questioning the number of U.S. troops needed, highlighting the risk of thousands of body bags returning to the U.S., while Willard Scott changes his weather map to a closeup of Iraq?
What About Media Ethics?
Writing a day before President Bush's much-anticipated (at least on Wall Street and in Washington, DC) speech about corporate ethics, I've no idea what he'll come up with. I suspect it'll be a buffet of platitudes about honesty, adherence to the law and concern for the small investor and employees of large companies, along with support for Harvey Pitt and the vast majority of entrepreneurs and CEOs who don't jeopardize their future by cutting corners. Democrats will say Bush let the Jeffrey Skillings of that world off with a mere spanking; Republicans, with the exception of John McCain, may protest the President was too harsh and threatened the murky economy.
Most of the country won't even tune in. As Byron York pointed out in a National Review Online article last week, the most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showed that when respondents were asked what issues would most influence their vote in the midterm elections, seven percent said "corporations" and just one percent cited the "stock market." Not surprisingly, the economy and terrorism were the top two issues in the survey.
The boldest proposal Bush could make?and he won't?would be to advocate the immediate implementation of a flat tax, say 17 percent, across the board. Not only is this the most equitable form of taxation, but think of all the lawyers and accountants who'd be selling apples on the corner. That's something most citizens would cheer. But it would also make it much harder for devious business executives to manipulate their books and shareholder reports.
The current media frenzy over criminal business activities is just more proof that journalists?if they stray from a specific beat?are lazier than Homer Simpson. Does anyone really believe that during the dotcom boom years all sorts of crooked accounting and deception weren't taking place? But just as Ivan Boesky (a rough equivalent of Andrew Fastow) crossed the line from aggressive to criminal behavior, leading Rudy Giuliani to begin his mayoral campaign by "cleaning up Wall Street" in the 80s, now New York's attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, is on a White Knight rampage as he readies his expected 2006 gubernatorial run. And the media, ignorant of the complexities of big business, eats it up.
On July 8, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank and Mike Allen wrote: "A year ago, Bush's status as the first MBA president was an asset, and his administration full of corporate executives symbolized efficiency and good stewardship. The dozens of industry-favored laws and regulations Bush proposed were indications that the administration would expand the economy. But now that Wall Street and corporate America have been tarnished by a wave of accounting scandals, the Bush administration's corporate background and pro-business policies are a potential liability."
Milbank and Allen might take a jaunt over to the Post's library and read exactly what their own paper, and most of the mainstream press, wrote about Bush last year. Tax cuts for the wealthy, the first former oil executive president/vice-president team, rape the environment for corporate profit, more arsenic in the water and on and on. Besides, hardly any reporters took Bush's Harvard MBA seriously because they all thought he was a moron.
The Post's Robert Samuelson, an economics columnist, gets it right in a July 3 article. He said: "The WorldCom scandal is the latest building block in a new economic mythology. By the old mythology, the Internet and the 'new economy' promised a rising stock market and anxiety-free prosperity. The new mythology holds that we've been mugged by corporate greed, which depresses stock prices and devastates 'trust.' In some ways, this is reassuring. It allows us to believe that purging dishonest executives and enacting the proper reforms will make things right. Unfortunately, it's also false...
"[I]t's a mistake to think that the stock market is slipping mainly because investors have 'lost confidence' in corporate accounting. Stocks have dropped because, compared with historic benchmarks (profits, dividends, sales, assets), they rose too high in the 1990s. A steep reversal was inevitable...
"Similarly, it's wrong to think that WorldCom is fundamentally a victim of its own dishonesty. Even before the accounting scandal, the company was on the edge of bankruptcy. In June 1999, WorldCom's stock reached a high of $64.50 a share. By last Tuesday, just before the scandal broke, it was trading at 83 cents... No one can defend WorldCom's alleged accounting abuses. But they are more a consequence of its troubles than their cause. If WorldCom's basic business were sounder, the pressures to camouflage expenses?and overstate profits?would have been less. Indeed, the long-distance companies are simply the latest casualties in a broader telecom collapse. But an ethical breakdown doesn't explain what happened. The basic causes were wild overoptimism about Internet technology and careless government regulation."
Selig's as Bad as Bonds
The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer took a break from his normal beat?invaluable op-ed commentary on the Middle East and war on terrorism?on July 5 and declared that if Major League Baseball players strike this season, wiping out the World Series, the game will die. Permanently.
I'm as anti-union as the next guy, but Krauthammer's analysis?which is somewhat histrionic?focuses exclusively on the extravagantly compensated players, and doesn't contain one word of criticism for the equally guilty commissioner of baseball, Bud Selig, and the 30 franchise owners. This is a situation where only the fans get screwed.
Krauthammer writes: "As the All-Star game approaches, the players' union is about to set a date for a strike. Barry Bonds is wrong. Baseball will not survive it. How do I know? Because if the players do strike, they may one day come back. But I will not. And if baseball loses me, there will be no one else left."
The columnist then describes his lifelong devotion to the game, a litany that's familiar to so many Americans: remembering the exact roster of a team from 42 years ago; listening to a scratchy transistor radio to hear a game broadcast 300 miles away; and the ritual each morning of reading the box scores.
Fair enough. When the players struck in '94, I gave up season tickets to Yankee Stadium and didn't go to a game for another three years, despite a lifetime of following the Red Sox as a distraction from everyday life. One of my older brothers wouldn't set foot in the Stadium until 1999, and he'd been a devoted Bombers fan since 1949. His disgust was directed at one man: George Steinbrenner.
Krauthammer concludes: "The players don't seem to understand that they have peculiar skills of limited marketability. Throwing a baseball 95 miles an hour has few industrial applications. If the players betray us again, it will be gratifying to see pitchers who might have made $5 million a year pumping gas at the local Exxon. [This is a bit unfair, since Krauthammer is referring to top minor-league prospects, who probably aren't in favor of a strike, and not the current high-salaried stars who've presumably socked away some of their earnings.]
"Bonds was asked by The Post whether he felt fans could empathize with players who are making an average of $2.4 million. 'It's not my fault you don't play baseball,' Bonds said empathetically. It won't be ours if you don't either, Bud."
Let's shift to another Bud. Selig. He's colluded with the owners to spread the fairytale that 25 teams lose money each year, even though most are clubs owned by wealthy men who knew the risks of buying into such a risky venture. Does anyone really believe that Rupert Murdoch cares if his Los Angeles Dodgers lose (on paper) $25 million a year? He had his own reasons for entering the market.
And spare me the argument about the haves and have-nots that've increased since free agency. I hate the Yankees, but their management, with brief but joyous respites, has always plucked the best players from other cities; the Kansas City Athletics were a virtual farm team for the Yanks in the 50s. The Twins, obscenely almost "contracted" last winter, are in first place in American League Central Division despite a skinflint owner; likewise, the attendance-starved Expos, with a couple more trades, have a chance at making the playoffs.
If an owner's unhappy with his team's finances, he can sell, and if the players (who are pretty flagrant in their demands considering the burgeoning steroid scandal) think they're being exploited, why not become a teacher instead?
July 8
Send comments to [MUG1988@aol.com](mailto:mug1988@aol.com) or fax to 244-9864