Dissent & Baseball

Dissent & Baseball

Last Saturday's Downtown Little League opening ceremony at Rockefeller Park, hard by the Hudson, was a melancholy event for local parents who spend 10 weeks each spring watching their children at play. It was rejuvenating to see maybe 100 kids, dressed in new uniforms, comparing gloves and bats and meeting their managers and teammates. As is par for such occasions, there were too many phoned-in speeches by elected officials (or their representatives) and community leaders, and the youngsters grew restless, eager for the annual tossing-out of baseballs that concludes the pep rally.

I have enormous admiration for the men and women, such as League president Vito Suppa, J.C. Chmiel and Wally Turbeville, who cobbled together a season during the winter, facing not only the attrition of participants?so many people have moved from the city, cutting the number of players to approximately 300 from last year's 600?but also the tackled complicated task of finding alternate fields for the teams, since Stuyvesant High's outdoor facilities were destroyed on Sept. 11.

The appearance of Madelyn Wils, chair of Community Board 1, who's vehemently anticommerce, was especially rankling. Wils, who acts as a Tribeca cop (cynics would say "vigilante"), stifling, for example, local restaurants from utilizing outdoor seating, is intent on keeping the neighborhood small and cozy, displaying a paranoia that it might turn into Soho. Frankly, given the economic devastation below Canal St., some looser rules are called for: I'm completely in favor of allowing street vendors to set up shop at games each week. Theirs is a cash-dependent livelihood that was crushed last fall, and, lacking insurance and often the ability to wade through bureaucratic red tape, they're struggling to make a buck.

The mood was further tempered by reuniting with friends we hadn't seen since the summer; it was delightful catching up with them, but anyone who believes the scars from Sept. 11 have begun to heal are badly mistaken. We traded evacuation stories, talked about how our kids coped with the destruction, and while it was fun to see the children romping about, how could one escape thinking of a potential onslaught of suicide-bombers wreaking further havoc on the city?

In Thursday's New York Post, Bob McManus was on-target in a column headlined "New York's Not Ready," in which he lamented the false sense of security many government bigwigs have that the WTC massacre was a one-off fluke. He writes: "Spring has returned to New York?gloriously?and the tourists, too. It's hard to believe there's a war on. But there is, of course. Daily dispatches from the Mideast speak to the ferocity?the depravity of radical Islam's jihad against wholly innocent citizens. Right now the West Bank is the central front, so to speak, but how long can that last?... New York's leaders, frankly, need to quit talking of how bravely New York weathered 9/11?and start preparing for the fire next time. No doubt al Qaeda is, if not Saddam."

A few hours later, MUGGER III played his first t-ball game at West Thames Park, near Rector St., and it was nothing short of surreal. You make do in difficult circumstances, of course, and the Athletics and Angels were giddy to get their swings in after the winter. The field was a small patch of grass, about the size of a suburban backyard, with the creepy difference of seeing cranes, flimsy orange fences and concrete blocks everywhere you looked, the buzz of jackhammers and a war-zone skyline in the background. Junior (whose 23rd St. field wasn't ready for opening day) and I played catch on the sidelines and when one of us made an errant throw, we'd have to sift through the mounds of dirt to retrieve the ball. Naturally, both teams claimed victory in their three-inning match, and when a game-closing snack of Oreos and juice appeared it seemed like Christmas.

(Later that afternoon, when Shea Hillenbrand shocked Yankees closer Mariano Rivera with a two-out, two-run homer to give the Red Sox a 7-6 win at Fenway Park, I felt pretty festive as well. The 26-year-old Bosox third-baseman is a burgeoning star for the team, and I didn't even mind his California-speak afterward: "I felt like an aura [came] over me," he said, explaining his most dramatic at-bat for Boston.)

Mrs. M and I chatted during the game with friends, and, uncharacteristically, I did my best to keep politics out of the conversation. It's an eerie period of world history, with the Middle East out of control, newspapers filled with pictures of the latest carnage, and it's just not advisable on such an occasion to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. It reminded me of when I visited Belfast in the mid-80s and upon entering a pub, with patrons not knowing whether I was Catholic or Protestant, purposely spoke in an exaggerated American accent to avoid a cloud of suspicion. Likewise, the feelings about Sharon vs. Arafat (not to mention the illogic of Colin Powell even being in the region) are so passionate that it's just not worth getting into an argument while the kids are trying to figure out where second base is.

George Will, in the April 22 Newsweek, nailed Powell (and President Bush), writing: "Last week The Washington Post reported 'the belief held by many Israelis that the recent suicide bombings are an example of anti-Jewish violence.' Those who hold this belief reject alternative explanations of the violence, such as: The terrorists are targeting Brazilians but are confused about which hemisphere they are in...

"Last week ended with the president diminished by issuing ineffectual demands to all parties in the Middle East. His secretary of State was on a spectacularly ill-advised trip to the Middle East, where, his agenda unclear and his talks punctuated by the concussions of terrorist bombs, he was held hostage by events. The president needs a new policy, and perhaps a new secretary of State."

The bitter debate over the Middle East has spilled into this newspaper as well. Last week, two of my colleagues, Taki and Mike Signorile, journalists I respect, wrote columns that were kooky enough to drive a man to a diet of tofu and herbal tea. Taki's antipathy toward Israel is so entrenched that he even resorted to quoting a spurious MSNBC website article by Eric Alterman?a cheap-shot artist whose only rival is Michael Moore?that absurdly claimed a dominating pro-Israel bias in the American media.

Let alone the conjecture that Alterman must not be reading The New York Times, or that Taki's politics have virtually nothing in common with the self-aggrandizing Nation writer, when it comes to Israel my Greek-born friend will bed down with any nitwit he can find. Even more amazing is that Taki repeats Alterman's list of the supposed Israeli sycophants, even men and women he agrees with on nearly every other issue, such as Bill Buckley, Peggy Noonan, Michael Kelly, George Will, Rich Lowry, John Leo, Fred Barnes and Mona Charen.

Taki, impersonating the fraudulent Kofi Annan, writes: "In Europe, where coverage of the Middle East is far more balanced [say what?], it is the plight of the Palestinian dispossessed that is raised time and again... Although Israel cannot look like it's giving in to terrorism, it also cannot kill every Palestinian. The unqualified support it gets from the punditocracy for Sharon's provocative gambles will only exasperate matters. Just as the harassment of certain individuals like myself from some Jewish groups will only make me more determined to write the truth the way I see it."

A Me, Myself and I Taki-approach.

As for the supposed pro-Israel slant of the Times (which, with the exception of William Safire, has been a virtual mouthpiece for Arafat), what does Taki make of a sickening April 12 editorial, "Bulldozing Hope in the Mideast," in the paper he calls The Big Bagel Times? The editorialist wrote these Arab talking points: "Israel's long-term interest lies in nurturing Palestinian development, not demolishing it. While Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's determination to strike back at terrorists is understandable, Israel's destruction of Palestinian homes, businesses and public utilities is not... While the ostensible goal of Israel's offensive is capturing terrorists and uprooting their organizations, it has resulted in a prolonged siege affecting hundreds of thousands of civilians trying to go about their everyday lives. Mr. Sharon needs to make it clear to his commanders that Palestinian civilians are not Israel's enemies and that their lives, livelihoods and property deserve respect."

Is this plain naivete or a continuation of the Times' policy to downplay its Jewish ownership, an historical embarrassment (reaching its nadir during World War II) for the institution moving-lips readers still call "The paper of record." Arthur Sulzberger Jr. has degraded his family's newspaper in so many weak-kneed boomer ways in the past decade?with a mentality that's resulted in the hiring of Gail Collins, Paul ("The vast-right-wing-conspiracy is hounding me!) Krugman, the promotion of Democratic National Committee front-men Frank Rich and Nicholas Kristof to the op-ed page, any number of reporters and pundits who hew to the politically correct mantra that feminists, gays and "people of color" rule!?that one might think shedding the apparent shame of his ancestry would be at least one constructive by-product of his relative youth.

How would the Times editorial board explain to the relatives of those murdered by Palestinian "civilians" in pizza parlors, discos, buses and markets that Arafat's mindless devotees are just "trying to go about their everyday lives"?

Signorile, whose ultra-liberal weekly column in New York Press contradicts the simpleton's notion that this paper is a monolithic billboard of conservatism, is even more hysterical, taking a more twisted stance than Taki's. He writes, to the delight of Nation/Progressive/Times devotees no doubt: "Only when [Bush] can channel politics through his faith does he even remotely seem to have a passion for politics. Policy wonk Bill Clinton?love him or hate him?was passionate about politics, and even more so about the issues and the details. Not so for Bush, who shows more passion for the things that help him maintain self-control in his own life?exercising daily, sleeping right?than he does for, say, getting campaign finance reform (something he claimed to be adamantly against) squashed."

It would require exhaustive research to find a statement as ridiculous as this one printed in New York Press. Yes, Clinton was passionate about politics, mainly about getting elected and having the trappings of power. But spare me Clinton's love of "issues and the details": Bush's predecessor was an extreme egotist who liked to hear his own voice, coming up with arcane facts, say, about a 1924 voting pattern in New Jersey's Fifth Congressional District, just to show up his cowed aides or campaign contributors who were forced to stay up all night with him. Never mind that in the course of his bull sessions he'd invariably contradict himself five or six times. And if Bush has no "passion" for politics, a notion most Democrats would dispute, why have he and strategist Karl Rove injected themselves so thoroughly into the midterm races and the President's own 2004 reelection effort? As for the President reluctantly signing campaign finance "reform," that was a purely political tactic, one that earned him enmity within his conservative base: he wanted to mollify scatterbrain-rival John McCain as well as deprive Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt of a campaign issue this fall.

Signorile ends with a rabbit punch that's vintage Paul Begala: "Bush is learning the hard way?and a lot of people are paying the price for it?that the world is more complicated than what they teach in evangelical Bible class. The world is actually more akin to how they explained it while Bush was at Yale, when he wasn't paying attention, out boozing it up and getting bad grades. [As opposed to Al Gore, who was out toking up and getting bad grades.] Unlike the Afghanistan actions, most future international crises will be as complicated as the Israeli-Palestinian one. And they will require a lot more complexity than 'born-again' foreign policy."

As I've written before, I fall into the vehemently pro-Israel camp, believing that the administration blundered badly by not adhering to the Bush Doctrine of refusing to negotiate with lifetime terrorists like Arafat. Nothing is simple in that ongoing confrontation, but there are plain truths that can't be denied: Israel is a democracy with freedom of the press and when citizens are displeased with the prime minister, they can vote him out of office. Ariel Sharon, while currently high in the polls, will probably be booted out later this year by Benjamin Netanyahu, a hawk who's been eloquent in his clear vision of the conflict and refusal to accept Arafat as anything but the murderer he is. Granted, the former prime minister is campaigning for office on any talk show that'll book him, but that's politics.

The anti-Semitism in Europe, especially France, is appalling, leaving you to believe that at the turn of this century the atrocities of World War II were erased from that continent's collective memory. As baffling as the pro-Palestinian position taken by America's elite media is (aside from The Wall Street Journal), which equates a Palestinian fanatic, whose family is rewarded monetarily by Iraq and Saudi Arabia and who kills Israeli citizens willy-nilly, with Sharon's defensive military incursion, it's far worse when a leader like Jacques Chirac looks the other way when a synagogue is burned. With the exception of Tony Blair, who'll probably pay a price for his alliance with Bush, it's not much better in England. Let's not even discuss Germany.

Last Saturday, a pro-Palestinian march in Amsterdam turned violent when a small portion of the 10,000 demonstrators threw rocks, burned an American flag and, according to Reuters, "kicked and battered metal shop window shutters as stores closed for the day."

Wim Lankamp, chairman of the Dutch Committee for Palestine, said: "What happened in the end was very unfortunate. It spoiled the mood for the rest of the marchers who only had peaceful intentions. Given the fact that there were so many people there and so much anger about what Israel is doing, I think we can say the march went very well. We are tired of seeing the Dutch government stand on the sidelines of this problem."

David Gelernter expressed proper outrage in the current Weekly Standard, a publication that fading Hardball host Chris Matthews?daily spitting out the word "neocon"?blames for Bush's intentions to overthrow Saddam Hussein. He gives the magazine too much credit, but one wonders why Matthews, a reasonably intelligent and moral man, is willing to give Hussein a pass.

Gelernter writes: "Israel is in big trouble with nearly the whole enlightened world?European 'peace activists' and Arab diplomats and Zbigniew Brzezinski and all sorts of mainstream American journalists?for not allowing Palestinian terrorists to kill its citizens with impunity. The Europeans rushed to the West Bank town of Ramallah to surround and protect the world's best-loved terrorist?that kindly old grump Yasser Arafat, hero of his people, idol of Europe, Nobel laureate, ripper-up of Jewish children. No Israeli would dare shoot Arafat if there were any risk of harming a European in the process; that was the premise. Luckily for the Europeans, it was never put to the test, because the Israelis (as they had repeatedly demonstrated) had no intention of killing Arafat. Meanwhile, trivia experts were trying to remember the last time European 'activists' had ever rushed anywhere to protect Israeli lives."

But as a discredited demagogue from the past said 1000 times, "Keep hope alive!" Once Powell returns to Washington, empty-handed, I believe Bush will let Sharon be Sharon and return to the doctrine that was so unambiguous prior to the last three weeks.

What's the most annoying cliche used by lazy journalists and politicians this year? In mid-April, the clear winners are "real-time" and "thinking outside the box."

An example: "Wouldn't it be outstanding if the Pulitzer judges, even though they're all cronies, might think outside the box and realize that it's no sin if The New York Times' mushy Thomas Friedman is stiffed for the commentary prize?choosing, say, Thomas Bray, Nat Hentoff, Steve Chapman or Jeff Jacoby instead?when awards are handed out?"

Or: "Because of the blogging revolution, a writer like Andrew Sullivan is able to correct his factual mistakes in real-time." When did time suddenly become real? And what does that mean? If a tv station films "live," isn't that real?

In the last couple of years, it was impossible to make it through a news-cycle hour without hearing a pundit or politician use the British phrase "at the end of the day" at least four or five times. This extreme irritation abated somewhat in early 2001 when newly installed DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe was on a Sunday talk show and thoroughly embarrassed himself by using those words in almost every sentence.

April 15

Send comments to [MUG1988@aol.com](mailto:mug1988@aol.com) or fax to 244-9864.