Shea Stadium Doesn't Cut It; Billy Bratton, Won't You Please Come Home?; The Spooked Times Screws Nader

Reeling in the Years; Billy Bratton, Won't You Please Come Home?

The Mets-Braves game at Shea Stadium last Saturday afternoon was over in a flash. If you were stuck on a concession line in the bottom of the second, when Benny Agbayani and Mike Piazza hit homers to highlight a six-run rampage against aging superstar Greg Maddux, well, there wasn't much left to witness. Junior and I were sitting in field box seats not far from the foul pole in left, and aside from the crick in my neck from trying to keep an eye on the pitchers, it was cool to be so close to the leftfielders and have a binocular-view into the Braves' bullpen.

Dennis Duggan, writing in the June 29 Newsday, put the absurd Rocker travesty in succinct perspective: "The fact is baseball has put uniforms on bigots, wife swappers, child abusers, gamblers and drunks?as long as they could throw a ball 90 mph or hit one into the bleachers. A convicted felon named George Steinbrenner owns the proud New York Yankees. So, a loudmouth like Rocker is small potatoes."

Duggan might've added that an admitted perjurer, one of the filthiest politicians still alive, sits in the Oval Office, and yet the Arkansan has the gall to feign offense at Republican campaign advertising and the soul-sickening effect of big money on presidential politics. After all, the Leiber/Stoller song "Only in America," which was a hit for Jay & the Americans decades ago, didn't include the following lyric: "Only in America/Can a kid without a cent/Get a break and maybe grow up to be a relief pitcher."

Bill Clinton really is a P.T. Barnum creature. Did you catch his act last Friday in Philadelphia before a crowd of union members, where the President mocked his wife's Senate opponent Rick Lazio for a recent campaign commercial? It was priceless. Grinning like the cat who ate the Constitution, Clinton said: "He said, 'How dare her say such a mean thing. I am for a patients' bill of rights.' A patients' bill of rights? The tie here, it's got a little red on it. That don't mean I'm wearing a red tie."

Holy San Quentin Blues! I could rattle off 18 reasons to vote for George W. Bush this November, but right now number one would be the disappearance of this poisonous Hee-Haw character from public life. Can you imagine what it'll be like if the Democrats score twice, with victories for Al Gore and Hillary Clinton? Old shuck-and-jive Bill will take up guest quarters in both the White House and Capitol, whispering in the ear of the President and junior Senator from New York. Remember, Clinton pulls Gore's strings just as the Vice President dictates lies for his stooge Chris Lehane to feed the media.

In a press conference on June 28, Clinton came up with this whopper: "Let me remind you that a lot of these other so-called scandals were bogus... [S]o the word scandal has been thrown around here like a clanging teapot for seven years... We had totally innocent people prosecuted because they wouldn't lie. We had totally innocent people's lives wrecked because they wouldn't go along with this alleged scandal machine." I won't bother to list the number of "totally innocent people" this wretched excuse for a man has "wrecked"?it's all in the public record?but just once I'd like to see a reporter interrupt Clinton and say, "You know what, sir? You're full of bullshit, baby."

But back to the Temple/Church of Baseball. On the way to Shea, my innocent seven-year-old boy, decked out in his Red Sox garb?hat, batting gloves, Nomar Garciaparra jersey?startled me after looking at a Budweiser ad on the train and saying, "Hey Dad, will you buy me a beer at the Stadium?" I shot him a severe glance, even though I remembered sipping the foam off my brothers' Rheingolds at sporting events when I wasn't much older than he is.

My attention then turned to the trio of kids in their 20s, hopelessly marked as 90s teenagers by their hack-job tattoos, and I was simply speechless when a tough-looking chick said, "I'm glad this is a Mets game. Like, I go to Yankee Stadium, and it's, like, I want to vomit, getting off the subway and having to cross the street in all that traffic!" Imagine. How complicated life can get at such a tender age.

After the interminable ride on the local 7, pleasantly punctuated by baseball chatter with former New York Press staffer Drew Dix, we made the endless walk from the subway exit to Gate B at Shea. The stifling atmosphere of Flushing felt like that at most faceless ballparks in the country. For my free-agent-inflated tickets, you can't beat seeing the Stan's block across from Yankee Stadium with guys hanging out in the sports bar and kids buying souvenirs, with all the clatter and clang of the city that says baseball. I mean, like Junior said, when you're walking outside at Shea, you can see trees! Not to mention acres of parking lots and not a cab or livery driver in sight.

At the game, Junior was looking off in the distance, trying to spy the Mets' mascot, without any luck, till a gentleman right behind us pointed out Mr. Met in the upper deck. The stiff to our left was a real pain in the ass, however. His wife and teenage son were fully engaged, standing up to cheer every strike Mets' pitcher Al Leiter threw, but this guy sat back, read his bridge manual and then got in my face. It was bad enough that he was a Trent Lott-lookalike, with that helmet of hair (although in his case, I'm sure it was a rug), and even though he was probably younger than me he had the look and comportment of a 40-year-old from the 1950s?Ward Cleaver back from the dead.

Early in the first inning, he tapped me on the shoulder and growled, "Would you mind sitting back in your chair, you're obstructing my view!" As if I had a goddamn thing to do with Shea's poorly constructed seating arrangement. Generally, during an exciting baseball contest, leaning forward to see the action is what you do, if you're a fan. It's why you came to the ballpark in the first place, Mr. Dill Pickle! I had half a mind to remind him about Little Stevie Wonder's sonic hit from a generation ago, "Uptight," but it would've been like speaking in Latin. This goober definitely didn't believe in magic.

On the subject of professional louses, life must be swell for Rudy Giuliani these days as he kicks back in his Mr. Nice Guy disguise, lets the city go to seed a la David Dinkins, and relishes the I-told-you-so that he's flashing to New Yorkers in 64-point type. I take no pleasure in trashing a guy when he's undergoing cancer treatment, but the Mayor is a vengeful shmuck and his abdication of duty has rapidly become apparent in the past two months. It wasn't just the Central Park wilding (which Hillary Clinton disgustingly tried to exploit as a woman's issue); it's also the everyday blights on the landscape, blights that Giuliani once would have cleaned up.

Suddenly, there are bums panhandling again in the streets, or setting up sidewalk displays of year-old issues of Esquire, Hustler and Brill's Content, bringing us back to the late 80s. I imagine these hostile living scabs (and I'm talking the pros here, not the Brown University graduates seeking an experience) got sick of the Florida sun and figured it was safe to journey back north, just like a flock of crows. On the train out and back to Shea, once again we encountered the con men and ladies who shuffled between cars, begging for a penny to get some food; at various stops the doors would open and there on the platform, whether it was at the 5th Ave. stop in Manhattan or 82nd St. in Jackson Heights, would be a fat old drunk sleeping it off, oblivious to the passengers stepping over his half-dead carcass to get where they were going. Public urination and?whoa!?defecation is once again the rule of the streets, reminding me of days long ago when I'd walk to the New York Press offices at the Puck Bldg. and encounter an overpowering stench every single morning at the intersection of Canal St. and Broadway. Now that's a golden oldie!

This wave of lawlessness has even hit my neighborhood takeout joints. When the motorist from Au Mandarin arrived Saturday night with my order of pork fried rice, snow peas and broccoli, steamed dumplings and chicken with cashews, the bill came to a whopping $51.75. I was distracted by the kids?one of them had the volume for a Gilligan's Island video far too loud?and just peeled off a wad of bills and sent the chap on his way. Only when I inspected the tab did I see I'd been ripped off to the tune of 20 bucks. Did I call the restaurant to complain? Of course not. That would've meant another intrusion upon my cocoon and a headache in trying to explain that one-two-three, Mr. Lee don't know very good math. I let it slide.

Watching The Beltway Boys, as I do each Saturday night, I saw that cohost Fred Barnes was way off the mark in pumping up Florida Sen. Connie Mack as Bush's runningmate; but his partner Mort Kondracke, repeating the DC buzz of the week, might be closer with his speculation that Dick Gephardt could be a desperation pick for Gore. As for vice-presidential selections, let me say I was perturbed to be ripped off by this-month-I'm-a-populist Arianna Huffington in the August Talk: she writes about the attributes Maryland's Kathleen Kennedy Townsend would bring to the Democratic ticket.

And all this chatter about Gov. Frank Keating wrapping up the number-two GOP slot is just that: chatter. Sure, Keating was noble in the wake of the Oklahoma bombings, but goodness gracious, if a governor can't pull that off, he or she shouldn't be in the political racket. Bush still favors Gov. Tom Ridge, and, ironically, it was the Supreme Court's ghoulish decision in favor of late-term abortions?which Ridge is against?that might've finally sealed the deal. Bush probably can't win with a pro-life runningmate; as it is, Gore will make abortion the number-one issue of the fall. He has to widen the gender gap, and there's no better way than playing the demagogue on abortion. In the year 2000, it's the only issue Democrats stand for. They champion partial-birth abortion?infanticide?yet most oppose Bush on the death penalty (although not Gore or Clinton). The Democrats are the most dishonest, corrupt and intellectually disingenuous political party since the Whigs.

Also on The Beltway Boys, it was sad to see how badly Parkinson's disease has ravaged the body of former sitcom star Michael J. Fox. He's involved in charity work, trying to raise money and awareness about the illness, and his bravery was poignant, as he sputtered in an attempt to get his message across, losing his train of thought at times. But he was still passionate in his remarks.

It made me sympathetic once again, briefly, for Janet Reno, certainly the worst attorney general in memory, and that includes John Mitchell, as she continues to do the cowardly Clinton's dirty work. You'd think someone in that administration, a man or woman who isn't an android, after seeing just one more clip of the poor lady shaking as she testifies before Congress, would have the compassion to take Reno aside and say?any white lie would be forgiven?"Madame Attorney General, you've served your country. Go home and rest." Eight years ago, even those of us who smelled a rat from Manhattan down to Hope, AR, would've thought Bill Clinton might be capable of such an act of selfless gratitude.

But no sympathy is necessary for the piggy Lords who run The New York Times. Those who control the editorial pages at that paper know more than you or me, and feel duty-bound to issue grand proclamations on how Americans should live their own lives. (The Times is appalled by the proposed repeal of the heinous "death" tax, for example, saying it's a sop to the rich, but does anyone question for a second that the Sulzberger family has employed an army of lawyers to protect their own estate interests?)

And what happens when the Times' opinions are contradictory, even within the space of two days? Dear reader, it's not your lot in life to ask questions like that. I took special delight in last Friday's editorial, "Mr. Nader's Misguided Crusade," in that it dampened the very notion of democracy that's supposedly so dear to the paper?and was the 118th unofficial endorsement of Al Gore for president.

Ralph Nader has the elite media running for buckets of water. How in the world did this happen, the faux-cognoscenti cluck at DC and Manhattan parties and fundraisers: This is the turf of Pat Buchanan and that other kook, Ross?what's his name??ah yes, Perot. But there's Nader, telling anyone who'll listen?and reporters are all over the guy this summer?that while Bush "is beyond satire," the Vice President is "the more infuriating because he's such a hypocrite. He doesn't know who he is anymore. He's a plastic person."

So while the Times has no compunctions about trampling on the First Amendment in its endless calls for "clean elections," it severely frowns upon Nader's candidacy. And why is that? "[I]n running for president as the nominee of the Green Party, [Nader] is engaging in a self-indulgent exercise that will distract voters from the clear-cut choice represented by the major party candidates, Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush. His candidacy will be especially harmful to Mr. Gore, the contender closest to Mr. Nader on the environment and other issues. This political reality casts doubt on Mr. Nader's claim to be driven by policy differences rather than ego."

And New Yorkers wonder why the rest of the country can't stand our city: a major newspaper deciding whom exactly it's permissible to vote for. Now if it were John McCain who took up a third-party campaign, his motives wouldn't be questioned, mainly because the Arizona Senator would draw votes disproportionately from the GOP nominee.

But if you're Ralph Nader and you read this sanctimonious print advertisement for Gore, you've got to say, "Fuck you, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. Who are you to tell me if I can run for president?" Besides, as Nader has explained, he doesn't believe there's a significant difference between Gore and Bush, so why not tip the election to the Texas Governor, and let the Democrats regroup, get rid of the Clinton-Gore trash and start anew for the 2004 elections? Nader is not "close" to Gore on the "environment and other issues," as the Times contends. One of Nader's standard stump soundbites is "You can't spoil a system that's spoiled to the core." Also, his view on Bill Clinton is hardly in line with the Times' worldview. The President, Nader says, is guilty of "some of the most intensive demonstrations of political cowardice in American history." He's also called Gore a "gee-whiz techno twit" and "environmental impostor."

In an interview with the L.A. Weekly's Harold Meyerson, published on June 30, Nader said, in response to the obvious question about whether a vote for him was a wasted one: "On corporate-welfare issues, the worse party by far is the Democrats. They're innovative, creative, blatant, brazen. They're the ones who got the Pentagon to subsidize the mergers between defense companies... They don't have any ideology left, except expedient surrender to the corporate interests in order to deny [their contributions] to the Republicans... Between Bush and Gore, there's an even thinner difference [than in the House]. Because if the House goes Democratic, you have Gephardt and Bonior, who are a little bit more traditional liberal Democrats. Gore is mush. He doesn't know who he is other than a finger to the wind?and the [center-right] Democratic Leadership Conference and [its president] Al From and the corporate lobbies are the wind. He's betrayed more of his past written positions than any politician in modern American history. Just look at his book, Earth in the Balance, out in a new reprint. The author now can be called Gore out of balance."

So Nader is an egomaniac who's messing with America's hallowed electoral system. Hmm, seems pretty fishy to me. In a July 2 editorial, after all, the Times attacked media pundits who correctly point out (their view buttressed by all polling data) that Americans don't place a high priority on campaign finance reform. The paper writes: "When will these so-called 'experts' realize what a disservice they do by parroting the cynical spin control of those who live off the corrupt status quo?" If there's a more "corrupt status quo" than The New York Times in the United States today, please inform me, because I'm stuck on that one.

The editorial continues: "Again and again, Americans are lectured by these people that campaign reform is not a salient issue, even though Senator McCain ignited the voters with it earlier this year. Americans do care about campaign reform. Their desire for financially clean campaigns is one reason for the widespread cynicism among voters in recent years."

Two points: First, McCain was not popular for any of the issues he mouthed off about. He was a wisecracking blabbermouth, propped up by an adoring media, who assuaged the guilt baby boomers felt about not dying in Vietnam, and stirred pride in older veterans. He was a character?some would say an American hero.

Second, the "widespread cynicism among voters" is not a recent phenomenon. Just as, every four years, the Times and other media outlets bemoan the lack of serious presidential candidates (remember that John F. Kennedy was considered a lightweight in 1959), it's a constant that citizens don't vote in the number of other democracies. The Times conveniently forgets that Ronald Reagan didn't take a dime of "soft money" in his campaign, yet was still vilified in its pages. In 1968, George Wallace, just like Nader today, mounted a third-party campaign by claiming there wasn't "a dime's worth of difference" between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey.

David Broder wrote in The Washington Post last Sunday that two out of three seniors at "55 top-rated colleges and universities" didn't know that George Washington was the general at Yorktown in the War for Independence. No doubt these students were bogged down by propaganda about how minorities were screwed, in lieu of basic U.S. history, but after reading the Times, and seeing the paper's lapses when it comes to recent political events, one wonders how many of its editorial writers would pass such a pop quiz.

(I can think of one prominent journalist, The Chicago Sun-Times' James Warren, who wouldn't. In a July 2 column on iconoclast Eugene McCarthy, Warren wrote the following about the '68 election: "Hubert Humphrey won the party's nomination and then was clobbered by Richard Nixon in the 1968 election as the Democrats self-destructed, most vividly at their Chicago convention." In fact, Humphrey lost to Nixon by only less than one percent of the popular vote, hardly a clobbering.)

One more round about the Times. It was curious, but not surprising, to see how the paper covered the Mexican presidential election on July 3. Not once in the page-one story by Julia Preston was the political ideology of winner Vicente Fox Quesada mentioned. In contrast, The Washington Post's Molly Moore and John Ward Anderson led their article in a far more accurate way: "Conservative opposition candidate Vicente Fox won a historic victory in Mexico's presidential election tonight, ending the reign of the world's longest-ruling political party and heralding the birth of a new kind of government for America's southern neighbor."

Finally, in another adverse Supreme Court decision, it was ruled that the Boy Scouts of America have the right to exclude gay leaders from their ranks. I suppose that's constitutional?the Scouts are a private organization (sort of)?but it's wrongheaded nonetheless. I was a Scout for several years, as were all of my four brothers. Of course there were gay members; there were probably gay patrol leaders and scoutmasters as well. At the time, I couldn't really tell. I do know that I was never harassed or harmed, and can't think of a more revered figure in the town of Huntington than Troop 12's longtime commander, Wilson Mott. As I recall, Mr. Mott was married with children, but who can tell about his surrogates? And who cares?

I do know that I won't allow my sons to join the Boy Scouts in light of this un-American verdict, just as I'd never apply to a country club that excluded Jews, blacks or other people who aren't deemed worthy.

JULY 3

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