SAY, HEY---READ THIS ONE!

On Sunday, in "The New York Times" Book Review Section, was a review of a new biography of Willie Mays, the Hall-of-Fame New York/San Francisco Giant star of the fifties and sixties, written by James S. Hirsch, who previouly had written a well-received biography, "Hurricane: The Miraculous Journey of Rubin Carter", the story of the boxing champion who went to prison and then redeemed his life. I definitely want to read this book, but what really caught my attention was the review by Pete Hamill, one of the better journalist/writers extant. Let me quote:

"A long time ago in America, there was a beautiful game called baseball. This was before thirty major-league teams were scattered in a blurry variety of divisions; before 162- game seasons and extended playoffs and fans who watched World Series games in thick down jackets; before the D.H. came to the American League; before AstroTurf on baseball fields and aluminum bats on sandlots; before complete games by pitchers were a rarity; before ballparks were named for corporations instead of individuals; and long, long before the innocence of the game was permanently stained by the filthy deception of steroids."

On reading these introductory lines, all I could do was shout, "Amen!". All of my favorite gripes about baseball today. I suppose we all suffer as we age from the loss of innocence, the purity of a game we played passionately as kids and loved growing up. Maybe it's symbolic of life, that loss of purity, as time weathers and abuses us. we bemoan the lack of simpler times.

I was a young adult by the time Willie Mays came along, but he was cut from the same heroic mold as Stan "the Man" Musial, Warren Spahn, Jackie Robinson, Joe DiMaggio---you add to the list---of demigods and super-heros we admired growing up. Willie played the game with verve and love. He caught hell from the black community for what they called his Uncle Tom attitude by not espousing publically the need for civil rights, such as Jackie Robinson did; Willie said he let his baseball do the talking, and I'm sure his skills did a lot to overcome prejudice and amplify admiration, no matter what your color. No pills, no shots, just plain unmitigated skill.

I can't wait to read this one.

THE CONSPIRACY THEORY AD ABSURDIUM

Honest to God, now I've seen it all! I read on AOL Sports in Terence Moore's column that certain Indianapolis fans think Peyton Manning threw that interception intentionally. Some say perhaps it was his subconcious in operation because of his New Orleans roots, Archie, et al. Others think it was intentional bercause he loves "the Big Easy" so much.

I know we've got a lot of paranoia in this country, but in this case it sounds more like schizophrenia to me. The ultimate in Conspiracy Theories, King Peyton the Evil! What kind of idiot buys this bullshit?

O.K., he screwed up, bigtime, I'll buy that. But a straight arrow like Peyton Manning would NEVER intentionally throw a game. Plus, as aggressive as he is, he by temperament would be violently opposed to such an action. He simply, in his burning zeal to win, overreached. Or maybe Reggie Wayne screwed up his route.

Let's get real: it just ain't Peyton's style to throw a game. His integrity would not permit it. How idiotic can some Colts fans be?

ONE GIANT STEP

It was a testing time when Tiger Woods stepped before the microphone Friday morning, more testing than any long putt for a major championship, and he rose to the occasion. I felt no phoniness but true contrition.

Aristotle defined tragedy as the fall from grace of a man of high estate. Certainly in the sporting world, Tiger stands as a titan, the best at what he does, so his fall from grace was a long one, and he has been paying the price in the press and in public opinion.

Today he took a giant step toward redemption. He faced up to his transgressions unequivocably with total candor. He asked for help, a difficult task for one noted for his supreme confidence and arrogance. He showed justifiable anger in asking for privacy for his wife and children and in dispelling rumors and innuendos of domestic violence. It is only meet and proper that he should have that privacy to try to resurrect his marriage and family life.

Most important of all, he appears to want to redeem his life in terms of values and priorities as to what is important. He put his marriage and children first and golf second. It was a good beginning on the road to redemption, and it's only a first step with a long way to go. He has a lot to prove and a credibility gap to overcome. Somehow I got the sense he will turn out a champion in life as well as golf. Let's wait and see.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST

What is going on? Christopher Dodd, Patrick Kennedy---and now Evan Bayh. They're dropping like flies, these Democratic congressional figures.

Evan Bayh summed it up pretty well: he's tired of political partisanship and the lack of legislative progress due to constant infighting and party friction. Bayh was not a wild-eyed liberal or conservative but a centrist, noted for good sense and reasonableness. His will be a loss.

The screams and villifications from far Right and far Left, the polarization of the two parties, the inability to deal with the economic problems of today are spreading like a virus. I am ashamed of the political process of today.

The last time I was this ashamed of the political process was 1954 when we had to deal with the scandalous innuendos and blatant lies of Senator Joe McCarthy. Most of you are too young to remember that shameful period when the Senator from Wisconsin started a Red-baiting furor by announcing at a college commencement in 1950 that he had in his pocket a lost of one hundred Communists in the government. No one ever saw that list, but the shit really hit the fan with congressional investigations, wild accusations and a period of near-hysteria. Fortunately, it ended with his being discredited in a congressional investigation in 1954 when the senator self-imploded on the witness stand. They still use the term "McCarthyism" for reckless and heedless political slander.

At a time when we need Congress to work for the benefit of the American people, pure partisan rancor is ruining the process. How long, oh Rome, must we suffer? People first, politics second---please.

IS THERE A MESSAGE HERE?

"Sixty percent of those polled say Obama understands the problems of people like themselves while 37 percent do not. By comparison, Americans say by 54 percent to 42 percent that Democrats do not understand their problems and by 62 percent to 35 percent that Republicans do not.Sixty-two percent believe Obama is trying to work with Republicans while the same percentage believe Republicans are not trying to work with Obama. Seven out of 10 of those surveyed believe Obama and Republicans should compromise more with each other. Fifty-six percent blame Obama and Congress equally for the gridlock on health care reform, with 37 percent putting the onus on Congress and only 5 percent on Obama."

These are the results of a recent New York Times/C.B.S. poll. I don't really trust polls where results are subject to the whims and caprices of the moment, but I think a truth is self-evident here---nobody is very happy with the state of affairs in the nation, blaming Obama, Democrats and Republicans and also noting that the Republicans earn a reputation for obstruction.

How long do we have to put up with a spitting contest with both parties standing behind their party lines and sniping at each other? The President has offered, for example, a bipartisan meeting to talk about health care reform. Isn't it worth a try? Can we forget suspicions and differences long enough to seek common ground and talk to each other in an attempt to work out a plan? Nobody is happy with the proposed health care plans, riddled with compromises, inconsistencies and shameful pandering to special interests just to get a plan through congress.

Open up the discussion. There have to be certain points both sides will agree on. Seek them out as a starting point and go from there. It's time to think like Americans, not Democrats or Republicans, for the greatest good for the greatest number. People, talk to each other! Remember how that's done? You sit down and try to keep your mind open to new ideas. Give it a shot. It's a good rule of thumb for most political ideas, not just health care.

SARAH THE MESSIAH

"She had them even before she said hello. And she had them before she prefaced her much-awaited speech by paying homage to conservative hero Ronald Reagan on what would have been his 99th birthday. By the time Sarah Palin took the stage on Saturday, the last night of the first National Tea Party Convention, the room was already with her, anticipating each dig at the "liberal left" and shout-out to "everyday people" -- and rewarding her with repeated ovations."


Guess who they are talking about? You got it, our wholesome lovable Sarah Palin in her keynote speech for the Tea Baggers!! The above bit of speech was from Politics Daily, an article reporting on that convention by Mary Curtis. The crowd went nuts and ended with mass screams for her to RUN, RUN, RUN.


It is a sign of the winter of our discontent when attacking and deriding the established power structure is very evident and fashionable. Catchy phrases, easy simplistic answers----that's food for the masses who are looking for a way out---and fast---from our economic woes. And, seizing on the people's malaise, the Tea-Baggers could turn into a powerful conservative movement with Sarah as their prophet. She is opportunistic enough to jump on that bandwagon and be their leader.

It's really scary. It's almost enough to make me yearn for return to a benevolent monarchy, but I must not give up hope. I think it was Lord Maccauley, the nineteenth century British historian , who said words to the effect that Americans reach in that great barrel called politics and usually pull out the right candidate. I don't believe Sarah Palin qualifies in that regard, and we can only hope our reach will clutch the right one.

Here's another Sarah quote from Bruce Drake's column in Politics Daily: "But those who recognize that I do have strong opinions, a very strong independent streak in me and a lot of common sense and if they ask for my help, I'm gonna give it to them." Personally, what we really need is some uncommon sense right now.

G.O.P.= GOOFY OLD PARTY

I can't believe what I've just read. In perusing the web today, I happened upon Bruce Drake's article in Politics Daily on a recent Republican poll regarding Obama . I have no illusions as to the President's popularity (or lack thereof) within the G.O.P., but some of the results shook me.

63% of those polled (2300 Republicans) think Barack Obama is a Socialist. O.K., to some any touch of governmental interference (or meddling is the stock word) is interpreted as Socialist. I don't agree. You may not agree with his methods, but he certainly is trying to save businesses, create jobs and fiscally stimulate the economy.

39% think he should be impeached. For what? For disagreeing with them? He hasn't unzipped his fly in public that I am aware of, and he seems to be a loving father and husband. I don't think he is a radical Muslim, and he certainly wants to strengthen our military to combat radical extremists.

Now this is the one that really bugged me. 53% BELIEVE THAT SARAH PALIN IS MORE QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAN OBAMA!!! You've got to be kidding. I understand party loyalty but not when it flies in the face of reality. What has Sarah Palin proved as a politician and as a governor? From what I read, most Alaskans are fed up with her and see her exodus as good riddance. I'll say this for her: she is attractive physically with very good legs. I haven't noted that as a prerequisite to running for President. P.S.: I'm not a chauvinist pig, and a truly qualified woman would be fine with me.

Any resemblance to the Republican Party I once knew and supported is purely coincidental. I don't think I recognize the landscape around here...did I move to Mars or Saturn and don't know it?

IT'S ROGER THE LODGER, BY GOD

Any questions, class, as to who the best tennis player in the world is? Once again, Roger Federer, the "old master" (28 in tennis is getting old), dominated at the Australian Open. I really thought Andy Murray, after watching his aggressive demolition of Rafa Nadal, was ready to make his move: he played aggressively. pinning Nadal behind the baseline and keeping him off balance the whole match. Something, however, happens to the psyche when you run into Roger: his implacable will and concentration seem to unnerve opponents. As my wife says, Roger is such a nice guy you can't resist him, even though as a born Brit she was rooting for Andy.

I really thought after last year that age would begin to leave its mark. Mind you, I don't think, with the depth and talent so prevalent in the tennis world, with these fit and powerful young giants prowling the courts, that Roger can win a Grand Slam (the big 4---Australia, French, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open) in the same year, but he has proved me wrong before with his will and endurance.

I have always maintained that Rod Laver was the greatest player in tennis history. The Aussie won 12 major titles, including 2 Grand Slams in 1962 and 1969. And you have to remember, he was banned from playing in the Grand Slam tournaments from 1963 through 1968 because he had turned professional, a prohibition that was wisely terminated in 1969. How many more would he have won in those six banned years? The record might have been 20 or more!

However, after Roger's latest showing, I am willing to move him up in the pantheon of tennis greats and make him Co-Number One with Rod Laver. He's earned it !

It's a new game today, as technology in racquets and new fitness levels have transformed the game. Any resemblance of today to the tennis my generation played is purely coincidental.