Mugger: Hollywood Trumps Cooperstown

Isn’t it time for some perspective on the Tim Robbins/Susan Sarandon Baseball Hall of Fame controversy? . The facts are simple: Dale Petroskey, the Hall’s president and a former assistant press secretary for Ronald Reagan, clumsily handled a disinvitation of the two actors to celebrate the 15th anniversary of their Bull Durham movie on April 26-27. Last Friday, after a media blitzkrieg accusing Petroskey of setting the First Amendment aflame, the cowed executive apologized for informing the anti-Bush activists of his decision by letter instead of a phone call.

Never mind that in the rarefied circles Robbins and Sarandon travel in, people are routinely scratched off party lists for any number of incestuous feuds that only publicity-addicted celebrities and socialites are aware of.

All of this silliness has handed the couple a platform upon which they can self-righteously declare that freedom of speech is quickly disappearing in the United States. Lost in the huffiness is that Petroskey, whether you agree with his decision or not, also has the right to express his opinions. In retrospect, he shouldn’t have even scheduled the event–it’s not as if Bull Durham is on par with The Pride of the Yankees or Eight Men Out–and perhaps should have asked Roger Clemens and Al Leiter, who agree with his views on American foreign policy, to make an appearance. And maybe Red Sox reliever Mike Timlin, who wears a camouflage t-shirt under his jersey–flouting MLB uniform rules–in support of the military. Timlin said: "They’re doing way more in the world than I am when I’m pitching baseball. Really, what we’re doing is insignificant to what they’re doing right now."

It would be dumbfounding, of course, if Edward Norton, John Cusack, Sarah Jessica Parker or Julia Roberts expressed similar sentiments.

A fifth-grader could successfully parody the April 12 New York Times editorial, "Cooperstown Muffs One," in which the paper lionized Robbins as a heartfelt fellow who was "look[ing] forward to going to Cooperstown and getting away from politics." Petroskey was upbraided for a "knuckleheaded decision" and reminded that his former boss "was not the least bit shy in using his prominence as an actor to advance his ideological agenda." Reagan, while a spectacular president, wasn’t nearly as talented as Sarandon as an actor–her performance in Atlantic City with Burt Lancaster was breathtaking–and as the Times knows, Reagan gave up his mediocre film career long before occupying the Oval Office.

The Washington Post, on April 18, was equally horrified at the alleged clampdown on the free speech of entertainers, including not only the much-aggrieved Tim and Susan, but the Dixie Chicks and Janeane Garofalo as well, fearing that a 21st-century McCarthyism might cost outspoken celebrities work. Tough toenails. This implies a one-way street: Famous men and women, who have access to the media, are given a wide berth to protest political decisions, while their fans, such as people who’ve boycotted Dixie Chick concerts, are portrayed as clones of Roy Cohn or Bobby Kennedy for their "McCarthyesque" actions.

The Post, however, did at least open its editorial with an exquisite sentence: "It takes a special kind of talent to suffuse Susan Sarandon with the dignity of martyrdom."

Robbins didn’t miss a beat with this new opportunity to distort the policies of the Bush administration. His April 15 speech at the National Press Club was a classic example of demagoguery, and suggests he might fare better as a politician than an actor.

The spurned Hall of Fame guest said, in part: "In the 19 months since 9/11 we have seen our democracy compromised by fear and hatred. Basic inalienable rights, due process, the security of the home have been quickly compromised in a climate of fear. A unified American public has grown bitterly divided and a world population that had profound sympathy and support for us has grown contemptuous and distrustful, viewing us as we once viewed the Soviet Union, as a rogue state."

While I’m sure Robbins was preaching to the converted, that one paragraph is filled with so many distortions it resembles the fantasies expressed by Barbra Streisand, Sen. John Kerry or Spike Lee. For example, while the horrific events of 9/11 put a temporary halt to political differences, when, Tim, has the American public been "unified"? And, why, in a democracy, would you want that to be the case? And yes, while it was moving when so many countries expressed sincere condolences when the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked, the goodwill wasn’t shared by the "world population."

Tim and Susan are probably on a first-name basis with Fidel and I’ll bet he didn’t lose any sleep over the terrorism. More to the point, if Bush and designated bogeyman John Ashcroft were so bent on dismantling the Constitution, why didn’t they follow the example of Democrat Woodrow Wilson and jail journalists and out-for-a-lark students and 60s leftovers who protested the war? And not just for a badge-of-honor four-hour stint in the slammer, but 10 years of hard time.

Robbins continued: "Death threats have appeared on other prominent antiwar activists’ doorsteps for their views against the war... Susan and I have been listed as traitors, as supporters of Saddam, and various other epithets by the Aussie gossip rags masquerading as newspapers and by their electronic media cousins 19th-Century Fox. (Apologies to Gore Vidal.)"

Is Robbins so solipsistic that he believes only people on his side of the debate have been vilified? Does he think that conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Wall Street Journal editorial writers, Fox News’ Brit Hume and the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol–let alone Bush, Rumsfeld and Rice–aren’t constantly the recipients of death threats?

The Constitution is secure. The only trouble I see is that celebrities with megaphones feel entitled to supra-free speech. As for anonymous Americans who are branded as "fascists" or "rogue state" supporters if they exercise their own rights and decide they no longer want to patronize the artistic endeavors by the likes of Robbins, Sarandon, Sean Penn, the Dixie Chicks or Peter Jennings, they don’t really count.

Kobe for The Poor!

Here’s a curveball: After years of criticizing MSNBC/Nation pundit Eric Alterman’s hysterical rants against anyone who’s to the right of Dennis Kucinich, I found one small passage of his that’s completely refreshing and honest.

A few weeks ago, after the devastating death of journalist Michael Kelly in Iraq, readers asked Alterman why he, unlike the rest of the media, hadn’t commented on the iconoclastic reporter’s premature passing. He wrote: "I am on record as to what I think of Kelly’s work and his untimely death does not affect my view of his work... Why, in the face of personal tragedy, should I harp on my personal and political differences with him? What would be the point, save offending those who loved him? The questions that inspired those differences are not going away and so there will be plenty of time to return to them in the future. In the meantime, let the bereaved grieve in peace."

So bravo for Alterman’s candor.

Not surprisingly, this was an isolated case. In the May 5 Nation, Alterman, who’s second only to Michael Moore as pretending to be a "man of the people," returned to form, blasting President Bush with one disingenuous shot after the other. Alterman, of course, faces this duty alone, since he’s convinced that 99 percent of the media is "conservative."

He writes: "This is an eerie moment in American political history. George W. Bush was defeated in the popular vote by his more liberal opponent but rules from the most extreme wing of his party. He campaigned as a fiscal conservative but has pushed tax cuts that will create a deficit larger than any in U.S. history. [In reality, one of Bush’s major campaign proposals was cutting taxes.] As a candidate, he articulated the need for a ‘humble’ foreign policy but now conducts it with a degree of hubris that makes Lyndon Johnson look like the Dalai Lama. His hypocrisy, in other words, is so great as to be almost unfathomable, and yet he has somehow managed to convince the media to admire him for his ‘moral clarity.’"

And on and on. Because of Bush, the United States is "hated the world over as never before," even though the "Foxified" media kowtows to his every move. Oh, and Bush didn’t serve in Vietnam either.

A few weeks ago, however, Alterman was crucified by the New York Observer’s George Gurley, who was ostensibly interviewing the author for his bunkum-loaded book What Liberal Media?. One might’ve thought the Upper West Sider would’ve done a background check on his inquisitor’s published work, but I suppose that’s difficult to do in the midst of flogging any and all publicity for his paranoid screed. In fact, he told Gurley that he was "disappointed" that his expected buzz for What Liberal Media? had "been crowded out by the war... I had a lot of reasons to be anti-war, and the book was a small one."

Alterman clearly enjoys his perks. He and Gurley had lunch at Michael’s, the restaurant of choice for populists, and ordered foie gras, Kobe beef and pinot noir, after a "warm embrace" with author E.L. Doctorow. He spoke of auditioning for a bit part in The Sopranos; likened Ken Starr to Idi Amin; and explained why it’s so cool to be a liberal. "There’s two reasons," he said. "One is, if you’re a liberal about most things, you’re more likely to be right than not. But here’s an interesting reason: The rest of country agrees with you. It’s basically a liberal country."

Indeed it is, if you define the United States as combination of Manhattan, Los Angeles, Ann Arbor, San Francisco and Cambridge.

Gurley asked some of Alterman’s friends about the affluent champion of the underclass. Katie Rosman, a freelance writer, said: "He has shocked me with the things he’s done. He’ll call me and his line is, ‘So, do you want to be arm candy tonight?’ I’ll ask him what the event is, and he won’t tell me–I have to decide before. And then he’s taking me to George Soros’ apartment or some New Yorker party, and he introduces me to everybody. So I really admire him for that. He takes me to good parties."

What a great guy!

Gurley concludes his profile with one more quote from the media insider who’s at home inside Michael’s: "Another thing I do that liberals don’t do is, I admire the beauty of waitresses. That’s a beautiful waitress."

Does that mean that liberals aren’t attracted to attractive men and women? Or just that waitresses aren’t worthy of a second glance? You’d have to ask Eric the Libertine.

Send comments to [MUG1988@aol.com](mailto:MUG1988@aol.com).