Boo-ing Is Usually Stupid

I remember a moment, growing up, when a boy on my brother's baseball team was waiting for a pop fly to fall down into his glove, and the adult coach of the opposing team, suddenly, began to scream at the boy to distract him and make him miss it.

The boy caught the pop-up, anyway. The coach of my brother's team yelled at his counterpart - the out-of-line, "juvenile" coach, - saying, in essence: - "What's the matter with you? - a grown man yelling at a kid like that!"

That anecdote sort of sums up my feelings about fans booing pro athletes. I realize my example is overdramatic and that there are many kinds of booing - some boos more intensely negative and others of a lighter nature. Yet, in both my old anecdote and general point, the behavior on the sidelines is, more than anything, just a release of negative energy that brings nothing good to the event -- particularly when directed at one player repeatedly.

So, my objections do not apply to the sort of playful booing fans engage in when they hear the introduction of the opposing team or a star player on that team - which, I know, some view as "part of the game." But, what about the other kinds of booing -- when fans vent non-stop not only at opposing players, but members of their home teams who are not performing well?

To me, booing players on the team you're rooting for is the variety that bugs me the most -- especially when those players happen to be good, decent people off the field.

OK, that brings me to my latest example. About ten days ago, I was watching the Red Sox game, and I heard TV analyst Jerry Remy observe that, after David Ortiz had made an out, a small minority of fans could be heard booing Ortiz. That really disappointed me.

How can any Red Sox fan ever - ever - boo David Ortiz ?

Yeah, Ortiz has been struggling at the plate so far this season, but.....if there has ever been any Boston athlete who does not deserve one solitary boo, it is Ortiz. In 2004, Big Papi carried the Red Sox on his back to their first World Series victory in 86 years - with his heroics most displayed against the New York Yankees during the ACLS playoffs. With the Sox down 3-0 in games, Ortiz hit a walk-off home run in extra innnings to win their first game. Then, 24 hours later, Ortiz hit another game-winning hit in extra innings to get the Sox their second win.

From the second half of 2003 until he was affected by injuries in 2007 and 2008, Ortiz has been the greatest clutch hitter in the history of the Red Sox. He's hit so many dramatic home runs and BIG, clutch hits that he's brought countless thrills and joy to fans. Ortiz - with Manny Ramirez hitting behind him - was part of one of the greatest hitting duos in baseball history -- a modern-day version of Gehrig and Ruth. Beyond this, Ortiz has been one of the most likeable, respected athletes - off the field - to come through this city.

Nevertheless, in this young 2009 season, coming off a wrist injury that hobbled him last year, Ortiz has hit very poorly, often striking out. His timing has been way off. It has been one of his worst stretches. Some have speculated his skills are in decline. Others think it's in his head.
In recent games, Ortiz has improved a bit, and I've heard of no more booing, but, I cited his brief experience with booing to make a larger point.

First, Ortiz could be in a slump until he retires and I would never boo him. I would never boo any player. What good does booing do?

For those doing the booing, it's really just a momentary "release" of energy that has little to do with the game. People booing get a second of self-absorbed amusement by venting negative impulses - a little "escape" from their lives - but, if they're booing their own players, the noise only reminds their "targets" in the case of Ortiz or other Sox players - of their struggles. It does not add to their confidence or help them focus. It's not likely to help them!
To the contrary, sometimes, booing can hurt players' performance. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude it's a bit easier to concentrate without the negative noise. It can add to a player's self-doubt, anxiety or ill feelings.

Further, does it really add to the game to boo opposing players? I'd say "No" every time and in every circumstance. What is the booing about, really? The fans do not really care about many of the players they're jeering. It's just a cathartic release.

I'd love to see the minority of fans who still yell "Yankees Suck" to knock it off. That chant doesn't exactly help promote the image of Boston fans. Indeed, there have been some embarrassing moments at Fenway when a moronic minority of fans have displayed obnoxious behavior. I recall a few years ago, in the middle of a Red Sox-Yankee game, fans were throwing stuff on the field - and I winced when classy Yankee manager Joe Torre was asked about it after the game.

I've witnessed too many negative moments at Fenway Park when booing detracted from the game. I recall once in the late 1970s when some fan or fans did far worse by throwing metal slugs in the direction of centerfielder Mickey Rivers, and, then-Yankee manager Billy Martin yanked his team off the field until order could be restored. I didn't blame Martin.

Booing can be accompanied by an ugly, venom at times. Unfortunately, in the past, I've witnessed moments at Fenway when I believed a small, but noticeable segment of fans appeared to be motivated partly by racism -- in addition to the baseball-related happenings -- when they booed certain players. Booing allows these cowards to hide in the masses.
I recall, when Barry Bonds of the San Francisco Giants played in an interleague game at Fenway two summers ago, the booing was awfully loud for an out-of-town player -- even one alleged to have used steroids.
I know some have already anticipated that when A-Rod plays his first game at Fenway Park this year, he'll be boo-ed very loudly due to the off-season revelations of his past steroid use. I would never join that chorus of boos. Is it going to help Bonds or A-Rod to boo them? Are they going to somehow want to "change" after hearing the boos?

In 2006, a few Red Sox relief pitchers - Keith Foulke, Rudy Seanez and Julian Tavarez - were all booed at different times. Foulke, who, like Ortiz, made a huge contribution to the Sox winning the championship in 2004, must have felt fans had short memories. Tavarez, in September of 2006, commented on the booing to the Fall River Herald-News, when, after a good appearance, fans had cheered him.

"I can't say I don't care about our fans. I love our fans," Tavarez said after the game. "but I've never played for a city that boos the players even though you're five, six games ahead, in first place. "If we go out and don't get the job done, we get boos from the fans. That doesn't make me happy, and I'm sure a lot of players are very concerned about that."

Kevin Youkilis of the Red Sox, was asked his opinion of fans booing and said he didn't like their treatment of Tavarez.

"I'd rather have no one at the field than people booing me all day," Youkilis told the Herald-News. When asked if he felt, however, that booing might mean that fans care, Youkilis replied, (rhetorically):

"Do they really care? "They care about the team, but when they boo a specific individual, do they really care about that person? No, If you boo somebody, it's like you despise them."

Youkilis also told the Herald-News, "....nothing positive can come out of booing. Zero. Zero percent."

I agree with Youkilis. Cheering - or not cheering - allows fans to express their sentiments fully and spontaneously at games. Booing individual players adds nothing, and, is usually a stupid exercise.

Why Is Jay Severin Still On the Air?

Why should we have to hear a radio talk show host say reckless, offensive, inaccurate things on the air every day? Why should such a host not be fired?

I raise these questions in reference to Jay Severin, the right-wing, "shock-jock" whose show is on in Boston on weekdays from 3 - 7 pm on WTTK-FM (96.9) the "talk station."

And I raise them because, to me, this is not about Severin's politial views, but whether he makes remarks that can be considered "acceptable" or "responsible" - or not. I'm in no way advocating censorship. I'm asking you - potential consumers of his show - and WTTK's station management to re-examine if this talk show host - who regularly spouts objectionable, unsubstantiated content - should have his job. And, do you - the public - care what he says?

I have found that many of Severin's remarks are "irresponsible" and warrant his removal from the airwaves. But I'm curious what you think and I want to give you a tiny, but recent, revealing sampling to consider.

On April 6, when discussing President Obama's foreign policy, including his response to North Korea's test missile launch, Severin said:

"...I think Barack Obama in his heart of hearts is an anti-Semite who wants the Iranians to attack Israel and give it to the Palestinians. I really believe he believes that. And one of the problems here is that he is expected to act on a life and death basis to pretend that he doesn't believe those things whereas I am sure he would sleep much better at night if North Korea overtook the South (Korea) if, uh, China took back Taiwan and Iran flattened Israel. He'd be fine with that..."

On April 7, Severin offered these additional comments:

"...Given the choice of doing something affirmative like going out and stopping the North Koreans or going out and stopping the Iranians - Barack Obama would rather - and will rather - one million Americans die before he does anything. There is no question in my mind that this President of the United States would and will prefer to wait for the mushroom cloud rather than do anything. And when he responds, if God forbid we are attacked, Barack Obama's response will be beyond limp, beyond lame, beyond un-American. We have someone who doesn't want to defend us. We have someone who believes we are evil..."

I do not think it's OK for Severin or any talk show host to make claims like these without any substantiation, sensible context or reason. And, merely attempting to be sensational to attract higher ratings is no grounds for accusing the President of preferring that a million Americans die instead of taking military action.

Then, also recently, came Severin's extreme reaction when Somali pirates were holding captain Richard Phillips hostage and a suspenseful standoff was going on. Severin repeatedly lambasted President Obama, for, responding (in Severin's view) so weakly.

On his April 8th show, Severin suggested that a "real President" of the United States would "...recapture our guys, kill all the pirates, and, as far as I'm concerned, please, please drop a nuclear weapon on Mogadishu -- for revenge, for deterrence, and, just a public service to the rest of the world..."

On April 9th, Severin was still ripping Obama.

"He is a coward," Severin told a caller. "He's an ignoramus. He is weak. He is un-American. He is unpatriotic...He is the Manchurian candidate...And I'll tell you this - all - all of the evidence available - both from the things he's said and the things he's done - I'm talking about Rev. Wright. I'm talking about Bill Ayers. I'm talking about ACORN. I'm talking about the Black Panthers. I'm talking about various radical groups and philosophies to which he signed his name and stood up for...and now, finally, we have elected one of the American haters to the Presidency and we're trying to deal with it..."

Shouldn't a radio talk show host with a good-sized audience in Boston be required to back up these kinds of comments OR not make them at all?

I certainly expect a more responsible performance. I hope you do too.

Obama, in Move with Iran, Setting His Own Path

It is, in many ways, Barack Obama's most bold, distinctive move as President so far.

Obama, in recent days, has confirmed that his Adminstration will participate - along with five other countries - in talks with Iran about its nuclear program. The Obama Administration also has "plans to start reaching out to Iran on a one-to-one basis," US officials told the NY Times last week. The US has also agreed to a partial lifting of "a general ban on face-to-face talks between senior State Department officials and their Iranian counterparts," according to an April 8th "Political Intelligence," report in Boston.com.

The Obama Administration, in March, already invited Iran to join other talks among leaders of countries discussing ongoing challenges in Afghanistan.

The news last week that the US has agreed to join Iran at the table with Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China to discuss Iran's development of nuclear material follows other actions by the Obama Administration toward Iran that signal a radically new direction for US in its relations with Iran. The Bush Administration, in 2002 identified Iran as part of the "axis of evil" and kept a hostile approach (toward Iran) for eight years without ever trying to negotiate about anything.

Obama, as a presidential candidate, said he'd consider talking to Iran without pre-conditions. Now, he's doing it. In March, Obama sent a videotaped message to the Iranian people seeking a fresh start in US-Iran relations and stressing his interest in diplomacy and mutual respect.

Yes, it's possible this initiative with Iran will bring little or no concrete results.
This "opening" may start only a short-lived phase and be quickly forgotten if events unfold negatively. It's unlikely Iran will suddenly reverse course on developing its nuclear capacity, for instance. Iran will not suddenly start reaching agreements with the US or its allies.


However, I think the mere decision by Obama to start communicating with Iran is a big deal -- in several ways. First, US-Iranian relations have been bad for nearly 30 years, so, Obama's moves are unlikely to make things any worse on that score, but, beyond that, it appears Obama is trying to "change the equation" in the Middle East. At a moment when Israel is now threatening that it may be forced to take military action against Iran if Iran does not halt its nuclear ambitions, this is a very delicate moment. Obama, by entering the picture, is changing the dynamics, giving diplomacy with Iran a chance and muzzling Israel's aggressive impulses.

Consider how Benjamin Netanyahu, who just become Israel's new prime minister, has already chosen to express his view on what he wants from Obama in the most extreme, hyped fashion.

"The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons," Netanyahu said in the Atlantic Monthly's March edition.

These and other rumblings from Israel make me even more pleased that Obama has taken his stand to talk to Iran.

We'll see how Obama interacts with Israel in the weeks and months ahead, but, I'd argue that his opening with Iran must be stirring a negative reaction inside Israel. How can Israeli leaders not be angry or disappointed by Obama's moves given their increasingly impatient, hostile tone toward Iran? Plus, if Israel were ever to decide to strike Iran, wouldn't the Israelis want and need the support of the US?

I think Obama has probably already taken considerable heat from Israel and its supporters for his overtures to Iran - and, I think he's showing some real leadership by charting his own course on this matter.

How many US Presidents - after only three months - have begun down a road that is this much at odds with Israel's position? It seems most Presidents in my life, except for Jimmy Carter, have "towed the line" by, generally, doing what Israel wants. Obama is challenging Israel more and showing he's willing and able to disagree with Israel.

Obama's moves with Iran represent an exception for his first three months as President. He is showing us his hand more on this. He's taking a new path that some see as controversial or ill-advised.

Remember: This is a new President who, remarkably, has kept his deliberations and reactions on policy topics quite private. He and his advisors have not revealed how Obama makes decisions or the role his temperment and inner biases play in his decisionmaking.

Yet, unlike with most issues, on Iran, Obama is sticking his neck out. He's taking a risk and he's trying to lead people in a new direction.

I applaud Obama's initiative with Iran. I realize fully that it may yield no striking results for quite a while. However, if nothing else, it has shown me that he's willing to assert himself, invite and deal with conflict and be able to withstand substantial pressure from opposing forces.

It would be helpful if members of Congress supported Obama's initiative, but, they are usually silent cowards when it comes to taking any stand that might upset the influence of the "Israeli Lobby."

Hoping the Boston Globe Survives

I cannot believe the Boston Globe is struggling to survive now.

It's one thing to read about various out-of-town newspapers folding, reducing staff or filing for bankruptcy, but, it's something else when you might lose YOUR newspaper.

I had thought the Globe was somehow immune to these gloomy developments. So, I was jolted to read that the New York Times, which owns the Globe, has just threatened to shut it down unless its unions quickly agree to $20 million in concessions in the form of various cuts.
Even if the Globe wards off this threat, its future looks much more bleak. Some say it's only a matter of time before it evolves into an online publication.

Now, suddenly, I'm feeling the potentially awful loss that would be felt without the Globe.

I cannot even imagine the Boston area without the Globe. It seems like a nightmare -- some bizarre, awful version of "the future," when the online world becomes even more dominant.

Yes, I'm one of those people who feels that newspapers play a vital role in creating a "sense of community" in a world that has become disturbingly impersonal and focused on THE INDIVIDUAL at all costs. People live, to a troubling degree, in their own worlds and feel disconnected from their hometowns, neighbors, and, often, the rest of society.
A good newspaper - like the Globe - is one vehicle that still ties us together in a special way. For generations, conversations have begun with one person saying "I saw in the paper that........"

The Globe has always been my newspaper. For most of my life, it has been my favorite paper.
I confess that, in the past few years, I've felt the Globe has gone a bit downhill, but, that has come as it has lost terrific reporters, cut back some coverage and made repeated changes.

I've enjoyed the ritual of reading the Globe every day - from seeing its familiar logo to going to the sports page first to appreciating its enthusiastic, detailed coverage of politics. The Globe has brought me so many huge news developments my whole life -- and sparked so many reactions and conversations that I can't begin to highlight its impact.

I still possess my copy of the Boston Globe's 1978 edition with the front-page headline that appeared the day after the Blizzard of '78 struck: "Worst Storm of Century." Who can forget that!

I recall vividly the June morning in 1968 when I went downstairs very early to find the Globe left at our back door. It was the day after the June presidential primary, and, though I was only 12 years old, I was closely following the Democratic primary race between Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy. I was hoping so, so much the Globe would tell me of a Kennedy victory. It turned out the results weren't in that early edition - and, sadly, a short while later, I learned - by television reports - of Kennedy's assassination the night before.

I recall, after the incredibly thrilling Red Sox-Yankee playoff game in Oct. 1978, which ended with Yaz popping up on a Rich Gossage fastball, reading a front-page Mike Barnicle story titled "A Man Called Yaz." I attended that game, the most exciting sports event I ever attended. I still have that Globe too.

I recall, in high school, following the Watergate scandal by reading the Globe every day. The Globe always used to cover politics exhaustively. I used to love following presidential campaigns covered by outstanding "original" Globe staffers like Curtis Wilkie.

When the Boston University faculty went on strike in 1979, I once offered - as a student reporter - to string for the Globe, and, when I got a story published, it was an unforgettable thrill. I also have loved writing letters to the Editor of the Globe, especially when a fair number got published.

I remember when I first began to appreciate the unique baseball reporting of Peter Gammons when he used to cover the Red Sox for the Globe. It took me years to fully realize just how original and extraordinary Gammons' close-up reporting really was.

When national stories broke, the Globe usually put their own stamp on the subject somehow.
I recall, the day after 9/11, the Globe did some unique reporting on who was on one of the hijacked airplanes.

I've loved reading Globe columnists - Marty Nolan, Robert Turner, Ellen Goodman and Scott Lehigh - just to name a few. And, whether I agreed or disagreed with sports columnist Dan Shaughnessy, I've always wanted to see his column. (I loved that lengthy Will McDonough
article on the rift between Bill Parcells and Robert Kraft. Remember that?)

I recall, when I moved to Washington DC in 1984, thinking I'd go crazy without seeing the Globe every day. Well, that never happened because, I ended up buying the Globe at an increased price every single day at the Newsroom, a legendary news store that sold newspapers from all over the world. It made me feel I was at home.

Sometimes, I get a sense that young people brought up on the InterNet don't know what they've missed without having had a regular newspaper to call their own. Sometimes I'm struck by the "random" way that people get news these days. On occasion, I'll ask someone where they read or head about news they just shared, and, he or she replies: "Somewhere -- I don't know."

I guess it's true that more and more people get their news from the InterNet. Just like it's true that quite a few young people have gotten their political news from Jon Stewart's Daily Show. I like Jon Stewart, but, I find it disappointing that fewer young people are reading newspapers.

A newspaper is more than just a vehicle for transmitting headlines. It's a specific group of people with unique talents and personalities who put the news together with an approach, emphasis and philosophy that leaves their mark.

I know thousands of people share my sentiments about the Globe. Today's April 5th Globe included an article with an array of well-known people expressing dismay at just the chance of the newspaper folding.

I still hope the Globe will survive somehow. Imagining the Globe existing in only the form of an online edition is painful. If the newspaper folds, things will truly never be the same.