Our Immoral Drug Laws Our Immoral Drug Laws
This article presents the author's views on drug laws in the US. The most important and basic inconsistency of present law is represented by the conflict between the federal cour...
Jun 22, 1958 / Alfred R. Lindesmith
O’Malley’s Double Play O’Malley’s Double Play
So baseball is not as important as housing or atomic fallout. Nevertheless, when it was announced that the Brooklyn Dodgers may go to Los Angeles and the New York Giants to San Francisco, several million Americans felt much as if they’d just been evicted or irradiated. To them and millions of others, the chief present passion in living is connected with the winning or losing of today’s ball game. Giants and Dodgers fans almost literally felt like a baby whose father deliberately drops it on its little soft head. The baby tried to understand that Father had his reasons and ended by wondering whether it really liked Daddy very much. The poor thing was in trauma. The episode gives a wonderful example of anti-social skulduggery piously masked in “necessity,” and a skillful confusion of issues which the press for some time seemed unable to disentangle. Ball clubs have moved before, most recently the Boston Braves to Milwaukee, the Philadelphia Athletics to Kansas City and the St. Louis Browns to Baltimore. But these cities were one-club towns that were overloaded with two clubs. New York City is certainly not a one-club town. The Dodgers are at the moment the world champions of major-league baseball. The Giants have the longest history of greatness in the sport. If these two clubs are moved, baseball calls for an investigation, which Chairman Celler of the House Judiciary Committee seemed disposed to give it. Celler was needed. A corps of sportswriters who can be deeply shocked by Ted Williams’ spitting were unmoved by the much more anti-social moves of President O’Malley of the Dodgers. The double standard as between magnates and players had split too wide; the sportswriters’ courtesy toward the magnates was obsolete. The picture of O’Malley as a heavy-hearted business man was too repulsive. It was time and overtime for the reluctant sanitation department. Let’s clean this up quickIy. First, is an established ball club primarily a business man’s gang of twenty-five workmen hired to keep a ball moving around smartly to amuse an audience? Certainly not. In essence, it is a Myth, supported in the air of the land by invisible jets of hope, anxiety, identification—call it all love—steaming from a million fans who may never go to the park. If there is no Myth, there is really no club. When a New Yorker says that he loves America, the Giants—or the Yankees—are a good part of what he means. There are people in the wastes of Brooklyn who hate everything about America except the neighborhood bar and grill and the Brooklyn Dodgers. Second, is baseball a business? Walter O’Malley of the Dodgers is confused. One moment he says that, because it is not a business, New York City should buy him a $50,000,000 park. At the next moment, he says that it is a business he controls and that he can move it to Los Angeles. The fact is that the US Government, by exempting baseball from a good many laws other business must submit to—labor laws, anti-trust laws, wartime priorities, etc.—has acknowledged that baseball is not a business. It can of course revoke these special considerations, if Mr. O’Malley insists. Soon after, baseball would probably be dead, in the Myth sense, and Mr. O’Malley ought to provide the burial plot. Third is the issue of expanding the major leagues across the country. In all these discussions there is a peculiar drift toward setting up inter-city feuds, such as the celebrated one between the Giants and Dodgers. The major cities mentioned come in feud-pairs: Los Angeles and San Francisco, Dallas and Houston, Minneapolis and St. Paul, and that about finishes it, except for Toronto and Montreal. A real feud is a mysterious thing. The Giant-Dodger feud exists between the citizens of two boroughs of New York City as well as between the two squads. The games attract big crowds, and are usually very closely played. Both teams are at better than their best. And the fans can browbeat members of their own family, office, club or saloon with the victory, for Dodger versus Giant patriotism splits every group right up the middle. All the elements in a feud act on one another. A feud cannot be created or manipulated. In 1910 Chicago thought itself the challenger to New York, and so there was a very hot feud between the New York Giants and Chicago Cubs. The magnates thought up a Washington-Baltimore feud. It has simply not panned out: the weak “Washington Club” is primarily a baseball lobby in the national capital and the new Baltimore Orioles have not reclaimed the glory of old. Feuds are the province of anthropology. For these purposes, Giants and Dodger fans are members of Tribes. However, the fan cannot begin to work up any hatred for an alien team until he loves his local team. And here the Myth is seen again as the essence of the matter. To a Giant fan, the Myth is of a gifted but muscle-bound titan, blocked by a stubborn left-footed pride. Against low-grade opposition, he is lower-grade. But let him come up against the swollen champion and he will, usually, beat the great man’s brains out. The Giants have to do things the hard way, no matter who the current personnel may be. You have to love them. Their glorious past, as the greatest and most hated team in baseball, may be gone forever, but it trails the memories of its great fans George M. Cahan, William Brady, Al Smith, Bill Fallon, Jimmy Walker—the type of the New York sport; and the greatest sport of all, McGraw. Horace Stoneharn of the Giants thinks he has done everything wrong lately. His departed pitcher, Maglie, won the pennant for the Dodgers; a few years before, his departed hitter, Mize, won the series for the Yankees. And so he has seemed to go along with O’Malley. He is not quick enough to see that the Dodgers are losing their skills; and the present Giants are about to rise. He believes in the Brooklyn Bluff, so much more imposing than Coogan’s Bluff. For the villain is of course O’Malley, a familiar enough type of banker’s front man, a bluffer and conniver par excellence, a good man ringside at the Copacabana with a politician, a sportswriter and a judge. The world was looking the other way, in August, 1945, toward crashing Japan, when out of the Brooklyn woodwork crept Walter F. O’Malley as the figurehead of he Brooklyn Trust Company in the sale of 50 per cent ownership of the Brooklyn Dodgers by the Charles Ebbets estate, at the fire-sale price of $750,000. The buyers were ostensibly Branch Rickey, O’Malley and another man. The bank of course put up the money; as estate co-executor, it could not buy. The year before, the same group had got the 25 percent interest of the Edward McKeever estate at the even more scandalous price of $250,000. The final 25 per cent interest of another McKeever daughter, Mrs. Dearie Mulvey, remained, still remains, is not for sale and not happy. O’Malley’s job was to look harmless for five years. Then he got Rickey’s 25 per cent away at the more sensible price of $l,000,000, still being paid off today at the rate of $72,500 a year. At the parting ceremonies, Rickey cried; O’Malley did not even try hard. O’Malley’s present shenanigans are aimed at running his fabulous shoestring into an asset of a $50,000,000 plus ballpark paid for by New York or Los Angeles taxpayers. Obviously this is the time to do it, while the Dodgers are still only beginning to collapse. If they must go to Los Angeles, why, Hollywood is collapsing too. Let the two pricked balloons nestle down together. What matter if the invisible emotional tissue binding several million New Yorkers to their world is violently ripped out? The two small cunning eyes in Brooklyn see a beautiful poker hand. New York’s Mayor Robert Wagner can be played shrewdly against Los Angeles’ Mayor Poulson and the FCC and various pay-TV setups and Pacific Telephone and Telegraph and AT&T and Long Island’s Franklin National Bank. What a blow if O’Malley should look down and see no cards at all except the emotions of those million people, including Congressman Emanuel Celler of New York City, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. A living society, it has often been noted, survives only on a great web of unwritten, tacit contracts. As these are broken, the society dies. O’Malley of course does not know this. He has never heard of any Myth, of any unwritten contract between himself and anybody. One is tempted to let him go to Los Angeles. There might even be a good feud between New York and Los Angeles. But the Giants must stay. Still, one must wonder how much of a public villain a man is willing to be. What profit is worth it? What self-assurance or cleverness? Perhaps when the deed is done, O’Malley could change his name or find somewhere to hide, say Mexico City or Greenpoint.
Jun 22, 1957 / David Cort
DOPE: Congress Encourages the Traffic DOPE: Congress Encourages the Traffic
Both the 1951 and 1956 enactments, as well as the hearings and recommendations of the Congressional subcommittees which led to their passage, reflect conceptions of justice and p...
Mar 16, 1957 / Alfred R. Lindesmith
Traffic in Dope: Medical Problem Traffic in Dope: Medical Problem
The disastrous consequences of turning over to the police what is an essentially medical problem are steadily becoming more apparent' as narcotic arrests rise each year to new r...
Apr 25, 1956 / Alfred R. Lindesmith
Miracle in Alabama Miracle in Alabama
“An entire community has experienced a rebirth of freedom. The men and women who compose it now stand erect.”
Mar 3, 1956 / Carey McWilliams
Hollywood Djinn With a Dash of Bitters Hollywood Djinn With a Dash of Bitters
Hollywood Djinn With a Dash of Bitters by…
Jul 25, 1953 / Nelson Algren
Rise of a Labor Leader Rise of a Labor Leader
Sidney Hillman, Statesman of American Labor by Matthew Josephson Matthew Josephson's book about Sidney Hillman is probably as complete in its coverage of the details of Hillman's life as any biogaphy could be. Certainly a most interesting life was led by this Lithuanian-born boy who utilized hs great native intelligence, his basically sound education, and his practical mind to become an important labor leader in the United States and in his later pears played a part in some of the political crises which accompanied the great depression of the '30's and the Second World War. Mr. Josephson's book is very thorough; large parts of it appear to be based on notes kept either by a) Hillman or b) those close to him during his years of political activity and hi5 struggle for trade-union leadership. It gives detailed information on how the problems must have appeared to Hillman and those working with him atthe time. In reading this book many will find themselves wishing that Hillman could have lived to write his own memoirs from a detached post-activity point of view; his long-term evaluation of the situation would then have emerged. For the reader concerned with the rise of the new type of labor union in the United States this book is invaluable. The account of Hillman's first years and of the beginnings of the new clothing workers' unions is realistic and well documented and offers a convincing picture of the attitude of the general public, of industry, and of the working people themselves toward the union movement in the early 1900's. Perhaps the most appealing section of the book is that headed Boyhood and Youth, a period which most of Hillman's later acquaintances knew nothing about. The picture of the Jewish community in Lithuania and Russia, of the struggles of some young idealists to escape from oppression, gives the reader an understanding of basic drives which were to carry not only Hillman but others into the larger labor movement of the United States. One realizes from the beginning that Hillman's life in the labor movement was one of constant warfare. The abortive labor movement in Russia, Hillman's flight under the assault of reactionaries, the early conflicts in Chicago, when his efforts to found a union outside the domination of the old A. F. of L. garment workers' unions led to the death or injury of several participants -- all were marked by violence and intrigue. The author uses the phrase "contained excitement" in several places to describe whatothers also recognized as an element in Hillman's courageous energy. Although the warfare of the early days appeared to subside as the new unions gained strength and public recognition of their usefulness, Hillman was constantly involved in struggle, first with the Reds or extreme radicals within the union and later with racketeers who crept into the union and made alliances with gangs on the outside. This was real warfare with guns and street fighting, shocking to the general public and only now described from the point of view of the Amalgamated unions and Hillman himself. Basically, the fight was to prevent the non-union shops from infringing on the jurisdiction of the Amalgamated and its contracts with employers. The affiliation of some union members with racketeers was perhaps the hardest blow ever dealt Hillman. The whole era in which Hillman worked to get public support and understanding for the labor unions is one of great interest. His almost intuitive understanding of publicity and of the way to obtain the attention and cooperation of elements of society not connected with industrial problems is well described here. Hillman won the approval of intellectual groups throughout the country by his development of services for union members which proved to be a binding force for union loyalty as well as a method of improving their standard of living. The setting up of banks in New York and other centers of the garment industry -- not just saving accounts but real banks which took commercial accounts and lent money on good security -- the entrance of unions into the field of buildmg and operating housing projects for their members, the development of educational and other welfare programs with union funds, all these brought benefits to the Amalgamated unions. The author credits Hillman with the introduction of these ideas. The action of the union in lending money to a depressed employer so that he might stay in business and give employment to union members was, of course, one of the brilliant uses of the union's banking facilities. The author stresses the fact that the Amalgamated banks did not go under in the great depression and that they paid every cent to their depositors in the bank holiday. The second half of the book, dealing with Hillman in his Washington or Political period, will arouse more controversy among trade unionists who did not agree with Hillman. The abortive effort to affiliate the Amalgamated with the A. F. of L., the formation of the C. I. O , the conflicts that developed in the C.I.O. and the battle between the C. I. 0. and the A. I. of L. are sketched but not so completely developed as Hillman's earlier life and union activities. Hillman's entrance into the federal government and involvement in administrative matters explain the meager documentation of this section. Undoubtedly he had no time for the notes and analytical comments which made the first half of the book so illuminating. Mr. Josephson has discharged his task well and the book will be widely read. It will be of great value to students of the labor movement and will be interesting to persons who are concerned only with an understanding of history. One could wish there had been more material available on the very last phase of Hillman's life and his reasons for taking part in the formation of the World Federation of Trade Unions. Hillman's ideas with regard to this and the degree of his understanding of the great hazards of association with Russian "trade unionists," with Sailllant of the French Confederation of Labor, which was thought to be even then under Communist domination, and with other more or less unknown European leaders have never been fully analyzed. One hopes that this final activity will some day be made clear to Hillman's interested colleagues.
Jan 31, 1953 / Frances Perkins
American Christmas, 1952 American Christmas, 1952
At the height of the Cold War, the famed writer took Christmas as the occasion to deliver an invective against the "faces of the American Century, full of such an immense irrespons...
Dec 27, 1952 / Nelson Algren
American Christmas, 1952 American Christmas, 1952
At the height of the Cold War, the famed writer took Christmas as the occasion to deliver an invective against the "faces of the American Century, full of such an immense irre...
Dec 27, 1952 / Nelson Algren