[Paleopsych] Replies to Brooks: So Long, Mets? Think '69. '86. Think Again.

Premise Checker checker at panix.com
Fri Apr 1 15:01:47 UTC 2005

The New York Times > Opinion > So Long, Mets? Think '69. '86. Think Again. 
(5 Letters)
March 31, 2005

    To the Editor:

    Re "Whose Team Am I On?," by David Brooks (column, March 29):

    Like Mr. Brooks, I immigrated to Washington from New York many years
    ago, carrying with me a passion for the New York Mets.

    As a child growing up in the 1970's, I became accustomed to watching
    the likes of Willie Montañez and Steve Henderson bumble their way
    through season after hapless season.

    In 1977, I cried when the Mets traded Tom Seaver. Those tears turned
    to joy nine years later when Mookie Wilson's ground ball saved our

    I was sad to read that Mr. Brooks sees Washington's grass as greener
    than Shea Stadium's and is ready to abandon the Mets for the promise
    of the Nationals.

    Troubled by the Mets' loss of innocence through big-player signings
    and bad-player signings, he sees a fresh start with the Nats. A fling
    with the Nats will not ease his pain, because the Mets' problems are
    emblematic of the problems of all professional sports - prima donna
    players and greedy and detached owners.

    So, Mr. Brooks, have your fling. At day's end, though, your cheating
    heart will return to your first and only true love.

    James I. Menapace
    Gaithersburg, Md., March 29, 2005

    To the Editor:

    To answer David Brooks, there is nothing wrong or unusual about
    adopting the team of your "new" locale (the Washington Nationals) as
    your own, even though you fear it is a betrayal of your first baseball
    love (the New York Mets).

    You grew up at a magic time, and the 1969 Mets were a magic team. That
    magic will never leave you. It hasn't left me, and I grew up in San
    Diego. You will root for the Nationals on some level, even a very
    loyal and emotional one. But you will not betray the Mets, because you

    Your deepest love will always be with those magic Mets, and that girl
    you proposed to in 1986, on the 40th win.

    Patrick Gorse
    Pasadena, Calif., March 30, 2005

    To the Editor:

    When I was 7, my family moved from Boston to Seattle. My father
    encouraged me to drop my loyalty to the miserable Red Sox and transfer
    it to the more miserable Mariners.

    The Mariners proved as adept as the Red Sox at blowing leads and
    failing to translate winning seasons into post-season success. They
    spent the first decade we lived in Seattle at the bottom, cheered on
    by a few half-hearted fans in the concrete tomb of the Kingdome. We
    still consider ourselves heroic martyrs for not having dumped them
    years ago.

    In this spirit, I say to David Brooks: Devote yourself to the
    Washington Nationals. No doubt they will stink at first. Lackluster
    crowds seem assured. You will be one of the few, the proud, who
    actually root for this ridiculous expansion venture.

    But when the team finally makes it to the World Series, you and your
    kids will be able to say, "We were there."

    Ariela Migdal
    Kibbutz Maale Gilboa, Israel
    March 29, 2005

    To the Editor:

    Abandon the New York Mets? David Brooks, say it isn't so! Do you
    really think the Washington Nationals will embody anything more than a
    transplanted team in a transplanted capital, peopled by citizens
    transplanted from everywhere else?

    The Nats will never be authentic, in the same way that D.C. bagels and
    pizza will never be authentic. They'll be soulless and drifting in a
    city that has never found its soul and drifts only right or left.

    But ... I, too, am a Mets-loving Washington immigrant from the New
    York City area. And I, too, am feeling that tug to accept my place in
    the D.C. community by switching loyalties to the Nationals.

    How can I even entertain this disloyal notion? I still want my Piazza
    with my pizza. But I will adapt, buy a hat and cheer for the Nats.

    After 11 years, the D.C. bagels aren't so bad anymore.

    Theresa L. Raphael
    Olney, Md., March 29, 2005

    To the Editor:

    Such is the relationship that conservatives have with "ideals."

    First the G.O.P. ended its long embrace of the "ideal" of a balanced
    budget, then it began to selectively overlook the "ideal" of states'
    rights - and now this. Go figure.

    Marshall Gilinsky
    New York, March 29, 2005

More information about the paleopsych mailing list