tradition

What’s done is done.

The Dodgers went to the White House on Thursday and met with President Trump for the second year in a row, following back-to-back World Series championships.

At the time of their visit, the Dodgers had the best record in Major League Baseball with 65 wins and 38 losses. Winning three titles in a row won’t be easy, but assuming they pull off another victory in October, here are five reasons the Dodgers should not go back to the White House next year.

What’s the point?

Ceremonial visits have been going on for years, and both Democratic and Republican presidents have embraced the tradition with athletes from various sports.

If you’d like to know why I didn’t have anything to say in 2021, when the Dodgers visited President Biden at the White House, that’s a good question.

I didn’t dwell on it at the time because I think such visits are kind of ho-hum. But now we’ve had three visits in five years, and in my head, this hammers home the point that baseball players have nothing to gain from a visit. They’re baseball players, and as such, there is no higher honor than winning the World Series.

I like baseball, but it’s not like these guys are astronauts, just back from the moon.

If the Dodgers want to mark their achievement and honor the game of baseball in the nation’s capital, fine. They should go to the Smithsonian as a team and visit the display where Jackie Robinson’s jersey is enshrined.

They’re being put in an awkward position

As Dodgers shortstop Mookie Betts put it in saying that he wouldn’t join his teammates, he couldn’t win either way.

“If I do” go, he said, “people are gonna hate me. If I don’t, people are gonna hate me.”

That’s an exaggeration, but I get his point. Dodger utility man Kiké Hernandez said he wasn’t going, either, explaining that he was busy rehabbing an injury.

The Dodgers should take the pressure off the players by politely declining an invitation to visit.

Besides, people like baseball because it’s an escape, a distraction, a diversion. You want to have a clear head as you try to remember why you willingly packed up your kids and paid $400 for lousy seats and food at Dodger Stadium to watch Kyle Tucker, at $60 million a year, foul out to the catcher.

You do not want to think about the American political cesspool as you watch the Dodgers rally from behind, win in late innings, and inch ever closer to going back to the White House again next year.

They’re being used

The players were apparently told they could make their own decision about whether to go to the White House.

What they should have been told was that they were being exploited.

When a president hosts a team at the White House, there is only one reason.

It’s a photo op.

Not for the team, but for the president.

Baseball might no longer be the national pastime, but it’s a part of American culture, with fans of every political stripe in every state. There’s kind of a folksy quality in the manufactured banter between a president and the ballplayers. He can fawn over them and joke with them and look more like a regular guy — one of the boys.

“This is really a special team,” Trump said during the Dodger visit. “It’s special winners. They’re champions, and just unbelievable.”

Yeah, we knew that when they beat the Blue Jays.

Nine months ago.

Too much ring kissing is a turnoff

If you are going to go, can you at least not embarrass yourself?

Dodgers Chairman Mark Walter handed Trump a Dodgers jersey and World Series ring at the White House. Somehow, he managed to restrain himself from bending to one knee and kissing the president’s ring.

“Thank you for welcoming us today, Mr. President,” Walter said. “We’re proud of that team and what it has achieved, and we hope to be back here again next year.”

As The Times’ Maddie Lee noted, this was just days after Bloomberg reported that “two insurance companies controlled by Walter, as well as Guggenheim Partners, where Walter is chief executive, are being investigated by federal prosecutors for potential financial improprieties.”

“No charges have been filed,” Lee wrote. “Representatives from the parent company of the insurance firms as well as from TWC Global — the Walter business empire that controls his sporting investments, including the Dodgers and Lakers — have told reporters they are cooperating with the investigation.”

So that’s another problem with the Dodgers’ visit.

How can we not wonder about ulterior motives?

It’s hard to keep track of who’s kissing whose ring.

Politics is unavoidable

The Dodger brain trust has attempted to cast White House visits as an exercise in tradition, not politics.

“Like I’ve always said, my company line, my personal line is I hope that we get this invitation every year,” Dodgers manager Dave Roberts said before the visit. “Because that’s the goal: to win a championship, to get this invitation to the White House. And I’m not a politician, and I’m doing something that teams have done for decades. And so that’s where I stand, really. I’m a baseball coach. That’s what I do.”

That couldn’t be more naive.

The Dodgers love to project a wholesome, family-friendly essence. But American discourse has not been more vulgar, polarizing or politicized in my lifetime, and I’m reminded of the line, “Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.”

In Trump’s world, there are only two kinds of people: friends and foes. The Dodgers are now friends, and when Venezuelan World Series hero Miguel Rojas was singled out by Trump, who launched an unprovoked attack on his country, that reeked of calculated political staging.

The White House itself has been a staging ground for political assaults on the Dodgers’ home state and on immigrants who come from regions of the world that are home to some of the Dodger players. Election integrity has been politicized. The Supreme Court has been politicized. The water quality in the reflecting pool has been politicized. And at a White House cage fight, a former first lady was brazenly disparaged.

You can’t peel off your baseball uniform, put on your wedding suit, and stand there with the president, smiling and shaking hands and being voluntarily patronized, without having made a political statement.

Better to stick to what you know best.

And besides.

Trump is a Yankees fan.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

A fine place to stop for a milk tea-centered breakfast or lunch after exploring the labyrinth of African, Indian and other international shops and food stalls inside Chungking Mansions — one of the last remaining film locations in Wong Kar-wai’s iconic “Chungking Express,” where Brigitte Lin’s drug-dealing retired actor is seen conducting her business in a blond wig, trenchcoat and sunglasses. Lan Fong Yuen, in the basement of Heath Mall (which is technically part of Chungking Mansions but has a separate street entrance), has its own historic pedigree. Late founder Lam Muk-ho is credited with originating silk-stocking milk tea (it’s strained through a long cloth filter), and possibly yuenyeung (milk tea mixed with coffee), at the still-operating Gage Street stall he opened in Central in 1952. He’s also said to have popularized the thick-cut Hong Kong-style French toast and pork-chop buns so familiar in our own San Gabriel Valley cafes, as well as “lo-ding” instant noodle dishes, especially the chicken-chop version. The Tsim Sha Tsui location opened in 2009 but has an older diner aesthetic that attracts tourists and locals who line up for the scene and affordable Hong Kong comfort food.

Heath Mall basement, Shop No. S09, Chungking Mansions, 44 Nathan Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong

RYANAIR boss Michael O’Leary has made the headlines today, calling for an early-morning ban on airports serving alcohol to passengers.

He’s calling for the big change following a rise in badly behaved passengers that have caused flights forced to divert.

He told The Times: “It’s becoming a real challenge for all airlines

“I fail to understand why anybody in airports bars is serving people at five or six o’clock in the morning. Who needs to be drinking beer at that time?

“There should be no alcohol served at airports outside [those] licensing hours,” he said. “We have been calling for many years for a limit of two drinks per person per airport, why don’t you limit people by boarding pass?”

So should we be banning morning beers at UK airports? Our travel experts go head to head…

‘Please don’t deny hard-working Brits this small holiday pleasure’ says Caroline McGuire, Head of Travel (Digital)

AIRPORT breakfast beers are one of those quirky British traditions, much like the Wetherspoons table number game and the dirty birthday pint.

It is pretty much guaranteed that you will see a number of sleepy-eyed Brits sinking a lager at the airport pub, no matter what time of day you arrive.

While I personally can’t stomach a drink before midday, I’m also not a fan of telling hard-working Brits how they can spend their precious seven days of holiday that they’ve been saving for all year.

Michael O’Leary has long called for there to be a two-drink limit on people drinking at airports and that is something that feels like a reasonable compromise to me.

But to ban airport bars from serving any booze outside of normal UK licensing hours – typically from around 10 or 11am – seems pretty unfair when passengers can still buy a drink on the actual Ryanair flight.

Pubs are under a huge amount of financial stress these days, thanks to a raft of anti-hospitality measures introduced by our current chancellor, Rachel Reeves.

Around two pubs are closing in the UK each day – more than 2,000 since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, should we really be penalising them any further?

Add to this the fact that pubs pay an extremely high rent for their airport locations, do we want to see boozers also disappearing from here too?

I’m not sure that cutting out morning drinking will see the solution to the problem that airlines are clearly having such a huge issue with, because it won’t have any effect on the thousands of flights that fly out of the UK post-midday.

I’ve been on more late-evening Ryanair flights to Ibiza than I care to remember, when I have deep sympathy for the cabin crew serving very rowdy passengers.

Mr O’Leary has been in the industry for a long time, in fact he’s one of the most experienced airline bosses in the business, and we should be listening when he says it’s a huge problem that needs sorting.

The measures he has taken in recent years to hold disruptive passengers to account with huge court fines is clearly a huge step in the right direction, although I appreciate this is a time-consuming and costly process.

But banning the small joy of a breakfast beer in these stressful modern times, with everything that’s going on in the world? Please no.

‘More drastic measures are needed’ says Kara Godfrey, Deputy Travel Editor

LOOK, I get it – you finally got that time off work, and you’re ready for a week of sunshine and relaxing.

But it has forever baffled me as to how that translates to a pint of beer or glass of champagne at 6am when normally you wouldn’t even be awake.

I can’t think of anything worse than sinking a Guinness when I’m waiting for my flight, and certainly don’t want that sloshing around in my stomach before a long journey.

If people could restrain themselves then a ban wouldn’t be needed but sadly, without airports willing to put a cap in place, it seems more drastic measures are needed.

Haven’t we all been on that awful flight where rowdy passengers just make it worse for everyone?

With Ryanair saying that as many as a flight a day are being diverted, those costs are likely to be passed onto the passenger too.

So those drunken idiots are essentially going to make your flight more expensive.

Maybe a full ban is too far, but I would say that a drink limit is definitely needed. 

I’d back airports being required to scan boarding passes, with a cap on 1-2 boozy beverages before you get on a plane.

Lets save it for the all-inclusive pool bar, guys.