By Edwin Cooney
“Why,” a cab driver once asked the late great Illinois governor, U.N. Ambassador and two time Presidential candidate Adlai E. Stevenson, “did you run for President in the first place?”
“Why not?” replied the normally erudite Stevenson.
“Well!” said the cab driver in an Irish brogue, “if you run and you’re elected, then you’ve got nothin’ to look forward to!”
That’s the way it is with some things. Sometimes we deliberately create our own problems, but often those problems are worthwhile. Adlai E. Stevenson was elected Vice President of the United States for Grover Cleveland’s second term. He served from 1893 to 1897 but wasn’t compelled to seek political office. Later, his grandson, also named Adlai Stevenson, most likely inherited his political ambition from his grandfather. He had plenty of money, a lucrative Chicago law practice, and a well-to-do (if chronically unhappy) wife who divorced him for getting into politics ala Jane Wyman and Ronald Reagan at about the same time. The same was true of Nelson Rockefeller, Averell Harriman and others. Their self-created problem was political ambition and the solving of domestic and international crises.
Mine is much different, but it is still a problem which I’ve had now for almost a quarter of a century. It isn’t a big problem and it’s almost never painful — although occasionally it comes pretty close. It’s a very mobile problem. I carry it with me even on vacation. I’ll go so far as to say that I carry my problem with me especially on vacation trips.
I’ve never been much for puzzles, crossword or otherwise, but I did solve that plastic peg game “High IQ” when I was twelve or thirteen years old. Then, in adulthood, someone gave me a puzzle that was like “High IQ” but instead of having the two X and Y axes, this one was made up of a triangle on wood using steel pegs. Like “High IQ”, the object was to leave just one peg in the center of the configuration—and I conquered that also. Hence, when the Rubik’s cube was created, I was ready for the new challenge and I’m still hooked.
I’ve owned my Rubik’s Cube since the Christmas of 1983 or 1984 — you’d think I could be more definite, but it’s part of my personal denial tendency. My cube is of course designed for a blind person, so instead of colors it has lines, squares, circles, buttons, arrows and stars. The object is to twist the cube in a series of motions enabling you to match all of the surfaces according to their designs: lines with lines, stars with stars, arrows with arrows, and so on. I can get about two thirds of it but, as I’ve already described it, this isn’t horseshoes. Almost doesn’t count.
One of the smartest and most honest men I know finally surrendered to looking up the solution. He has solved my Rubik’s cube twice. He offered to show me, but I just couldn’t let him. I have gone so far as to make inquiries of others as to the exact nature of the puzzle and everyone generally agrees that it’s either a geometry or an algorithm problem. Wow! If that’s what it is, then that explains it -- but it doesn’t solve it and solve it is what I insist on doing. The idea that it’s a geometry problem doesn’t help much. In fact, it’s a little intimidating, since I only experienced rudimentary geometry in high school—triangles, cubes, circles etc. etc. As for algorithms, my mind doesn’t even begin to grasp what they are.
The point of all this is that one of the best strategies for problem solving is the creation of another problem. I’m told it is how medical science conquers disease. It’s even possible that it’s the strategy President Obama will employ, even if subconsciously, as he tackles the complex challenges over the remaining 1,361 plus days of his administration.
It appears that most solutions, no matter how well intended, inevitably create new problems. Our political system depends upon it. A problem free society would be a society minus the need for politicians or indeed leadership of any kind. ”Perish the very thought!” Is that what I hear you shouting?
That isn’t, in any way, to trivialize those problems we refuse to face at our deadly peril. Still, as we realize that problem solving unintentionally results in the creation of new problems despite our best intentions, we can perhaps be a little less contentious with one another as we work together to make the world safer.
Yes, indeed! My Rubik’s cube is a problem. Its very existence is an antidote to boredom on long trips or perhaps when doing laundry. Just because it doesn’t endanger my health or well being (some, but not much, that is) or the health or well being of others, doesn’t lessen its formidability. Pleasant as it is, its solution could bring back that old bug-a-boo: boredom. On the other hand, its very existence solved a problem I was facing, specifically: What should I write about this week?
If you’re looking for another example of how problems both solve and create problems, talk to me next week.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, April 27, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
RELIGION AND PATRIOTISM—DO THEY REALLY CLICK?
By Edwin Cooney
In recent years, out of concern for our national security, millions of Americans have come to equate their religious faith with their patriotism via the motto “In God We Trust”. The question is, to what effect?
America’s original motto, adopted in 1782 by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation was “E Pluribus Unum”: out of many, one. That motto symbolized the formation of a new nation out of thirteen colonies. It not only reflected the newly minted nation’s pride, its effect was tangible. One could see it on the map as the nation rapidly expanded. The nation grew steadily until 1861. Then the Civil War commenced and eleven of America’s 34 states (Kansas became the thirty-fourth state early in 1861 as the Southern states were seceding) decided to break away from the Union. So much for the tangible!
It was during the Civil War that the Northern clergy pressed the Lincoln Administration to have a statement printed on future coinage invoking our religious faith. The Reverend M. R. Watkinson of Ridley Township, Pennsylvania gave two reasons for this. The first was because of the moral struggle the Union was waging against slavery. (Note that the South insisted that God was on its side based in part on scriptural admonitions that slavery was legitimate and that slaves should love and obey their masters: Colossians 4:1 and 3:22.) The second purpose was to distinguish America from “heathen” nations.
Thus, in November 1863, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase authorized James Pollock, Director of the Philadelphia Mint, to prepare a design for the two and three cent pieces to read “E Pluribus Unum” and “In God We Trust.”
This new motto periodically appeared on our coinage between 1865 and 1957. However, beginning October 1st, 1957, it was placed by law on all coins and bills issued by the U.S. Treasury. This was the result of a joint resolution of the Congress passed the previous year and signed into law by President Eisenhower on Monday, July 30th, 1956. Ike, after all, was a candidate for re-election that year.
Most Americans, when threatened by illness, war, or fear, understandably look to God for strength and sustenance. Still, there are millions of American patriots among us who are either atheists or agnostics for whom the phrase “In God We Trust” has little meaning, but who certainly love their country.
Ambiguity over “In God We Trust” is by no means confined to nonbelievers. Theodore Roosevelt, our twenty-sixth President, wrote the following to Congress in 1907:
"My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege... it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."
TR was a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, a sect that was apparently very strict as to how and where God’s name should be used or displayed. Although Roosevelt didn’t object to the motto’s use on statues, the walls of courthouses or military establishments, its use on money was another matter.
As for me, I object to it on still another ground. God is omnipotent, if we’re to follow scripture. It isn’t, as I understand it, up to us to trust or not trust God. Therefore, it seems to me, to set “standards” for God is quite sacrilegious. Furthermore, I’ve never seen anything in scripture that specifies that God loves Americans or favors American causes over those of the rest of His creation. In so far as I am aware, mortals may go to Heaven (and perhaps a generous God at Christ’s request will let me in, too), but America as a nation will likely be quite irrelevant in eternity!
What President Abraham Lincoln had to say on the subject of God and nations has been quoted many times. Mr. Lincoln didn’t worry as much about whether God was on our side as much as he worried whether we were on God’s side.
Our individual morality may ultimately be at issue when we reach the Pearly Gates, but meanwhile America’s survival is up to us. No one said it better than another one of our four martyred presidents, John F. Kennedy, at the close of his inaugural address:
“…With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land that we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
In recent years, out of concern for our national security, millions of Americans have come to equate their religious faith with their patriotism via the motto “In God We Trust”. The question is, to what effect?
America’s original motto, adopted in 1782 by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation was “E Pluribus Unum”: out of many, one. That motto symbolized the formation of a new nation out of thirteen colonies. It not only reflected the newly minted nation’s pride, its effect was tangible. One could see it on the map as the nation rapidly expanded. The nation grew steadily until 1861. Then the Civil War commenced and eleven of America’s 34 states (Kansas became the thirty-fourth state early in 1861 as the Southern states were seceding) decided to break away from the Union. So much for the tangible!
It was during the Civil War that the Northern clergy pressed the Lincoln Administration to have a statement printed on future coinage invoking our religious faith. The Reverend M. R. Watkinson of Ridley Township, Pennsylvania gave two reasons for this. The first was because of the moral struggle the Union was waging against slavery. (Note that the South insisted that God was on its side based in part on scriptural admonitions that slavery was legitimate and that slaves should love and obey their masters: Colossians 4:1 and 3:22.) The second purpose was to distinguish America from “heathen” nations.
Thus, in November 1863, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase authorized James Pollock, Director of the Philadelphia Mint, to prepare a design for the two and three cent pieces to read “E Pluribus Unum” and “In God We Trust.”
This new motto periodically appeared on our coinage between 1865 and 1957. However, beginning October 1st, 1957, it was placed by law on all coins and bills issued by the U.S. Treasury. This was the result of a joint resolution of the Congress passed the previous year and signed into law by President Eisenhower on Monday, July 30th, 1956. Ike, after all, was a candidate for re-election that year.
Most Americans, when threatened by illness, war, or fear, understandably look to God for strength and sustenance. Still, there are millions of American patriots among us who are either atheists or agnostics for whom the phrase “In God We Trust” has little meaning, but who certainly love their country.
Ambiguity over “In God We Trust” is by no means confined to nonbelievers. Theodore Roosevelt, our twenty-sixth President, wrote the following to Congress in 1907:
"My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege... it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."
TR was a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, a sect that was apparently very strict as to how and where God’s name should be used or displayed. Although Roosevelt didn’t object to the motto’s use on statues, the walls of courthouses or military establishments, its use on money was another matter.
As for me, I object to it on still another ground. God is omnipotent, if we’re to follow scripture. It isn’t, as I understand it, up to us to trust or not trust God. Therefore, it seems to me, to set “standards” for God is quite sacrilegious. Furthermore, I’ve never seen anything in scripture that specifies that God loves Americans or favors American causes over those of the rest of His creation. In so far as I am aware, mortals may go to Heaven (and perhaps a generous God at Christ’s request will let me in, too), but America as a nation will likely be quite irrelevant in eternity!
What President Abraham Lincoln had to say on the subject of God and nations has been quoted many times. Mr. Lincoln didn’t worry as much about whether God was on our side as much as he worried whether we were on God’s side.
Our individual morality may ultimately be at issue when we reach the Pearly Gates, but meanwhile America’s survival is up to us. No one said it better than another one of our four martyred presidents, John F. Kennedy, at the close of his inaugural address:
“…With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land that we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, April 13, 2009
THE PRESIDENT’S IMAGE
By Edwin Cooney
Just a few days ago, one of my readers sent me an interesting little article about President Obama’s television watching habits. The president appears to be such a big SportsCenter fan -- favoring both college and professional basketball -- that he avoids the 24/7 news cycles. He never listens or watches reruns of his own news conferences, town hall meetings or speeches. Thus, one gets the idea that President Barack Hussein Obama is just a regular guy.
It’s often observed that modern Republicans prefer the presidential image of a Commander-In-Chief on foreign policy issues and a business-oriented Chief Executive Officer on domestic matters. Their memory of President Ronald Reagan’s dignified eloquence and idealism makes him the GOP’s modern presidential role model with additional kudos to Ike, Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.
Democrats, on the other hand, are said to favor a “Philosopher King”, someone with just enough majesty to guide the people without appearing “above” them. FDR and Truman are the modern Democratic role models — different as they were.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harvard-educated, possessed a Brahmin accent. Nevertheless, he spoke plainly and directly to the American people beginning that Sunday night of March 12th 1933. He sat behind radio microphones and addressed the people from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. His topic was the purpose and scope of the bank holiday. FDR’s mostly Sunday night talks came to be known as Fireside chats. On the other hand, Harry Truman--short, trim and gray with wire-rimmed spectacles—spoke with a combined Southern and Midwestern accent. He addressed his country’s foreign and domestic crises with his words often coming forth in a staccato rhythm.
In 2000 and again in 2004, George W. Bush was the people’s choice over the “wooden” Al Gore and the “rigid and aloof” John Kerry because he was “the kind of guy with whom anyone would enjoy sharing a beer”. So, because we more readily identified with the image created by the plainspoken Texan, we chose him as our leader. He was one of us.
Thus, as we approach the third month of a new presidency, the question is what is President Obama’s overall image? He has just returned from his first trip abroad where he apparently impressed his G-20 heads of state brethren, wowed the intellectuals and media of Europe, and assured the Turks that Americans would never go to war against Islam. He reassured our troops in Iraq that he appreciated them for all of their accomplishments--insisting that a grateful nation owed them much in the way of education and health care--and told them that their Iraqi service time would soon be over.
Conservatives insist that President Obama is everything from a Marxist to an Islamic-Fascist. Liberals and Progressives, for the most part (but with some exceptions on the part of populists who fear assistance to corporations), still consider the president as having the makings of a political messiah.
As for this observer, I like him for his steadiness, his capacity for flexibility and for his overall outlook. I like his assertion that even with all of the vexing problems a president faces (such as AIG executive over-compensation, North Korean aggravation), he can’t afford to govern from anger.
Even more, President Obama seems to operate from understanding rather than judgment. Unlike his predecessor he doesn’t confuse approval of an individual head of state or system of government with legitimacy. He seems to comprehend that behavior rather than propaganda or even outlook is what all governments, ours included, should be judged on.
His critics will continue to paint him as an elitist, a spendthrift and a socialist -- and that will be the kind things they say! His supporters, for the most part, will cut him slack offering the benefit of the doubt, softer criticism for his inevitable mistakes and praise for his successes. Both of these perspectives, as Jimmy Carter used to point out, “go with the territory’ of the presidency.
Some of us, who invariably enjoy linking baseball to American political life (as well as with life in general), might get some perspective out of the following: A number of years ago, there was an infielder for the San Francisco Giants who boasted that he had seven given names. They were: Alan Michael Edward George Patrick Henry Gallagher. (He was also called “Dirty Al Gallagher—but we can generously put that aside.)
Hence, my ideal presidential image is: Abraham Teddy Delano Kennedy Carter Reagan Obama. How’s that for inter-political presidential image breeding?!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Just a few days ago, one of my readers sent me an interesting little article about President Obama’s television watching habits. The president appears to be such a big SportsCenter fan -- favoring both college and professional basketball -- that he avoids the 24/7 news cycles. He never listens or watches reruns of his own news conferences, town hall meetings or speeches. Thus, one gets the idea that President Barack Hussein Obama is just a regular guy.
It’s often observed that modern Republicans prefer the presidential image of a Commander-In-Chief on foreign policy issues and a business-oriented Chief Executive Officer on domestic matters. Their memory of President Ronald Reagan’s dignified eloquence and idealism makes him the GOP’s modern presidential role model with additional kudos to Ike, Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.
Democrats, on the other hand, are said to favor a “Philosopher King”, someone with just enough majesty to guide the people without appearing “above” them. FDR and Truman are the modern Democratic role models — different as they were.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harvard-educated, possessed a Brahmin accent. Nevertheless, he spoke plainly and directly to the American people beginning that Sunday night of March 12th 1933. He sat behind radio microphones and addressed the people from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. His topic was the purpose and scope of the bank holiday. FDR’s mostly Sunday night talks came to be known as Fireside chats. On the other hand, Harry Truman--short, trim and gray with wire-rimmed spectacles—spoke with a combined Southern and Midwestern accent. He addressed his country’s foreign and domestic crises with his words often coming forth in a staccato rhythm.
In 2000 and again in 2004, George W. Bush was the people’s choice over the “wooden” Al Gore and the “rigid and aloof” John Kerry because he was “the kind of guy with whom anyone would enjoy sharing a beer”. So, because we more readily identified with the image created by the plainspoken Texan, we chose him as our leader. He was one of us.
Thus, as we approach the third month of a new presidency, the question is what is President Obama’s overall image? He has just returned from his first trip abroad where he apparently impressed his G-20 heads of state brethren, wowed the intellectuals and media of Europe, and assured the Turks that Americans would never go to war against Islam. He reassured our troops in Iraq that he appreciated them for all of their accomplishments--insisting that a grateful nation owed them much in the way of education and health care--and told them that their Iraqi service time would soon be over.
Conservatives insist that President Obama is everything from a Marxist to an Islamic-Fascist. Liberals and Progressives, for the most part (but with some exceptions on the part of populists who fear assistance to corporations), still consider the president as having the makings of a political messiah.
As for this observer, I like him for his steadiness, his capacity for flexibility and for his overall outlook. I like his assertion that even with all of the vexing problems a president faces (such as AIG executive over-compensation, North Korean aggravation), he can’t afford to govern from anger.
Even more, President Obama seems to operate from understanding rather than judgment. Unlike his predecessor he doesn’t confuse approval of an individual head of state or system of government with legitimacy. He seems to comprehend that behavior rather than propaganda or even outlook is what all governments, ours included, should be judged on.
His critics will continue to paint him as an elitist, a spendthrift and a socialist -- and that will be the kind things they say! His supporters, for the most part, will cut him slack offering the benefit of the doubt, softer criticism for his inevitable mistakes and praise for his successes. Both of these perspectives, as Jimmy Carter used to point out, “go with the territory’ of the presidency.
Some of us, who invariably enjoy linking baseball to American political life (as well as with life in general), might get some perspective out of the following: A number of years ago, there was an infielder for the San Francisco Giants who boasted that he had seven given names. They were: Alan Michael Edward George Patrick Henry Gallagher. (He was also called “Dirty Al Gallagher—but we can generously put that aside.)
Hence, my ideal presidential image is: Abraham Teddy Delano Kennedy Carter Reagan Obama. How’s that for inter-political presidential image breeding?!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, April 6, 2009
READY, SET -- SMILE
By Edwin Cooney
A few days ago one of my readers sent me the following:
The economy is so bad--
1. I went to buy a toaster oven and they gave me a bank.
2. I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.
3. CEO's are now playing miniature golf.
4. Hot wheels and Matchbox cars are now trading higher than GM.
5. Obama met with small businesses to discuss the Stimulus Package: GE, Pfizer and Citigroup.
6. McDonalds is selling the 1/4 ouncer.
7. People in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and learned their children's names.
8. The most highly paid job is now jury duty.
9. People in Africa are donating money to Americans.
10. Mothers in Ethiopia are telling their kids, "finish your plate, do you know how many kids are starving in the US?"
11. Motel Six won’t leave the light on.
12. The Mafia is laying off judges.
13 The bank returns your check marked "insufficient funds". You have to call the bank and ask if they meant you or them.
My favorites of these are numbers one, four, seven, eleven and twelve.
During the Great Depression of the 1930’s, cowboy-comedian Will Rogers observed: “We’ll hold the distinction of being the only nation in the history of the world that went to the poor house in an automobile.” Comedian Eddie Cantor also joked during the Depression: “When someone goes into a hotel these days to rent a room, the desk clerk asks—for sleeping or for jumping?”
Scholarly educators haven’t written much about what our ancestors in America or throughout all of world history have joked about during times of crisis. For instance, no one has suggested that the English barons of 1200 AD who forced Britain’s only King John to sign the Magna Carta had a sense of humor. Nor has it been recorded that ale house drinkers throughout sixteenth century London were exchanging quips about Henry the Eighth’s latest wife or wife-to-be. Neither do we read much about Nathan Hale’s “gallows humor”.
While no serious observer can expect to retain much credibility by suggesting that all we need to do is to “ha ha” our way through these scary times, it’s almost equally true that a society that can laugh at itself when things hurt stands a reasonably good chance of recovery.
I’ve often been irritated by what has seemed to me to be too many instances of “God Bless America” -- especially during sporting events. Nevertheless, a society that genuinely loves itself demonstrates that it loves best when it laughs at itself. It’s been well documented that although Abraham Lincoln suffered bouts of deep depression, he could (and often did) laugh at himself.
I recently read a story about President Lincoln: During the Civil War, he was confined to his room due to a slight case of smallpox. He joked that just when he had something to offer every voter and politician he was being kept away from the public.
Even George Washington reportedly had a sense of humor. Kenneth C. Davis opened his 1990 bestseller “Don’t Know Much About History” with a story about Washington on Christmas night 1776. As he stepped onto the boat to cross the Delaware to give the British forces a drubbing at the Battle of Trenton, he nudged Henry “Ox” Knox (his 280 pound artillery officer and eventual Secretary of War) with the toe of his boot and said: “Shift that fat ass, Harry, but slowly, or you’ll swamp the damn boat.” I’d call that humor in a crisis—wouldn’t you?
Want some free advice? Never reject any idea, person, or society due to imperfection. However, an ideology, personality, or society that can’t be joshed about is an idea, individual, or society you should do without.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
A few days ago one of my readers sent me the following:
The economy is so bad--
1. I went to buy a toaster oven and they gave me a bank.
2. I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.
3. CEO's are now playing miniature golf.
4. Hot wheels and Matchbox cars are now trading higher than GM.
5. Obama met with small businesses to discuss the Stimulus Package: GE, Pfizer and Citigroup.
6. McDonalds is selling the 1/4 ouncer.
7. People in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and learned their children's names.
8. The most highly paid job is now jury duty.
9. People in Africa are donating money to Americans.
10. Mothers in Ethiopia are telling their kids, "finish your plate, do you know how many kids are starving in the US?"
11. Motel Six won’t leave the light on.
12. The Mafia is laying off judges.
13 The bank returns your check marked "insufficient funds". You have to call the bank and ask if they meant you or them.
My favorites of these are numbers one, four, seven, eleven and twelve.
During the Great Depression of the 1930’s, cowboy-comedian Will Rogers observed: “We’ll hold the distinction of being the only nation in the history of the world that went to the poor house in an automobile.” Comedian Eddie Cantor also joked during the Depression: “When someone goes into a hotel these days to rent a room, the desk clerk asks—for sleeping or for jumping?”
Scholarly educators haven’t written much about what our ancestors in America or throughout all of world history have joked about during times of crisis. For instance, no one has suggested that the English barons of 1200 AD who forced Britain’s only King John to sign the Magna Carta had a sense of humor. Nor has it been recorded that ale house drinkers throughout sixteenth century London were exchanging quips about Henry the Eighth’s latest wife or wife-to-be. Neither do we read much about Nathan Hale’s “gallows humor”.
While no serious observer can expect to retain much credibility by suggesting that all we need to do is to “ha ha” our way through these scary times, it’s almost equally true that a society that can laugh at itself when things hurt stands a reasonably good chance of recovery.
I’ve often been irritated by what has seemed to me to be too many instances of “God Bless America” -- especially during sporting events. Nevertheless, a society that genuinely loves itself demonstrates that it loves best when it laughs at itself. It’s been well documented that although Abraham Lincoln suffered bouts of deep depression, he could (and often did) laugh at himself.
I recently read a story about President Lincoln: During the Civil War, he was confined to his room due to a slight case of smallpox. He joked that just when he had something to offer every voter and politician he was being kept away from the public.
Even George Washington reportedly had a sense of humor. Kenneth C. Davis opened his 1990 bestseller “Don’t Know Much About History” with a story about Washington on Christmas night 1776. As he stepped onto the boat to cross the Delaware to give the British forces a drubbing at the Battle of Trenton, he nudged Henry “Ox” Knox (his 280 pound artillery officer and eventual Secretary of War) with the toe of his boot and said: “Shift that fat ass, Harry, but slowly, or you’ll swamp the damn boat.” I’d call that humor in a crisis—wouldn’t you?
Want some free advice? Never reject any idea, person, or society due to imperfection. However, an ideology, personality, or society that can’t be joshed about is an idea, individual, or society you should do without.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)