MEN OF OCTOBER

By Edwin Cooney

Of course, there’s only one real “Mr. October,” Reginald Martinez Jackson.  He was so designated thirty-seven Octobers ago.  The date was Tuesday, October 18^th, 1977.  The place was Yankee Stadium. That historic night, Reggie hit three consecutive home runs off Los Angeles pitchers Burt Hooton, Elias Sosa, and Charlie Hough, thus winning the sixth and final game of the 1977 World Series.  The memory of “Mr. October” lingers today in the hearts and minds of millions of fans thus enhancing the feats of all October diamond heroes to come.

Ever since 1903, every October produces a championship series in baseball known as the “World Series”.  Of course, it has little to do with the rest of the world, but American sports fans, like almost all Americans, are convinced that whatever happens or is significant in American life has to be important to the rest of the world as well.  Hence, we have the “World Series” and an annual hero or “Mr. October.”

As the American League’s Kansas City Royals clashes with the San Francisco Giants of the National League, one man’s stellar performance will make him 2014’s version of Mr. October. Hence, his name will rise to a prominence significant enough to make him a household name and likely bring him fame and fortune for the rest of his life.  Who that may be is anyone’s guess.

Meanwhile, let’s take a brief look at the two men, one of whom will be managing 2014’s version of Mr. October.  Like most successful major league managers, Giants’ manager Bruce Bochy and Ned Yost, the Royals’ skipper, had rather obscure major league careers.  Both were backup catchers.  Both were born in 1955. 

Edgar Frederick (Ned) Yost III was born Friday, August 19^th, 1955 in Eureka, California.  He came to the majors with the Milwaukee Brewers in 1980.  His career, which lasted only through 1985, took him to the 1982 World Series between Milwaukee and St. Louis which the Cardinals won in seven games.  In 1984, he caught for the Texas Rangers before finishing his career in 1985 playing in only five games with the Montreal Expos.  During his brief time out of baseball, Yost was, of all things, a taxidermist in Jackson, Mississippi.  Ned Yost collected his first World Series ring in 1995 as the bullpen coach for the “World Champion” Atlanta Braves.  He served as the Braves third base coach from 1998 through 2002.  On October 9^th, 2002, he was hired to manage the 2003 Milwaukee Brewers who had by then moved from the American to the National League.  In 2007, he nearly took the Brewers to the post season but lost in the home stretch.  He would hold the job through 2008, but was fired by the Brewers on September 15^th. On May 13^th, 2011, Yost became the Kansas City Royals’ manager.  His son Ned Yost IV is a minor league coach in the Milwaukee Brewers organization.  As a major league manager, Ned Yost has won 745 and lost 835 games for a .472 win/loss percentage.

Bruce Douglas Bochy was born Saturday, April 16^th, 1955 in Landes de Boussac, Bussac-Foret, France, the son of an American Army officer.  Drafted twenty-fourth in the first round of the 1975 supplemental draft by the Houston Astros, Bochy would have a total of 26 home runs, 93 RBI’s and would bat .239 for the Astros, Mets and Padres between 1978 and 1987.  Hired in 1995 to manage the San Diego Padres, Bochy took them to the 1998 World Series which they lost in four games to the Yankees.  He remained in San Diego through 2006 before moving on to the San Francisco Giants in 2007.  Bochy took the Giants to the World Series in 2010 in which they defeated the Texas Rangers in five games.  In 2012, Bochy’s Giants swept the Detroit Tigers in four straight games.  As a major league manager, Bruce Bochy has won 1,600 games while losing 1,592 for a win/loss percentage of .501.  On Tuesday, September 2^nd, 2014, Bruce’s son Brett Bochy was called up to the Giants from the minors.  On Saturday, September 13^th, 2014, Manager Bochy handed his son Brett the ball out of the bullpen.  Bruce Bochy thus became the seventh father to manage his son on a major league team. (The others were Felipe Alou, Yogi Berra, Bob Boone, Connie Mack, Hal McRae, and Cal Ripken Sr.)

One of these two major league catcher/managers will manage 2014’s Man of October. Will his achievement be only a statistical factor or might it shine like the achievement of an obscure Midwesterner by the name of Don Larsen 58 years ago?  (Don Larsen pitched the first and so far only perfect game in World Series history.)

Bochy and Yost know their players intimately.  Their success means they know how to encourage, discipline, and evaluate their players’ athletic and psychological outlooks and performances.  Bochy and Yost know better than any fan the physical and emotional makeup of their respective teams.

Of course, like the rest of us, Bochy and Yost will only learn as the series goes on who will become this year’s Mr. October.

“Sir Reginald” (as baseball announcer Red Rush used to call Reggie Jackson) would be the first to tell you that there will never be another “Mr. October” to equal him -- after all he’s the only ballplayer to have a candy bar named after him.  Not even Babe Ruth reached that height of October significance.  (Remember, the Baby Ruth candy bar was named after President Grover Cleveland’s disabled daughter Ruth who only lived to be 13 years old.) 

Still, the making of Mr. October 2014 is worth watching!  Let’s stay tuned to see who it is!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

DISAPPOINTED? – NOT ME!

By Edwin Cooney

You don’t have to read very much or very long to learn how disappointed in President Barack Obama almost everyone seems to be.

As president, of course, he’s answerable for almost every problem, or perceived problem, we face beyond the very personal conflicts and disappointments that affect us in our daily lives.  To the degree that these conflicts and disappointments are brought on by economic, environmental and social conditions, he is to a large degree rightfully held responsible for them as well.  After all, criticism (even harsh criticism) goes with the territory. Additionally, according to much political commentary these days, he’s even responsible for how we feel about him. Wow! What a responsibility!

As one reads socio/political commentary today, it appears that Barack Obama is responsible for your disappointment, your anger, your prejudices, your reluctance, your fear, and your discomfort.  After all, if he enticed your vote and hasn’t performed to your satisfaction, he has earned your disappointment, hasn’t he?  If, on the other hand, you didn’t like him from the instant you first heard or saw his name and especially his physiognomy, his daily notoriety is a personal offense for which Barack Obama alone is both responsible and accountable!

Now, I gladly stipulate that it is perfectly patriotic to be disappointed in President Obama.  Liberal ideologues are especially disappointed that the 2010 healthcare package wasn’t “single payer”, that climate change legislation has been too slow, that the president’s stimulus package wasn’t big enough, and that he’s been too willing to keep the United States involved in foreign conflict.  That’s how liberals feel regardless of the wisdom or practicality of these goals and objectives.

Professor Aaron David Miller of the Woodrow Wilson Center of International Scholars insists that the core of the president’s problem is his character.  Miller says that he is neither partisan, populist nor revolutionary.  He is dispassionate, imprecise and, worst of all, disconnected.  Hence, insists Professor Miller, he is constantly at war with himself.  His tendency to see all sides of a question or issue and his willingness to compromise or conciliate make it unlikely that he will ever be regarded as a “transforming president.”

President Obama is especially vulnerable to ideological criticism due to the nature of his 2008 presidential campaign.  He promised significant changes in our domestic and international outlook if he were elected president.  “YES WE CAN,” was his 2008 battle cry and it brought to him the support of both moderate and liberal-oriented Americans.  It is of course these Americans who are most disappointed with the president’s performance.  His chronic GOP and Tea Party opposition delight in almost any Obama failure because, after all, their agenda is exclusively patriotic and exclusively moral.  They’ve suspended patriotism until one of their own is elected sometime in the distant future.

Getting back to the president’s liberal or progressive constituency, a generous portion of their disappointment toward the president has as much to do with their rigidity as it does with the president’s intentions or actions.  Liberals, like their conservative cousins, are primarily driven by dogmatic standards and ideals.  For idealists, even practicality (or if you prefer expediency) is dictated by dogmatism.  Ideals rather than objectivity too often dominate our reaction to events. 

I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and in 2012, but not because I had a specific agenda (although I am generally far more sympathetic to the liberal or progressive agenda than I am to that of the conservatives).  My vote was for a less rigid ideology in national policy.  I’ve always liked the concept of thesis (meaning and idea) coupled with an antithesis (meaning an opposite idea) to create a synthesis: a new idea or concept.  To me, President Obama is a mixture of dynamism and reserve, enabling him to function “outside the box,” as they say.

As for presidential disappointments and shortcomings, a brief trip down History Lane will make the point:

When George Washington completed his stellar presidential performance, not one, but two political parties were formed to improve upon his legacy.

When Andrew Jackson completed his eight-year presidency, as successful as he was credited with being, he left us with three legacies, only one of which was positive: a broader and stronger democracy, a “trail of tears” (Indian tears, of course), and an economic depression.

President Abraham Lincoln quashed the rebellious South and emancipated the slaves, but he brought no sense of national unity or tranquility.  In fact, Abraham Lincoln stirred up more social unrest than probably any president before or since.

Woodrow Wilson was a successful progressive on domestic issues, but his insistence on his own moral superiority toward his political opponents destroyed the League of Nations thus paving the road to the Second World War.

It’s been observed that “FDR lifted a crippled nation to its feet from his wheelchair,” but the world he left behind him was needlessly fraught with nuclear terror.

Of course, neither Washington, Jackson, nor Lincoln campaigned for the presidency.  Hence, seldom is voter disappointment a part of how they are historically evaluated.  Wilson and FDR certainly campaigned, and FDR is forever remembered for breaking two promises.  In 1932, he promised to balance Herbert Hoover’s unbalanced budget.  In 1940, he promised to “...keep our boys out of foreign wars.”

As Barack Obama begins the second half of his second term, much of his constituency is disappointed due to his imperfections.  Very little socio/political commentary these days praises his name.  If it can be said that he’s brought much criticism onto himself, it is equally fair to observe that his critics have been neither restrained nor shy.

As I’ve often written in these weekly musings and asserted to family and countless friends, I don’t love anyone because they’re perfect.  I expect and even believe that most of us do our very best when we must. Certainly our presidents must do their best according to their education, social and professional experiences, and the intellectual and moral fiber of their being.  No, I’m not disappointed in President Obama, even as I gladly stipulate that there’s always room for improvement.

When I was in grammar school, two of my teachers used to admonish us that “if you can’t say anything good about someone, it’s best that you say nothing at all.”

Sadly or realistically, I’ve discovered that the world doesn’t work that way.  In fact, the world functions much as Theodore Roosevelt’s oldest daughter (who was known as “Princess Alice”) handled her business of evaluating public personages:

“If you can’t say anything good about anyone, come sit next to me.”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

BEGINNINGS AND ENDINGS – WHEN DO THEY HAPPEN?

By Edwin Cooney

I got a package the other day.  I knew it was coming and what it contained.  However, until the instant I opened it, its significance eluded me.

It was the last of the packages I prepared for moving East a year and a half ago.  However, not until I opened it did I realize that my move East from Northern California was finally complete.  Except for my lads, and a host of wonderful friends, nothing that belongs to me remains in Northern California.

Suddenly, I wondered as this thought occurred to me: now that the move is over, when did it begin?  Did it begin when my new bride said “yes” or when my previous lady friend said “forget it,” or when my first marriage ended?

A person might be tempted to question why it matters unless, of course, this person is a student of history as I am.  Why it should matter may not be easily understood, but for this student of history, the attraction comes from my belief that each life in microcosm is like the history of every society created by humankind.  Nations are born, mature, and grow. It takes time to gain experience and wisdom.  However, ever so slowly nations die (or if you prefer they evolve) just as human beings do.  Nations, like individual people, are inevitably mortal.  Nations and people have beginnings and ends.  Whether we look backward or forward, we are invariably looking for the horizon where the visible and the infinite merge into the impenetrable and the incomprehensible.

During a broadcast from the BBC in early 1942, Winston Churchill, while reviewing the major events of World War II up to that time, observed to those who wondered how long the war was likely to last: “Ah, this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end, but it is perhaps the end of the beginning.”

When you reflect on the events in your own life to better comprehend their causes and effects, as well as their significances and meanings, you are acting as your own personal historian.  Such reflective exercises can be refreshing and even energizing when conducted at the right time and in the right spirit.  If such reflections are undertaken in a spirit of self-loathing and degradation, they are exceedingly destructive.  If they are undertaken with a determination to better understand where to go from here into a more satisfying future, then the past can be really and truly enlightening!

The late news commentator Paul Harvey once observed that the United States of America was the first country in the history of the world born with a birth certificate: the Declaration of Independence.  So, let’s consider, as I have from time to time in these musings, America’s life stages.  Its infancy was perhaps 1776 when it was born until 1789 when it became a “republic.”  Its second stage or childhood would be between 1789 when George Washington became our first president and 1845 when it entered the Mexican War.  Next came its adolescence during the Civil War and post Civil War era: 1845 to 1900.  Early adulthood could be 1900 to 1945 during which a newly united America was launched reluctantly with fits and starts into the world beyond its ocean girt boundaries.  Young adulthood could be the era from 1945 to 2000 as America was buffeted by international conflict and social changes here at home.  Mature adulthood may well be the era in which we are living.  The world melting pot which Americans once took pride in when it accepted the gift of the Statue of Liberty is taking effect just as our aging body politic is going through its own significant changes.  The ever-changing world keeps adult America constantly on its toes just as professional and parental responsibilities keep mature adults guessing. The lives, fortunes, and values of over three hundred million Americans are a hodgepodge of values, causes, effects, and meanings.  Where will these conflicts take us?  Might we recognize our America in another century?  (Note: Do you think Henry the Eighth would have recognized Victorian England 300 years after his reign?)  Ought we to be able to comprehend America after our time is up?  Would Washington and Jefferson have recognized Teddy Roosevelt’s America?  Should they have been able to do so?

Ah, beginnings and endings – when did they occur in your own life?  Some insist that you began at conception while others insist that you became you only at birth.  When did your beginning end? Did it end when you graduated from diapers or when you attended kindergarten or when you became a teenager?  Were you really and truly an adult at age 21 or were you only legally an adult at that age?  If you were legally married at the altar, were you emotionally and spiritually married at the altar or did that only happen later?

Yes, indeed, when it comes to beginnings and endings, there’s so much to think about. 

Nuts! I just remembered! A couple pairs of my socks remain in Northern California. What do you think? Is my move really complete or is it all an illusion?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY  

AMERICA’S REAL NATIONAL PASTIME

By Edwin Cooney

           

I know, you’ve always thought that baseball was America’s national pastime – me, too.  Unfortunately, you and I are sadly mistaken!  A new breed of politics and politicians constitutes America’s real national game.

Up until the last two years of President George Washington’s second term, he had governed without the use of political parties. Then in 1795, political partisanship began to take root and affect “the body politic” of the new republic. Both his Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and his Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, in addition to their other virtues and talents, turned out to be dedicated, practical politicians.  As early as April 11^th, 1789, nineteen days before General Washington took the presidential oath at Federal Hall in New York City, Hamilton, one of Washington’s closest advisors, gave John Fenno, owner of a newspaper called “The Gazette of the United States,” the contract to print all government publications.  Additionally, Hamilton, John Adams, John Jay and other believers in a strong central government published political commentary in Fenno’s paper – sometimes under their own names and sometimes under pseudonyms.

By 1793, Thomas Jefferson had hired Philip Freneau (a man known as “the poet of the American Revolution”) as a French translator for the State Department.  Jefferson, who spoke fluent French, needed no translator. Freneau, being of French descent and aligned politically with Jefferson, published Jeffersonian and Madisonian Democratic-Republican tracts in his “National Gazette” even as he was compensated by all of the taxpayers, whether “Jeffersonian” or otherwise.  Thus, long before Washington’s death on the night of December 14^th, 1799, some of the most negative elements of partisan party politics were already national institutions.

From Washington’s time right up until that of Teddy Roosevelt, politics was about meeting the needs of broad constituencies.  Federalists, Whigs and early Republicans sought to court and feed capitalism and commerce with federal favors -- it was called “the American system.”  On the other hand, Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democrats (originally known as Democratic-Republicans) courted and fed rich southern slaveholding planters and small “yeoman farmers” or frontier settlers.

Today, 221 years after the founding of Hamilton’s Federalists and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans, we live amidst the complaints and self-righteous justifications of two governmental doctrines. They are doctrinaire conservatism and liberalism. 

Conservatism, which has its roots in Hamilton’s Federalist Party as well as in the Whig and very early Republican Party, articulates these five basic guidelines:  belief in the strict interpretation (or strict construction) of the United States Constitution; belief that human rights are the natural gift of property rights (in other words, that property rights are superior to human rights); a strong belief in the freedom to associate or disassociate with others without fear of government regulation or regimentation; belief in the supremacy and morality of pure economic capitalism; and, finally, belief that government that is separate from the influence of religious faith is immoral government.

Modern doctrinaire liberalism, which is primarily the offspring of early Twentieth Century progressivism, is compliant to the following guidelines:  belief in the elasticity of the United States Constitution (in other words, if the Constitution doesn’t specifically prohibit a law or policy it is automatically constitutional); dedication to the supremacy of human rights over property rights; insistence on the government’s obligation to oversee and regulate the lawful activities that affect the public welfare even when employing private profitmaking institutions; belief that the assurance of equal opportunity is a public obligation and not a matter of private choice; and, finally, belief in the absolute separation of church and state.

All these political guidelines (or, if you insist, principles) have a new twist in Twenty-first Century America.

Back in 1789 at the dawn of our new republic, royalty, which had dominated society since the beginning of time, was replaced by the most fascinating, manipulative and maddening species of humankind imaginable: the politician.  For most of the two centuries which followed, this needy but useful being appealed to us from the perch of the successful soldier, lawyer, or public official.  Many politicians served us well as inspirational teachers, jurists, and statesmen.  Then, something happened.

On the evening of Sunday, March 12^th, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, seated in a small metal wheelchair, rolled behind a set of microphones in the East Room of the White House and began to talk calmly, simply and directly to the American people about the banking crisis.  His cultured Harvard/patrician accent was like a balm to the nerves of a people who, even as he spoke, were in the midst of losing their homes, their bank accounts and their confidence in our form of government.  Hence, beginning that Sabbath March night, the president and the politician became a person to the American people in a way never known before.  In other words, that night government actions truly became our personal business in the starkest way imaginable.  Since that night, the motives and behaviors of men named Franklin, Harry, Ike, Jack, Lyndon, Richard, Jerry, Jimmy, Ron, the two George Bushs, Bill, and Barack have become as central to our concerns and to the evaluation of us as a people as almost any public issue.

Like the movie stars, music performers, and sports figures we’ve adopted as heroes in our personal lives and national games, it seems to this observer that we have lately allowed ourselves to be entertained rather than to be guided and served by politicians.  Even worse, we have allowed ourselves to be entertained by politics itself.  It may well be then that politics -- like anything else that lulls or entertains us -- has become our master!

I don’t know if that reality concerns you, but it sure does me!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY