HEY, THERE, CANDIDATES -- TALK ABOUT YOUR PLANS, NOT YOUR MORALITY, PLEASE!

By Edwin Cooney

I don’t know what you’ve been told, but I’ve been told that there could be as many as 20 politicians trying to convince us that they ought to be elected President of the United States of America in 2016.

Each of them, according to what I’ve been told, is backed by at least one billionaire.  Most of them will be Republicans.  There may be as many as three Democrats in the race, but no one really expects anyone other than Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee.

It’s expected that the Republican campaign will be all about which candidate is the true “red” conservative.  (I just love the idea that red Republicans exist.  Only a few years ago, Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, used to insist that they’d rather be dead than red.  Wow, the world really is changing!)

Ever since I began writing these weekly musings ten years ago, I’ve been bemoaning the existence of the culture war in this country.  Since the late 1970s, partisanship has become less about the practical application of principles or strategies for solving great national and international issues and more about the moral forces behind the proposed solutions for problem-solving.

Most Republicans will insist that it’s immoral to force people to purchase health insurance.  Next, they will insist that gay and lesbian marriage is a question of morality.  After that, they will insist that by seeking accommodation with Iran and not more aggressively opposing Assad in Syria, the Obama administration is guilty of the immorality of selling out to the enemies of western democracy and Christianity.

Mrs. Clinton will also suggest that her principles are primarily matters of morality.  After all, isn’t the increasing disparity between the upper and middle classes in America a question of morality?  If a gay or lesbian couple can provide children abandoned by straight couples with a solid and safe life style, doesn’t that in itself justify gay and lesbian relationships?

As much as I may favor what President Obama has accomplished in the field of healthcare, I’m willing to hear how Republicans might improve the healthcare system, but I’m not the least interested in hearing about their moral outrage over “Obamacare”.

Back in the 1950s, we faced an atomic threat by what we considered a “godless and materialistic Soviet society.”   Many high-powered and well-placed citizens such as Douglas MacArthur, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater insisted that world communism was a single-minded monster that would rule the world if not militarily vanquished.  Communism, they insisted, was a monolith and a moral outrage.  The truth of the matter is that it was neither.  Communism, true communism or Marxism was never practiced even by the Soviets.  However, like Islam today, communism was a wonderful presidential campaign issue because it was easily labeled a moral outrage.

Here’s another truth which my friend Steve in Northern California recently taught me.  Seldom do societies go to war because they understand each other!  After all, the victorious North demonstrated that it didn’t understand the South in the wake of our Civil War. Otherwise, he points out, we would have avoided the era of Reconstruction.

Meanwhile, there are legitimate issues on which Republicans and Democrats can seek votes.  Each ought to sell us a healthcare plan.  Each party ought to assess the environment, the need to rebuild America’s infrastructure, and the strategies of job creation.  Each ought to examine the world situation as realistically as possible with the idea of forever “…staying the hand of mankind’s final war,” as President Kennedy put it in his 1961 inaugural address.

It would be nice if presidential candidates would keep their moral outrage to themselves.

Politics ought to be about the people’s agenda and not about the moral incredulity of self-important presidential candidates!

Any office seeker who considers him or herself your moral superior is unworthy of you, let alone your vote!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE GOP’S MIGHTY TUG OF WAR

By Edwin Cooney 

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Republican party, now that it has obtained national favor, was determined to demonstrate its ability to govern.  Recently, however, it seems more inclined to take on tasks over which it has little or no control.  Even worse, it is apparently at war with itself!

First the GOP’s strategy to inhibit the president’s plan for immigration reform by threatening the funding of the homeland security agency fell flat.

Next, by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address the House and Senate in joint session without first consulting President Obama, the GOP seemed to believe that it could sufficiently embarrass the president and the negotiators of Britain, France, Germany, and Russia as they earnestly sought to come to terms with Iran. These negotiations could be a key factor in the prevention of war in the Middle East.  How, do you suppose, the GOP’s actions could be described as governing?

Now it appears that there exists a tug of war within the GOP which could severely damage it as a useful tool in 2016 to prevent the election of one Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the 45th President of the United States.

Of course, all political parties have factions supported by conflicting economic and social interests.  However, today’s Republican Party appears to be infected by the worst possible faction — an angry and resentful religious faction with scores to settle and people who do them no harm to be damned.

Religious faith far more often than not inspires those “better angels of our nature.”  However, history clearly demonstrates that, when mixed with politics, religious doctrine is too often destructive, deadly, and at times downright immoral! (The Salem witch trials in Puritan Massachusetts, the wholesale murder of Mormons in the Midwest during the 1830s and 1840s, and the advent of the Nativist party of the 1850s are just three examples in American history.)

In three states, North Carolina, Arkansas and Indiana – all with Republican legislatures and governors -- efforts have been made to pass “Religious Freedom Restoration laws.”  These laws are aimed primarily at the rights of gay and lesbian Americans to receive goods and services from some businesses if they dare to marry.

The situation in Indiana is especially interesting.  A week ago, Governor Mike Pence refused to say whether or not he would sign the Religious Freedom Restoration Act his legislature was about to hand him.  This act was designed to allow men and women of faith to freely utilize their individual religious-inspired judgments of others, not merely in their hearts, but in the public marketplace. Then, two days later, it was handed to him.  Simultaneously from all over the nation there came a firestorm of protests from businesses and boards which bring billions of dollars into Indianapolis on an annual basis.  They included the NFL, the NCAA, offices of the Olympics, conventioneers from all over America, and, finally, from two of America’s mightiest corporations: Walmart and Apple.  You can be sure that many of these protestors are solid citizens, born and bred Republicans!

Insisting that he has never favored discriminating against anyone, Governor Pence sent the completed legislation back to the Indiana legislature insisting that they get it right this time.  So, they did.  They passed an anti-discrimination addendum to the original bill outlawing the right to discriminate, even against gays and lesbians.  Apparently they didn’t really mean to discriminate, they only meant to bloviate.  Wow! What governing!

Still, at least two GOP presidential candidates, Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush to be precise, have openly praised Indiana for having the courage to defy government which has spread homosexual wedded bliss throughout 37 states of our gallant union.  By so doing, Messrs. Cruz and Bush appear to believe that they will benefit more from people’s unease regarding the wisdom or morality of gay marriage than from any effort on their part to encourage people to support others in reaping the delights of individual liberty.

No one, regardless of their political or religious faith, likes to be told by absolutely anyone how to behave — and especially by the government.  However, our prerogatives are ultimately determined by our tolerance of others.  Whom you marry is your own business.  If your marriage affects my marriage, then there’s something wrong with my marriage not yours.  Government, at its best, is a consensus of tolerance and unity, constructed not out of mere comfort but out of the knowledge that we’re strongest in our individuality when we’re united.

Meanwhile, I’m going to enjoy this GOP tug of war.  Let the American religious right wallow with pride in its own sense of moral superiority!  Let the Republicans reinforce their frustrations, grudges and resentments amongst themselves. 

I’ll just watch Lady Hillary count her electoral votes!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

“YA NEVER KNOW,” SAID THE UNPREDICTABLE PITCHER -- AND YOU NEVER DO!

By Edwin Cooney

As Jack and Jackie Frost bequeath America another baseball season (ah, you thought all Mr. and Mrs. Frost ever parented were blizzards!), more than 750 professional baseball players are ready to perform for you and me.  These days, they come from all over the world. Day in and day out between April and October they provide fans with surprise and wonderment.

Herman A. (Germany) Schaefer, a native of Chicago, was a real showman.  He would play briefly in vaudeville before his death in May 1919 at the tender age of 42.  In his 15 year career, Schaefer would play second base for the Cubs, Tigers, Senators, Yankees and the Indians.  

Schaefer was playing for the Detroit Tigers against the Cleveland Naps on Tuesday, July 3^rd, 1906.  It was the ninth inning and Detroit was behind by a run.  Davy Jones was on third and Schaefer was on first.  Hoping to draw a throw to second from Nap’s catcher Jay Clarke which would allow Jones to score from third base, Schaefer took off from first.  However, Clarke was smart enough not to throw.  Standing on second, Schaefer shouted to Jones, “Shall we try it?”  Suddenly, to everyone’s shock, Germany Schaefer took off from second hook sliding into first base.  Time was called by Cleveland but umpires could find nothing in the rulebook that prevented a runner from retreating from second to first base.  Then Schaefer yelled to Clarke, “I’m going on the next pitch” and so he did. Challenged as he was by Schaefer’s audacity, Clarke did throw to second this time which allowed Jones to score as Germany Schaefer was ruled safe at second.  Schaefer is known to have used that trick as late as 1911, but my sources of information are contradictory about the outcome.  You won’t see that play this season since it is no longer legal to steal first base. However, you might see something like the following play in 2015.

It happened at the “friendly confines” of Wrigley Field on Tuesday, June 30th, 1959. (Note: under the rules of baseball, if a pitched ball strikes the hitter’s bat, even if he doesn’t swing at the pitch, it’s ruled a strike up to two strikes and a foul ball after that as long as it isn’t called fair after leaving the bat.)  It was the fourth inning and the great Stan (The Man) Musial was hitting.  The count was three balls and one strike.  Cubs’ pitcher Bob Anderson delivered a pitch that umpire Vic Delmore called ball four on Musial.  Musial headed for first as the ball got away from Cubs’ catcher Sammy Taylor.  While Anderson and Taylor argued with Delmore saying that the ball had hit his bat and was therefore strike two, Musial rounded first and headed for second.  Meanwhile, three things happened.  The Cubs’ bat boy retrieved the original ball and tossed it to Cubs’ field announcer Pat Pieper.  Seeing that Musial was headed toward second, Cubs’ third baseman Alvin Dark grabbed the original ball from Pieper and threw it to Cubs’ shortstop Ernie Banks. Banks tagged Musial with the original ball as he slid into second.  Meanwhile, umpire Delmore had given Cubs’ pitcher Bob Anderson another ball.  Anderson saw Musial heading for second base.  He threw the ball toward second, but it went into center field.  As you can imagine, a ten-minute argument occurred.  Solly Hemus, the Cardinals’ manager, made the argument that not only was it ball four, but that interference should have been called on the Cubs’ bat boy.  Cubs’ manager Bob Sheffing argued that the ball had hit Musial’s bat and that the count was now three balls and two strikes.  Ultimately, umpire Al Barlick ruled that Musial was safe at first base and Delmore ruled that Musial was out at second, because Musial was ultimately tagged out by the original ball.  The Cardinals won the game 4 to 2 thus avoiding a protest to the National League office regarding the umpires’ ruling.

Baseball has been affected by the changing times in countless ways although it is basically the same game. Most fans are content with the game’s alterations: lighter bats, larger gloves, superior player conditioning, nutritioning and medical care, night games and air travel and celebrity that makes players almost as rich as their corporate bosses.  Still, it is possible to see something at any single game that you’ve never seen before.

Take the case of John (Bud) Clancy, a first baseman for the Chicago White Sox.  On Sunday, April 27th, 1930 in St. Louis playing the Browns, Clancy didn’t need his glove.  No putouts or assists occurred at first base throughout the nine innings played that day  Clancy, a left-handed batter and thrower, played nine years in the majors for the White Sox, Dodgers, and Phillies.  You might say Clancy’s career (he batted .281 had 26 triples and 12 home runs) was respectable if not solid or spectacular!

One of the major complaints about baseball by those who don’t regard themselves as baseball fans is both the pace and length of games these days.

On Tuesday, September 30th, 1919, the New York Giants who had defeated the Brooklyn Dodgers in 57 minutes by a score of 1 to nothing the year before, took just 51 minutes to defeat the Philadelphia Phillies, 6 to 1.  It’s my guess that the radio and television commercials for a full nine-inning game today would take more than an hour.

Perhaps more than any other sport, baseball reflects all of the assets and liabilities of human nature for over 200 days of every year.  Even more, day in and day out, baseball offers everyone the mystery of the unknown.

One of the most competitive pitchers in either league between 1976 and 1988 was Joaquin Andujar.  Referred to by some as “one mean Dominican,” Andujar was actually thrown out of the last game of the 1985 Kansas City Royals/St. Louis Cardinals World Series.  He was once asked by a reporter how a batter could know for sure whether a pitcher was deliberately throwing at him.

Andujar’s reply applied as much to the more pleasant question of what a fan might expect to see any day while attending a ball game as it did to a batter’s uncertainty of a pitcher’s intentions.

“Ya never know,” Andujar replied.  He’s exactly right on both counts: you never do!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY