A SET OF INTERESTING IRONIES

By Edwin Cooney

One of last week's major headlines (aside from those having to do with President-elect Trump's incoming cabinet selections, the change of government in Syria, or the murder of an insurance company executive) has to do with a rather significant American phenomenon. That phenomenon is the contentious selection of 26-year-old outfielder Juan Soto by the Mets, effectively stealing his services from the mighty New York Yankees.

The free agent acquisition of Soto by the Mets was obviously a good decision as the young left-handed slugger is a splendid baseball commodity. However, there are several truths about this transaction that diminishes its significance.

First, it guarantees the Mets absolutely nothing since the "World Champion” Los Angeles Dodgers, the Atlanta Braves and the Philadelphia Phillies will have something to say or do about the Mets' success in the National League next season.

Second, American League teams such as the Boston Red Sox, Houston Astros, Toronto Blue Jays, and other league franchises will have much to say about the fate of the Yankees next year.

However, in New York sports culture which is so dependent on comparison and competition, the Mets undoubtedly won a public relations coup over the mighty Yankees on Sunday night, December 7th, 2024.

There's nothing new about this, especially in New York. Back in 1915, under manager John McGraw, the Giants were the kings of New York. Jacob Ruppert and Tillinghast L'Hommedieu Huston, two ambitious entrepreneur friends of Mr. McGraw, scraped up $460,000 to purchase the lowly Yankees as McGraw suggested. Thus, Frank Farrell and Bill Devery, who had purchased the team in 1903 for a mere $18,000, made a handsome profit. Within eight years, the Yankees were not only outdrawing the mighty Giants, they defeated them in the 1923 World Series in their brand new Yankees Stadium which was just across the Harlem River from the Polo Grounds. Jacob Ruppert, the son of a brewery magnate who was born in 1867, rose in New York society to be elected to Congress from the "Silk Stocking District” of New York. Owner Tillinghast L'Hommedieu Huston, a native of Texas, made his money in the reconstruction of Cuba following the Spanish American War. Once the two were in charge of the Yankees, they disagreed about everything except spending to increase the value of the Club. Huston disliked manager Miller Huggins whom Ruppert backed over the whims of Babe Ruth. The two split up in 1923 when Ruppert paid Huston a million and a half dollars to gain sole control of the Yankees.

Competition between the Yankees, Dodgers, Giants, and, eventually, the Mets was inevitable. In 1965, the Mets under Casey Stengel signed Yogi Berra who had just been fired by the Yankees after losing the 1964 World Series to the St. Louis Cardinals. (Not that it did them much good: the Mets ultimately fired Yogi 10 years later even after he'd taken them to the 7th game of the 1973 World Series against Charley Finley's Oakland A’s.)

The key factor here, as in the past, was the willingness of exceedingly wealthy owners such as the Steinbrenners and, now, "Uncle" Steve Cohen to please Mets' fans.

Another intriguing question is: will an Uncle Steve Cohen "World Championship equal that of the 1969 “Miracle Mets” championship glorified by such names as Donald Grant, Joan Payson, Casey Stengel, Gil Hodges and, of course, Yogi Berra who was their first base coach at the time?

Ultimately, there remains the question, what value does any major league team have to any sports fan? Sports entrepreneurs and even sports writers insist these days that fan support matters above all, but does it really? Are the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and other teams really yours or mine?

A few years ago I insisted that I wasn't going to allow George Steinbrenner to ruin "My Yankees.”

Hence the question: who was I kidding?

Ah, but sports is merely entertainment! Therein lies still another question! What's the ultimate value of entertainment?

You tell me, please?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

AMERICA, A PEOPLE OF PURPOSE

By Edwin Cooney

Perhaps our innocence was blown away by the assassination of President Kennedy that Friday, November 22nd, 1963, but our purposefulness as a people was more than enhanced. The vital person of the  presidency was shown to be mortal, but the office was an institution authorized and owned by a free people and was not to be denied to them. Hence, we would seek to solve the crime by our own means and in our own individual ways.

Beyond law enforcement, there were suspicions to be investigated. There were political theories to be exercised. Was the rifleman a communist, a racist, a gangster, or even a drug-induced fanatic?

Was the cause too many guns, too few Secret Service personnel, a lackadaisical Dallas police force, or perhaps the existing political divide within the state of Texas?

Who most immediately benefited from the deed? Was the government a party to the assassination? How about the Mafia? Did government and organized crime have a joint stake in JFK's death?  How could "we the people" prevent this deed from ever occurring again? After all, we were a purposeful people.

We demanded to be safe, secure and, above all, a satisfied people.

As to who we are, it depends on what anyone who seeks to serve us wants. Politicians call us "taxpayers.” Professionals call us “clients” or “customers.”

We are parents, teachers, the educated, the laborer, the patient. In fact, we are so many things to so many people with varying needs and demands. History has demonstrated that the presidency of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson marked the close of 20th Century liberalism going back to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal during which our parents, teachers, and preachers were intellectually and spiritually educated. The political institutions, the colleges and universities, churches and synagogues, lawyers and doctors would struggle for the next thirty to fifty years to meet ever changing expectations.

On November 22nd, 1963, Donald Trump was a rebellious teenager. Joe Biden was attending the University of Syracuse. Barack Obama was two years old. “Shrub" Bush was in high school. Bill Clinton was a teenager who had visited President Kennedy that past August and shaken his hand.  George H. W. Bush was planning a 1964 run for the House. Ronald Reagan was a less than prominent actor. No one had even heard of Jimmy (who?) Carter down there in southwest Georgia. Gerald Ford was about to successfully run for GOP House Minority leader in 1965. Richard Nixon was practicing law in New York City and his presidential prospects were pretty gloomy. As for Lyndon B. Johnson, he was Vice President who a few believed was about to be dumped by the Kennedys.

What none of us could know in 1963 was how our values and understandings would clash during the coming traumatic decades of war, scandal and social upheaval. Sixty one years of politically stormy weather were to pass to get to election day of 2024.

With all of our “ohs" and woes, living in America has been and remains a pretty good deal. As for the immediate future, Democrats may have serious doubts. However, quick as a wink, the ins can become the outs!

Very soon, this willful and purposeful people will ask the powers that be  that inevitable question: "what have you done for me lately?"

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

AMERICANS INNOCENT: REALLY, TRULY?

By Edwin Cooney

Last week, I quoted CBS newsman Bob Schieffer as observing: "Americans awakened on the morning of Saturday, November 23rd, 1963 stripped of their innocence.”  Are any people truly innocent?

Does any nation, despite its advertised ideology, possess a conscience?
Can there be a national consciousness? Ought there to be?

What would that mean and how might it express itself?

If America indeed awakened on that historic Saturday in 1963 stripped of its “innocence," of what was it innocent? Of what was every other nation guilty in 1776 that newly independent America was not?
 
Although this country had just celebrated its 187th birthday, America was just a baby compared to France which was approaching its 1,263rd  or England (America's mother country) which would celebrate its 897th birthday that Christmas of 1963. Still, like its two European predecessors as a contiguous people, America had developed a set of expectations according to its history. After all, young America was the first Republican form of government free of royalty.

As a newly 18-year-old lad that fall, I had a sense of some of the both admirable and regrettable behaviors of my fellow citizens.

We had fought the South and the Union had prevailed in a Civil War that had set slaves free back in the 1860’s. We had defeated a virulent form of autocracy in World War I and Nazism and Japanese imperialism in World War II. We had established and internationalized the Red Cross. We had assisted Japan in the 1920’s after a devastating earthquake. We had established the new United Nations to prevent future wars and sent some of our sons to Korea to stop the advancement of Communism. We were about to halt Communism in Vietnam.

True, “Jim Crow” was still pretty strong in the South. Northern liberals (later called human secularists) had just relieved our public schools of official prayers. Secularism was growing faster than Christianity and Judaism. As for Islam, hadn't medieval kings, knights and popes settled the hash of that ancient society centuries ago via three crusades?

Summing it all up, we were a pretty decent and fair people with a pretty extraordinary president who was handsome and very personable. Certainly the FBI, CIA and the Secret Service were determined to protect him, weren't they?

About that time in my life, I had learned how to peruse maps. I would look at the capitals and nations under Communism and I would wonder what those sad peoples had done to deserve their police state existence! Did they feel enslaved as some members of Congress suggested during their annual call for the banishment of Communist totalitarianism?

If we weren't innocent, what were we? Good, bad, fair, selfish, grasping, money hungry, all of the above or perhaps none of the above? Did God really “bless America” (as Irving Berlin wrote for Kate Smith back in 1938) just because we were America and not Russia or Yugoslavia or India?

How could we be any closer to God than, say, Israel? After all, Moses came from Mount Sinai where he had received the Ten Commandments  prior to fleeing Egypt for Israel. George Washington came from Westmoreland County, Virginia where he had pruned a lot of cherry trees --except one, of course!

So, if we're not either innocent nor guilty, what are we? Even more, who are we? Do we even know each other as well as we ought?

I've one or two ideas! I'll share them with you next time.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

AMERICA, STRIPPED OF ITS INNOCENCE

By Edwin Cooney

Today, November 25th, 2024, marks 61 years and 3 days since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Bob Schieffer, one of the few newsmen living today who'd covered the assassination story, observed on CBS the morning of November 22nd, 2013, the 50th anniversary of the assassination:

"Americans awakened on the morning of Saturday, November 23rd, 1963 stripped of their innocence.”

I've believed that observation since that weekend. It seemed to be true at the time. After all, it wasn't until the shooting of President Kennedy that civil rights divisions hit their full angry intensity. It was after JFK's demise that the Vietnam War divided America under the very man, Lyndon Johnson, whom JFK had selected to succeed him. Next came Dr. King's and the late president's brother Bobby who were swept away. After that, Richard Nixon swept himself away by internalizing antiwar criticism by his "liberal" enemies.

Today we live in a socio/political society that has turned political opposition into criminality.

Not that the world had been perfect up until then.  After all, America had enslaved Blacks and committed wholesale genocide against Native Americans. Even religious prejudice was a part of America's story, but many of our accomplishments did overshadow our sins.

Still, America had saved its Union from a bloody and divisive civil war. Twice, America had saved the old world from itself. We had populated a continent through "manifest destiny” during the 1840s. We had established great unions strong enough to counter the forces of very wealthy corporations. We had mastered science enough to rid ourselves of disease despite the observation of the president of a major college who insisted that if God wanted us to be free of smallpox he wouldn't have invented smallpox! Fortunately, George Washington didn't agree and inoculated his troops against the disease.

America was blessed when it established the Red Cross and eventually internationalized it. Although Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley had been assassinated, their reputation was within the powers and potentials of their presidential offices. Meanwhile, Americans could relate to Jack Kennedy’s personality on their living room television sets and in  glamorous newspapers and magazines of the day.

Presidents were, of course, mortal, and one was even physically crippled, although intellectually and spiritually powerful. In the fall of 1963, the Secret Service and J. Edgar Hoover's FBI were certainly  dedicated to keeping this vital young president safe from any harm ---were they not!

Then came those six seconds in Dallas shortly after 12:30 central standard time. Within minutes, who was responsible became as significant as the deed itself!

Yes, there were still good and wondrous things yet to happen here in America. However, they wouldn't come with the anticipated expectation that they once did.

Before Friday, November 22nd, 1963, we expected the best to happen to us. Since that historic date we've been merely privileged, lucky if you choose, when wondrous things do occur.

Next week, the topic will be: we, the innocent!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY    

GETTING A GRIP

 By Edwin Cooney

Hello All,

Last week I wrote that much of America is in pain and "that's a shame."

So, how are we Democrats getting a grip? I hope we're not spending a lot of time regretting President Biden and his administration nor the nomination of Vice President Kamala Harris or Governor Tim Walz. Of course, some analysis is healthy and even relevant, but let's not scrutinize them to the point of pushing them out of the party as 1981 Democrats sought to do to Jimmy Carter. The main things to keep in mind are twofold:

First, now that Donald Trump and his ilk control the House, Senate, and the Supreme Court, they are solely responsible for what works and what doesn't work. Naturally, there are fissures in the GOP just as there are in the Democratic Party that may well modify the president's nominations and his legislative proposals.

Second, how the president and his minions do what they propose to do will have an effect on how popular they remain. Every administration has a social and political flavor.

Harry Truman was all about “a fair deal at home and abroad.” Ike's administration was about protecting us from Communism. JFK was about youth, glamour and, late in the president's term, civil rights and a nuclear test ban treaty. LBJ was about a bigger and better Rooseveltian new deal. Nixon was about establishing a new "Southern political strategy” and "peace with honor” in Vietnam. Ford sought to "whip inflation now” and protect Nixonian Republicanism. Carter was about everyone's human rights, even in the Middle East! Reagan was about conservatism ending the Cold War. George H. W. Bush was about enlightened conservatism (”read my lips, no new taxes”). Clinton was about neoliberalism. George W. Bush was about stopping terrorism after September 11th, 2001. Barack Obama was about creating healthcare for everyone. Trump's first term was about halting liberal carnage. Joe Biden was about building bridges to sensitive liberalism.

Over the two plus weeks since the election, President-elect Trump appears to be about stripping away needless government and installing procedures that best benefit the wealthy.

What concerns this observer is this department of “Government Efficiency.” Government isn't for the poor and disadvantaged. Government is for the “happy-go-lucky” among us. When government works for the Republicans, it is as American as J. Edgar Hoover once was. When government primarily helps the disadvantaged, it's socialistic, communistic and non-Christian.

The bottom line today is that President-elect Trump, by securing the popular vote, has earned the chance to do things his way rather than mine.

For the present, it's President Trump's bat and ball. If he doesn't get it right, Lucy will demand that Charlie Brown jump on his Democratic donkey and go snatch it away from him!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

MUCH OF AMERICA'S IN PAIN AND THAT'S A SHAME!

By Edwin Cooney

We proud Democrats are in a lot of pain! After all, last Wednesday morning, Donald Trump achieved popular election to the office of President of the United States. Of course, we didn't want Mr. Trump to win at all, but we might have felt a tad better if he'd won in the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. All of us are now forced to live (notice I don't say surrender) to Mr. Trump's reality. Now is not the time to debate the differences between democracy and republicanism. The majority prevails in a democracy and, for the present, Donald Trump has prevailed.

Living with reality is distinct from surrendering to prevailing conditions. President-elect Trump also will face limitations and conflicts just as Lyndon Johnson ultimately had to face even in the wake of his 1964 “mandate" and just as Franklin D. Roosevelt did with his 1936 mandate. FDR stumbled when he sought to “pack" the Supreme Court. LBJ faltered when he sought to prevail militarily in Vietnam.

Already, there's a potential conflict between congressmen representing fossil fuel "drill drill drill" constituents versus clean energy companies expecting to manufacture and profit from the sale of those environmental and energy-saving electronic vehicles.

One of the lessons history teaches is that the more responsibility one seeks and accepts, the more accountability one will have!

As for your and my political and social preferences, for our own well-being we can't root for the failure of our national leadership without wishing failure on ourselves. The well-being of our constituents is as legitimate today as it has been. Their time and ours will come if we're conscientiously vigilant!

There was one very tiny phrase in Mr. Trump's victory statement  that gave me a little encouragement. Rather than asserting that he would make America "great again,” he stated that he had to make America better! All of us, individually and collectively ought to strive to be "better!"

Emotionally, I detest Donald Trump and almost everything he stands for and promotes. However, with his victory last Tuesday he has become an historic figure. Should he achieve as few as three of his stated objectives, his presidency will be as significant as those of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Reagan.

Mark Antonio Wright, who today edits The National Review, the magazine founded and once edited by William F. Buckley, Jr, recently asked a set of very intriguing questions about the outcome of last Tuesday's election.

Why, Mr. Wright wondered, didn't Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the rest of those Democratic “goons” cheat this time? Didn't they have control of the Justice Department, the FBI, and the rest of the “deep state’s" intelligence and law enforcement agencies? After all, didn't they successfully cheat President Trump out of his re-election straight from Joe Biden's Delaware basement back in 2020? It just doesn't make sense to Mr. Wright, whom we must assume is no friend of Biden and his liberal Democratic ilk!

Still, Mr. Wright wonders why, in the face of January 6th and Mr. Trump’s criminal convictions, the Democrats decided not to “cheat” and thus deny Donald Trump another term. How can that be?.

As for Vice President Harris, her heart may hurt a bit, but she'll land on her professional and political feet. She's already achieved the honor of her party's nomination. Count the number of people who have sought that highest of honors and compare that to the number of people who have even achieved that honor!

Soon, President Biden will greet Mr. Trump at the White House and offer a smooth transition — not because he should, but because he ought to!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

STRAIGHT FROM THE SHOULDER!

 By Edwin Cooney

Tomorrow, I will go to our town hall and cast my vote for Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. I fervently hope you will do the same!

I've been a Democrat since 1976 when I abandoned the Republican Party in favor of Jimmy Carter and I have only occasionally glanced backward to ponder my affection for favored old Republican heroes.

What appeals to me about the general trend of the Democratic Party is its insistence that John and Sally Q. Citizen ought to be continuously considered when determining the best path to be taken in every aspect of national policy, foreign or domestic. Harry Truman used to say that the rich legitimately pay for influence at the highest levels of government. That's all well and good, he went on to say. However, working men and women who lack the capacity to pay for influence need the president and an active Congress to do their bidding. Thus, we all start out with the ability to elect imperfect men and women who invariably disappoint an imperfect constituency.

Over the years, millions of Americans have been disappointed  by the leaders of both political parties, whether it be by the teenage whims of Bill Clinton or the willfulness of President George W. Bush determined to go to war in Iraq to avenge the sins of Saddam Hussein against his father, George H. W. Bush.

Thus, millions of Americans recently have sought a leader who would be determined enough to cut through conventional ways of evaluating events and circumstances. Such a man was to be Donald John Trump, a "mighty hard little crabapple" out of "The Big Apple."

Determined to "Make America Great Again" without defining what that really means, Mr. Trump leaves it up to the most unhappy constituency to make that determination. Since history demonstrates again and again that the new comes from altering the old, anger toward the old is the best pathway toward significant or even fundamental  change.
Many years ago, columnist and comedian Will Rogers, who used piles of ink making fun of politicians, once observed that our system of checks and balances was so perfect that no person could deliberately destroy it. Sadly, as we get ready to go to the polls tomorrow, we  aren't as certain as Mr. Rogers was even during the Great Depression. (Rogers joked that America was the first nation ever to go to the poorhouse in an automobile!)

About two weeks ago, New York Times columnist Bret Stephens suggested a closing argument that Vice President Kamala Harris could use to close her case against Mr. Trump. He asserts that if Mr. Trump wins, we will be a bitterly, vocally, emotionally, exhaustingly divided country. You know this because whatever you thought of his first term, you remember how that division became a part of your daily life. She could point out:  "Thanksgiving dinners you stopped going to -- because of Trump. Friends and neighbors you stopped speaking to -- because of Trump. Topics you wouldn't broach -- because of Trump. There was no getting away from it. Trump is a human jackhammer pounding outside your window at 6:30 a.m. The noise is incessant. It's in the ad hominem tweets, the nasty nicknames, the disparagement of anyone who disagrees with him as an idiot, a weakling, an enemy of the people. And let's be honest: the noise also came from the enraged reaction that Trump provoked, whether on cable TV or the streets of many of our cities. Trump brought out the worst in everyone, not just his most ardent fans but also -- yes -- his most acerbic critics. In the four years of his presidency, he turned us into a nation of haters. He'll do it again if you elect him next month."

Through my lifelong experience of people’s natural behavior, I’m convinced that the vast electorate is deeply and genuinely sick and tired of Mr. Trump's emotional vamping. However, history may be about to tell me that I'm badly mistaken.

After all, the history of our British cousins demonstrates that they too often were ruled by selfish kings, jealous kings and even murderous kings. A king was usually the strongest warrior imbued with majestic royalty. In 1199, King Richard the Lionheart was succeeded by his youngest brother John who wrecked England's economically and militarily so badly that Pope Innocent the Third temporally prohibited England from participating in all spiritual ceremonies and rights. This was devastating to a medieval society that so depended on the blessings of God for a sense of spiritual equity. The result in 1216 was the Magna Carta which denied the king the right of absolute rule. Later on, came the Wars of the Roses between the Yorks and the Lancaster during the 1400s.

Still later, King Henry the 8th clashed with Rome and the struggle between the Catholics and Protestants put Britain in an economic and political tailspin for decades to come.

Now we in America  could be on the verge of a twisted form or version of democracy. We may learn the lesson that a majority may well be wicked enough to choke itself to death via its own resentment of the conditions in which it is currently living!

However, as near as we may be to an economic and moral disaster, we're not there yet.

What you and I are still free to do in the privacy of the voting booth tomorrow, November, 5th, is to bring  this lunge toward oligarchy to a screeching halt.

Back in 1976, Christians nearly rejected a presidential candidate because he told Playboy that he sometimes had lust in his heart. Today some Christians (although I don't believe that it's most Christians) are about to support the presidential candidacy of a man who stands atop a political platform to openly discuss the significance of a dead golfer's manhood.

I still believe that there's a lot of good sense within the conscience of the American people. Certainly no one would insist that Vice President Kamala Harris represents all that's pure and good. However, any political movement that spreads suspicion and hatred among a free people demonstrates a lack  of regard toward the constituency it seeks to govern.

I'm convinced that tomorrow, November 5th, 2024, the fair-minded and the “lionhearted" people of the United States of America will say no to Donald Trump.

If fair-minded Americans say yes to Mr. Trump, then I suppose we all deserve him.

As for now, I present to you the dismissal words uttered by Oliver Cromwell when he decided that the Long Parliament of 1748-1760 had lasted too long. This dramatic and powerful rejection applies to Mr. Trump in 2024:

"You have sat too long here for any good you've been doing. Depart, I say,  and let us have done with you. In the name of God---Go!"

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

THE WORLD SERIES WHERE HOPES AND EXPECTATIONS INVARIABLY CLASH

By Edwin Cooney

Since October of 1903, baseball's World Series has, at least, dominated America's sub-headlines. This year is quite special because the New York Yankees and the Los Angeles Dodgers, at least in the public's mind, will seek to settle old scores going back to 1941 when Joe McCarthy led the Yankees and Leo Durocher led the boys from Brooklyn. (Note: Leo had played shortstop for Babe Ruth's 1920’s Yankees and neither thought much of the other.)

Beginning in 1941, the Yankees prevailed covering  ’47, ’49, ’52, and ’53 until 1955 when Brooklyn finally conquered the Yankees at Yankee Stadium. In each of those World Series, something out of the ordinary happened.

In 1941, Dodgers catcher Mickey Owen missed a curveball thrown by pitcher Hugh Casey with two out in the ninth of Game 3 that led to a Yankee victory that turned the series around.

In 1947, Yankee pitcher Bill (whose given name was Floyd) Bevens no hit the Dodgers at Ebbets Field but lost to the Dodgers when Cookie (Harry) Lavagetto hit a pinch-hit double that led to a 2 to 1 Dodger victory. (Ironically, Bevins, who barely avoided the glory realized by Don Larsen 9 years later, never pitched another game for the Bronx Bombers.)

In Game 1 of the 1949 series, Yankee outfielder Tommy Henrich  (“Old Reliable”) hit a dramatic 10th inning homer off Dodger pitching great Don Newcombe to spoil an almost sure Dodger triumph.

In 1952, with the Yankees winning 4 to 2, Jackie Robinson came to the plate with the bases loaded and hit a high pop-up that neither the first or third baseman could see. In fact, neither could Yankee pitcher Bob Kuzava see it. However, Billy Martin came tearing in from second base and caught the ball knee high for the out that ended the inning.

In 1953, Dodger pitcher Carl Erskine struck out 13 Yankees in Game 4, but again Billy Martin came out hitting over .500 with two homers and 8 runs batted in to win the series for the Yankees as well as the MVP award for the 1953 World Series.

In the 1955 World Series, the first one I could comprehend, the Yankees won the first two games, but the Dodgers came roaring back to win it all. The final game at Yankee Stadium was a shutout for young Johnny Podres. It survived a near homer by Yogi Berra which was caught by left fielder Sandy Amoros because he was wearing his glove on his right hand instead of his left. As the Dodger's bus moved out of the Stadium, the Bronx streets were empty, but when the bus reached Brooklyn, the Dodgers got off the bus and joined the delirious crowd.

The year 1956 saw Yankee Don Larsen pitch a perfect game. The series ended with a 9-zip Yankee victory led by a Yogi Berra homer.

Space doesn't allow a series by series description, but the Dodgers swept the Yankees in 1963 and the Yankees won in 1977 led by Reggie Jackson's 3 homers in the sixth and final game. The Yankees won in '78, but the young phenomenon Fernando Valenzuela (who just passed away at age 63) beat the Yankees in 1981 in six games.

Who would ever believe that during the 1946 series, both Ted Williams of the Red Sox and Stan Musial of the Cardinals would both hit below par. Williams who had suffered an injury to his right elbow only hit .204 while Musial would bat a mere .222. That was the last World Series for both Hall of Famers. No one even imagined that would occur!

Who can forget those “amazing” Mets of 1969 who beat the heavily favored Baltimore Orioles in five games following their first game loss to the O’s?

As I write this, the Dodgers, thanks to the bat of Freddy Freeman's grand-slam, lead the Yankees by one game. There could be as many as six games remaining which would allow Aaron Judge, Juan Soto, and Giancarlo Stanton to catch fire.

Three second basemen, Bobby Richardson and Bill Mazeroski in 1960, Chuck Shilling of the Giants in 1962, and Al Wise of the 1969 Miracle Mets have hit dramatic series home runs.

Since the 1903 Boston Americans or Pilgrims, who today masquerade as the Red Sox, beat the Pittsburgh Pirates in 5 games to 3, Americans have matched their hopes and expectations with the fans of an opposing team. Although not until 1992 was there an international flavor to the “Fall Classic,” millions of Americans believe that —after all — America is the world!

Even more to the point, don't expect American baseball fans ever to declare that “the world won the World Series!” The “world” can’t win, because America owns the world — doesn’t it?!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

OCTOBER, THE MOST WONDROUS MONTH OF THE YEAR!

 By Edwin Cooney

No month on the calendar is as unique as October. It is bedecked with beginnings and ends, starts and finishes.

If you're into baseball, the post season with all its unexpected drama succeeds an already fascinating season. Autumn color and crispness stirs the senses and circulates blood flow with both anxiety and hopeful anticipation.

Although we celebrate July 4th as our country’s birthday, some insist that Friday, October 19th, 1781, the day Lord Cornwallis surrendered to George Washington at Yorktown, Maryland, was America's real birthday!

If you are anticipating an October birthday, you share your birthday month with six United States presidents: Jimmy Carter (October 1st), Rutherford B. Hayes (October 4th), Chester A. Arthur (October 5th), Dwight D. Eisenhower (October 14th), Theodore Roosevelt (October 27th) and John Adams (October 30th).

Additionally, you share your October birthday cheer with two legendary Yankee Hall of Famers. Mickey Mantle was born Tuesday, October 20th, 1931, and his pal with whom Mantle would enter the Hall of Fame in 1974, Edward Charles (Whitey) Ford, was born on Sunday, October 21, 1928.  

October is no stranger to historic events: On October 1st, 1961, Roger Maris hit his long anticipated home run #61 off an obscure Red Sox pitcher named Evan (Tracy) Stallard. On October 10th, 1973, Spiro Agnew became the first Vice President since 1832 to resign. (Note: John C. Calhoun resigned the Vice Presidency to accept his election to the United States Senate by South Carolina.)

On Wednesday, October, 14th, 1964, the Soviet leadership ousted Nikita Khrushchev from power. Two days later, on Friday, October 16th, China detonated its first atomic bomb.

In 1973, President Richard M. Nixon committed the “Saturday Night Massacre” by firing Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Bill Ruckelshaus, Richardson's assistant, due to the fact that they refused to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox for insisting the president release specific tape recordings of the president's conversations. This began Mr. Nixon's downhill path to impeachment and resignation.

Unfortunately, October has brought tragedy and death to mark and mar October’s high religious holidays throughout the Middle East.On Saturday, October 6th, 1973, Egypt and Syria launched their Yom Kippur War against Israel. On Tuesday, October 6th, 1981, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was murdered in Cairo. In addition, there is the recent tragedy of Saturday, October 7th, 2023 from which the world still suffers.  

Beatle John Lenin was born on the afternoon of Wednesday, October 9th, 1940 during a Nazi air raid over Liverpool, England.

At 5:04 p.m. on October 17th, 1989. the Loma Prieta earthquake disrupted the baseball World Series between the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland A’s which was about to be played at Candlestick Park. Forty-two people were killed during the 6.9 magnitude quake and part of the freeway collapsed over Oakland.

Looking back, October was especially fun for "us kids" as we anticipated Halloween with wonderful smelling pumpkins and plenty of candy corn shaped like triangles.

"Tangy ‘Tober,” as I like to think of it, features tastes and textures that thrill the palate with delightful doughnuts, cider and cocoa, and really cuddly sweaters along with childhood memories of hayrides in the country.

Important personal and historic events occur every month of our individual and collective years as we wonder, wander and will ourselves towards eternity. However, there are special times that are separate from other times in our hearts. Yet, to this observer, October and August, with April close behind, are particularly memorable.

God bless those who prefer Nat King Cole's "Lazy Hazy Crazy Days of Summer" or who wonder at the promises of romantic love in June, the gifts of Christmas and the thankfulness of November. Nor ought we to minimize January as it opens its gates to a new year! For me, however, October blends anticipation and expectation mellowed by hope in such a way as to steady the spirit. Schools and colleges are open, football is settling in, and hockey and basketball are in full swing.

When, in the early 1950’s, the mighty Yankees would crush the hopes of Brooklyn Dodger fans, those sad days would beckon to the inevitable October days that were to come as Brooklyners would chant, "wait till next year!”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY    
   

FOR GOD’S SAKE, NEVER HOLD YOUR NOSE!

By Edwin Cooney

You shouldn't be surprised that in this topsy-turvy political era, I have a friend who tells me he may well…hold HIS nose and vote for Donald Trump! I guess I should be grateful that he's even considering holding his nose, but I'm desperately hoping he'll forget his nose and follow some of his individual principles which are both admirable and perfectly grand.

This is a gentleman who's a registered Democrat and a dedicated Christian. Insofar as I know, he hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since he abandoned Jimmy Carter for Ronald Reagan in 1980. I'm grateful that he's considering politically stutter stepping this November 5th!

Both decency and individual equity require a distinction between Reaganism and Trumpism. Reaganism is principled and contains goals and rules for application. Mr. Reagan tried to use government only for the ultimate military defense of the public. Other uses of government must be limited but primarily used for the benefit of business magnates and bankers whom FDR used to call "economic royalists.”

Trumpism uses government to settle scores with all sorts of people, big and little, including ethnic minorities. Trumpism denies past sins by glorifying Jim Crowism as "states' rights" and demonizes current efforts  such as climate purification as a socialist conspiracy or as a political hoax.   

As a student of history and a voter, I'm fully aware of the foibles most politicians display from time to time.

Nixon seldom told the truth when a quality lie would often do just as well. Jerry Ford, solid citizen that he was, was too politically collegial to have allowed Nixon to resign without a catch-all. (Nixon aide John Ehrlichman insisted that Richard Nixon never knowingly "stepped into darkness as he would have done minus a pardon escape tunnel dug by ‘good old Jerry.’") Jimmy Carter, although a wonderful humanitarian, was derelict in not preparing himself to handle Congress before seeking the presidency. (Besides, presidents don't wear sweaters when giving major addresses nor do they carry their own bags.)

Ronald Reagan's ignorance of the needs of those who lacked his resources was deliberately arrogant and demeaning of others.

George H. W. Bush, though grand in many ways, was a fool to ask the people to "read my lips. No new taxes."

Bill Clinton was an emotional teenager when it came to personal conduct and he was deceitful even in federal court.

George W. Bush was both careless and reckless when anticipating and carrying out foreign policy.

Barack Obama may have been exceedingly articulate socially and even culturally wise, but he wasn't thorough enough when dealing with the Taliban!

Joe Biden's presidency occurred at a time in his life when he couldn't handle it as he once might have!

Donald Trump's fundamental fault is that his ambition is about himself and little else. His ongoing promise to "make America great again" lacks both timeline and definition. Is America great because we are sinless, always tolerant, and richer than any other nation? What makes a nation great or not so great?

Other circumstantial questions come to mind. Who was the last Republican presidential candidate to identify with a former member of the Soviet KGB? If some nations are “shithole nations,” is that due to their culture, their religion, or their social values?

If voters are to judge the Harris/Biden administration, wasn't there once a Pence/Trump administration? After all, wasn’t it Mike Pence rather than Donald Trump who upheld the Constitution of the United States on the afternoon and throughout the evening of Wednesday, January 6th, 2021?

As for how long or often Mr. Trump would be a dictator, I can't know or even guess! However the idea that "dictatorship" is in Mr. Trump's social, emotional mindset or vocabulary disqualifies his candidacy as I see it! Even more significant are the names of the 90 plus people who are insisting in writing, on tape or on video that he is unfit for the office. That can hardly be brushed away by any genuine patriot! These are men and women who’ve been associated with and often appointed to high office by Mr. Trump.

Adlai Stevenson once observed that neither political party has a monopoly on either virtue or rascality. It has been possible from the very outset of our republic that we could choose a very, very bad president!

Keep in mind that the alternative to Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris doesn't have to be one or the other. It can be neither. Of course, “neither” isn't on the ballot! Hence, I insist it's got to be Kamala Harris!

Unlike my nose-holding friend and considering who is running, I'm going to let my nose do what's natural to it! After all, noses — like political candidates — both run without my consent!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

 

BEYOND THE REASON WHY

(updated from February 18, 20008)

By Edwin Cooney

Like most everyone else, almost any time I hear of a tragedy, the first reaction that enters my mind or crosses my lips consists of the word: why? Very often, however, the question “why” just isn’t enough.

The tragedy that has recently gripped my attention happened during the third week in January in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania about six miles from Center City, Philadelphia.  Fifty-three-year-old Barbara Killian -- blinded from an accident when she was a baby -- and her little white lap dog A-Rod died in the basement of their home by the hand of Barbara’s eighty-four-year-old father Robert Killian who then turned the gun on himself.  Mr. Killian had just been released from a local hospital having been treated for advanced cardiovascular disease.  Convinced that he didn’t have long to live, Mr. Killian apparently believed he had to provide a permanent solution to what he perceived would be Barbara’s struggles in his earthly absence.  Thus, believing as he did that Barbara would be both alone and helpless in this world of expectation, cruelty and demand, he decided that her life should end with his.

Hence, sometime between Tuesday, January 15, when Killian was released from the hospital, and Saturday evening, January 19 at six pm, Robert Killian shot Barbara, their little dog, and himself to death in the basement of their home on Cheswold Road. 

According to the sum of all reports out of Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania,  Barbara and Robert Killian had lived alone since the death of Shirley, Barbara’s mother and Robert’s wife, in 2001; the Killians “minded their own business;” Robert Killian was extremely protective of Barbara; and, finally, there was a lot of love in the Killian home as evidenced by Mr. Killian’s constant devotion to Barbara.
So there you have it: the who, the what, the where, the when, and, only superficially, the why of the story. Surely, however, knowledge of these guidelines which every news reporter knows brings one no satisfaction. If you’re anything like me, perhaps you need to pause and take it all in before reading on.
In the emotional wake that occurs as one learns of this tragedy, there is the natural tendency to be outraged, not only with Killian’s murder of his daughter, but even more with what was clearly his demeaning attitude about Barbara’s very existence as a person with blindness.  There are reports that neighbors called area social services from time to time to complain that Barbara was being “held captive” by her parents in her home, the response to which caused the Killians to retreat further into seclusion with their daughter. Inevitably, one wonders what exactly went on in that household upon Mr. Killian’s January 15th return from the hospital. How long had Robert Killian contemplated this irrevocable deed?  What religious or moral matters did Mr. Killian consider before taking Barbara to the basement of their home to meet her death?  Did Killian tell Barbara in advance of his intention or was there a reasoned or even gentle pretext to the basement visit? Did Robert Killian see his act as one of love or one of despair?

Information out of greater Philadelphia regarding Barbara Killian’s existence is sketchy but still revealing. A 1973 graduate of Overbrook School for the Blind, Barbara was shy, intelligent and fun-loving.  She was a baseball fan of the Yankees, especially Alex Rodriguez whom she had met through an organization for the blind.  Thus, she named her little dog A-Rod.

What happened to Barbara Killian has to be very personal on some level to everyone who lives with a disability — especially those who live with blindness.  All of us, whether born able-bodied or disabled, are vulnerable to our parents’ individual environments, values, and attitudes.  Even more relevant to the Killian family tragedy is the strong parental instinct, the overwhelming need to protect our children from the world’s many outrages.

While we’re certainly justified in our righteous anger toward Robert Killian, that anger alone is as destructive to you and me as Killian’s thirty-eight caliber pistol was to Barbara. It would be more helpful, I think, for us all to re-examine what it means to love and protect one another as well as one’s children.

It would be arrogant for any of us to question Mr. Killian’s love for his daughter.  However, Robert and Shirley Killian’s love for Barbara was clearly misdirected as evidenced by their decision to reject a college scholarship, choosing to have her stay at home instead of broadening her horizons. Their legitimate mission was to protect her life and to empower others to ensure her security after they were gone. It’s quite apparent that Mr. Killian was more overwhelmed by his fears than he was sustained by “the better angels of his nature.”

Nothing we can say or write, no wish we can wish, no prayer we may pray, can undo what was done to Barbara Killian by her father. Love is a powerful force. As such it can nurture, sustain, encourage, and therefore foster growth and even greater love.  However, if love is administered with jealousy or fear, it can destroy. It appears that the Killians’ powerful love for Barbara went awry and, hence, it destroyed.
Sadly, Robert Killian believed that the world wasn’t sufficiently trustworthy to match his love for Barbara. Hence he took her with him for her own protection.

Happily, most of us know that the world is worthy because you and I are worthy of the kind of love that sustains and nurtures.

So, in the words of a hit song from the 1970s:  “Let your love flow…”


Ah, but that's what Mr. And Mrs. Killian did, or thought they did!

The broader deeper question is: How did this happen?

First the babyhood accident: what was its cause and nature? I grew up with a friend who was blinded at age two when his mother accidentally dropped him on his head. My friend Fritz, never tried to explain, blame or excuse the cause of his blindness or his mother's role in it. The causes of illness and/or disability are numerous and even undetectable   and lie beyond the power of the inquiry of “why?"

Blindness itself possesses its own set of causes and effects! Most of us tolerate our disability even as we're forced to observe the advantages of others who live with no life-altering disability. Another person I know becomes angry with their disability when experiencing frustration, denial, or especially dependence on the sighted.


Hence, how did Mr. or Mrs. Killian feel about Barbara's blindness? Did they feel guilt or even embarrassment as to their daughter's existence? What was their overall reaction toward human physical, emotional, or even spiritual weaknesses?

Every Fall, new boys and girls were admitted to our sister and brotherhoods at the New York State School for the Blind. One Fall, two boys, Bob and Stan, joined our little brethren. Both had been blinded for about two years. Bob was wounded by a shotgun accident. Even while his family desperately sought a cure for his malady, Bob cheerfully accepted his lot. Stan, on the other hand, sulked and complained to the disgust of many of us including myself. Stan's blindness was the result of a brain tumor. He died in 1965. Insofar as I know, Bob became a lawyer for the state and still lives. (Shame on us blind boys!)


The National Federation For The Blind is right when it asserts blindness is what you live with — it's not who you are!


If only the Killians had been gifted with that perception!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

AMERICAN GREATNESS: DOES IT CHANGE? DOES IT MATTER?

By Edwin Cooney

Atop my desk sits a three and a half inch medal depicting the twenty-eight men and two women regarded at the time as the 30 greatest people in American History. It includes seven presidents, one sports hero, two explorers, three writers, one Supreme Court justice, one civil rights figure, two social leaders, four inventors and, of course, several military heroes. Hence, my question: since it was an official Bicentennial medal, these are supposedly the 30 greatest Americans throughout our first two hundred years. It's important to keep two things in mind. First, some pretty special people aren't included on this medal, such as Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Frederick Douglass, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster and Henry Clay. Second, throughout the decades and centuries, challenges and values change. Adlai Stevenson pointed out that during pioneer days, candidates used to accuse each other of being “part Indian.” One candidate asserted while standing on the stump: my opponent insists that he's not part Indian and I believe him, because the Indians deny it, too!

Here's a list of those people on this large medal: Washington, Franklin, Jane Adams (who established Hull House in Chicago to assist the poor), writer Carl Sandburg, Thomas Jefferson, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes, Henry Ford, Albert Einstein, Neil Armstrong, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John Kennedy, John D. Rockefeller, Robert E. Lee, John Paul Jones, Paul Revere, Alexander Hamilton, explorers Lewis and Clark, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, Woodrow Wilson, Babe Ruth, Martin Luther King, Franklin Roosevelt,  Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Thomas Edison, Orville and Wilbur Wright, and Charles Lindbergh.

I’ve also read that on the 150th anniversary, the treasury struck a medal of George Washington and of Calvin Coolidge.

Now for the puzzle: As we approach our country’s 250th anniversary, who would we add or eliminate from the top 30? Here's my list of subtractions and substitutions.

I'd replace Carl Sandberg with Eleanor Roosevelt. I'd remove Henry Ford for Alexander Graham Bell. I'd replace John Kennedy with Ronald Reagan (although I personally prefer JFK). Betty Friedan would replace John D. Rockefeller. Robert E. Lee chose his state over his country and that's treasonous so I would replace Robert E. Lee with Harry Truman. For Woodrow Wilson, I'd take Theodore Roosevelt. Babe Ruth would be replaced by Willie Mays and, finally, I'd replace Lindbergh with John Glenn. These changes would keep the number to 30 great Americans.

As I see it, greatness has to do with the care for and commitment to the safety, well-being, and prosperity of the widest number of people in our republic. Anger toward minorities does not result in greatness. Even though society requires spiritual principles including the Golden Rule, society generally does not benefit by punishment or rejection of the lawful. Nor do we benefit from the criminalization of political candidates or their constituents.

There are, of course, no right or wrong additions or subtractions to this list, but changes do reflect our personal values because we govern through our values!

How significantly have we changed since that glorious Bicentennial Sunday, July 4th, 1976 as bells rang, fireworks roared, and the tall ships sailed into New York Harbor?

Of course, it matters because everyone matters!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

OKAY, MADAM VICE PRESIDENT, WHAT'S NEXT?

By Edwin Cooney

Now that you've impressed millions of your fellow citizens of your ability to tie Donald Trump in knots, what's your next act of political mastery?

No matter what one is doing: eating apples from a forbidden tree, building an ark, consuming rice with chopsticks, or running for President of the United States, you've got to master your task!

There are many strategical paths to the presidency that if taken can bring forth victory.

Last Tuesday, Vice President Harris manipulated former President Trump so cleverly that he had to concede the popularity and even the practicality of "Obamacare." The Affordable Care Act was essential, Trump insisted, as a framework of a Trumpian health care plan which he deliberately maintained in order to build his own health care plan.

As for Mr. Trump's foreign policy, Kamala Harris told Mr. Trump that both Presidents Putin and Xi by using personal flattery will "...have you for lunch!"

Harris was sufficiently successful throughout the debate that those who haven't yet made up their minds who they ought to vote for, want to know more about the challenger and her plans in a way they were once curious about Mr. Trump's policies and plans.

Now the former president says that he won the debate and doesn't need to debate Ms. Harris a second time. He even implied that there's no need for a Vance-Walz debate in October. In 2016, Hillary Clinton already had a reputation which Donald Trump's audacious behavior eventually overwhelmed.

It's increasingly apparent to this observer that Donald John Trump is becoming exceedingly boring! Thus, 2024 marks the third presidential campaign the public has been fed Mr. Trump's insistence on his capacity to "make America great again!" American greatness is an ongoing expectation that ebbs and flows at home and abroad. American greatness is a judgment rather than a continuous degree of perfection.

Greatness is about achievement applicable to the continuous well-being of a majority of Americans.

David Brooks, writing in The New York Times last week, believes that we're passing through a positive culture change that is about to succeed Donald Trump’s culture of exhaustion and indignation into a new culture of expected togetherness and personal connecting.

Now that the former president, for his own both political and personal protection, is abandoning direct political combat, it's up to Kamala Harris to construct and travel her highway to victory.

Although there's seldom any doubt as to whom this observer favors, seldom do I offer an assurance. Hence, here's a certainty as of today. Should sudden illness overtake President Biden, Kamala Harris would not only succeed constitutionally to the presidency, she'd easily be elected President of the United States in her own right. Up until last Tuesday, September 10th, 2024, such was not the case. Today, minus a major error on her part or a major discovery of Biden-Harris administration "skullduggery," Kamala Harris could be "in like Flynn."

If Vice President Kamala Harris becomes "President Harris" before November 5th, 2024, she'll remain President Harris until Saturday, January 20th, 2029. Hence Mr. Former President, it's in your political well-being to pray for "Old Sleepy Joe!"

Early in 1942 with the United States now in the war with the Axis, Winston Churchill observed:  "This is not the end! It's not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. "

Kamala Harris, the rest is up to you!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN CLOONEY

A NEW CONCEPT CALLED “THE STINKIN’ TRUTH”

By Edwin Cooney

One of the most fertile institutions in 21st Century society today is the podcast, a program available in a digital format over the internet. I think of these podcasts as mini broadcasts of stories and ideas designed to take the public where it's never been — and sometimes doesn't really need to go.

One of the most intriguing podcasts is called "The Stinkin' Truth,” largely encompassing real possibilities that are true, but that you or I would rather not experience, especially as sports fans.

Here's one set of simultaneous stinkin' truths:  One: Trump might win this November fifth election. Two:  Harris might win this November fifth election. (Keep in mind that all of us must own and handle stinkin' truths!)

A stinkin' truth I've had to face since 2009 is that the Yankees haven't won the World Series.

The world is bathed in truths: relative truths, partisan truths, personal truths, ideological truths and, this fall, Trump and Harris truths.

The most dangerous stinkin' truth is that it's possible that a world leader might miscalculate and bring on a nuclear explosion or that humanity's carelessness and selfishness might permanently poison the earth so that it might not be habitable. (Come to think of it, as bad as that would be for you and me, it might be good for the planet, thus enabling it to replenish itself for the next ten or twenty thousand years of habitation, human or otherwise.)

Sometimes we create our own "stinkin' truths" due to our personal insecurities or doubts about the capacity or veracity of others.

I once had a landlord who insisted that he hated lawyers. According to him, they too often lied, misrepresented, and schemed to make a buck. One Tuesday, early in November of 1980, I insisted that his doubling of my rent was way too much while being unfair at the same time. By Thursday, his lawyer was knocking at my door to serve me with an eviction notice. Oh! I forgot to mention that my landlord was the head of a citywide organization designed to control rent increases. Additionally, I learned that this gentleman actually had a direct telephone line to his lawyer.

Although some "stinkin' truths" are really stinky, some are actually funny. How about the Idaho man, David Rush, who spit 47 ping pong balls from his mouth against the wall in just 30 seconds to set a world record! Rush wasn't as proud of his spitting prowess as he was of his tenacity and persistence in the attainment of his crazy record!

Here's a wondrous truth: UPI recently reported that a Texas cat that had been missing for 3 years was found in Massachusetts. The cat had been loved so much by it's Texas owners that a chip had been inserted beneath its skin and was discovered during  an examination in Massachusetts. The cat, missing since January 2022, is Shoto. Her owner Karla only by chance answered the call from Dakin, Massachusetts and drove the 2,000 miles to retrieve Shoto. Only Shoto knows how her trip began, how she was treated or even how it ended.

Here's still another truth, this one personal. It occurred back in the early 1990’s. My son's cat went missing for about six weeks. One day, my son's mother and her boyfriend came home and there was Cinnamon meowing on her porch, thin as a rail and malnourished. At the vet that afternoon, they discovered that Cinnamon had been trapped in a garage that she had wandered into just before the people who owned the garage went on vacation.

Stinkin' truths are found everywhere: in the grocery store; at the barber or beauty shop; even in the “sack” with your significant other! History books are loaded with stinkin' truths. While it's true that the Electoral College distorts the popular vote, the final stinkin' truth is that we would never have been the United States of America without it. (In fact, still another stinkin' truth is that most every truth demands a price!)

Stinkin' truths possess an integrity. They can't be manufactured. They can only be realized. They can be funny, ironic, even boring, but they just might be the only genuinely real truth on "God's green earth."

Enjoy the idea. There's a lot in it!

No bull!


RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

IS DONALD TRUMP A POPULIST?

By Edwin Cooney

Those who have come to love and respect Donald Trump because of his willingness to propose radical changes to government policy insist that he's merely in the tradition of late 19th and early 20th century social reformers or populists in the tradition of such leaders as Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette, four time Cleveland Ohio Mayor Tom Johnson, William Jennings Bryan and perhaps Clarence Darrow who was called "the attorney for the damned.” However, the examples of the above are precisely what Mr. Trump is not!

America's populist movement occurred in the late 18th and early 19th centuries between 1885 and 1915. It was led by women and men determined to alter the relationship between the public and their government to the overall advantage of the people.

The cornerstone of populism was the legislative initiative, the power of political referendum and even the privilege of the removal of some public officials. The cry was for public “initiative, referendum and recall.” Twice while I lived in California, between 1979 and 2013, voters invoked their capacity for initiative, referendum and recall.

The first time was in 1983 when some San Franciscans sought to recall Mayor Diane Feinstein over her veto of city employee benefits to gay domestic partners Their initiative against Mayor Feinstein badly missed its mark!

The second time was in 2003 when Governor Gray Davis was recalled due to unresolvable budget, social and energy differences. Arnold Schwarzenegger was the result of that 2003 recall.

Although FDR hasn't been considered a populist by historians and political science academicians, several laws passed via FDR were populist in nature. They include the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1933 because it established a government corporation that competed with private enterprise, creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission because it regulated banking and trade through the government, and the adoption of Social Security in 1935 because it established government pensions thus changing the reliance of retired workers from private to government pensions.

Keep in mind that not all populist reforms are progressive. Prohibition was a populist movement that altered the relationship between the government and the people.

Angry or resentful presidents, governors or mayors may reject or institute a new policy issue, but in order to be populistic, one must introduce a structural process in a way that alters government's interaction with people which previously didn't exist. Farmers, factory laborers, miners, and some social minorities were affected by the populist movement. Populist leaders included Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Despite TR's New Nationalism and Wilson's New Freedom during the 1912 campaign, both were regarded as populists regardless of their Republican and Democratic Party affiliations.

Although former President Trump may be exceedingly popular, his social programs and policies lack much coordination or widespread national support. Another difference between Mr. Trump and most populist leaders is that government solutions were front and center to their method of problem solving.

Hence, Mr. Trump can't, by this observer, be considered a populist — not even close! The ultimate question then is obvious: can Donald Trump be elected?

Unfortunately, of course he can. Just ask Hillary Clinton!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

POLITICAL AMBITION AND NATIONAL FATE: HOW DO THEY COMPARE AND CONTRAST?

By Edwin Cooney

As a Democrat, I enjoyed the hopefulness and even the joy apparent in the acceptance addresses of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz last week in Chicago.

The year 2024 marks the 16th national presidential campaign I've followed since 1960. Twice, in 1968 and in 1972, as a Nixon Republican, and five times as a Carter, Clinton, Obama and Biden Democrat, my side has prevailed.

Beyond the participation and hopes of the voters lie the presumptions and expectations of each. How reasonable are our hopes and expectations?

For my personal guideline, I try to keep in mind the purposes stated in the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note well, please, that in the above mentioned goals you'll find no political or ideological prescriptions for achieving these goals. Conservatives may stress the importance  of the national defense, liberals often point to the assurance of our domestic tranquility, and some may even emphasize the ordination of the Constitution, but there's nothing about balanced budgets, deficit spending, or the prevalence or lack of religion.

Of course, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris represent vastly contrasting views and interpretations of both the purpose of government and even the interpretation of the Constitution, but beyond those views and interpretations, the genuine goals of the Founding Fathers remain.

Between 1789 and 1932 during the administrations of George Washington through Herbert Hoover, the primary ongoing government obligation was the protection of the public by the military. Since 1933, the primary (though not total) responsibility of government has been the privileges and priorities of our domestic obligations. Up until Franklin Roosevelt, Democratic presidents from Andrew Jackson through Woodrow Wilson opposed direct assistance to either manufacturers or laborers. Grover Cleveland, a personal friend of Franklin Roosevelt’s father James, asserted in his Second Inaugural on March 4th, 1893 that it is the obligation of the people to support their government, not the obligation of the government to support the people.

As is his right, Mr. Trump will make his case to return to the presidency and 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, just as the above mentioned Grover Cleveland returned for a second term. However, I believe that Vice President Harris's ambitions are sufficiently significant to justify her election. More specifically, human rights ought to take precedence over property rights.

Human rights must always take precedence over human ambition in order to be legitimate. However, human ambition and human rights must always equal government's obligations to the whole of the people.

Back in 1964, as a very young and naive Republican, I was convinced at the close of the convention that nominated Barry Goldwater and Bill Miller that they were the answer to the security and safety of this free people as it struggled against the threat of Soviet Communism. Practically everyone remembers the phrases for which Goldwater was famous: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” (I suspect but can't of course prove that the phrase Barry Goldwater originally hoped would be remembered goes like this: “The Good Lord raised this republic to flourish as the ‘land of the free and the home of the brave,’ not to stagnate in the swampland of collectivism, not to cringe before the bullying of Communism!” The only problem is that in his deliverance of that phrase he stumbled, thus throwing off its rhythm.)

Here are just a few of the promises versus the outcomes since the mid 1960s:

In 1964, voters looked to stay distant from the Vietnam War. In 1968 and 1972, voters hoped for an honorable end to that widened war. In 1976, voters looked toward an administration that would successfully overcome misgoverning inside Washington. By 1988, voters expected the budget to be balanced by the administration that had promised that achievement in 1980. In 1992, voters expected their taxes to remain the same as promised by a president who encouraged the public to "read my lips." In 2008, voters hoped a Black presidency would bring about a dramatic reconciliation of race relations throughout the country.  

As for 2024, however legitimate or outrageous Mr. Trump's or Mrs. Harris's ambitions may be, our national fate is what ultimately will matter.

The rest is up to you, as well as to me!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

SPIRO WHO? DJ WHO? TIM WHO?

By Edwin Cooney

To the disgust of most Trumpites and perhaps to the happy shock of many Democrats, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, her newly minted Minnesota running mate, appear to have gone from the politically lonely to potential popularity since that July Sunday when "Elderly Joe” announced he was stepping aside in favor of his then beleaguered vice president. Even more likely is that the Harris/Walz ticket, unless they stumble during their convention, may well benefit from the political bounce many newly nominated candidates experience at the close of their party's public business.

Governor Walz' biggest weakness appears to be that because Minnesota doesn't equal Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin Nevada, and Arizona as key electoral college states, many will insist that DJ Vance, because he represents Ohio, almost automatically a “Trump state,” will be more helpful to the former president than Walz may be to Vice President Harris.

Of course, mere speculation can be worthless, but history does bring forth significant past political realities.

In 1948, Thomas Dewey and Earl Warren represented mighty New York State and California in the electoral college. President Truman named  Kentucky Senator and Senate Minority Leader Alben Barkley for Vice President thus representing Missouri and Kentucky. A brilliant orator and storyteller, Barkley, during his keynote speech to the convention, defined a bureaucrat as "a Democrat who holds an office some Republican wants." The Truman/Barkley ticket, although surrendering New York to Dewey, snatched California away from Governor Warren. However, President Truman demonstrated true political mastery by calling the GOP Congress back into special session forcing it to demonstrate that it both couldn't and wouldn't support social legislation promised in its platform.

In 1952, Richard Nixon represented both youth and the anti-Communism movement emphasized by Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy. Additionally, at age 39, the second youngest Vice  Presidential candidate in history, Nixon had a beautiful wife who only wore "respectable Republican cloth coats rather than mink coats.” He was lawyer and debater enough to turn a gift of a dog named Checkers to his two little girls into a pretty national political asset.

In 1956, Adlai Stevenson dropped his 1952 VP choice, Alabama Senator John Sparkman, and invited convention delegates to select their own vice presidential candidate. They selected Estes Kefauver of Tennessee over young Jack Kennedy of Massachusetts.

In 1960, Vice President Nixon chose U.N. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge as his running mate, not because he was any part of the Boston Brahmin set, but because Lodge represented respectable Eisenhower diplomacy.  JFK chose Lyndon B. Johnson because he was running for two offices in his beloved Texas. He is the only man in American history to run for re-election to the United States Senate and for Vice President simultaneously.  Historians generally agree that LBJ is likely the only Vice Presidential candidate to have made a difference in the electoral outcome.

In 1964, William E. Miller's Catholic faith and partisan oratory made him Barry Goldwater's running mate. Hubert H. Humphrey, a civil rights champion and President Johnson's former Senate colleague was raised to the second highest officer in the land by LBJ personally.

In 1968, Maryland Governor Spiro T. Agnew had announced to the world that he'd be supporting New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller for president and lined up his supporters to listen to Rockefeller's announcement of his candidacy. However, when Rockefeller announced he wouldn't seek the nomination, Agnew turned against Rockefeller and proceeded to bring his real anti-liberal outlook into the “Nixon for President” camp. “Spiro Who” became "outspoken candidate” and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew.

Mild, elegant Edmund Muskie as Hubert Humphrey's 1968 running mate, impressed so many voters by the end of the campaign that millions of Americans appeared to champion a 1972 Muskie  presidential candidacy over even Hubert's possible effort.

Abandoned by many usual Democratic constituencies in 1972, George McGovern chose as his running mate Senator Tom Eagleton who did have good relations with traditional Democrats. However, within almost days of his nomination his struggles with depression and other nervous conditions forced McGovern to shift from a one thousand percent position of support to no support at all. Eagleton's successor turned out to be Sergeant Shriver, representing the Kennedy family's party prominence.

Jimmy "who?" Carter and Walter Fritz Mondale as "Grits and Fritz" were very compatible, but Ford and Robert Dole, Ford's VIP choice, sufficiently muddled their message to come in second to the Georgian and the Minnesotan during the Bicentennial year.

In July of 1980, some GOP leaders were sufficiently concerned about nominee Ronald Reagan's lack of foreign policy experience that he might need to require the services of former President Gerald Ford. However, it became clear during a joint meeting between the two men that merging the two offices would neither be practical nor desirable. Thus, George H. W. Bush received a late night call to service. He accepted and the rest is history.

James Danforth (Dan) Quayle was chosen for second place ins 1988 by presidential candidate George H. W. Bush because Quayle was neither Robert or Elizabeth Dole who might well challenge President Bush for re-election in 1992. Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis's choice of Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen was so popular that by the end of the campaign many were sorry that a winning ticket of Bush and Bentsen would be unconstitutional under the Twelfth Amendment..

Bill Clinton and Al Gore were very compatible until President Clinton's personal conduct became most questionable in 1998. The distance both Vice President and Tipper Gore established between the couples, many believe, cost Gore the presidency in 2000 even more than hanging chads in Florida cost the Gores. In 2000, Richard Bruce Cheney had to move back home to Wyoming to comply with that Twelfth Amendment which prohibits presidential and vice presidential candidates to come from the same state even if that state is Texas!

In 2004, it couldn't be said that John Edwards vice presidential candidacy hurt John Kerry's presidential candidacy very much, but Dick Cheney's debate with John Edwards helped President Bush's re-election effort.

In 1984, Walter Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro and in 2008 John McCain chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as their potential vice presidents. Mondale would have been better off had he chosen San Francisco Mayor Diane Feinstein and 24 years later McCain would have been better off had he chosen Joseph Lieberman, Al Gore's 2000 Vice Presidential candidate, but neither candidate made those choices. Thus, the Mondale and McCain presidencies are forever imaginary!

The Obama Biden team lasted eight years and even outshone the Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan team in 2012.

Stunningly, the Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine 2016 ticket stumbled and bumbled its way toward high office thus allowing Trump and Mike Pence to prevail.

As for the 2020 campaign, we're still in it since former President Trump insists it was stolen. However, Joe Biden's Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris helped more than she hurt and thus she and Tim Walz of Minnesota may well prevail this fall.

Of course, much will depend on Trump's and Harris's attitudes and moods this fall. If Harris duplicates Hillary Clinton's contempt and indifference towards even some potential constituents, she's in trouble. However, to the degree that she comes off knowledgable, reflective regarding her mistakes, and above all likable, she and Tim Walz will prevail. Walz may in fact not be of electoral benefit but his substance and likability may enable him to rake in the votes come November 5th, 2024.

One of the lessons great orators know is that if they press issues too often or stridently, they lose their appeal to the public. What few seem to realize is that in 2020, no other Republican loser complained that they'd been cheated out of political office.

As for 2024, no excuses, not even the electoral college is acceptable. It's all really up to you and me!

I assert that next January 20th, Kamala Harris and Tim Walls will be President and Vice President respectively!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

IS AMERICAN POLITICS MERELY A SPORT OR IS IT DEADLY?

By Edwin Cooney

A mere fortnight ago, the 2024 presidential campaign appeared to be almost a cinch in favor of a former president who'd just barely escaped assassination. Today, it's possible that a part Black, part Asian woman currently serving as our Vice President is slowly but inevitably surging forward towards her historic glory! Vice President Kamala Harris is little known to most Americans, but you can be sure that former President Trump will attempt to identify her to the people according to his personal interests just as she will attempt to do it to him.

Between 1960 and 1988, most presidential and vice presidential candidates had much in common: economic depression, World War II and the dawning of the atomic age, the cold war, together with all of the hopes and fears of each situation. Hence, they generally faced their realities within the mores of mid Twentieth Century American practicality and good sense.

Beginning in 1992, presidential candidate President George H. W. Bush and Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Clinton served differently. President Bush, a hero of WW II, had served proudly in war. Young Clinton altogether avoided serving in his generation's Vietnam conflict.

Presidential campaigns have differing moods and even flavors. Throughout the fifties and into the sixties, presidential campaigns with all their contentions and sharp edges were pretty conventional affairs. Beginning in 1968, assassinations and angry demonstrations took center stage.

In 2004, John Kerry, who had served in that very war and regretted his service, was made to appear unpatriotic in comparison to the sitting president, George W. Bush, who hadn't served at all during the Vietnam War.

In 2008, we finally elected a Black man who told America that “yes, we can" pass an affordable Health Care Act, while his administration would successfully pursue Osama bin Laden.

As a spectator sport, American presidential politics invites comparative Trivial Pursuit questions. For example:

Who was the most obscure vice presidential candidate during this period? My choice would be Idaho Senator Glen H. Taylor who was former Vice President Henry A. Wallace’s Progressive Party Vice Presidential running mate. You might pick Bill Miller, Senator Goldwater's 1964 vice presidential candidate, or Sarah Palin, the Alaska mom and politician, who could “see Russia” from her Alaskan front porch. Perhaps you might choose Geraldine Ferraro, Walter Mondale's 1984 pick, who was the first female vice presidential candidate.

Richard Nixon's name was on five national tickets three times for president and twice for vice president under Ike.

The year 2024 marks the third time Donald Trump has been the Republican candidate. Although he was elected president in 2016, he actually lost by more than 3,000,000 votes in 2016. In 2020, he lost the presidency by 8,000,000 votes. It's my guess that it will take the electoral college to give him another term in 2024. (For a listing of presidential and vice presidential candidates since 1948, see James DeGregario's Complete Book of Presidents although it only goes up to 1997.)

The ultimate question remains: how much does it matter whether we vote in 2024? No one, certainly not I, can answer that question. One thing is for sure: if you only suspect things might be better if you bother to vote, you damn well better do it!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY           

HEY, MR. AND MS. AMERICA, WHAT IS YOUR STATE OF MIND?

By Edwin Cooney

Under our constitution, the president annually must present to Congress and the people his (or eventually her) evaluation of the State of the Union. Thus, as we prepare to vote in 2024, it's a good idea that you and I prepare our own judgment of the state of the American Union.

Last Saturday, July 13th,  a former president was nearly assassinated. The last time we assassinated a sitting president (on November 22nd, 1963), aside from a growing civil rights movement, America was pretty content with itself. Today, what we love, hate, fear and yet long for depends on where we live, what race, religion or gender we identify with, along with ideals that we value or reject.

Happily, it  appears that most of us reject and even resent the attempted assassination of Mr. Trump. His supporters reject the effort due to their love for him. His opponents are loathe to make a martyr out of him. Still, those two motives may tell us more about ourselves than we realize.

As I see it, the only legitimate motive for killing another human being is immediate personal physical preservation! Still, we've been killing one another since Cain killed Abel. Hence, the obvious question: when are most Americans intrigued or excited?

It appears to me that Americans are happiest and most content when we're involved as participants in sports or when judging the lives, backgrounds and motives of entertainers or celebrities: who's the best singer, actor, poet, republican, democrat, liberal or conservative? Who's the best of the best? Who's the worst of the worst?

Here's one for you: when you're riding in or driving a car, are you as sane as other drivers or passengers? What weather forecaster consistently offers the best weather forecast? Are the drivers in New England or in California the worst?  Are the young or are the elderly the best citizens?

How curious are we about things with which we're not familiar?

As for 2024, how capable are we to select the best presidential candidate?

Are we sufficiently tolerant to preserve The United States of America considering our clashes of need, interests, and individual goals and fortunes? Do we care sufficiently about one another to vote responsibly for the next president?

No essay, let alone commentary, is complete if the author doesn't offer some guidance listing the beliefs and principals important to him or her! Here are mine:

1) I believe most people are fundamentally good and well meaning and try to follow the golden rule.

2) America is, as Benjamin Franklin asserted following the Constitutional Convention, a Republic. Subsequently, it steadily has sought to grow into a democracy!

3) America has been led by men and women who have sought to combine both practicality and principle during which practicality most often comes first. Our treatment of Native Americans and Blacks most represents the dominance of practicality over principle!

4) Too many of us hope God will bless America when God's blessings belong to people, not nations! Has any preacher asserted that we will find nations in Heaven?

5) Too many Americans assign racism to others and ignore their own racism!

6) We cleverly turn our personal and physical efforts and emotional drawbacks into profitable institutions for our financial benefit. Thus we have paid doctors, nurses, teachers, preachers, police and fire-persons, soldiers, sailors, prostitutes and pimps.

7) Drivers love to own cars trucks, even hearses and ambulances, but they don't trust each others driving habits!

8) All lawyers are shysters except for one’s own!

9) All politicians are crooks except the ones we prefer!

As for America's greatness, that occurred when we gained our independence from Britain, when we asserted that “all men are created equal,” as voting rights grew in proportion to prejudices, when slaves were freed and the rights of Native Americans were equalized, as government began serving the poor as much as it does the rich, when indebtedness was decriminalized, when church and state were separated, when the rights and responsibilities of the disabled were strengthened, when women gained the vote along with increased status and expectation, and as God's gift of science conquered disease.

Since America is ultimately a collection of the wisest and the foolish, the creative and the lazy, its greatness will inevitably ebb and flow.
 
Any politician who "trumpets" American greatness as a political commodity is trying to sell you and me something we don't need!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE PREGNANT LULL BEFORE THE STORM

By Edwin Cooney

One of the more attractive aspects of politics is its capacity for great drama. Since Vice President Harry Truman's dramatic succession to the presidency in 1945, post World War II Americans have been increasingly aware that a vice president is more than just likely to succeed to the presidency. Since party conventions are where political selections are made, therein lies the heart of the drama.

In 1952, Ike, an elderly candidate, chose 39-year-old Richard Nixon to be his running mate. Nixon was a young reactionary and, most of all, dramatically anti-Communist. In 1960, young Nixon, who became the presidential candidate, chose Henry Cabot Lodge, a distinguished former senator and retiring United Nations Ambassador, to add wisdom and weight to his team selection. In 1964, Barry Goldwater chose upstate New York Congressman and GOP National Chairman William E. Miller as his running mate, because of his ability to poke holes in Democratic logic and because of his Roman Catholic faith.

In 1968, three men fought for the party's nomination on the first ballot: Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald Reagan, the conservative movie actor from California. During the third session of the convention, I remember hearing an interview with South Dakota Senator Karl Mundt as he was naming a list of eight or ten possible GOP vice presidential candidates such as Ronald Reagan, Nelson Rockefeller, Charles Percy, John Lindsay, young Texas congressman George Bush, Gerald Ford, Senator John Tower of Texas, Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield, Ohio Governor James Rhodes, and Wisconsin Congressman Melvin Laird. The list was most informative and even educational. However, ironically, the name not on Senator Mundt's list was that of Spiro Theodore Agnew of Maryland. That little drama would occur on the morning of Thursday, August 5th. Hence, everyone wondered: Spiro Who?

In 1976, Governor Ronald Reagan, seeking advantage over President Gerald Ford, named his running mate a week before the convention and challenged President Ford to do likewise. Reagan's choice was liberal Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker whom Reagan hoped would woo moderate delegates away from President Ford before the balloting. Ford refused the challenge but still won the presidential nomination. He chose Kansas Senator Bob Dole as his vice presidential running mate.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the nomination wrapped up by the time of the Detroit convention but needed a running mate with national security experience. At the beginning of the convention, between July 14th and 18th, 1980, negotiations between Reagan and Ford took place to see if they could agree on a duel presidency. Such an agreement was beyond both men, so George H. W. Bush was summoned and chosen.

In 1988, James Danforth Quayle was chosen as the young surprise vice presidential running mate, because although he was young and physically attractive, he would not be a threat to President Bush if he sought re-election in 1992.

During the 2000 Republican convention which was held in Philadelphia between July 31st and August 3rd, Texas Governor George W. Bush asked the head of Halliburton to lead the effort to identify a vice presidential candidate. In the end, Richard B. Cheney was selected. The irony was that because he and Governor Bush both resided in Texas, in order to qualify for election as Vice President, Mr. Cheney had to move back to Wyoming, the state where he resided when he had served in Congress from 1979 to 1989.
 
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the GOP’s 2008 ""Hot Hottie," was Senator John McCain's VP selection. However, she flamed out by mid campaign.

In 2016, Mike Pence brought to the Trump campaign a needed conservative with a Christian background which helped to sustain Trump during the controversy in early October over the candidate's relationship with — and toward — women..

As for 2024, many believe that Marco Rubio of Florida may be Mr. Trump's choice this week. If such is the case, perhaps the presidential candidate may have to move back to New York similar to Dick Cheney's 2000 move back to Wyoming!

Although many historians and political scientists assert that JFK's 1960 selection won Texas for the Democrats, few believe that vice presidential candidates generally elect the top of a ticket. However, the choice invariably reflects the state and mood of a party and its  constituents.

I predict that Vivek Ramaswamy is likely Trump's best choice due to his youth and his business background. However, how likely is Mr. Ramaswamy to be abjectly loyal to a lame duck president when the future could be all his?

Hence, the title I've given this week's offering. This may well be the pregnant lull before one hell of a storm!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

COONEY EATS CROW — YUCK, OH YUCK

By Edwin Cooney

If you're a dog chasing a car, you're definitely in trouble if you catch it, but how would you know otherwise if you're a dog! I chased a Supreme Court opinion and rather than catching and commanding it, I got fed crow and  drenched by skunk-spray!

Since 1937, conservatives have lectured Americans  about “court packing” or partisan court manipulation. Hence, the decision announced on Monday, July 1st, as we prepared to celebrate our 248th birthday, that our highest court would grant a freely elected president the powers of King George the Third, thus placing all presidential acts above the law, is in defiance of the sacred idea and belief that we are a government of laws and not of men.

FDR was denounced as "the root of all evil" despite the fact that his New Deal saved capitalism. According to the June 30th ruling, if a president shoots his wife, that would be a private act and therefore subject to prosecution. However if, as Commander-in-Chief, he orders a member of the SEALS to shoot his wife, he would be immune from prosecution because that would be an official act of the President of the United States.

In addition, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out, a sitting president may accept a bribe for a pardon or even order the assassination of a challenger since all sitting presidents are immune from judicial prosecutions.

Last Monday, the Supreme Court sought to protect the Presidential office against attacks by successor presidents as a matter of legal partisan “payback."

For my part, I've really and truly bought into the idea and the belief that our government is "one of laws, and not of men."

If the person of the presidency and not the office itself is answerable to the law, then the law is not relevant either to the Constitution or to the acts of citizens!. After all, a president is America's first citizen!

Additionally, if a president is immune from the judgment of history, so is a whole people.

When I was first informed about this by a friend of mine from Pittsburgh, he and not I saw the danger in the ruling.

The Supreme Court sent the problem back to the judge handling the potential Washington, D. C. trial and invited the judge to set up an inquiry dividing the responsibilities of the person in the presidency and the acts of an officiating president. Hence, I was pleased that the issue had been sent to a lower judge and court. However, my friend in Pittsburgh is more farseeing than I.

Of course, I'm far from being the only inconsistent observer with an interest in the outcome of what occurred back on January 6th, 2021.

The GOP majority during Congress’ second impeachment of President Trump partially acquitted the outgoing president on the grounds that an impeachment ought to wait until former President Trump's innocence or guilt was decided by the courts. These days, those same Republicans seem to regard any guilty verdict as constituting a political rather than a legal act. Thus, Donald Trump, Stokely Carmichael, Bobby Seal, Malcom X, Huey Newton and the convicted murderer George Jackson are all merely political rather than legal criminals. Men are generally regarded by the company they insist on keeping.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I never heard Martin Luther King claim that he was merely a political prisoner because he never denied that he deliberately broke laws in all parts of the country.

What I failed to consider possible was that conservative Americans would ever grant to the President of the United States absolute executive power when they were once bitter toward Franklin Roosevelt for asserting power in the 1930s.

Perhaps they'll alter their perspective when Presidents Pete Buttigieg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Ayanna Pressley start exercising former President Trump's newly granted prerogatives. I'm astounded that social and ideological conservatives would ever grant to one of their leaders Theodore or even Franklin Rooseveltian authority. (Back in 1911, TR stated in an address at Osawatomie, Kansas that human rights are superior to property rights. In 1937, FDR was bitterly accused of trying to pack the Supreme Court to achieve a purely socialist agenda.)

When my younger lad was a little guy, he'd protest the medicine his mother and I would insist he take with the words "yuck, oh yuck!"

As I swallow my crow or inhale my skunk spray, I'm certain that one day very soon, Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett will experience their crow and skunk fragrance that will be worse than mine!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY