FAMILY, FAMILY! THERE’S JUST TOO MUCH FAMILY!

By Edwin Cooney

The above words were spoken by actress Naomi Brossart while playing Jacquline Kennedy on comedian Vaughn Meader's hit comedy record, The First Family, recorded and released on Cadence Records in 1962. More about that later!

From the very outset of our history, the function and reputation primarily of prominent families has been an element in American politics especially as moral issues have increasingly come to matter. The Adams, Rockefellers, Roosevelts and Kennedys are obvious examples.

Today we must add the Bidens due to the negative attention Mr. Trump has paid to the family of his political opponent. By so doing, he has imperiled the fate of the Ukraine, a sovereign nation, and subjected himself to impeachment, thereby making American politics even more squalid than it traditionally has been. To what purpose? None, I can comprehend!

What makes it significant as to what the American family is legitimately has to do with our individual sense of social and spiritual morality. Some have been convinced for a lifetime that marriage shouldn't be interracial. Others are convinced that homosexual marriages ought to revert to being illegal. Still more Americans believe deep down in their souls that their own separations and divorces are actually immoral!

The danger in all of this controversy is the effect it has on our judgment of one another. Are we as moral or principled as our forebears? Even more tragic is the effect our moralizing has on the children of nontraditional families!

Every parent assumes responsibility and even to some extent accountability for his or her child’s lifelong activities.

A number of presidents have had siblings and offspring who made headlines to their detriment: Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, Neil Bush, and almost all of FDR's four sons and daughter made news during their administrations. The question is: to what real effect? Does it tell us anything about the president's character? I don't think so!

The most tragic example was George Washington Adams, the son of John Quincy and Louisa Catherine Adams. He was brilliant: a graduate of Harvard and a lawyer, he was elected to the Massachusetts Legislature the year his father lost to Andrew Jackson. However, young George became unstable running up debts, getting a girl pregnant, being absent from his practice. On a streamer from Boston to New York, he accused other passengers of harassing him and he either jumped or fell into Long Island Sound. What presidential family was more upstanding than the Adamses?

The American family has become the chosen constituent of political and social conservatives as they are linked to the church or to what politicians refer to as “family values.”

I own a recording of a speech given by Barry Goldwater in 1965, the year following his defeat by LBJ. The album is called “Your Family is the Target.” He asserts that there’s nothing Communists would like more than to destroy America’s family values. Barry goes on to condemn Social Security and the proposed Medicare program as examples of Communism’s tool to undermine America through the destruction of its “family values.” 

Invariably, however, the American family doesn't march in lockstep with expectations. How many American families were broken apart during frontier days when America was establishing its "manifest destiny” during the 1840’s? Nor did family values prevent a lot of husbands from running off to California’s gold fields to get rich.

Finally, if any family's legal or moral crisis is automatically the public's business, what is the future of the individual's right to privacy? 

The ideal of the family is something to cherish, but all families are to a great degree dependent on the values of members of the family who are — ultimately — individuals!

Here's an irony for you: The First Family album was recorded in New York City on the night of Monday, October 22nd, 1962 as President Kennedy was revealing the Cuban Missile Crisis to the public which could have been fatal to families all over the world!   

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

CHURCHILL’S FAVORITE AMERICAN INQUIRY!

By Edwin Cooney

Twenty-first century America is a complex society of many traditions, moods, and expectations. No people are more generous and selfish, materialistic and spiritual, conservative and creative, fair-minded yet temperamental.

Born primarily as an agrarian society that rejected dominance by both royalty and royalty's church, 18th Century America was determined to prosper while it made a living. As valuable as the prerogatives of a free press and a fair judiciary were, the rights of privacy and prosperity were the most vital aspects of the world's first Democratic Republic despite the fact that capitalism as a method of prosperity isn't referred to anywhere in the Constitution that the young nation established..

Only slowly but inevitably have "we, the people" come to realize that both equity and prosperity are dependent on national unity even as we employed Native American genocide and chattel slavery toward Blacks.

During the era that linked George Washington and John Quincy Adams, America was establishing its state and federal institutions and their functions.

Between Andrew Jackson and James Buchanan, the voter franchise was expanded beyond the landed gentry. Under    Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, the national agenda was that of  re-establishing the union between the states and the federal government through Civil War and Reconstruction and political reform.

From Ulysses S. Grant through William McKinley, America transitioned from an agrarian to an industrial society. Thus,    there occurred conflicts between management and newly established labor unions.

The presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt through Woodrow Wilson featured the growing expectations of voters as constituents and consumers. Voter prerogatives included the three progressive demands — initiative, referendum and recall — which helped control state and regional governments.

Presidents Harding, Coolidge and Hoover focused on widening our national prosperity through business and commercial investment, and the prevention of future wars through the use of disarmament and international isolationism.

Franklin Roosevelt through Lyndon Johnson generally emphasized the civil rights of workers, consumers, minorities, and increasingly expanding labor unions along with the establishment of defense mechanisms and programs for maintaining international peace and protection against international Communism.

Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, both President Bushes and Trump maximized the prerogatives of businesses and banks, and the redressing of traditional conservative grievances going back to the days of FDR's New Deal.

Only Presidents Clinton, Obama and, now, Joseph Biden have had a progressive agenda.

Today, there are two apparent agendas and they both have to do with the fate of former President Donald J. Trump. Behind Mr. Trump's fate there lies two more dangerous possibilities. These possibilities are best enunciated as questions!

First, are we headed toward an oligarchy — a society ruled exclusively by the rich and powerful? Second, are the rights and traditions of white, Anglo-Saxon America about to be swept aside by a growing left-wing human secularism?

I'm convinced that while there are sufficiently scary book-selling and voter-gathering assertions in these national bogeyman fears, America isn't ready for anything approaching a revolution.

Back in the 1970s, anti-Vietnam War protestors were very revolutionary while school was in session, but they disappeared during summer vacations. Those protestors came to be called “sunshine patriots.”

While it's likely that we'll continue to suffer from isolated pockets of criminal violence, we, the "citizens of the land of the free and home of the brave,” will demand continuation of the one phenomenon we insist on even more than our civil rights.

That phenomenon is our right to be comfortable. Revolutions are neither comfortable nor cheap.

Hence, Mr. Churchill's inquiry: where do we go from here?

Answer: we remain exactly where we are— millions may love Mr. Trump, but let him spend his money rather than ours on his fate.

As for oligarchy, humanity went through that a long time ago. It was called medievalism. As for socialism, only the mildest form of socialism in the style of Canada and  continental Europe is ever likely here.

Finally, since the government must prove its case within a reasonable doubt, Donald Trump is likely to remain free as well as a former president. Mr. Trump will not be elected to a second term.

Since poverty and starvation affect only the fringes of our society, America will remain both comfortable and free! 

Relax America: you're in better shape than you realize!     

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

HEROES: WHO WERE YOURS? HERE ARE SOME OF MINE

By Edwin Cooney

Yep! Elvis Presley was my first hero. What was and still is strange about that is that I liked Carl Perkins' version of "Blue Suede Shoes” better than Elvis' version. In retrospect, I suppose there were two reasons for my Elvis Presley heroism. First, his singing, especially of sad and sometimes desperate feelings and longings for love, was melodramatic causing my throat to close and my eyes to become tearful. The second factor was  essentially my sympathetic defense of who he was. He was my Brooklyn Dodgers, the perpetual underdog fighting for recognition and acceptance by my adult teachers and caregivers who, by comparison, favored Pat Boone or Perry Como. I liked them, too, but in comparison to Elvis, they were easy to appreciate. To like Elvis Presley wasn't easy because he needed defending and that was a challenge.

The New York Yankees were collectively my second heroes, but they became favorites due to my Uncle Joe's fandom. Mickey Mantle was a rather odd combination of physical strength and physical vulnerability due to his "brutal strength” and weak legs and knees which had to be taped before every game. (I used to think that the tape they used was sticky tape rather than strips of cloth.) Roger Maris became my favorite, even over Mickey Mantle, due to the honesty he displayed regarding the Babe Ruth sixty home run record which he and Mantle were pursuing as well as the loyalty he openly displayed toward his wife Pat whom he wouldn't even pretend to take lightly.

Politically, I was “GOP” all the way. Ike, I admired because of his office, but to me, men such as Richard Nixon, John Foster Dulles and J. Edgar Hoover were top American defenders against "godless Communism." That had to be admired because it was so essentially American. Time and events would eventually set these teenage and young adult priorities aside, especially due to the Vietnam War and the Watergate affair. The Vietnam War stripped away my earlier admiration for matters military. Both events broadened my search for and acceptance of new heroes such as Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Jackie Robinson, Martin Luther King and Barack Obama.

Other heroes have included Billy Martin for his baseball knowledge and intensity, boxer Floyd Patterson for his struggle against painful shyness, singer Jim Reeves for his velvet voice, Paul Harvey for his dramatic presentation of the news, Paul McCartney (my favorite Beatle) for his creativity, and finally (and mostly) Jimmy Carter for all he has done both during and since his presidency. Today, my baseball hero is Aaron Judge for his awesome ability and for his apparent respect for the challenges and rules of his profession. 

Historic heroes include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Frederic Douglas, Jane Adams (of Chicago's Hull House), Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (for his emphasis on the legitimacy of all classes of citizens), Harry Truman (for the thoroughness of his administration of both domestic and foreign events during his presidency), Jack Kennedy (for his growth in office and for the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty), Adlai Stevenson (for his elegance and his principles), and Winston Churchill (for his political savvy, World War II leadership, and statesmanship.)   

Some of my heroes have turned out to have feet of clay including Billy Martin, Aaron Burr (whom I insist on admiring for views ahead of his time and his modern attitude regarding women's rights). As for his shooting of Alexander Hamilton, both agreed to the duel. Regarding the matter of  Burr's treason, Burr was found not guilty.

My personal heroes include Marsha Cooney for her loveliness, Rhoda Portugal for her abiding friendship and loving support as she is the editor of these weekly musings, Marleen O'Neill as mother of my two sons, Eric and Ryan Cooney, my sons, and the late and lovely Edith Rachel Gassman for all she did to bring me from the depths of teenage loss and despair. 

Men and women can be both heroic and imperfect at the same time. All of them touch us in different ways.

Someone, I've forgotten who, has put it this way: people may forgive you for what you did, but they'll always remember how you made them feel.

My heroes have caused me to be proud and encouraging in their individual fortunes. They didn't always reflect my "better angels," but they generally made me proud of my principles!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

A PERSONAL MATTER — FRUSTRATING AND PAINFUL IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE

By Edwin Cooney

Approximately ten days ago, I developed a toothache so I contacted my dentist who takes my insurance coverage.

She is a very nice person and I like her even today. When I called her office, they agreed to see me immediately — which I had expected.

Her assistant took me into an examining office and put an X-ray device into my face. The consequences were immediately obvious.

My lower left molar was cracked and one of the two roots had dissolved. What my dentist didn't tell me was that my body had been eating the deteriorating root and had been poisoning me. Next came the really bad and painful news.

My dentist tole me that she used to extract teeth but she no longer does. When I walked out of her office, I only had an adequate prescription for pain and for destroying the infection that was present.

She proceeded conscientiously to refer me to a dentist who does remove bad teeth and who would take my insurance coverage. Hence I called the office to make an appointment.

When I called, I selected the wrong department and got the “new patient” receptionist rather than the person who handles appointments for current patients. I was told that they couldn't take a new patient until November. I immediately asked the operator how long she could stand a toothache and she proceeded to scold me for rudeness. I didn't apologize. However, I called the office once more and this time I was connected to the right department. I gave my name and this receptionist said that they had gotten a request that morning from my dentist regarding my need. However, I was still informed that they couldn't remove the tooth until November! I was still incredulous, but I took the November appointment.

A day later, a friend and fellow Lions Club member recommended me to a dentist friend of his who promptly offered to remove the tooth the following morning and that's exactly what he did. Although he doesn't accept my insurance, I agreed to be one of his patient should I need another tooth removed in the future. However, I still have several questions.

Assuming it is legal for doctors to determine what they will or won't do, what are the parameters for emergency medical or dental care? One friend of mine said that if I had walked into an emergency room, I would likely have found a dentist who would have removed the tooth.

However, I consulted my close friend Tom who began by saying that my problem was due to modern healthcare. "You mean Obamacare?" I inquired. No, he told me that it was due to the profit motive. Why, he asked, should a dentist remove a tooth for three or four hundred dollars when a root canal can be performed for a few thousand?

   

Can a heart specialist treat a patient for a heart condition and then let that patient just die on the occasion of a heart attack, I wondered? Are patients who are being treated for stroke prevention subject to the same delays as toothache patients? 

I don't at all mind the cost of an emergency tooth removal. Currently, I can afford an emergency. However, not everyone can.

My closest friend named Steve (I have many friends named Steve!), tells me that years ago as a contractor he was advised that you can't discriminate against a potential customer due to racial or ethnicity, but you can deny service to someone because he or she is an undependable jerk! Didn't the consumer protection agency — or Ralph Nader — tackle this problem many years ago?

My advice is both obvious and  simple!

Find out if and how your personal dentist is prepared to help you with an old-fashioned toothache.

If your doctor equivocates or confirms your fear, drop the doctor like a bad molar!

Bad teeth and bad politicians have a lot in common, don't they?!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

SORRY, ARCHIE, WISH YOU’D BEEN RIGHT!

By Edwin Cooney

"Everyone knows," declared Archie Bunker to his son-in-law Michael Stivic, "that capital punishment is a well-known detergent to crime."

Mike shoots back: "Capital punishment has never been a deterrent to crime.”

Of course, Archie was wrong and Mike was right. Three hundred eighty school shootings since the April 20th 1999 tragedy at Columbine High School is ample testimony that too many murderers are willing to give their lives so long as they obliterate the lives of their victims and ruin the lives of their friends and families.

What this does to those of us who have often smugly and righteously ridiculed the Archie Bunkers of this world is to amplify that we are no closer to ending the scourge of murder in our country or in any country in the whole wide world.

Christianity is no solution — just ask the Jews, Muslims, and early Protestants. Judaism is no solution. Just ask Palestinians and Muslims about Judaism's tolerance. Islam is no solution. Ask the Kurds of Eastern Turkey and beyond. 

What turned me around on the usefulness of capital punishment was James McLendon's 1977 novel “Deathwork" in which one of the four inmates about to run into "Old Sparky" observed to the officer about to lead him to his death: “Legal murder is the only permanent solution humankind has come up with to solve its social dilemmas. There is no solution to hunger, racism, unhappiness, disease. The only solution to some death is more death.

"Adolf Hitler believed that humankind is naturally a fighting animal and that Germans must be superior to other nations in fighting and conquering in order to prevail. 

“Never mind," says the Great Satan, whoever he or she may be. "Give me your life and you can have everything else. According to scripture, Satan offered exactly that to Jesus during Jesus's 40 days of temptation.” 

So, what does that tell us about life?

Is absolutely all that we possess of any real value?

Is it ultimately for sale to the highest bidder??

Does it have any meaning once it's over?

If life is only due to a specific mixture of scientific happenstances, what meaning does it have above scientific curiosity?

What governs humankind's capacity for curiosity? I insist that curiosity is spiritual by nature. (Not until the recent development of artificial intelligence has any mechanical device demonstrated a capacity for curiosity!)

Back in the early 1990s, someone went into a San Francisco office building and shot his wife, a couple of her friends and himself. That was the precise moment I realized how pointless and meaningless capital punishment was and is.

So, I was right! All I have to say is: BIG DEAL!

Ultimately, what matters isn't whether we're right or wrong about the political and social issues we are faced with as human beings. What matters is how we use our rightness or wrongness regarding matters of principle. If we use our capacity to be right as a weapon, even as we preach righteousness, we're ultimately wrong.

What human beings all over the world need is a new paradigm regarding life and death. Is death the opposite of life or is life death a continuance of life? I suggest that death is a continuance of life since death cannot exist without life! 

At birth, we're invariably indoctrinated to fear death, yet we've learned about the world as explorers, scientists, astronauts, hikers, and swimmers despite death’s presence as a possibility in these ventures. Death, like any other force, is dangerous when it becomes a weapon. However, death can and has yielded when it is is merely a possibility in essential ventures.

Opposition to capital punishment is not wrong until it's weaponized. However, it may be said to be weaponized when it is used to outlaw the legitimate use of guns which, for the most part, has practical uses. (Note: assault weapons are an exception to the normal classification of a gun.)

Almost all of us defy death until its immediate appearance endangers the lives of those who matter to us the most.

When death threatens the well-being of those we love the most, we endorse death by being willing to wear it forever!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY  

YOU, ME, UNCLE JOE AND UNCLE DONALD —WE’RE ALL IN DENIAL

By Edwin Cooney

It's fitting that I'm writing this on May 13th, 2023, because on this date, Wednesday, May 13th, 1846, Congress declared war on Mexico which resulted in one of the most devastating situations in American history: specifically, the Civil War. For more than a decade, our presidents and Congress have quarreled over both the accommodation and the lack of accommodation shown toward immigrants. As I see it, we're all ignoring "the root of the matter.”

There's much that can be said about our relations with the countries of Central and South America from the days of the Monroe Doctrine to, more recently, Vice President Kamala Harris's apparent bungling of the immigration issue. (As I see it, Vice President Harris's gaffe is the least of every other bungle!)

Here's the real issue: The governments of Central and South America are mistreating their own citizens and, although we pride ourselves on being the most decent, proper, and moral superpower on earth, we won't do anything about it economically, diplomatically or, most of all, militarily due to the high risks a new idea or plan may cost us.

The ongoing immigration crisis is, without question, an international human rights issue which largely benefits both liberals and conservatives who are well served politically by the issue's appeal to people's fears. For the immigrant, it's a terrible nightmare. To the traditional American nativist, it's a political weapon. To the ethnic-oriented American, immigration is a pathway to the American way.

Just ask yourself: what would cause you to abandon your home, neighbors and family, and walk 600 or 800 miles across two or three international boundaries to get to a nation that neither wants nor welcomes you? How can it be anything else except a reaction to fear for one's well-being and loss of  life? Meanwhile, 21st Century America is politicizing this human rights matter to our own domestic political advantage. Once upon a time, President James Monroe offered military protection to all of the Americas through his 1823 Doctrine; FDR applied the concept of "the good neighbor" to our fellow Americans; right after World War II, Harry Truman launched The Organization of American States to handle social, military and diplomatic issues; a little later, President Kennedy launched his "Alliance for Progress" as a strategy for tackling social and economic issues in Central and South America. However, as we move forward toward 2024, principle automatically becomes political fodder.

What really needs to happen is for the United States government, regardless of who is at the head, to confront the governments and other sources within Central and South America and insist that they cease policies that are clearly injurious to their people. Governments that won't cooperate should be subject to economic and diplomatic sanction, and to international military intervention, if need be.

The bottom line must be to turn this pointless, poisonous and mean   political issue into the international human rights matter it really is!

So come on, whoever today's "Lord Root of the Matter" may be: strut your stuff, please!!!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY