By Edwin Cooney
“What did you think about the Obama Inauguration?” surely has been one of the most frequently asked questions throughout America over the past six days. Exactly how one answers that question is likely to be as much a reflection of who the respondent is as it is of the real value of the event itself.
If you’re like me, absolutely enthralled by what you know of our new president, your response to that question will echo both enthusiasm and hopeful optimism. If, on the other hand, you don’t much like either President Obama or what you know about what he stands for, your response is likely to reflect skepticism and a “let’s wait and see” outlook tinged with doubt.
Those who have read these pages over the past few years know that any time I need to get my head straightened out on a matter of this significance, I usually visit my favorite watering hole to see what my buddies Lunkhead and Dunderhead have to say. So there I was just the other night, sitting between the two of them, and that’s where I got my first shock.
Lunkhead had been humbled by having to wear a set of donkey ears as dictated by his wife, the “beloved Bertha”, after he lost his election bet with her last November. He was still wearing them now, even though the inauguration was over. He responded to my inquiry.
“It’s the least I can do, after all. My candidate didn’t have any better idea as to how to fix the economy than Obama seemed to have. It seemed like Obama was turning to socialism. If we can criticize Obama, and I did, it is equally true that those tax cuts the Republicans insist are the economic savior haven’t helped. All they have gotten us is fewer jobs and lousy home mortgages. So it seems to me we’re all donkeys when it comes to understanding how to keep America prosperous,” Lunkhead said, sipping his newly poured scotch.
Dunderhead, to my complete surprise, was glum. “Dunderhead,” I began, “What’s wrong with…”
“Don’t ask me any questions!” Dunderhead said sharply. “Let me ask you a question: Who was distinctly absent from President Obama’s inauguration? Don’t get me wrong, I love Obama, but someone was missing. Who was it?”
“Wait a minute,” Lunkhead shot back, “I’ll tell you who was there. America was there. Men and women who work and those who have been thrown out of work were there. Blacks, women, and ethnic minorities were there. All your people, Dunderhead -- that’s who were there. I don’t get what you’re talking….”
“Thank you,” said Dunderhead “for answering the easy part of the question. As a spectacle, the Inauguration was spectacular. Nearly two million happy people were there and you’re right, Lunkhead, those are my kind of people. I’m glad they were there. So, as a spectacle, it was great — even grand. But “grand”, I suppose, really has to be reserved for the jewels, furs, and limousines of the Reagan Inauguration twenty-eight years ago. What’s grabbing me is who didn’t seem to be there,” Dunderhead moaned.
“Look,” I replied “Joe the Plumber would have been there if only….”
“Ah, cut the comedy,” said Dunderhead. “What was the headline alongside the inaugural story Tuesday night?” he asked.
I took a healthy sip of my beer. I could hear the ice rattling in Lunkhead’s scotch. To my right, I heard the sound of Dunderhead digging deep into his bowl of peanuts. Then, it hit me.
“The stock market fell by some 300 plus points,” I said.
“Precisely!” exclaimed Dunderhead. “While the people and their politicians played, the money changers, the decision makers, were up in New York, wheeling, dealing, and getting paid.”
“Those are the decision makers?” asked Lunkhead. “You know, Dunderhead, you’re the one who usually lectures me about the currents in American history, so I’m surprised at you. If the founding fathers (like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Ben Franklin) were responsible for putting this great nation together, who shook things up enough so that they HAD to come together?”
Then he answered his own question.
“The guy who got it all going was a destitute western Massachusetts farmer named Daniel Shays. It was his rebellion in 1786 that frightened the rich bankers and well-off legislators enough so that they demanded that a political and economic order had to be created out of the existing economic and political chaos.
Then he asked his second question.
“If Dr. Joseph Lowery, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Congressman John Lewis were all responsible for leading the Civil Rights movement paving the way for Barack Obama’s election as our forty-fourth president, who started it all? I’ll answer that with another question. Who was that little lady who refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama city bus?” With that, Lunkhead sat back without even mentioning the lady’s name -- Rosa Parks.
“It would seem that decision makers are largely dependant on “condition setters”, wouldn’t it?” I said reflexively.
“Yep,” responded Lunkhead, “and unless I miss my guess, condition-setting is right down Barack Obama’s alley.”
What was there to say after that? All I could do was to stroll home -- so, I did.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, January 26, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
WHERE PAST AND FUTURE MEET
By Edwin Cooney
Each and every day, the past and the future meet in the present, of course. However, seldom do they meet more dramatically than on Inauguration Day in Washington, D.C.
At exactly noon today, whether or not the presidential oath has been taken, power passes from George Walker Bush of Crawford, Texas to Barack Hussein Obama of Chicago, Illinois.
The first transference of presidential power in our history took place on Saturday, March 4th, 1797 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania when George Washington, the revered “Father of his Country”, handed all authority and responsibility for young America to John Adams. At the instant that Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth concluded administering the presidential oath to Adams, all of George Washington’s authority was gone. Washington, of course, continued to possess influence, but his authority belonged to the office and the office was now occupied by Mr. Adams.
With the ratification of our constitution, we created an executive with significant power. That power was invested in an office rather than a person. Under our republican form of government, all offices, whether executive, legislative or judicial, belong to the state rather than to a party or person.
Men and women, captivated by the idea that they possess sufficient knowledge and know-how to make a difference in our national life, invariably spend much of their private and working hours thinking, hoping, and planning for the day on which the strains of “Hail to the Chief” will be played in their honor. However, the day always comes when an experienced and sometimes beloved president’s time is up and power passes to another ambitious American whose ideas on government policy may well be 180 degrees different from that of the retiring chief executive.
Throughout our early history, it was rare for a defeated president to attend his successor’s inaugural. For example, neither John Adams nor his son John Quincy Adams attended the inaugurations of Jefferson and Jackson who defeated them. I can’t find any indication as to whether or not President Martin Van Buren attended the 1841 inauguration of William Henry Harrison. Harrison, the Whig party’s version of Andrew Jackson, denied “the little magician” (as Van Buren was called) re-election. Handsome Franklin Pierce attended the inauguration of his fellow Democratic successor James Buchanan in 1857. However, the first president I can find who personally witnessed the inauguration of someone from the opposing political party who had defeated him for re-election was Grover Cleveland. Cleveland attended the 1889 inauguration of Benjamin Harrison. Harrison had beaten Cleveland in the Electoral College but not in the popular vote. Cleveland would come back four years later and defeat Harrison for re-election. President Harrison would return the favor by attending Cleveland’s 1893 Inaugural.
There have been several poignant and dramatic instances of power and authority transference in our history. Some have been galling and at least one was rather humorous. On Inauguration Day 1921, Secret Service man Edmund Starling wheeled outgoing president Woodrow Wilson to the President’s Room in the capitol building. There, he would conduct his final business before Warren G. Harding, his successor, would become president. There was then a tradition that the President of the Senate would approach the President of the United States as Congress adjourned to ask if he had any further business before adjournment. In 1921, the President of the Senate was Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr. (Republican) of Massachusetts. Woodrow Wilson personally despised Lodge more than any other man in Washington. He had quarreled bitterly over the League of Nations with this very man and had suffered a stroke in part due to his hypertension from the stress. Now, ironically, Woodrow Wilson had to conduct his final piece of presidential business with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge.
Things were very tense in 1933 between Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt over FDR’s unwillingness to cooperate with President Hoover as he grappled with the worsening depression.
The transference of presidential power and authority can also have a humorous aspect. In 1961, as John F. Kennedy prepared to take the oath, he happened to glance up at the family section of the inaugural grandstand. To his shock, he saw one of his father’s “go for” men seated with the family and VIP’s. Thus, as Chief Justice Warren administered the oath and the young president repeated it, what was going through his mind was not a matter of national importance, but the question: how the hell did that guy get that seat?
Another aspect of the change of presidential authority is the sudden yet silent disappearance of that authority. The plane carrying Richard Nixon back to California on Friday, August 9th, 1974 was somewhere over Iowa when the President became a private citizen. When Nixon departed Washington that stifling hot day, he was still President and had the authority to order nuclear missiles into the air had the occasion called for it. Some of his more cynical detractors suspected he might even do that, but he didn’t. Suddenly, he couldn’t. Suddenly, Gerald Rudolf Ford of Grand Rapids, Michigan possessed that authority.
Few inaugurations in history have been as melodramatic as the one twenty-eight years ago when President Carter spent his final night as President working to free fifty-two American hostages from Iran. They would be released by Iran only when President Ronald Wilson Reagan was sworn in. It was a deliberate attempt by the government of Iran to humiliate Jimmy Carter. However, Americans still rightly celebrated two historic events on January 20th, 1981.
Today, outgoing president George Walker Bush and incoming president Barack Hussein Obama appear to have little in common culturally, politically (in a narrow sense), or personally. For Mr. Bush and his likeminded supporters, today will be a day of finality. The record, for better or worse, has been written. With all the monetary and media resources at their command, conservative Republicans must acknowledge Barack Obama’s legitimate new authority.
Conversely, at noon this day, the clock on Barack Obama’s watch begins ticking. For almost two years, this young, articulate, and intelligent man has crisscrossed the United States seeking the trust of the people. That trust was granted him back on November 4th, 2008 however reluctantly by some.
As our new President faces his new and grave national challenges, it’s in our best interest, at least at the outset, to give him the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, it’s ultimately up to him to lead us into the unknown. After all, Mr. Obama faces these challenges because he freely sought the opportunity to face them. Had he faltered politically, others, his new Secretary of State in particular, would have gladly taken his place to be atop the inaugural platform this day. Mr. Obama enters office and power with a majority of political support in both houses of Congress as well as throughout the country. From today forward, it is primarily up to President Obama to find a way to make it possible for us to help him help ourselves.
As an enthusiastic and proud supporter of President Obama and as the past and the future create the present which this day launches the Obama Administration, I wish our new president well. Even if you aren’t looking forward to the Obama presidency, my guess is that deep down in your heart, you wish him well, too.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Each and every day, the past and the future meet in the present, of course. However, seldom do they meet more dramatically than on Inauguration Day in Washington, D.C.
At exactly noon today, whether or not the presidential oath has been taken, power passes from George Walker Bush of Crawford, Texas to Barack Hussein Obama of Chicago, Illinois.
The first transference of presidential power in our history took place on Saturday, March 4th, 1797 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania when George Washington, the revered “Father of his Country”, handed all authority and responsibility for young America to John Adams. At the instant that Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth concluded administering the presidential oath to Adams, all of George Washington’s authority was gone. Washington, of course, continued to possess influence, but his authority belonged to the office and the office was now occupied by Mr. Adams.
With the ratification of our constitution, we created an executive with significant power. That power was invested in an office rather than a person. Under our republican form of government, all offices, whether executive, legislative or judicial, belong to the state rather than to a party or person.
Men and women, captivated by the idea that they possess sufficient knowledge and know-how to make a difference in our national life, invariably spend much of their private and working hours thinking, hoping, and planning for the day on which the strains of “Hail to the Chief” will be played in their honor. However, the day always comes when an experienced and sometimes beloved president’s time is up and power passes to another ambitious American whose ideas on government policy may well be 180 degrees different from that of the retiring chief executive.
Throughout our early history, it was rare for a defeated president to attend his successor’s inaugural. For example, neither John Adams nor his son John Quincy Adams attended the inaugurations of Jefferson and Jackson who defeated them. I can’t find any indication as to whether or not President Martin Van Buren attended the 1841 inauguration of William Henry Harrison. Harrison, the Whig party’s version of Andrew Jackson, denied “the little magician” (as Van Buren was called) re-election. Handsome Franklin Pierce attended the inauguration of his fellow Democratic successor James Buchanan in 1857. However, the first president I can find who personally witnessed the inauguration of someone from the opposing political party who had defeated him for re-election was Grover Cleveland. Cleveland attended the 1889 inauguration of Benjamin Harrison. Harrison had beaten Cleveland in the Electoral College but not in the popular vote. Cleveland would come back four years later and defeat Harrison for re-election. President Harrison would return the favor by attending Cleveland’s 1893 Inaugural.
There have been several poignant and dramatic instances of power and authority transference in our history. Some have been galling and at least one was rather humorous. On Inauguration Day 1921, Secret Service man Edmund Starling wheeled outgoing president Woodrow Wilson to the President’s Room in the capitol building. There, he would conduct his final business before Warren G. Harding, his successor, would become president. There was then a tradition that the President of the Senate would approach the President of the United States as Congress adjourned to ask if he had any further business before adjournment. In 1921, the President of the Senate was Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr. (Republican) of Massachusetts. Woodrow Wilson personally despised Lodge more than any other man in Washington. He had quarreled bitterly over the League of Nations with this very man and had suffered a stroke in part due to his hypertension from the stress. Now, ironically, Woodrow Wilson had to conduct his final piece of presidential business with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge.
Things were very tense in 1933 between Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt over FDR’s unwillingness to cooperate with President Hoover as he grappled with the worsening depression.
The transference of presidential power and authority can also have a humorous aspect. In 1961, as John F. Kennedy prepared to take the oath, he happened to glance up at the family section of the inaugural grandstand. To his shock, he saw one of his father’s “go for” men seated with the family and VIP’s. Thus, as Chief Justice Warren administered the oath and the young president repeated it, what was going through his mind was not a matter of national importance, but the question: how the hell did that guy get that seat?
Another aspect of the change of presidential authority is the sudden yet silent disappearance of that authority. The plane carrying Richard Nixon back to California on Friday, August 9th, 1974 was somewhere over Iowa when the President became a private citizen. When Nixon departed Washington that stifling hot day, he was still President and had the authority to order nuclear missiles into the air had the occasion called for it. Some of his more cynical detractors suspected he might even do that, but he didn’t. Suddenly, he couldn’t. Suddenly, Gerald Rudolf Ford of Grand Rapids, Michigan possessed that authority.
Few inaugurations in history have been as melodramatic as the one twenty-eight years ago when President Carter spent his final night as President working to free fifty-two American hostages from Iran. They would be released by Iran only when President Ronald Wilson Reagan was sworn in. It was a deliberate attempt by the government of Iran to humiliate Jimmy Carter. However, Americans still rightly celebrated two historic events on January 20th, 1981.
Today, outgoing president George Walker Bush and incoming president Barack Hussein Obama appear to have little in common culturally, politically (in a narrow sense), or personally. For Mr. Bush and his likeminded supporters, today will be a day of finality. The record, for better or worse, has been written. With all the monetary and media resources at their command, conservative Republicans must acknowledge Barack Obama’s legitimate new authority.
Conversely, at noon this day, the clock on Barack Obama’s watch begins ticking. For almost two years, this young, articulate, and intelligent man has crisscrossed the United States seeking the trust of the people. That trust was granted him back on November 4th, 2008 however reluctantly by some.
As our new President faces his new and grave national challenges, it’s in our best interest, at least at the outset, to give him the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, it’s ultimately up to him to lead us into the unknown. After all, Mr. Obama faces these challenges because he freely sought the opportunity to face them. Had he faltered politically, others, his new Secretary of State in particular, would have gladly taken his place to be atop the inaugural platform this day. Mr. Obama enters office and power with a majority of political support in both houses of Congress as well as throughout the country. From today forward, it is primarily up to President Obama to find a way to make it possible for us to help him help ourselves.
As an enthusiastic and proud supporter of President Obama and as the past and the future create the present which this day launches the Obama Administration, I wish our new president well. Even if you aren’t looking forward to the Obama presidency, my guess is that deep down in your heart, you wish him well, too.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, January 19, 2009
THE SEVENTH SON OF NOVEMBER FOURTH
By Edwin Cooney
On the eve of President Bush’s inauguration eight years ago (which was four years before I began writing these columns), I composed the first part of the essay which follows. It emphasized the possible significance of Election Day, November 7th, 2000. Keep in mind that November 7th, 2000 was a VERY controversial election.
For the seventh time in its history, America prepares to inaugurate a President elected on November 7th. As George Walker Bush, humble in manner of speech, seemingly bold and determined in purpose and action, prepares to take the oath, the date of his election might cause him to pause and absorb a powerful dose of humility. Only one of his six predecessor’s elected on that date has survived his term with both his health and reputation in tact.
For Richard M. Nixon, November 7, 1972 must have been a glorious day. His victory over Democrat George McGovern was massive in its popular and electoral proportions. Although his popular vote margin was nearly 18 million and his electoral vote total was 520 to 17, in less than two years he would be forced to resign his office in disgrace due to the Watergate scandal.
On November 7, 1944, the people elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt to an unprecedented fourth term. Just five months and five days later, the physical and emotional ravages of economic Depression and world war appeared to have caused the death of the most irreplaceable leader of any time.
In 1916, Woodrow Wilson’s narrow November 7th victory over Charles Evans Hughes was ultimately disastrous, both politically and physically, for the President. In October 1919, he suffered a debilitating stroke. It was brought on by exhaustion in the wake of his efforts to override Senate Republican objections to his League of Nations proposal. One month later, his dream was over when the League and the Versailles Treaty were rejected by the United States Senate.
On November 7, 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes not only lost the popular vote to Democrat Samuel J. Tilden by 250,807 votes, but he was also nineteen electoral votes short of the needed 185 majority to become President. Tilden, with 184 electoral votes, was only one electoral vote shy of election. Utilizing their political and legal power in three southern states (South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana), Republican leaders were able to maneuver the largely innocent Ohio governor into the White House. A suspect emergency Presidential Election Commission and a secret early swearing in ceremony at the White House in the wee hours of Saturday, March 3, 1877 made Hayes the new president, but his good name was forever tarnished by the denigration of his name as “Rutherfraud B. Hayes”.
Zachary Taylor became the nation’s twelfth president on November 7, 1848 thereby transforming a lifelong soldier into a politician. Sixteen months and five days later, he was pronounced dead. He had swallowed too much contaminated cherry ice milk during a long and hot 1850 Independence Day celebration.
Only to James Monroe does November 7 seem to have been kind! Healthy and popular at the close of his term, his name would forever live as a cornerstone of American foreign policy. The Monroe Doctrine signifies America’s determination to protect its own (and the Western hemisphere’s) sovereignty and liberty.
No matter who we are or how we voted, we must surely hope that the fate of this 54-year-old Texan will surpass those of Presidents Nixon, Roosevelt, Wilson, Hayes and Taylor. “We the People” will best be served if President Bush, the Seventh Son of November 7th, fares as well as the tall, aristocratic, sturdy, and good-natured Virginian James Monroe.
And now it is January 2009 and we can look back and ask: was November 7th kind to George Walker Bush? Has he avoided the fate of five of the other seven men elected on that date? Does he, like James Monroe, now leave office with his health and reputation intact? What say you?
Like George Walker Bush, incoming president Barack Obama is the seventh son of the date of his election: November 4th. Unlike President Bush and his election date, it appears that the six previous men elected on this date do not have much in common, although here is what stands out:
Six of the men elected President on November 4th did so representing a state other than their native state. They were:
Andrew Jackson (elected November 4th, 1828) who was born in North Carolina and elected from Tennessee;
Grover Cleveland (November 4th, 1884), born in New Jersey and elected from New York;
Calvin Coolidge (November 4th, 1924), born in Vermont and elected from Massachusetts;
Dwight David Eisenhower (November 4th, 1952), born in Texas and elected from New York;
Ronald Wilson Reagan (November 4th, 1980), born in Illinois and elected from California; and
Barack Hussein Obama (November 4th, 2008), born in Hawaii and elected from Illinois.
Only James Buchanan (November 4th, 1856), who was born in Pennsylvania, represented his native state as a presidential candidate.
Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan and Grover Cleveland entered the presidency as single men. Rachel Jackson died of a heart attack on December 28th, 1828 while her husband was President-Elect. Buchanan was a bachelor and remained so. Grover Cleveland married twenty-one year-old Frances Folsom in the White House on Wednesday, June 2nd, 1886.
As for events which took place during November 4th presidencies, there is some irony here. Andrew Jackson drove native Americans westward along the “Trail of Tears” while, during Grover Cleveland’s November 7th term, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was created. During James Buchanan’s Administration, blacks were declared “property” by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, during Eisenhower’s November 4th Administration, the Supreme Court, led by Earl Warren, the man Ike appointed Chief Justice, declared that “separate was unequal”. During the Coolidge Administration, Charles A. Lindbergh successfully flew the Atlantic, while during Mr. Reagan’s November 4th Administration we lost the Challenger.
“What ironies await President Obama?” you wonder. I wonder, too!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
On the eve of President Bush’s inauguration eight years ago (which was four years before I began writing these columns), I composed the first part of the essay which follows. It emphasized the possible significance of Election Day, November 7th, 2000. Keep in mind that November 7th, 2000 was a VERY controversial election.
For the seventh time in its history, America prepares to inaugurate a President elected on November 7th. As George Walker Bush, humble in manner of speech, seemingly bold and determined in purpose and action, prepares to take the oath, the date of his election might cause him to pause and absorb a powerful dose of humility. Only one of his six predecessor’s elected on that date has survived his term with both his health and reputation in tact.
For Richard M. Nixon, November 7, 1972 must have been a glorious day. His victory over Democrat George McGovern was massive in its popular and electoral proportions. Although his popular vote margin was nearly 18 million and his electoral vote total was 520 to 17, in less than two years he would be forced to resign his office in disgrace due to the Watergate scandal.
On November 7, 1944, the people elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt to an unprecedented fourth term. Just five months and five days later, the physical and emotional ravages of economic Depression and world war appeared to have caused the death of the most irreplaceable leader of any time.
In 1916, Woodrow Wilson’s narrow November 7th victory over Charles Evans Hughes was ultimately disastrous, both politically and physically, for the President. In October 1919, he suffered a debilitating stroke. It was brought on by exhaustion in the wake of his efforts to override Senate Republican objections to his League of Nations proposal. One month later, his dream was over when the League and the Versailles Treaty were rejected by the United States Senate.
On November 7, 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes not only lost the popular vote to Democrat Samuel J. Tilden by 250,807 votes, but he was also nineteen electoral votes short of the needed 185 majority to become President. Tilden, with 184 electoral votes, was only one electoral vote shy of election. Utilizing their political and legal power in three southern states (South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana), Republican leaders were able to maneuver the largely innocent Ohio governor into the White House. A suspect emergency Presidential Election Commission and a secret early swearing in ceremony at the White House in the wee hours of Saturday, March 3, 1877 made Hayes the new president, but his good name was forever tarnished by the denigration of his name as “Rutherfraud B. Hayes”.
Zachary Taylor became the nation’s twelfth president on November 7, 1848 thereby transforming a lifelong soldier into a politician. Sixteen months and five days later, he was pronounced dead. He had swallowed too much contaminated cherry ice milk during a long and hot 1850 Independence Day celebration.
Only to James Monroe does November 7 seem to have been kind! Healthy and popular at the close of his term, his name would forever live as a cornerstone of American foreign policy. The Monroe Doctrine signifies America’s determination to protect its own (and the Western hemisphere’s) sovereignty and liberty.
No matter who we are or how we voted, we must surely hope that the fate of this 54-year-old Texan will surpass those of Presidents Nixon, Roosevelt, Wilson, Hayes and Taylor. “We the People” will best be served if President Bush, the Seventh Son of November 7th, fares as well as the tall, aristocratic, sturdy, and good-natured Virginian James Monroe.
And now it is January 2009 and we can look back and ask: was November 7th kind to George Walker Bush? Has he avoided the fate of five of the other seven men elected on that date? Does he, like James Monroe, now leave office with his health and reputation intact? What say you?
Like George Walker Bush, incoming president Barack Obama is the seventh son of the date of his election: November 4th. Unlike President Bush and his election date, it appears that the six previous men elected on this date do not have much in common, although here is what stands out:
Six of the men elected President on November 4th did so representing a state other than their native state. They were:
Andrew Jackson (elected November 4th, 1828) who was born in North Carolina and elected from Tennessee;
Grover Cleveland (November 4th, 1884), born in New Jersey and elected from New York;
Calvin Coolidge (November 4th, 1924), born in Vermont and elected from Massachusetts;
Dwight David Eisenhower (November 4th, 1952), born in Texas and elected from New York;
Ronald Wilson Reagan (November 4th, 1980), born in Illinois and elected from California; and
Barack Hussein Obama (November 4th, 2008), born in Hawaii and elected from Illinois.
Only James Buchanan (November 4th, 1856), who was born in Pennsylvania, represented his native state as a presidential candidate.
Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan and Grover Cleveland entered the presidency as single men. Rachel Jackson died of a heart attack on December 28th, 1828 while her husband was President-Elect. Buchanan was a bachelor and remained so. Grover Cleveland married twenty-one year-old Frances Folsom in the White House on Wednesday, June 2nd, 1886.
As for events which took place during November 4th presidencies, there is some irony here. Andrew Jackson drove native Americans westward along the “Trail of Tears” while, during Grover Cleveland’s November 7th term, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was created. During James Buchanan’s Administration, blacks were declared “property” by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, during Eisenhower’s November 4th Administration, the Supreme Court, led by Earl Warren, the man Ike appointed Chief Justice, declared that “separate was unequal”. During the Coolidge Administration, Charles A. Lindbergh successfully flew the Atlantic, while during Mr. Reagan’s November 4th Administration we lost the Challenger.
“What ironies await President Obama?” you wonder. I wonder, too!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, January 12, 2009
THE GUY WHO GOT TOLD!
By Edwin Cooney
I don’t know about you, but I don’t like doctors. Okay, okay! They’re solid enough citizens. What I really mean is that I don’t like going to doctors -- so, I don’t.
Occasionally, however, the knowledge of the state of my physiology, its history, and its effect on the length of my earthly stay combine to force me suddenly, almost against my will, into the office of a local physician. If it can happen to me, I assure you, it can happen to you, too.
So there I was on the morning of Monday, December 8th in the office of -- I’ll just call him “Dr. X”. We had a pleasant chat and then I had a short and painless physical. He sent me to have some blood work done and scheduled a follow-up appointment for Tuesday, January 6th.
One of the chapters of my history is a slight heart attack on March 21st, 2002. It was uncomfortable, but hardly life threatening. In fact, I was assured that there was no significant heart damage. I weighed a little more than I do now, about 190 pounds, and I was a constant (if fairly light) cigarette smoker. After spending about a week in two hospitals, I came home, tired, with several prescriptions and with new knowledge of a heart anomaly. (It turns out that my coronary artery attaches to my heart at an unusual angle—but apparently that anomaly was not the cause of the attack.)
Sadly and very reluctantly, I stopped smoking those delicious non-filtered Camel cigarettes. Soon, however, I ran into two formidable obstacles.
My cardiologist expected me to spend a lot of money each month on three or four heart pills (an expenditure that was way more, incidentally, than smoking was costing me!). Second, my cardiologist -- let’s call him “Dr. Y” -- wanted me to get a “primary care” physician. That meant I’d have to answer to two doctors rather than just one.
That was it! I just didn’t want to keep going to doctors. Since I wasn’t going to listen to Dr. Y, I knew I’d be wasting both his time and mine. At the time I made that decision, I was deliberately living a lifestyle designed to ease the pain of my romantic heart, even though I knew it wouldn’t help my God-given one. It was a choice deliberately made for a possible price I was then willing to pay. As to the specifics of that lifestyle, I’ll leave that to your imagination.
About five months ago, on August 4th to be exact, I had grown sufficiently tired of that lifestyle to start losing weight. As of this writing, I’ve lost over 50 pounds. My weight is fluctuating in the mid to low 180’s and headed downward toward my goal of 150 pounds which I expect to reach by May. Life is so good these days that I was even willing to consult Dr. X. Then it happened.
“Mr. Cooney,” Dr. X began, “your cholesterol is 247 so I’m prescribing these pills. I also want you to take blood pressure medication because your blood pressure is 140 over 92. By the way, you’re not still smoking, are you, Mr. Cooney?”
“Not as I used to,” I assured Dr. X, but that wasn’t good enough for him.
“Mr. Cooney,” responded Dr. X, “you’re in your mid-sixties and you’ve had one heart attack. In the past four years, you haven’t done anything about it. It isn’t all your fault. Your liver is depositing junk in your arteries which we can counter with medication, but smoking triples the problem. Either quit smoking or you’re gone in two years.”
I knew I was going to hear something like that but I didn’t like it. In the first place, I’ve always been a bit of a risk taker—especially for pleasure. When I was in third grade, my teacher used to call me “the darer”. Back then, I’d jump backward off railings and frontward down multiple groups of stairs just to see if I could do it. However, I can assure you I’m not nearly so brave anymore. Okay! I’m not so foolish anymore -- or maybe, just maybe, I am!!!
My problem is that I’ve now received that proverbial tap tap tap on the shoulder. I’ve been warned to stop all smoking, pipe as well as cigar smoking, not just cigarette smoking and I LIKE to smoke. Yet, I like living, too.
The next question is obvious. Do I like living as much as I like smoking? That question puts me in mind of the story FDR liked to tell about the New England farmer who was warned by his doctor that if he didn’t give up drinking, he’d lose his hearing. The old gentleman then said: “Doc, I’ve thought it over. I like what I’ve been drinking so much better than what I’ve been hearing, that I reckon I’ll just keep gettin’ deef.”
However, this isn’t about hearing or not hearing, it’s about my future. Dr. X is more right than he is wrong. He’d probably concede that it’s quite likely that if I smoked very moderately I’d possibly last another decade. Even more important, however, is what I am willing to concede.
One of the most difficult things in life is when someone tells us something that we need to hear, but don’t want to hear. We often get our back up, just because we feel cornered. Doctor X says if I start taking the medicine, my chances of growing old gently are pretty good.
So, I’ve been told, not consulted or advised, but told. Part of me concedes, but part of me is in rebellion. Perhaps I’ll just suspend rather than quit smoking. Maybe I’ll smoke only occasionally. Cigars and even my pipes haven’t tasted all that good lately. It’s also true that doctors are in business to sell medicine. I wonder how much they get from the pharmaceutical companies for…never mind!!!
Guess what I like even better than smoking? Yah, that’s it. I like to write. Just writing about this most unsettling experience helps. I like writing for you.
Hmmm! I wonder what I’ll be writing about when I’m ninety!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
I don’t know about you, but I don’t like doctors. Okay, okay! They’re solid enough citizens. What I really mean is that I don’t like going to doctors -- so, I don’t.
Occasionally, however, the knowledge of the state of my physiology, its history, and its effect on the length of my earthly stay combine to force me suddenly, almost against my will, into the office of a local physician. If it can happen to me, I assure you, it can happen to you, too.
So there I was on the morning of Monday, December 8th in the office of -- I’ll just call him “Dr. X”. We had a pleasant chat and then I had a short and painless physical. He sent me to have some blood work done and scheduled a follow-up appointment for Tuesday, January 6th.
One of the chapters of my history is a slight heart attack on March 21st, 2002. It was uncomfortable, but hardly life threatening. In fact, I was assured that there was no significant heart damage. I weighed a little more than I do now, about 190 pounds, and I was a constant (if fairly light) cigarette smoker. After spending about a week in two hospitals, I came home, tired, with several prescriptions and with new knowledge of a heart anomaly. (It turns out that my coronary artery attaches to my heart at an unusual angle—but apparently that anomaly was not the cause of the attack.)
Sadly and very reluctantly, I stopped smoking those delicious non-filtered Camel cigarettes. Soon, however, I ran into two formidable obstacles.
My cardiologist expected me to spend a lot of money each month on three or four heart pills (an expenditure that was way more, incidentally, than smoking was costing me!). Second, my cardiologist -- let’s call him “Dr. Y” -- wanted me to get a “primary care” physician. That meant I’d have to answer to two doctors rather than just one.
That was it! I just didn’t want to keep going to doctors. Since I wasn’t going to listen to Dr. Y, I knew I’d be wasting both his time and mine. At the time I made that decision, I was deliberately living a lifestyle designed to ease the pain of my romantic heart, even though I knew it wouldn’t help my God-given one. It was a choice deliberately made for a possible price I was then willing to pay. As to the specifics of that lifestyle, I’ll leave that to your imagination.
About five months ago, on August 4th to be exact, I had grown sufficiently tired of that lifestyle to start losing weight. As of this writing, I’ve lost over 50 pounds. My weight is fluctuating in the mid to low 180’s and headed downward toward my goal of 150 pounds which I expect to reach by May. Life is so good these days that I was even willing to consult Dr. X. Then it happened.
“Mr. Cooney,” Dr. X began, “your cholesterol is 247 so I’m prescribing these pills. I also want you to take blood pressure medication because your blood pressure is 140 over 92. By the way, you’re not still smoking, are you, Mr. Cooney?”
“Not as I used to,” I assured Dr. X, but that wasn’t good enough for him.
“Mr. Cooney,” responded Dr. X, “you’re in your mid-sixties and you’ve had one heart attack. In the past four years, you haven’t done anything about it. It isn’t all your fault. Your liver is depositing junk in your arteries which we can counter with medication, but smoking triples the problem. Either quit smoking or you’re gone in two years.”
I knew I was going to hear something like that but I didn’t like it. In the first place, I’ve always been a bit of a risk taker—especially for pleasure. When I was in third grade, my teacher used to call me “the darer”. Back then, I’d jump backward off railings and frontward down multiple groups of stairs just to see if I could do it. However, I can assure you I’m not nearly so brave anymore. Okay! I’m not so foolish anymore -- or maybe, just maybe, I am!!!
My problem is that I’ve now received that proverbial tap tap tap on the shoulder. I’ve been warned to stop all smoking, pipe as well as cigar smoking, not just cigarette smoking and I LIKE to smoke. Yet, I like living, too.
The next question is obvious. Do I like living as much as I like smoking? That question puts me in mind of the story FDR liked to tell about the New England farmer who was warned by his doctor that if he didn’t give up drinking, he’d lose his hearing. The old gentleman then said: “Doc, I’ve thought it over. I like what I’ve been drinking so much better than what I’ve been hearing, that I reckon I’ll just keep gettin’ deef.”
However, this isn’t about hearing or not hearing, it’s about my future. Dr. X is more right than he is wrong. He’d probably concede that it’s quite likely that if I smoked very moderately I’d possibly last another decade. Even more important, however, is what I am willing to concede.
One of the most difficult things in life is when someone tells us something that we need to hear, but don’t want to hear. We often get our back up, just because we feel cornered. Doctor X says if I start taking the medicine, my chances of growing old gently are pretty good.
So, I’ve been told, not consulted or advised, but told. Part of me concedes, but part of me is in rebellion. Perhaps I’ll just suspend rather than quit smoking. Maybe I’ll smoke only occasionally. Cigars and even my pipes haven’t tasted all that good lately. It’s also true that doctors are in business to sell medicine. I wonder how much they get from the pharmaceutical companies for…never mind!!!
Guess what I like even better than smoking? Yah, that’s it. I like to write. Just writing about this most unsettling experience helps. I like writing for you.
Hmmm! I wonder what I’ll be writing about when I’m ninety!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, January 5, 2009
THEY’RE AT IT AGAIN
By Edwin Cooney
Yep, they’re as bad as bankers, brokers, automakers, politicians, and the IRS. They don’t quite match the Taliban or the former Soviet Union—but they’re less respectable than, say, Red China (from whom we borrow lots of money) and only a little more respectable than Hugo Chavez down there in Venezuela. After all, the aforementioned, as an object of disgust, never rated a musical I ever heard about. Who am I talking about? What! You can’t guess? I’m talking about those “Damn Yankees,” silly!
Here it is, the close of our midwinter holiday season and who’s in the news? The New York Yankees. The reason they’re in the news is that they’re at it again — spending their money, buying what they can. Most everyone in America insists that buying what you can is a vital American right, but somehow, when the New York Yankees do it, well…it just ain’t fair, and if it ain’t fair, it ain’t right -- and if it ain’t right, well…it just ain’t American, that’s all!!!
Just before Thanksgiving, the Yankees signed free agent right-handed pitcher A. J. Burnett away from the Toronto Blue Jays for $82.5 million for five years. (Don’t tell anyone, but A.J.’s full name is Allan James!) Then, as Christmas and Chanukah lights began to pervade the New York night skyline, the Steinbrenner family and Brian Cashman—their General Manager—landed CC Sabathia, the gigantic six foot seven inch, nearly 300 pound lefthander (late of the Cleveland Indians and Milwaukee Brewers) for 161 million dollars to be paid over the next seven seasons. (C.C.’s full name by the way is Carsten Charles—a name only a mother could love!)
Just as fair-minded baseball fans all over the country (who would love it if their team had landed one of these two prizes) were beginning to get over their mad, the Bronx Bombers struck again.
It was Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008. At the North Pole, Santa was packing his sleigh for his annual journey around the globe to gladden the hearts of little children. Charitable organizations all over the continent were making last minute contributions to the poor and disadvantaged in American life. Then it happened.
The New York Yankees announced that they had reached an agreement to pay 180 million dollars over the next eight years to Mark Teixeira, a switch-hitting first baseman who has been batting over .300 every year lately and hitting over thirty home runs most seasons,. “Wow! What a coups!,” chirped Yankee fans everywhere.
“What insufferable, insensitive arrogance!” growled the fair-minded fans of every other professional major league baseball team.
“What a waste!” exclaimed everyone who knows that far too much money is spent on sports figures, singers, and movie actors, while teachers, nurses, and physical assistants to the disabled are never paid what they’re truly worth.
What appears to bug people the most is the lack of shame—especially on the part of Yankee fans—for the “corporate mentality” of the Yankee brass—especially, of course, the Steinbrenners. (It used to be only George but now his two sons Hal and Hank are included.) However, the legitimate response to that one is, “Baseball isn’t about what corporations do or don’t do; it’s about “one, two, three strikes, you’re out at the old ball game.” Everybody knows that. Umpires decide what’s fair and not fair on the field and the Commissioner of Baseball can void trades and even contracts if there’s anything underhanded about them.
Also, when was baseball, or any other sport for that matter, fair? Was baseball “fair” in 1951 when the New York Giants caught the Brooklyn Dodgers through a clever sign stealing system? Was baseball fair during the decades of the “gentlemen’s agreement” to keep blacks and others of color out of baseball? Was baseball fair when the Dodgers left Brooklyn and the Giants left New York in 1957? I don’t recall the Yankees receiving any credit for remaining “loyal” to their fans. Nor, I hasten to say, should they have received such credit.
One more thing: was baseball fair when it constructed the old reserve clause binding players to a particular team for life? (The existence of the reserve clause was one of the factors that cause the late outfielder Curt Flood to drink himself to death!) Baseball, of course, had the reputation for being fair. The great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes exempted baseball from anti trust regulations in 1922 insisting that baseball wasn’t a business—it was a sport. Hmm! I wonder if the Taft family (former President William Howard Taft of Cincinnati, Ohio who was Chief Justice of the United States at that time) had any money invested in the Cincinnati Reds. The point is that even back in the days of the single owners such as the Yankees’ Colonel Rupert and the Philadelphia A’s’ Connie Mack, America’s “national pastime” was hardly a bastion of equity!
Of course, there’s little if any equity in baseball or any other sport. Nor is there equity in the entertainment business – or even in politics. My gripe is that with the possible exception of lawyers and politicians, the Yankees have the reputation of being the most arrogant and greedy entity since say—our Internal Revenue Service. It wouldn’t surprise me if more people hated the Yankees than hate the IRS. I insist, however, that the Yankees aren’t any greedier than anyone else.
Recently, a commentator on NPR announced that he’s going to start calling the Yankees the “Antoinettes” after Marie Antoinette who was once famously quoted as suggesting that the poor of eighteenth century France could eat cake if they couldn’t afford bread. (She and her royal husband Louis XVI paid for their arrogance at the guillotine in 1793.) This commentator scolded the Yankees for spending their money this way while millions of people lose their jobs because of the greed of auto dealers, Wall Street money changers and the policies of the Bush administration. Americans are broke and the insensitive Yankees are spending too much of their own money while asking New York City taxpayers to put up even more money for completion of their new Yankees Stadium.
Okay, fair enough -- except that the Yankees are far from being the only team run by large corporations with their hands in the taxpayer’s pocket. The beloved Cubs have been run for decades by the family that created Wrigley’s chewing gum. The manufacturers of Budweiser bought the St. Louis Cardinals in 1953. In fact, there are many more instances of deep pockets in baseball — just as in other sports. Also, keep in mind that President Bush (on whose watch our economy is “tanking”) was once president of the Texas Rangers -- not the New York Yankees.
Finally, if buying what you can afford is so despicable, why have Americans created an entity which encourages its citizens to spend money they don’t even have? That entity is the so called “free market.” This free market (which is far from free!) doesn’t care if you invest your own money or if the money you give them is a loan. Isn’t that how banks and other lending organizations make their money? Don’t insurance, real estate and stock brokers insist that the way to make money is to “spend” (okay, “invest”) money?
Sure, the Yankees spend a lot of their money on themselves. It’s also true that there’s a healthy hunk of self worth (okay, arrogance!) in their outlook. Wouldn’t fans of other ball clubs be better served if their teams possessed the Yankees’ sense of self worth? Their teams are humble, such fans seem to insist, and hence are far more worthy of success.
No one, and that includes this Yankee fan, feels sorry for the Yankees when they fail, as they did in 2008, to even make the playoffs. Like their fellow citizens, the Yankees are probably too often under the illusion that they can buy success.
What makes the Yankees different from most of us is that, even when they fail, they don’t excuse or complain. They build their new stadium, they pay the luxury tax baseball charges them for spending so much of their own money, and soon they are champions once again. What a team! Shouldn’t you be a Yankee fan, too?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Yep, they’re as bad as bankers, brokers, automakers, politicians, and the IRS. They don’t quite match the Taliban or the former Soviet Union—but they’re less respectable than, say, Red China (from whom we borrow lots of money) and only a little more respectable than Hugo Chavez down there in Venezuela. After all, the aforementioned, as an object of disgust, never rated a musical I ever heard about. Who am I talking about? What! You can’t guess? I’m talking about those “Damn Yankees,” silly!
Here it is, the close of our midwinter holiday season and who’s in the news? The New York Yankees. The reason they’re in the news is that they’re at it again — spending their money, buying what they can. Most everyone in America insists that buying what you can is a vital American right, but somehow, when the New York Yankees do it, well…it just ain’t fair, and if it ain’t fair, it ain’t right -- and if it ain’t right, well…it just ain’t American, that’s all!!!
Just before Thanksgiving, the Yankees signed free agent right-handed pitcher A. J. Burnett away from the Toronto Blue Jays for $82.5 million for five years. (Don’t tell anyone, but A.J.’s full name is Allan James!) Then, as Christmas and Chanukah lights began to pervade the New York night skyline, the Steinbrenner family and Brian Cashman—their General Manager—landed CC Sabathia, the gigantic six foot seven inch, nearly 300 pound lefthander (late of the Cleveland Indians and Milwaukee Brewers) for 161 million dollars to be paid over the next seven seasons. (C.C.’s full name by the way is Carsten Charles—a name only a mother could love!)
Just as fair-minded baseball fans all over the country (who would love it if their team had landed one of these two prizes) were beginning to get over their mad, the Bronx Bombers struck again.
It was Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008. At the North Pole, Santa was packing his sleigh for his annual journey around the globe to gladden the hearts of little children. Charitable organizations all over the continent were making last minute contributions to the poor and disadvantaged in American life. Then it happened.
The New York Yankees announced that they had reached an agreement to pay 180 million dollars over the next eight years to Mark Teixeira, a switch-hitting first baseman who has been batting over .300 every year lately and hitting over thirty home runs most seasons,. “Wow! What a coups!,” chirped Yankee fans everywhere.
“What insufferable, insensitive arrogance!” growled the fair-minded fans of every other professional major league baseball team.
“What a waste!” exclaimed everyone who knows that far too much money is spent on sports figures, singers, and movie actors, while teachers, nurses, and physical assistants to the disabled are never paid what they’re truly worth.
What appears to bug people the most is the lack of shame—especially on the part of Yankee fans—for the “corporate mentality” of the Yankee brass—especially, of course, the Steinbrenners. (It used to be only George but now his two sons Hal and Hank are included.) However, the legitimate response to that one is, “Baseball isn’t about what corporations do or don’t do; it’s about “one, two, three strikes, you’re out at the old ball game.” Everybody knows that. Umpires decide what’s fair and not fair on the field and the Commissioner of Baseball can void trades and even contracts if there’s anything underhanded about them.
Also, when was baseball, or any other sport for that matter, fair? Was baseball “fair” in 1951 when the New York Giants caught the Brooklyn Dodgers through a clever sign stealing system? Was baseball fair during the decades of the “gentlemen’s agreement” to keep blacks and others of color out of baseball? Was baseball fair when the Dodgers left Brooklyn and the Giants left New York in 1957? I don’t recall the Yankees receiving any credit for remaining “loyal” to their fans. Nor, I hasten to say, should they have received such credit.
One more thing: was baseball fair when it constructed the old reserve clause binding players to a particular team for life? (The existence of the reserve clause was one of the factors that cause the late outfielder Curt Flood to drink himself to death!) Baseball, of course, had the reputation for being fair. The great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes exempted baseball from anti trust regulations in 1922 insisting that baseball wasn’t a business—it was a sport. Hmm! I wonder if the Taft family (former President William Howard Taft of Cincinnati, Ohio who was Chief Justice of the United States at that time) had any money invested in the Cincinnati Reds. The point is that even back in the days of the single owners such as the Yankees’ Colonel Rupert and the Philadelphia A’s’ Connie Mack, America’s “national pastime” was hardly a bastion of equity!
Of course, there’s little if any equity in baseball or any other sport. Nor is there equity in the entertainment business – or even in politics. My gripe is that with the possible exception of lawyers and politicians, the Yankees have the reputation of being the most arrogant and greedy entity since say—our Internal Revenue Service. It wouldn’t surprise me if more people hated the Yankees than hate the IRS. I insist, however, that the Yankees aren’t any greedier than anyone else.
Recently, a commentator on NPR announced that he’s going to start calling the Yankees the “Antoinettes” after Marie Antoinette who was once famously quoted as suggesting that the poor of eighteenth century France could eat cake if they couldn’t afford bread. (She and her royal husband Louis XVI paid for their arrogance at the guillotine in 1793.) This commentator scolded the Yankees for spending their money this way while millions of people lose their jobs because of the greed of auto dealers, Wall Street money changers and the policies of the Bush administration. Americans are broke and the insensitive Yankees are spending too much of their own money while asking New York City taxpayers to put up even more money for completion of their new Yankees Stadium.
Okay, fair enough -- except that the Yankees are far from being the only team run by large corporations with their hands in the taxpayer’s pocket. The beloved Cubs have been run for decades by the family that created Wrigley’s chewing gum. The manufacturers of Budweiser bought the St. Louis Cardinals in 1953. In fact, there are many more instances of deep pockets in baseball — just as in other sports. Also, keep in mind that President Bush (on whose watch our economy is “tanking”) was once president of the Texas Rangers -- not the New York Yankees.
Finally, if buying what you can afford is so despicable, why have Americans created an entity which encourages its citizens to spend money they don’t even have? That entity is the so called “free market.” This free market (which is far from free!) doesn’t care if you invest your own money or if the money you give them is a loan. Isn’t that how banks and other lending organizations make their money? Don’t insurance, real estate and stock brokers insist that the way to make money is to “spend” (okay, “invest”) money?
Sure, the Yankees spend a lot of their money on themselves. It’s also true that there’s a healthy hunk of self worth (okay, arrogance!) in their outlook. Wouldn’t fans of other ball clubs be better served if their teams possessed the Yankees’ sense of self worth? Their teams are humble, such fans seem to insist, and hence are far more worthy of success.
No one, and that includes this Yankee fan, feels sorry for the Yankees when they fail, as they did in 2008, to even make the playoffs. Like their fellow citizens, the Yankees are probably too often under the illusion that they can buy success.
What makes the Yankees different from most of us is that, even when they fail, they don’t excuse or complain. They build their new stadium, they pay the luxury tax baseball charges them for spending so much of their own money, and soon they are champions once again. What a team! Shouldn’t you be a Yankee fan, too?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)