By Edwin Cooney
You wouldn’t have wanted to be in my presence last Monday afternoon when I received an email a friend sent me. To say the least, I was a grouch!
This email was a commentary in praise of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s second invitation to Muslims who reside in Australia and insist on living under Sharia Law to get out of the country.
Even more, it suggested that Prime Minister Rudd was being courageous in his stand. However, as I saw it, Mr. Rudd was acting more like a petulant adolescent than a wise statesman. This commentary went on to state that if only American and Canadian leaders would speak and act like Kevin Rudd, we’d all be better off.
Much of what Mr. Rudd had to say was a rational appeal for assimilation on the part of immigrant Muslims into Australian society, but there were aspects of this appeal that were clearly draconian. For instance, it asserted that the Australian government should institute a spying mechanism in mosques for the purpose of weeding out potential terrorist activities such as those which occurred at the hotel in Bali back in November 2008. However, what was particularly offensive to me was the suggestion that American leaders would be heroic if only they would imitate Prime Minister Rudd’s version of government reactionism here in the United States. In other words, for our own protection it must be our public policy to spy on Americans in church.
From what little I know of Kevin Rudd, he’s a reasonably progressive, slightly leftward-leaning Labor Prime Minister. His appeal to immigrant Moslems to assimilate is not in the least unreasonable or offensive. However, the tone of his stand is clearly intolerant and lacking a sense of genuine inclusion. What I find especially galling is how Prime Minister Rudd’s position is apparently being exploited by anti-immigrant groups here in America who are obsessed by suspicion of those who are foreign born.
America’s history is riddled with suspicion of people who are foreign born who aren’t of Anglo-Saxon or Protestant heritage. America was certainly less than welcoming to the Irish who fled famine and British tyranny in 1848. Of course, we couldn’t help it: after all, they were Roman Catholics and Catholicism was “popery.” Everyone knew that the Pope would establish an Irish Catholic in the White House. America would then become a province of a newly established Roman Empire. These sentiments were expressed most vividly by American Nativists or members of the “know nothing” party of the 1850s.
In the Twentieth Century, there was the “Red Scare of 1919” and the anti-Japanese sentiment in the wake of Pearl Harbor, something which is highly regretted today
In the 1950s, McCarthyism flourished out of our frightened reaction to Communism.
In 1948, two of the leading Republican presidential candidates debated during the GOP primary campaign in Oregon over the question “should the Communist Party be outlawed?” Former Minnesota Governor Harold Stassen took the affirmative view and New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey asserted that it would be both dangerous and contrary to who we are to outlaw the Communist Party.
Dewey was right: either we believe in others’ liberty to express their feelings and live their own lives or we don’t believe in liberty at all. However, no doctrine or religious law -- whether it be Marxism or Sharia Law or anything else -- can supersede the Constitution of the United States. No responsible administration should allow a conspiracy to gain sufficient strength to compromise our form of government. That we must be vigilant at home and abroad about dangers to our security is not debatable. However, there’s a distinction between tolerance and appeasement. The question is: When are we powerful?
All of us have been frightened at one time or another in our lives. When we’re frightened, anger often dominates every thought we have and, consequently, everything we do. That’s why FDR was right when he asserted that “…the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
Beyond that, we know that seldom, if ever, is any conflict resolved through rejection. Occasionally it is necessary to terminate unhealthy relationships. However, all relationships, whether personal or global, ebb and flow. Most Americans distrusted Great Britain from the American Revolution until World War II. Now most Americans consider England to be part of us. Too often, we prematurely give up on personal relationships out of fear and then wonder why we’re lonely. Even more, too often we see power in our own frustration and anger.
What was disturbing to me about that email was its surrender to intolerance. In the moments right after I received it, I felt utter despair for the future. The world is simply too small today to encourage others to hate us by telling them to get lost. The truth is, whether we like it or not, we can only be powerful when we’re conscientiously engaged with those who may occasionally cause us discomfort.
Let’s see, now: “The only thing I may legitimately hate is…” Steady now, Eddie, you’re no FDR!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, April 26, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
PATRIOTS DAY — AMERICA’S REAL BIRTHDAY?
By Edwin Cooney
You’re right: America’s official birthday is July 4th, 1776, which wouldn’t make her 235 years old until July 4th, 2011 -- but there are millions who consider today, April 19th, 2010 -- Patriots Day – to be America’s real birthday. Nevertheless, like every other red-blooded American lady, Miss America thinks it’s just fine if you’re not really sure how old she is!
Patriots Day begins in Massachusetts, with a 6 a.m. reenactment of the Battle of Lexington. It was in Lexington that British troops landed after having taken the Charles River from Boston where they had landed on the way to their ultimate target in Concord, Massachusetts. Three hours later, at 9 a.m. every Patriots Day, there’s also a reenactment of the Battle of Concord.
The Boston Marathon begins around 10 a.m. and the Red Sox will play at 11:05 a.m this year at Fenway Park so that the rest of the day may be taken up with the conclusion of the marathon as well as with parades, speeches, and picnics.
As you’ll recall from your school days, things had been pretty tense in New England for a long time. It was clear to those in the know that the new Governor of Massachusetts,
Thomas Gage, was anxious to nip a possible rebellion in the bud before it got started. He was sure he needed to do two things to accomplish this.
First, he needed to arrest two agitators—Sam Adams and John Hancock—who were holed up in Concord. Second, he needed to capture the stores of guns and ammunition the “patriots” had stored there.
Therefore, fully aware of what might be about to happen, Paul Revere arranged with the sexton of Boston’s “Old North Church…on the night of April 18, 1775,” as Longfellow described it (it was actually Christ Church) that a signal be sent from the belfry of that church which could be observed in Lexington. One lantern meant that the British were coming by land and two lanterns meant that the British Army was coming by water.
As the British landed at Lexington, two things happened. Paul Revere, Billy Dawes (whose great great grandson Charles Dawes would be Calvin Coolidge’s Vice President), and Samuel Prescott started out of Lexington toward Concord to warn of the advancing British army. What Henry Wadsworth Longfellow doesn’t tell you in his poem is that Paul Revere never made it to Concord—and neither did Dawes. The trio were stopped just outside of Lexington and briefly jailed. Sam Prescott either talked his way out of arrest or escaped capture and completed the mission to Concord.
Meanwhile, the British marched through Lexington trying to ignore the farmers and merchants who were awaiting them. Suddenly, one of the Minutemen fired and the British troops broke ranks and fired back. Within an instant, eight patriots lay dead. However, as they moved inland, British troops found themselves continuously harassed by Minutemen from behind barns, stonewalls and trees. By the time they reached Concord, things had worsened for the British. Concord was successfully defended and the British retreated through Lexington back to Boston. By the end of the day, April 19, 1775, seventy-three British soldiers were dead and an additional 174 were wounded.
Some commentators, such as the late Paul Harvey in one of his last “Rest of the Story” broadcasts, insist that the British really didn’t want a war with the colonists. The only reason they appointed General Thomas Gage the Governor of Massachusetts and beefed up the army was to demonstrate to the American patriots how powerful they were and how fruitless it would be to rebel. (It was like an eighteenth century version of George W. Bush’s “shock and awe”). Alas, Americans would be neither shocked nor awed.
Further, Mr. Harvey asserted, Lord North, Britain’s Prime Minister who had authored the Tea Tax and other revenue raising schemes, had successfully run a proposal through the British Parliament to end the taxation of all British colonies provided they agreed to make a “fair contribution to the defense of the empire”. Of course, the British Parliament would decide what was exactly fair, but this “Conciliatory Act” was Frederick North’s genuine effort to thwart a revolution. The act was submitted to Nova Scotia and to each of the thirteen American colonies separately. As luck would have it, it landed in North America on April 20, 1775 — one day too late.
So, here’s the question: was America already in sufficient unity in the wake of Lexington and Concord to be considered a nation? After all, had some of the American colonies accepted North’s proposal, it might have been pretty hard to reunite the colonies to oppose Britain. As it was, none of the colonial legislatures adopted Lord North’s Conciliatory Act. Perhaps “the shot heard all around the world,” was America’s “big bang.”
Oh, one more thing! Who said Miss America, even at 235 years young, doesn’t look good in a swimsuit?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
You’re right: America’s official birthday is July 4th, 1776, which wouldn’t make her 235 years old until July 4th, 2011 -- but there are millions who consider today, April 19th, 2010 -- Patriots Day – to be America’s real birthday. Nevertheless, like every other red-blooded American lady, Miss America thinks it’s just fine if you’re not really sure how old she is!
Patriots Day begins in Massachusetts, with a 6 a.m. reenactment of the Battle of Lexington. It was in Lexington that British troops landed after having taken the Charles River from Boston where they had landed on the way to their ultimate target in Concord, Massachusetts. Three hours later, at 9 a.m. every Patriots Day, there’s also a reenactment of the Battle of Concord.
The Boston Marathon begins around 10 a.m. and the Red Sox will play at 11:05 a.m this year at Fenway Park so that the rest of the day may be taken up with the conclusion of the marathon as well as with parades, speeches, and picnics.
As you’ll recall from your school days, things had been pretty tense in New England for a long time. It was clear to those in the know that the new Governor of Massachusetts,
Thomas Gage, was anxious to nip a possible rebellion in the bud before it got started. He was sure he needed to do two things to accomplish this.
First, he needed to arrest two agitators—Sam Adams and John Hancock—who were holed up in Concord. Second, he needed to capture the stores of guns and ammunition the “patriots” had stored there.
Therefore, fully aware of what might be about to happen, Paul Revere arranged with the sexton of Boston’s “Old North Church…on the night of April 18, 1775,” as Longfellow described it (it was actually Christ Church) that a signal be sent from the belfry of that church which could be observed in Lexington. One lantern meant that the British were coming by land and two lanterns meant that the British Army was coming by water.
As the British landed at Lexington, two things happened. Paul Revere, Billy Dawes (whose great great grandson Charles Dawes would be Calvin Coolidge’s Vice President), and Samuel Prescott started out of Lexington toward Concord to warn of the advancing British army. What Henry Wadsworth Longfellow doesn’t tell you in his poem is that Paul Revere never made it to Concord—and neither did Dawes. The trio were stopped just outside of Lexington and briefly jailed. Sam Prescott either talked his way out of arrest or escaped capture and completed the mission to Concord.
Meanwhile, the British marched through Lexington trying to ignore the farmers and merchants who were awaiting them. Suddenly, one of the Minutemen fired and the British troops broke ranks and fired back. Within an instant, eight patriots lay dead. However, as they moved inland, British troops found themselves continuously harassed by Minutemen from behind barns, stonewalls and trees. By the time they reached Concord, things had worsened for the British. Concord was successfully defended and the British retreated through Lexington back to Boston. By the end of the day, April 19, 1775, seventy-three British soldiers were dead and an additional 174 were wounded.
Some commentators, such as the late Paul Harvey in one of his last “Rest of the Story” broadcasts, insist that the British really didn’t want a war with the colonists. The only reason they appointed General Thomas Gage the Governor of Massachusetts and beefed up the army was to demonstrate to the American patriots how powerful they were and how fruitless it would be to rebel. (It was like an eighteenth century version of George W. Bush’s “shock and awe”). Alas, Americans would be neither shocked nor awed.
Further, Mr. Harvey asserted, Lord North, Britain’s Prime Minister who had authored the Tea Tax and other revenue raising schemes, had successfully run a proposal through the British Parliament to end the taxation of all British colonies provided they agreed to make a “fair contribution to the defense of the empire”. Of course, the British Parliament would decide what was exactly fair, but this “Conciliatory Act” was Frederick North’s genuine effort to thwart a revolution. The act was submitted to Nova Scotia and to each of the thirteen American colonies separately. As luck would have it, it landed in North America on April 20, 1775 — one day too late.
So, here’s the question: was America already in sufficient unity in the wake of Lexington and Concord to be considered a nation? After all, had some of the American colonies accepted North’s proposal, it might have been pretty hard to reunite the colonies to oppose Britain. As it was, none of the colonial legislatures adopted Lord North’s Conciliatory Act. Perhaps “the shot heard all around the world,” was America’s “big bang.”
Oh, one more thing! Who said Miss America, even at 235 years young, doesn’t look good in a swimsuit?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, April 12, 2010
PRESIDENTIAL GREATNESS—AMERICA’S INCALCULABLE BLESSING
By Edwin Cooney
At 3:35 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time today, it will be exactly sixty-five years since the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- America’s last “great president.” Scholars, regardless of political or ideological orientation, rank Roosevelt in the top three presidents in American history. As you can guess, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are the other two “great presidents.” Near great presidents include: Harry Truman, James K. Polk, Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower. (The last two are my own rankings: I’ve placed Reagan and Eisenhower above Jackson and Cleveland).
“So,” you may well ask, “what constitutes presidential greatness?
Some insist that moral character is the key factor. Yet presidents who rank far below the top ten greats and near greats such as John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover each possessed moral and political integrity beyond question.
George Washington was permanently above politics, primarily because he was twice elected without political party affiliation. However, not even George Washington was immune from moral indiscretions. Even as he was courting Martha, his wife to be, he confessed his love for Sally Fairfax, the wife of his neighbor George William Fairfax. Like a future presidential successor named Jimmy Carter, George Washington definitely had “lust in his heart.”
Much of FDR’s political success came from his capacity for both deceit and misdirection. As numerous recent authors have noted, in both politics and matters of the heart, FDR often coldly exploited the feelings of those close to him for his immediate advantage. The two most prominent victims were Winston Churchill and Eleanor Roosevelt.
As author Jon Meacham describes in his book “Franklin and Winston: An Intimate Portrait of an Epic Friendship,” FDR openly ridiculed Churchill in wartime meetings he and Churchill held with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. FDR’s goal was to establish an effective relationship with the enigmatic Soviet dictator at Winston’s expense, if necessary. Thus, FDR openly poked fun at Winston’s old-fashioned ideas, his tendency to make speeches rather than conversation during negotiations, and even his beloved cigars. More dramatically, it was Lucy Mercer Rutherford -- not Eleanor Roosevelt -- who was by FDR’s side sixty-five years ago today during his final moments of awareness before he slipped into eternity. Still, FDR was a great president!
It’s hard to identify a character flaw in Abraham Lincoln except perhaps for his unwillingness to forgive his father Thomas Lincoln’s shortcomings, specifically, his denial of sufficient time and opportunity for young Abe to get an education.
You may well wonder, “if it isn’t character that makes great presidents, what is it?”
Presidential historians have tended to rank presidents as great or near great if they’ve been responsible for what scholars call “landmark legislation or decision-making.
George Washington’s greatness was rooted in his capacity to draw men of much greater intellect around him encouraging them to sacrifice their individual agendas for the greater good. In a span of eight months, between Thursday, April 30, 1789 and Friday, January 1, 1790, Washington put together the entire executive branch of our government. Washington, in addition to being a good general, was a great builder.
Abraham Lincoln’s greatness was centered in his capacity to persevere, to knit a broken nation back together without bitter rancor toward his political opponents and personal detractors. His Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t issued according to a moral time clock (after all, chattel slavery was eternally immoral), but to the existence of a practical military and political advantage over the South.
The root of FDR’s greatness stemmed from a sunny disposition and sense of self worth which enabled him to accomplish what often seemed impossible. As has been often observed: “This extraordinary man, from his wheelchair, lifted a financially crippled and socially depressed nation to its feet.” Despite the character flaw stated above, FDR’s golden virtue resided in his public awareness. Being the stellar citizen he was, Franklin Roosevelt demonstrated that America could more permanently prosper when we realized that the welfare of our own families depends upon the well being of our neighbor’s family. Herein then is the key.
The measurement of presidential greatness is accomplishment according to the legitimate needs of the nation. The accomplishments of great presidents change the practices and thus the course of society. Washington, Lincoln and FDR are great because, “we, the people,” thought and acted differently in the wake of their leadership.
George Washington, our first great president, left office in 1797. Sixty-four years later, Abraham Lincoln came along and became our second great president. Sixty-eight years after Lincoln’s 1865 assassination, FDR came along. Thus, I wonder: might it be time for another president, who demonstrates patience and tolerance in the face of political name-calling and personal ridicule, to prevail and become great? Even if it is time, will we, the people, allow it? Or, do those who are really and truly great become so because they compel our affection and eternal gratitude beyond our inclination to grant it?
What say you?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
At 3:35 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time today, it will be exactly sixty-five years since the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- America’s last “great president.” Scholars, regardless of political or ideological orientation, rank Roosevelt in the top three presidents in American history. As you can guess, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are the other two “great presidents.” Near great presidents include: Harry Truman, James K. Polk, Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower. (The last two are my own rankings: I’ve placed Reagan and Eisenhower above Jackson and Cleveland).
“So,” you may well ask, “what constitutes presidential greatness?
Some insist that moral character is the key factor. Yet presidents who rank far below the top ten greats and near greats such as John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover each possessed moral and political integrity beyond question.
George Washington was permanently above politics, primarily because he was twice elected without political party affiliation. However, not even George Washington was immune from moral indiscretions. Even as he was courting Martha, his wife to be, he confessed his love for Sally Fairfax, the wife of his neighbor George William Fairfax. Like a future presidential successor named Jimmy Carter, George Washington definitely had “lust in his heart.”
Much of FDR’s political success came from his capacity for both deceit and misdirection. As numerous recent authors have noted, in both politics and matters of the heart, FDR often coldly exploited the feelings of those close to him for his immediate advantage. The two most prominent victims were Winston Churchill and Eleanor Roosevelt.
As author Jon Meacham describes in his book “Franklin and Winston: An Intimate Portrait of an Epic Friendship,” FDR openly ridiculed Churchill in wartime meetings he and Churchill held with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. FDR’s goal was to establish an effective relationship with the enigmatic Soviet dictator at Winston’s expense, if necessary. Thus, FDR openly poked fun at Winston’s old-fashioned ideas, his tendency to make speeches rather than conversation during negotiations, and even his beloved cigars. More dramatically, it was Lucy Mercer Rutherford -- not Eleanor Roosevelt -- who was by FDR’s side sixty-five years ago today during his final moments of awareness before he slipped into eternity. Still, FDR was a great president!
It’s hard to identify a character flaw in Abraham Lincoln except perhaps for his unwillingness to forgive his father Thomas Lincoln’s shortcomings, specifically, his denial of sufficient time and opportunity for young Abe to get an education.
You may well wonder, “if it isn’t character that makes great presidents, what is it?”
Presidential historians have tended to rank presidents as great or near great if they’ve been responsible for what scholars call “landmark legislation or decision-making.
George Washington’s greatness was rooted in his capacity to draw men of much greater intellect around him encouraging them to sacrifice their individual agendas for the greater good. In a span of eight months, between Thursday, April 30, 1789 and Friday, January 1, 1790, Washington put together the entire executive branch of our government. Washington, in addition to being a good general, was a great builder.
Abraham Lincoln’s greatness was centered in his capacity to persevere, to knit a broken nation back together without bitter rancor toward his political opponents and personal detractors. His Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t issued according to a moral time clock (after all, chattel slavery was eternally immoral), but to the existence of a practical military and political advantage over the South.
The root of FDR’s greatness stemmed from a sunny disposition and sense of self worth which enabled him to accomplish what often seemed impossible. As has been often observed: “This extraordinary man, from his wheelchair, lifted a financially crippled and socially depressed nation to its feet.” Despite the character flaw stated above, FDR’s golden virtue resided in his public awareness. Being the stellar citizen he was, Franklin Roosevelt demonstrated that America could more permanently prosper when we realized that the welfare of our own families depends upon the well being of our neighbor’s family. Herein then is the key.
The measurement of presidential greatness is accomplishment according to the legitimate needs of the nation. The accomplishments of great presidents change the practices and thus the course of society. Washington, Lincoln and FDR are great because, “we, the people,” thought and acted differently in the wake of their leadership.
George Washington, our first great president, left office in 1797. Sixty-four years later, Abraham Lincoln came along and became our second great president. Sixty-eight years after Lincoln’s 1865 assassination, FDR came along. Thus, I wonder: might it be time for another president, who demonstrates patience and tolerance in the face of political name-calling and personal ridicule, to prevail and become great? Even if it is time, will we, the people, allow it? Or, do those who are really and truly great become so because they compel our affection and eternal gratitude beyond our inclination to grant it?
What say you?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, April 5, 2010
BASEBALL’S OPENING DAY: A DAY OF TRADITION AND HOPE ALL AROUND
By Edwin Cooney
Shortly after 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time today, April 5, 2010, at National Park in Washington, D.C., President Barack Obama -- a lefty -- will throw out the ceremonial first pitch of the 2010 season.
Exactly a century ago, President William Howard Taft, inaugurated the presidential ceremonial “first pitch” tradition. The date was Thursday, April 14, 1910. President Taft tossed a baseball to the Washington Senators’ star pitcher Walter Johnson. After catching Taft’s toss, Johnson preceded to allow only one hit the whole afternoon to Connie Mack’s Philadelphia Athletics. In the middle of the seventh inning, the six-foot-two, 330 lb Chief Executive stood up and stretched. The people in the park followed their leader and have done so ever since. Thus the “seventh inning stretch” has become a baseball institution. The final score that afternoon was Senators one, Athletics zip.
Thirty years later, on Tuesday, April 16, opening day of 1940, Bob Feller of the Cleveland Indians did the great Walter Johnson one better. Feller, “Rapid Robert” they often called him, threw a no-hitter against the White Sox at Chicago’s Comiskey Park. It was 47 degrees as Feller’s parents and sister Marguerite watched him set down the White Sox, striking out 8 and walking 5 men in the process.
Ah! But that very day another “pitcher” made almost as much news as the twenty-two-year-old Feller. This hurler (if you prefer), even better known than Bob Feller, was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR, who would win a third presidential term that fall, delivered the first pitch at Griffith Stadium in Washington as he had several times before. However, this time there was an unfortunate hitch. FDR’s pitch decked Washington Post photographer Irving Schlossberg. Anything could happen on opening day!
Five years later on opening day, something did happen and no doubt everyone but Pittsburgh Pirates fans had a hell of a good laugh. It was Tuesday, April 17, 1945. Pirates’ shortstop Frankie Zak, a base runner on first (there was also a runner on second), was granted time to tie his shoe by the first base umpire. Instantaneously -- there wasn’t time for the home plate ump to inform the pitcher and the batter that time had been called — Zak’s teammate Jim Russell drilled Cincinnati Reds Bucky Walters’ pitch over the right field wall for a three run homer. When Russell reached first, however, he learned that because Zak had been granted time to tie his shoe, the home run was null and void. Cincinnati beat Pittsburgh that day 7 to 6. Had Frankie Zak’s and Jim Russell’s runs been allowed to score (Russell did drive in one run from second base with a single on the very next pitch), the Pirates would have had at least 8 runs to win the game. As another far more prominent “Frank” had discovered just five years earlier, opening day can be a bit treacherous! (Note: The next day, much to Frankie Zak’s surprise, his manager Frankie Frisch bought him a present. As I’m sure you’ve guessed, it was a pair of buckle shoes).
Six years after Frankie Zak’s debacle, opening day of the 1951 baseball season at Griffith Stadium would mean something quite different. The Washington Senators’ opening day, Friday, April 20th 1951, was clearly a day of presidential courage. Well before going out to the ballpark, Harry Truman knew he’d come face to face with big time trouble. Just nine days before, President Truman had dismissed one of America’s most popular war heroes, Supreme Commander-in-Chief Douglas MacArthur, for insubordination. The day before the president came out to Griffith Stadium to toss out the ceremonial first pitch of the Senators’ season, General MacArthur had made a magnificent speech before Congress that heightened millions of citizens’ sense of righteous patriotic anger toward the president. As Truman expected, he heard thunderous boos. He didn’t stay for the whole game, a Senators’ 5 to 3 win over the Yankees, but Harry Truman didn’t run away either.
Then there was opening day in St. Louis in, I believe, 1985. That day there were simply too many ladies at Busch Memorial Stadium for the number of available ladies’ restrooms so the ladies simply took over the men’s rooms. As you can imagine, the Cardinals have since corrected the problem. Ladies will put up with many things, but they insist on their right to use any “bathroom” when and as often as necessary. What, do you suppose, those Cardinals were thinking?
I’m convinced that baseball’s opening day possesses an influence beyond the practical, the political, or even the laws of science.
Those silly scientists invariably try to tell us that the natural orbit of the earth around the sun brings forth spring with its April showers and May flowers. Don’t you believe it! The raw truth is that it is baseball’s opening day magnetism that drags the sun across that vernal equinox.
The reason for that is simple: it is so that the very human stories of another wonderful baseball season may continue to gladden our hungry hearts.
Between now and that October date when the final baseball out or run is recorded, we’ll hear of victory and loss, injury and recovery. Even more significant, for millions, almost up to the very last pitch, hope will reign supreme.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Shortly after 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time today, April 5, 2010, at National Park in Washington, D.C., President Barack Obama -- a lefty -- will throw out the ceremonial first pitch of the 2010 season.
Exactly a century ago, President William Howard Taft, inaugurated the presidential ceremonial “first pitch” tradition. The date was Thursday, April 14, 1910. President Taft tossed a baseball to the Washington Senators’ star pitcher Walter Johnson. After catching Taft’s toss, Johnson preceded to allow only one hit the whole afternoon to Connie Mack’s Philadelphia Athletics. In the middle of the seventh inning, the six-foot-two, 330 lb Chief Executive stood up and stretched. The people in the park followed their leader and have done so ever since. Thus the “seventh inning stretch” has become a baseball institution. The final score that afternoon was Senators one, Athletics zip.
Thirty years later, on Tuesday, April 16, opening day of 1940, Bob Feller of the Cleveland Indians did the great Walter Johnson one better. Feller, “Rapid Robert” they often called him, threw a no-hitter against the White Sox at Chicago’s Comiskey Park. It was 47 degrees as Feller’s parents and sister Marguerite watched him set down the White Sox, striking out 8 and walking 5 men in the process.
Ah! But that very day another “pitcher” made almost as much news as the twenty-two-year-old Feller. This hurler (if you prefer), even better known than Bob Feller, was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR, who would win a third presidential term that fall, delivered the first pitch at Griffith Stadium in Washington as he had several times before. However, this time there was an unfortunate hitch. FDR’s pitch decked Washington Post photographer Irving Schlossberg. Anything could happen on opening day!
Five years later on opening day, something did happen and no doubt everyone but Pittsburgh Pirates fans had a hell of a good laugh. It was Tuesday, April 17, 1945. Pirates’ shortstop Frankie Zak, a base runner on first (there was also a runner on second), was granted time to tie his shoe by the first base umpire. Instantaneously -- there wasn’t time for the home plate ump to inform the pitcher and the batter that time had been called — Zak’s teammate Jim Russell drilled Cincinnati Reds Bucky Walters’ pitch over the right field wall for a three run homer. When Russell reached first, however, he learned that because Zak had been granted time to tie his shoe, the home run was null and void. Cincinnati beat Pittsburgh that day 7 to 6. Had Frankie Zak’s and Jim Russell’s runs been allowed to score (Russell did drive in one run from second base with a single on the very next pitch), the Pirates would have had at least 8 runs to win the game. As another far more prominent “Frank” had discovered just five years earlier, opening day can be a bit treacherous! (Note: The next day, much to Frankie Zak’s surprise, his manager Frankie Frisch bought him a present. As I’m sure you’ve guessed, it was a pair of buckle shoes).
Six years after Frankie Zak’s debacle, opening day of the 1951 baseball season at Griffith Stadium would mean something quite different. The Washington Senators’ opening day, Friday, April 20th 1951, was clearly a day of presidential courage. Well before going out to the ballpark, Harry Truman knew he’d come face to face with big time trouble. Just nine days before, President Truman had dismissed one of America’s most popular war heroes, Supreme Commander-in-Chief Douglas MacArthur, for insubordination. The day before the president came out to Griffith Stadium to toss out the ceremonial first pitch of the Senators’ season, General MacArthur had made a magnificent speech before Congress that heightened millions of citizens’ sense of righteous patriotic anger toward the president. As Truman expected, he heard thunderous boos. He didn’t stay for the whole game, a Senators’ 5 to 3 win over the Yankees, but Harry Truman didn’t run away either.
Then there was opening day in St. Louis in, I believe, 1985. That day there were simply too many ladies at Busch Memorial Stadium for the number of available ladies’ restrooms so the ladies simply took over the men’s rooms. As you can imagine, the Cardinals have since corrected the problem. Ladies will put up with many things, but they insist on their right to use any “bathroom” when and as often as necessary. What, do you suppose, those Cardinals were thinking?
I’m convinced that baseball’s opening day possesses an influence beyond the practical, the political, or even the laws of science.
Those silly scientists invariably try to tell us that the natural orbit of the earth around the sun brings forth spring with its April showers and May flowers. Don’t you believe it! The raw truth is that it is baseball’s opening day magnetism that drags the sun across that vernal equinox.
The reason for that is simple: it is so that the very human stories of another wonderful baseball season may continue to gladden our hungry hearts.
Between now and that October date when the final baseball out or run is recorded, we’ll hear of victory and loss, injury and recovery. Even more significant, for millions, almost up to the very last pitch, hope will reign supreme.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)