By Edwin Cooney
I devoutly wish, especially in the past few days, that I’d never met him. Yes, “Public Enemy Number One” is definitely male, for while he possesses elements of the fair gender, he’s constructed too solidly to be anything but male.
It’s not that he lacks wisdom or that he’s entirely antisocial; in fact, one of his most powerful weapons is that he can be very sociable. The burdens of parenthood are often eased when he directs their children. He must be captured and controlled by you and me, (especially by me) or he’s powerful enough to destroy us—individually and collectively. A list of his major achievements or dastardly deeds might be useful.
Going back to biblical times (sorry, but I’m not very knowledgeable about ancient history), he even stalked the Disciples of Christ, but they nevertheless kept spreading Christ’s gospel. Of course, it must be remembered that because they ignored him, most of the twelve died as martyrs to their creed.
It‘s not that he’s anti-religious. In fact, so powerful is Public Enemy Number One that he’s been given a vital role in all of humankind’s religious theologies with the possible exception of Buddhism or Hinduism –I’m not sure which. He is a vital part of the ying and the yang of human comprehension, similar to happiness and sadness, or love and hate.
Through the centuries, he’s befriended and victimized the most powerful rulers of nations including Henry VIII of England, Catherine the Great and Ivan the Terrible of Russia, Adolf Hitler, master of Germany’s Third Reich, and even some of our greatest presidents. Okay, since you insist, I’ll name two presidents who were especially adept at using Public Enemy Number One: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his youthful admirer Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Although we’re often stopped short and even thunderstruck by the force of Public Enemy Number One when we confront him, we still conveniently use him when we need to control other individuals and situations. His greatest offense is when he masquerades as bravery, political wisdom, religious piety, and especially—love.
Public Enemy Number One is especially cruel to the gentle and vulnerable among us. He institutionalizes loneliness and emptiness. He preys on those who have been the victim of physical disease, economic depression, war, injustice and individual infidelity. His worst sin is that he too often stultifies the possible when it sincerely offers the best for the future.
Public Enemy Number One is even worse than hate. Hate hides nothing. Hate’s purpose is domination and destruction. Hate at least is right out there for all to see and use for one’s own squalid advantage.
In fact, just like fire, atomic energy, and instantaneous communication, Public Enemy Number One is often vital to our own survival.
Nevertheless, more than hate, more than war, human prejudice, thievery, human betrayal, pain, and death itself—I despise him.
The late great J. Edgar Hoover used to insist that Public Enemy Number one was Al Capone, John Dillinger, Lucky Luciano or Joseph Stalin. He even suggested near the end of his forty-two year stint as FBI Director that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was pretty close to being Public Enemy Number One.
When I was growing up, I didn’t have a lot of enemies. Invariably, I assigned the position of Public Enemy Number One to certain teachers or residential school houseparents. As far as I was concerned, Public Enemy Number One’s most deadly weapons were school, coconut desserts, cauliflower, and asparagus -- I’ve since upgraded those vegetables, especially the former -- and, yes, please forgive me, dear God, long boring church services.
The damndest reality in the whole world however is that I need him. Without his damnable existence, I’d still be smoking a pack or so of cigarettes a day instead of puffing a gentle pipe. I’d cross streets less cautiously than I do. I’d be less diplomatic than I am. Impatience would inevitably overrule caution or diplomacy in my relationship with others. I’d probably talk too much and listen too little. Worst of all, if I hadn’t experienced Public Enemy Number One in recent days, I probably wouldn’t have anything to write about this week.
As persistent as he is, Public Enemy Number One’s most amazing quality is his audaciousness even though he’s been exposed for the villain that he is. He’s even been identified from the east steps of the Capital of the United States of America. History tells us that he was identified by the first of the two U.S. Presidents named above who asserted:
“This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly… So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself!”
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, July 26, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
THE ENERGY OF COURAGE
By Edwin Cooney
Last week, I featured a story about U.S. Army Captain Ed Freeman who was given a medal for courage by President George W. Bush in March of 2001.
Captain Freeman had certainly demonstrated courage on September 14th, 1965 when he repeatedly flew his helicopter into danger during a battle in the Ia Drang Valley in South Vietnam. After fourteen missions and under intense enemy fire, “Too Tall” Ed Freeman rescued some thirty wounded men while also bringing in needed supplies of ammunition and water to the men in the field. Even more significant, Captain Freeman flew these missions despite the fact that Medevac pilots had been ordered not to go into the area due to the intensity of the enemy barrage. I noted that earlier in the day Captain Freeman had flown in many of those same men to confront this enemy which had dominated the area for some time. This day, his immediate reward for substituting duty and a sense of obligation to orders was multiple wounds to his legs and an arm.
Rather than offering my own opinion, I invited you, my readers, to tell me what you thought was the real energy behind Ed Freeman’s courage. Here are just some of your responses.
From Fessenden, North Dakota, a gentleman asserted: “Duty! He had a path to walk, and during his walk, he got the job done. No need for complications. Most often people look at things from a backward perspective, rather than a forward one. I doubt the man looked forward before he did the deeds, but only as we look backward do we realize his valor.”
From Huntsville, Alabama came a more terse response: “My take on Captain Ed Freeman is that he should be honored for what he did, I don't really care about why he did it.”
A reader in Oakland, California was even more to the point. The word “honor” was his only response.
From a lovely lady in Memphis, Tennessee came a gentler analysis: “Captain Freeman demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice and place another's needs and welfare above his own. Obviously, he values humanity.”
A clergyman friend of mine offered the following analysis: “Perhaps it was "loyalty", or maybe “guilt”: I put them in this situation, I must do what I can to support them and/or get them out."
Another reader from, I believe, Minnesota was also brief in her judgment: “It’s selflessness!”
Finally, a senior citizen asserted simply: “I say people do these things simply because they need doing...”
My take on what lay at the center of Ed Freeman’s courage concurs with most of the opinions offered above.
As I see it, conscience is the prime energizing force behind the good things we do. The task lying ahead of us may be painful, even life threatening, but once we’re faced with the reality in what must be done, invariably we do it.
Bravery or courage and even honor may be demonstrated by both sides in battle. The Gray (who fought to sustain chattel slavery) and The Blue (who fought officially to sustain our Union) both showed courage during our Civil War. German soldiers certainly demonstrated both courage and bravery as they fought Adolf Hitler’s war. Honor, after all (although not Hitler’s), was the center of the Prussian Generals’ creed. Surely, no one can doubt the bravery or courage of Communist forces during World War II despite the ruthlessness of the political creed under which they fought.
To possess a conscience automatically compels a sense of duty, honor, and obligation not only to our friends and loved ones, but also to our community, country, and our religious or political creed. Thus, the question: how much more compelling or potent do you suppose our political and religious creeds might be if they were advanced by conscientious advocacy rather than by querulous criticism of other political and religious creeds?
For me, our individual conscience is almost, but not quite, the most powerful force behind our best deeds and accomplishments.
Atop the pyramid of “the better angels of our nature,” as Lincoln used to say, only our capacity for one human force is powerful enough to master our consciences. My guess is that you probably know even better than I do what that is!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Last week, I featured a story about U.S. Army Captain Ed Freeman who was given a medal for courage by President George W. Bush in March of 2001.
Captain Freeman had certainly demonstrated courage on September 14th, 1965 when he repeatedly flew his helicopter into danger during a battle in the Ia Drang Valley in South Vietnam. After fourteen missions and under intense enemy fire, “Too Tall” Ed Freeman rescued some thirty wounded men while also bringing in needed supplies of ammunition and water to the men in the field. Even more significant, Captain Freeman flew these missions despite the fact that Medevac pilots had been ordered not to go into the area due to the intensity of the enemy barrage. I noted that earlier in the day Captain Freeman had flown in many of those same men to confront this enemy which had dominated the area for some time. This day, his immediate reward for substituting duty and a sense of obligation to orders was multiple wounds to his legs and an arm.
Rather than offering my own opinion, I invited you, my readers, to tell me what you thought was the real energy behind Ed Freeman’s courage. Here are just some of your responses.
From Fessenden, North Dakota, a gentleman asserted: “Duty! He had a path to walk, and during his walk, he got the job done. No need for complications. Most often people look at things from a backward perspective, rather than a forward one. I doubt the man looked forward before he did the deeds, but only as we look backward do we realize his valor.”
From Huntsville, Alabama came a more terse response: “My take on Captain Ed Freeman is that he should be honored for what he did, I don't really care about why he did it.”
A reader in Oakland, California was even more to the point. The word “honor” was his only response.
From a lovely lady in Memphis, Tennessee came a gentler analysis: “Captain Freeman demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice and place another's needs and welfare above his own. Obviously, he values humanity.”
A clergyman friend of mine offered the following analysis: “Perhaps it was "loyalty", or maybe “guilt”: I put them in this situation, I must do what I can to support them and/or get them out."
Another reader from, I believe, Minnesota was also brief in her judgment: “It’s selflessness!”
Finally, a senior citizen asserted simply: “I say people do these things simply because they need doing...”
My take on what lay at the center of Ed Freeman’s courage concurs with most of the opinions offered above.
As I see it, conscience is the prime energizing force behind the good things we do. The task lying ahead of us may be painful, even life threatening, but once we’re faced with the reality in what must be done, invariably we do it.
Bravery or courage and even honor may be demonstrated by both sides in battle. The Gray (who fought to sustain chattel slavery) and The Blue (who fought officially to sustain our Union) both showed courage during our Civil War. German soldiers certainly demonstrated both courage and bravery as they fought Adolf Hitler’s war. Honor, after all (although not Hitler’s), was the center of the Prussian Generals’ creed. Surely, no one can doubt the bravery or courage of Communist forces during World War II despite the ruthlessness of the political creed under which they fought.
To possess a conscience automatically compels a sense of duty, honor, and obligation not only to our friends and loved ones, but also to our community, country, and our religious or political creed. Thus, the question: how much more compelling or potent do you suppose our political and religious creeds might be if they were advanced by conscientious advocacy rather than by querulous criticism of other political and religious creeds?
For me, our individual conscience is almost, but not quite, the most powerful force behind our best deeds and accomplishments.
Atop the pyramid of “the better angels of our nature,” as Lincoln used to say, only our capacity for one human force is powerful enough to master our consciences. My guess is that you probably know even better than I do what that is!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, July 12, 2010
CAN YOU HELP?
By Ed Cooney
Just last Thursday morning, one of my readers sent me a piece that’s obviously been traveling around the internet for some time concerning U. S. Army Captain Ed Freeman’s extraordinary rescue mission during the battle of the Ia Drang Valley in Vietnam. It all took place on September 14, 1965.
On that bright Vietnamese morning, Captain Freeman had flown several troops into the Ia Drang Valley to confront enemy forces known to be in the area. Soon the enemy fire became so intense that not even Medevac helicopters were permitted to fly in supplies. Hence, “Too Tall” Ed Freeman came to the rescue. Armed with a sense of duty or perhaps personal obligation—take your pick—as a substitute for orders, Captain Ed flew fourteen missions bringing in needed water and ammunition and carrying out some thirty gravely wounded soldiers. His unarmed helicopter, you can be sure, took many, many hits. Captain Ed took four bullets in the legs and arm.
In March of 2001, President George W. Bush would justly honor Captain Ed Freeman in the East Room of the White House. However, if he was honored primarily for courage, as the citation reads, Captain Freeman was honored for the wrong reason. Sure, there was a strong element of courage in his deed, but, as I see it, courage and even bravery are but secondary motives behind incredible deeds.
What, you ask, is courage? My favorite definition for courage is John F. Kennedy’s definition as offered in his “Profiles in Courage.” JFK defined courage as “grace under pressure.”
“Ah, then,” you may well ask, “what is grace?”
As you might guess, there are several definitions. The first two have to do with physical movement, charm and beauty. However, grace is most compellingly described as one of the most admirable human attributes.
Grace can be defined as “a sense of fitness or propriety, a disposition to be generous or helpful, a sense of good will,” and, most compellingly of all, “a favor rendered by someone who need not do so.”
All of the above certainly described Captain Freeman. So what lies at the root of Ed Freeman’s courage?
The late, great Edward R. Murrow (one of my heroes) used to assert that courage is a “cheap commodity in wartime.” As an example of what he meant, Murrow often emphasized how courteous the British people were to one another during air raids. “People,” he observed, “who still remember to thank you for asking them to do you a favor, even under the bombs, aren’t greatly afraid.”
My difficulty with the piece this lady sent me lies not with Captain Freeman as a man of courage; he was certainly that and more. It seems to me that military types assign “courage” as the greatest human attribute when courage is only a facet of what is really our highest attribute.
Next to military heroes, probably the group of people most often assigned badges of courage are the terminally ill and the permanently disabled. Yet these are often the people with whom many able-bodied individuals avoid association. Countless times, I – and others – have been labeled “courageous” by observers just because we dare to cross the street aided by only a white cane. Yet, many of our admirers consciously, socially, professionally, and most certainly romantically separate themselves from us.
I, too, have avoided contact with other disabled persons and the terminally ill out of a set of my own fears. Like those who would award high honors to the brave men and women who defend America, I know that the terminally ill and disabled I occasionally avoid are courageous -- and yet I avoid them.
On September 14, 1965, Captain Freeman obviously did not avoid the very vulnerable. That he was courageous, there isn’t the slightest doubt. However, I insist that courage was only a small factor of the deed he performed that day.
That’s where I need your help. Eliminating courage and patriotism as satisfactory answers to my inquiry, what would you ascribe as lying at the root of Captain Freeman’s valor? What energized Ed Freeman’s courage and bravery?
As I asserted above, military types along with social and political conservatives insist on celebrating Captain Freeman’s admirable virtue -- courage -- but his courage is really only secondary. A mother who goes into a fire to rescue her baby is only secondarily courageous. A disabled college student who attends school doesn’t do so because he or she is brave or courageous. So, I insist that Captain Ed W. Freeman was far more than merely courageous on Tuesday, September 14, 1965.
If we as a people celebrate only our secondarily most powerful or significant human traits, how can we ever expect to live righteous, prosperous, peaceful, and secure lives in this uncertain world?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Just last Thursday morning, one of my readers sent me a piece that’s obviously been traveling around the internet for some time concerning U. S. Army Captain Ed Freeman’s extraordinary rescue mission during the battle of the Ia Drang Valley in Vietnam. It all took place on September 14, 1965.
On that bright Vietnamese morning, Captain Freeman had flown several troops into the Ia Drang Valley to confront enemy forces known to be in the area. Soon the enemy fire became so intense that not even Medevac helicopters were permitted to fly in supplies. Hence, “Too Tall” Ed Freeman came to the rescue. Armed with a sense of duty or perhaps personal obligation—take your pick—as a substitute for orders, Captain Ed flew fourteen missions bringing in needed water and ammunition and carrying out some thirty gravely wounded soldiers. His unarmed helicopter, you can be sure, took many, many hits. Captain Ed took four bullets in the legs and arm.
In March of 2001, President George W. Bush would justly honor Captain Ed Freeman in the East Room of the White House. However, if he was honored primarily for courage, as the citation reads, Captain Freeman was honored for the wrong reason. Sure, there was a strong element of courage in his deed, but, as I see it, courage and even bravery are but secondary motives behind incredible deeds.
What, you ask, is courage? My favorite definition for courage is John F. Kennedy’s definition as offered in his “Profiles in Courage.” JFK defined courage as “grace under pressure.”
“Ah, then,” you may well ask, “what is grace?”
As you might guess, there are several definitions. The first two have to do with physical movement, charm and beauty. However, grace is most compellingly described as one of the most admirable human attributes.
Grace can be defined as “a sense of fitness or propriety, a disposition to be generous or helpful, a sense of good will,” and, most compellingly of all, “a favor rendered by someone who need not do so.”
All of the above certainly described Captain Freeman. So what lies at the root of Ed Freeman’s courage?
The late, great Edward R. Murrow (one of my heroes) used to assert that courage is a “cheap commodity in wartime.” As an example of what he meant, Murrow often emphasized how courteous the British people were to one another during air raids. “People,” he observed, “who still remember to thank you for asking them to do you a favor, even under the bombs, aren’t greatly afraid.”
My difficulty with the piece this lady sent me lies not with Captain Freeman as a man of courage; he was certainly that and more. It seems to me that military types assign “courage” as the greatest human attribute when courage is only a facet of what is really our highest attribute.
Next to military heroes, probably the group of people most often assigned badges of courage are the terminally ill and the permanently disabled. Yet these are often the people with whom many able-bodied individuals avoid association. Countless times, I – and others – have been labeled “courageous” by observers just because we dare to cross the street aided by only a white cane. Yet, many of our admirers consciously, socially, professionally, and most certainly romantically separate themselves from us.
I, too, have avoided contact with other disabled persons and the terminally ill out of a set of my own fears. Like those who would award high honors to the brave men and women who defend America, I know that the terminally ill and disabled I occasionally avoid are courageous -- and yet I avoid them.
On September 14, 1965, Captain Freeman obviously did not avoid the very vulnerable. That he was courageous, there isn’t the slightest doubt. However, I insist that courage was only a small factor of the deed he performed that day.
That’s where I need your help. Eliminating courage and patriotism as satisfactory answers to my inquiry, what would you ascribe as lying at the root of Captain Freeman’s valor? What energized Ed Freeman’s courage and bravery?
As I asserted above, military types along with social and political conservatives insist on celebrating Captain Freeman’s admirable virtue -- courage -- but his courage is really only secondary. A mother who goes into a fire to rescue her baby is only secondarily courageous. A disabled college student who attends school doesn’t do so because he or she is brave or courageous. So, I insist that Captain Ed W. Freeman was far more than merely courageous on Tuesday, September 14, 1965.
If we as a people celebrate only our secondarily most powerful or significant human traits, how can we ever expect to live righteous, prosperous, peaceful, and secure lives in this uncertain world?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, July 5, 2010
WHAT DIDST THOU CELEBRATE YESTERDAY?
By Edwin Cooney
No, no! You can’t fool me. I saw you crunching potato chips—periodically soaking them in chip dip—munching on hotdogs, hamburgers, and barbecued chicken. Like “The Shadow” from old time radio, I was an unseen witness as you swallowed potato and pasta salads and gnawed corn from the cob while swilling down punch, soda and beer. I never saw your hand over your heart, but you stood up during the seventh inning stretch of that baseball game you were enjoying and belted out both “Take Me Out to the Ball Game” and “God Bless America.” What’s more, you didn’t even seem to care whether or not you were singing in tune. As I said, don’t kid me, you were definitely celebrating something quite special!
What? You were celebrating the Fourth of July, America’s birthday, you say? Wow! America’s 234th birthday, you insist! Yes, indeed, I know, that’s a mess of birthdays. Tell me, though, and be more precise, please: why were you celebrating America’s 234th birthday?
One of the most traditional American institutions is the Fourth of July speech or written commentary declaring what this hallowed day ought to mean to you. Hence, as something of a switch, I offer a set of questions that may enable you to decide for yourself (for a change) yesterday's real significance.
Which of the following do you most associate with the Fourth of July: fireworks, parades, toasted marshmallows, watermelon, soda, and beer -- or the assertion that “all men are created equal?”
Which of the following phrases fits the way you regard the Fourth of July: is it Independence Day or America’s birthday?
When was America conceived and what portion of the population was most responsible for nurturing America’s conception? Was it the rich, the poor, the average citizen, the religious, the good, the bad, the educated, the respectful, the opportunistic, the elite, or a combination of these? Be specific if you say “a combination” of all of the above.
If the American colonies were to be “free and independent states from Great Britain,” did that automatically mean a “republican form of government” for you and me?
Do the words “freedom” and “independence” mean the same thing? If not, how do they differ?
Did you celebrate what you’ve been told about America or what you’ve figured out for yourself?
If America’s independence is a gift from God is the independence of every other nation in the world also a gift from God?
Should God bless America exclusively? Should we care whether or not God blesses other nations as well?
If independence stands for freedom, what kind of freedom? Are we free to do what we want to, what we can, or what we ought?
If Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton were to return today, would they recognize Twenty-First Century America as their legacy? What aspects of American life would they endorse and which would they disown?
Did the Declaration of Independence guarantee personal freedom?
Has the celebration of the “Fourth of July” always been a nonpartisan event? Might Federalist New England have favored a different date for celebration than Democratic-Republican Virginia?
Finally, should we make room on the calendar (though admittedly there’s little room remaining) to celebrate “Freedom Day?”
Whoops! This was to be a questionnaire, not a commentary -- except that the idea behind the last question is for me so compelling!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No, no! You can’t fool me. I saw you crunching potato chips—periodically soaking them in chip dip—munching on hotdogs, hamburgers, and barbecued chicken. Like “The Shadow” from old time radio, I was an unseen witness as you swallowed potato and pasta salads and gnawed corn from the cob while swilling down punch, soda and beer. I never saw your hand over your heart, but you stood up during the seventh inning stretch of that baseball game you were enjoying and belted out both “Take Me Out to the Ball Game” and “God Bless America.” What’s more, you didn’t even seem to care whether or not you were singing in tune. As I said, don’t kid me, you were definitely celebrating something quite special!
What? You were celebrating the Fourth of July, America’s birthday, you say? Wow! America’s 234th birthday, you insist! Yes, indeed, I know, that’s a mess of birthdays. Tell me, though, and be more precise, please: why were you celebrating America’s 234th birthday?
One of the most traditional American institutions is the Fourth of July speech or written commentary declaring what this hallowed day ought to mean to you. Hence, as something of a switch, I offer a set of questions that may enable you to decide for yourself (for a change) yesterday's real significance.
Which of the following do you most associate with the Fourth of July: fireworks, parades, toasted marshmallows, watermelon, soda, and beer -- or the assertion that “all men are created equal?”
Which of the following phrases fits the way you regard the Fourth of July: is it Independence Day or America’s birthday?
When was America conceived and what portion of the population was most responsible for nurturing America’s conception? Was it the rich, the poor, the average citizen, the religious, the good, the bad, the educated, the respectful, the opportunistic, the elite, or a combination of these? Be specific if you say “a combination” of all of the above.
If the American colonies were to be “free and independent states from Great Britain,” did that automatically mean a “republican form of government” for you and me?
Do the words “freedom” and “independence” mean the same thing? If not, how do they differ?
Did you celebrate what you’ve been told about America or what you’ve figured out for yourself?
If America’s independence is a gift from God is the independence of every other nation in the world also a gift from God?
Should God bless America exclusively? Should we care whether or not God blesses other nations as well?
If independence stands for freedom, what kind of freedom? Are we free to do what we want to, what we can, or what we ought?
If Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton were to return today, would they recognize Twenty-First Century America as their legacy? What aspects of American life would they endorse and which would they disown?
Did the Declaration of Independence guarantee personal freedom?
Has the celebration of the “Fourth of July” always been a nonpartisan event? Might Federalist New England have favored a different date for celebration than Democratic-Republican Virginia?
Finally, should we make room on the calendar (though admittedly there’s little room remaining) to celebrate “Freedom Day?”
Whoops! This was to be a questionnaire, not a commentary -- except that the idea behind the last question is for me so compelling!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)