By Edwin Cooney
“What can I do for you?” asks the pretty sales clerk.
“How can I help you?” asks the telephone receptionist.
“What-do-ya need, mac?” chirps the local bar tender.
Usually we know the answers to these questions, because the answer to each of these consists of some kind of transaction. The more intimate or personal these kinds of inquiries, the more powerful they inevitably are.
Most of us consider it reasonably easy to determine what we want from relationships, but that determination is often dependent on factors that have a way of occurring suddenly. A romantic relationship can be especially tricky since each of us brings to a very emotional and, perhaps, even a volatile situation, a lifetime of conflicting hopes, fears, needs, and expectations that defy clear communication.
Forthright communication is the strongest bulwark against disappointment, but forthright communication (some would call it “straight talk”) is invariably governed by conflicting forces and needs from deep within that may be continuously shifting. In other words, what we want from one another or what we have to offer each other often changes -- occasionally with the suddenness and power of an 8.0 earthquake.
All of us have, at some point in life, surprised ourselves by our personal behavior. The forces that lead us to such behavior often slowly grow yet may suddenly appear.
When I was young, I made three promises to myself. I decided I would conduct my life so as to avoid three things: I’d never get drunk, never be fired from employment and, most of all, never be divorced. Since I made that pledge at age twenty-one (when I was young and very idealistic), I have experienced all three of these states of being.
The first, inebriation, was quite deliberate. Heartsick over the loss of my college sweetheart one Friday night in February of 1973, I went to our college rathskeller (which I understand no longer exists) and chug-a-lugged five or six beers. Although I had a buzz on, I wasn’t certain that I was really drunk except that my walk back to the dormitory on the ice was much easier than my earlier trek to the rathskeller on that very same ice. What surprised me was the degree to which I enjoyed the experience. It caused no anger or resentment nor feeling of personal sorrow — rather, it relaxed me. I remember visiting the room of my resident advisor, David (who had recently broken his leg in a skiing accident) to ask him what he thought of my state of sobriety. “You’re quite drunk, Ed,” he laughingly pronounced. So, off to bed and to sleep I went.
As for my “firing,” my former employer once told me that it was her impression that I wanted to quit — so, she fired me. She had good reason to think that, so “Christians, one, Lions, one,” as they say.
As for my divorce, that’s a story laden with the hopes, fears, needs, and efforts of two people who meant to do nothing but the best for one another and for their children. Neither of us really wanted it; however, we came to believe that it was the best solution to the conflicts we were experiencing.
Yesterday, November 28th, 2010, I reached a milestone in life—the great age of sixty-five years. I can vividly recall when the very idea of reaching such an age was unfathomably distant. Even worse, men and women I knew of that “great age” seemed to be either permanently crotchety, feeble or both. Now, some of them -- especially the ladies --combine energy with lightheartedness and are quite attractive. Hence, age sixty-five is what I am if not who I am and beckons me to make the most of it.
Since yesterday was the first day of a new age, I am asking myself what do I want from the rest of my life?
Over the years, my emphasis has shifted from the sins I was determined to avoid to who I would like to be.
May God grant me the energy to serve and be served, the willingness to need and be needed and, above all, the strength to realize that all forms of human affection are not what people owe me but rather a gift to me. After all, the more I serve, the more I offer, the better prepared I’ll be to face whatever eternity requires of me.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 29, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
AMERICA--STRIPPED OF HER INNOCENCE
By Edwin Cooney
Exactly forty-seven years ago today, John Fitzgerald Kennedy sat in the rear right-hand seat of his presidential limousine. His right hand was raised to about the level of his forehead as he began another of the many waves he’d been sending the excited crowd in Dallas, Texas. Suddenly, his smile turned to a grimace as the first bullet passed through the right side of the back of his neck and exited near the knot of his tie. “My God, I’m hit!” said America’s thirty-fifth president. Those were his final words. Seconds later he was blown away forever.
Ah! But not quite. Instantaneously, he became America’s greatest martyr since Abraham Lincoln. His shocked widow Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, who had been caked in her husband’s blood on that traumatic day, urged the public to think of Jack Kennedy’s presidency as Camelot, a time and a domain of grace and nobility. For over a decade following that heart wrenching weekend, John F. Kennedy was for most Americans the ideal president. He was young, vigorous, intelligent, brave, and handsome. His legacy included the Peace Corps, the Alliance for Progress (the aid program for Latin America) and victory over Nikita Khrushchev in the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. His signature on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with Great Britain and the Soviet Union in October 1963 made him a champion of peace. Finally, he was, along with Dr. Martin Luther King, a gallant leader for civil rights.
To listen to his spontaneous responses to reporters’ questions during news conferences is both informative and entertaining. His combination Boston/Harvard accent suggested essential learnedness and polished eloquence; more significantly, however, the manner and tone of his responses clarified the issues and humanized the presidency.
Up until the 1930s and the extensive use of radio and newsreel film by Franklin Roosevelt, the personality of the President of the United States was largely unknown to most Americans. Even then, most Americans were totally unaware of the effect of FDR’s 1921 attack of polio, which was undoubtedly a significant factor affecting FDR’s outlook on life—-public and private. What they did learn, however, was what they needed to know. They learned that he was knowledgeable and that he knew where he wanted to take the nation. His rich, warm, cultured radio voice made him a national lodestar guiding America through the depression. Although obviously a politician, he was the people’s politician and most of them grew to love him.
FDR was followed by “give ‘em hell Harry” Truman: plain looking, plainspoken and a feisty politician. He was a proud father who once wrote to music critic Paul Hume (who was critical of daughter Margaret’s on-stage singing performance) that if he ever met him he’d “need a new nose and plenty of beefsteak.”
Next came Dwight Eisenhower — affable, devoted to the golf course, and a lover of westerns. Ike, America’s most celebrated World War II hero, could be your grandfather as easily as he could be your president and leader of the free world.
Then came Jack Kennedy: young, “vigorous,” glamorous, with a very attractive family who were fun to watch, listen to and even poke fun at. Most everyone who wanted to know the personable chief executive was sure they knew him. After all, like many others he’d gone to war, married a lovely lady, fathered children, loved sports and good cigars. He was a patriot who appeared not to take himself too seriously. Although his performance during the Cuban Bay of Pigs fiasco showed he wasn’t perfect, all of us understood that nobody’s perfect. So, without quarreling with him, we let him lead us into outer space and through the Berlin Crisis of late 1961. We went to the Berlin Wall and to Ireland with him in 1963. Then, we were in Dallas, Texas with him when so suddenly and irrevocably -- he was gone!
Someone once observed that America awakened on the morning of Saturday, November 23rd, 1963 “stripped of her innocence!” Hence, America and its leaders became real rather than innocent. First up was LBJ and the turmoil of Vietnam. Next came the resentful and deceptive Nixon administration. Then, Jerry Ford pardoned the “chief deceiver.” After that, Jimmy Carter gave away our Panama Canal. Ronald Reagan, who could smell the mistakes of others a mile away, couldn’t recognize his own when he aided the Contras in Nicaragua and broke the very law he signed, George H. W. Bush broke his promise not to raise taxes. Bill Clinton was too self-centered to realize when he was misusing the Oval Office. George W. Bush deceived himself and his fellow citizens with a war to prevent the use of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. Finally, President Barack Obama apologized to the “Third World” for mistakes most Americans don’t believe America really made.
If America, stripped of her innocence, is now living more realistically… pardon me, but I’m headed straight back to Camelot!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Exactly forty-seven years ago today, John Fitzgerald Kennedy sat in the rear right-hand seat of his presidential limousine. His right hand was raised to about the level of his forehead as he began another of the many waves he’d been sending the excited crowd in Dallas, Texas. Suddenly, his smile turned to a grimace as the first bullet passed through the right side of the back of his neck and exited near the knot of his tie. “My God, I’m hit!” said America’s thirty-fifth president. Those were his final words. Seconds later he was blown away forever.
Ah! But not quite. Instantaneously, he became America’s greatest martyr since Abraham Lincoln. His shocked widow Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, who had been caked in her husband’s blood on that traumatic day, urged the public to think of Jack Kennedy’s presidency as Camelot, a time and a domain of grace and nobility. For over a decade following that heart wrenching weekend, John F. Kennedy was for most Americans the ideal president. He was young, vigorous, intelligent, brave, and handsome. His legacy included the Peace Corps, the Alliance for Progress (the aid program for Latin America) and victory over Nikita Khrushchev in the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. His signature on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with Great Britain and the Soviet Union in October 1963 made him a champion of peace. Finally, he was, along with Dr. Martin Luther King, a gallant leader for civil rights.
To listen to his spontaneous responses to reporters’ questions during news conferences is both informative and entertaining. His combination Boston/Harvard accent suggested essential learnedness and polished eloquence; more significantly, however, the manner and tone of his responses clarified the issues and humanized the presidency.
Up until the 1930s and the extensive use of radio and newsreel film by Franklin Roosevelt, the personality of the President of the United States was largely unknown to most Americans. Even then, most Americans were totally unaware of the effect of FDR’s 1921 attack of polio, which was undoubtedly a significant factor affecting FDR’s outlook on life—-public and private. What they did learn, however, was what they needed to know. They learned that he was knowledgeable and that he knew where he wanted to take the nation. His rich, warm, cultured radio voice made him a national lodestar guiding America through the depression. Although obviously a politician, he was the people’s politician and most of them grew to love him.
FDR was followed by “give ‘em hell Harry” Truman: plain looking, plainspoken and a feisty politician. He was a proud father who once wrote to music critic Paul Hume (who was critical of daughter Margaret’s on-stage singing performance) that if he ever met him he’d “need a new nose and plenty of beefsteak.”
Next came Dwight Eisenhower — affable, devoted to the golf course, and a lover of westerns. Ike, America’s most celebrated World War II hero, could be your grandfather as easily as he could be your president and leader of the free world.
Then came Jack Kennedy: young, “vigorous,” glamorous, with a very attractive family who were fun to watch, listen to and even poke fun at. Most everyone who wanted to know the personable chief executive was sure they knew him. After all, like many others he’d gone to war, married a lovely lady, fathered children, loved sports and good cigars. He was a patriot who appeared not to take himself too seriously. Although his performance during the Cuban Bay of Pigs fiasco showed he wasn’t perfect, all of us understood that nobody’s perfect. So, without quarreling with him, we let him lead us into outer space and through the Berlin Crisis of late 1961. We went to the Berlin Wall and to Ireland with him in 1963. Then, we were in Dallas, Texas with him when so suddenly and irrevocably -- he was gone!
Someone once observed that America awakened on the morning of Saturday, November 23rd, 1963 “stripped of her innocence!” Hence, America and its leaders became real rather than innocent. First up was LBJ and the turmoil of Vietnam. Next came the resentful and deceptive Nixon administration. Then, Jerry Ford pardoned the “chief deceiver.” After that, Jimmy Carter gave away our Panama Canal. Ronald Reagan, who could smell the mistakes of others a mile away, couldn’t recognize his own when he aided the Contras in Nicaragua and broke the very law he signed, George H. W. Bush broke his promise not to raise taxes. Bill Clinton was too self-centered to realize when he was misusing the Oval Office. George W. Bush deceived himself and his fellow citizens with a war to prevent the use of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. Finally, President Barack Obama apologized to the “Third World” for mistakes most Americans don’t believe America really made.
If America, stripped of her innocence, is now living more realistically… pardon me, but I’m headed straight back to Camelot!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 15, 2010
WHEN WAR GLORY PREVAILS
By Edwin Cooney
Last Thursday being Veteran’s Day, it was almost inevitable that I would hear once again Sergeant Barry Sadler’s big 1966 hit “The Ballad of the Green Berets.”
As I listened to Sergeant Sadler’s description of these men with “silver wings upon their chests,” I was both stirred and saddened. I was stirred by my memory of the time the song was popular and by its description of men of patriotism. However, I was saddened by the idea that the fighting man represents “America’s best.”
Those of us born between 1940 and 1960 were raised on the glorious deeds of those who fought and died for our freedom during World War II. We revered the flag and loved the soldier, most of all perhaps, the handsome and daring marine. We were thrilled with the memory of FDR’s and especially Winston Churchill’s wartime eloquence. We only hoped that as the Soviet menace threatened to engulf us, we would be as well protected by our current leaders as we were by those of yesterday.
Then came the war in Vietnam. Suddenly, what President Eisenhower once identified as the “Military-Industrial Complex” joined forces with our political establishment to convince an increasingly dubious younger generation that unquestioning military service was a patriotic obligation that went along with one’s American birthright! Thus, as the war dragged on and the number of casualties increased, many Americans began to see the military mindset as being coldly indifferent to young America’s legitimate anguish regarding the wisdom, legality and even the morality of that war.
Hence, many Americans invariably vented their frustration and anger with the Vietnam War on Vietnam veterans whether they reluctantly or enthusiastically answered the calls of Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon to fight Vietnam’s civil war. For the brave soldiers of the mid and late 1960s and 1970s there would be fewer benefits and much less appreciation than their World War II fathers and uncles enjoyed.
One has to be 50 years old to have experienced the anguish of Vietnam. Most people today believe that President Reagan’s willingness to play nuclear stick-em-up more than the decay of the Soviet system ended the cold war. Today’s veterans recall with pride President George H. W. Bush’s glorious adventures into Panama and the Persian Gulf. President Clinton even gets a grudging pat on the back for limited casualties during the 1999 conflict in the Balkans. As for President George W. Bush, criticism of his Iraqi conquest is somewhat muffled due to the comparative sizes of the Iraqi versus Vietnamese war casualty lists. Additionally, our national political leadership has become savvy enough to devise ways to keep the horrors of war off television. Presidents today don’t have to wonder as did LBJ and RMN how well the war news as edited by independent evening network news broadcasters is being digested at America’s supper tables.
While listening to the lyrics of Sergeant Sadler’s forty-four year-old hit, I wondered: were the men of the Green Berets really “America’s best?” Was it then and is it now wise to believe that men whose mission is internationally sanctioned murder, even in the defense of freedom, are delivering the “best” America has to offer? Even more, isn’t it sad that Sergeant Sadler’s Green Beret hero’s fondest wish for his son is that he too may wear “silver wings upon his chest” and thus perhaps suffer his father’s fate!
Surely, modern America stands for political, social, economic and religious freedom to a greater degree than any other nation in the world. However, I find the following perspective compelling even when considering how legitimate and necessary our military establishment is to protect our national sovereignty. The need for fighting men and women really and truly represents human failure more than it does human glory! Certainly, we are right to honor the bravery, patriotism and “supreme sacrifice” of what Dwight D. Eisenhower used to refer to as “the regular soldier.” Ike used to insist that “…a soldier is an agent of his government to do a very necessary and desperate task.”
Unlike the doctor who cures illness, the teacher who dispenses knowledge or the preacher who instills religious faith, the courageous soldier’s skills and tasks are at the command of often willful, greedy, suspicious and egocentric national leaders of numerous ideologies. Remember, during wartime, cruelty, courage and valor visit all sides.
Even as the individual soldier’s glory legitimately shines in all of our hearts, we can be sure of two realities. The “regular soldier” never starts a war—and thus all honor is due to his name. However, excessive glorification of his suffering and death invariably fuels the righteous anger that makes future wars almost inevitable.
Of course, we should celebrate Memorial and Veterans Days so long as we’re determined to honor the memory of all veterans by making the future safer than the world we called on them to “please, please save!”
As for “America’s best,” I nominate the men and women of the American Red Cross!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Last Thursday being Veteran’s Day, it was almost inevitable that I would hear once again Sergeant Barry Sadler’s big 1966 hit “The Ballad of the Green Berets.”
As I listened to Sergeant Sadler’s description of these men with “silver wings upon their chests,” I was both stirred and saddened. I was stirred by my memory of the time the song was popular and by its description of men of patriotism. However, I was saddened by the idea that the fighting man represents “America’s best.”
Those of us born between 1940 and 1960 were raised on the glorious deeds of those who fought and died for our freedom during World War II. We revered the flag and loved the soldier, most of all perhaps, the handsome and daring marine. We were thrilled with the memory of FDR’s and especially Winston Churchill’s wartime eloquence. We only hoped that as the Soviet menace threatened to engulf us, we would be as well protected by our current leaders as we were by those of yesterday.
Then came the war in Vietnam. Suddenly, what President Eisenhower once identified as the “Military-Industrial Complex” joined forces with our political establishment to convince an increasingly dubious younger generation that unquestioning military service was a patriotic obligation that went along with one’s American birthright! Thus, as the war dragged on and the number of casualties increased, many Americans began to see the military mindset as being coldly indifferent to young America’s legitimate anguish regarding the wisdom, legality and even the morality of that war.
Hence, many Americans invariably vented their frustration and anger with the Vietnam War on Vietnam veterans whether they reluctantly or enthusiastically answered the calls of Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon to fight Vietnam’s civil war. For the brave soldiers of the mid and late 1960s and 1970s there would be fewer benefits and much less appreciation than their World War II fathers and uncles enjoyed.
One has to be 50 years old to have experienced the anguish of Vietnam. Most people today believe that President Reagan’s willingness to play nuclear stick-em-up more than the decay of the Soviet system ended the cold war. Today’s veterans recall with pride President George H. W. Bush’s glorious adventures into Panama and the Persian Gulf. President Clinton even gets a grudging pat on the back for limited casualties during the 1999 conflict in the Balkans. As for President George W. Bush, criticism of his Iraqi conquest is somewhat muffled due to the comparative sizes of the Iraqi versus Vietnamese war casualty lists. Additionally, our national political leadership has become savvy enough to devise ways to keep the horrors of war off television. Presidents today don’t have to wonder as did LBJ and RMN how well the war news as edited by independent evening network news broadcasters is being digested at America’s supper tables.
While listening to the lyrics of Sergeant Sadler’s forty-four year-old hit, I wondered: were the men of the Green Berets really “America’s best?” Was it then and is it now wise to believe that men whose mission is internationally sanctioned murder, even in the defense of freedom, are delivering the “best” America has to offer? Even more, isn’t it sad that Sergeant Sadler’s Green Beret hero’s fondest wish for his son is that he too may wear “silver wings upon his chest” and thus perhaps suffer his father’s fate!
Surely, modern America stands for political, social, economic and religious freedom to a greater degree than any other nation in the world. However, I find the following perspective compelling even when considering how legitimate and necessary our military establishment is to protect our national sovereignty. The need for fighting men and women really and truly represents human failure more than it does human glory! Certainly, we are right to honor the bravery, patriotism and “supreme sacrifice” of what Dwight D. Eisenhower used to refer to as “the regular soldier.” Ike used to insist that “…a soldier is an agent of his government to do a very necessary and desperate task.”
Unlike the doctor who cures illness, the teacher who dispenses knowledge or the preacher who instills religious faith, the courageous soldier’s skills and tasks are at the command of often willful, greedy, suspicious and egocentric national leaders of numerous ideologies. Remember, during wartime, cruelty, courage and valor visit all sides.
Even as the individual soldier’s glory legitimately shines in all of our hearts, we can be sure of two realities. The “regular soldier” never starts a war—and thus all honor is due to his name. However, excessive glorification of his suffering and death invariably fuels the righteous anger that makes future wars almost inevitable.
Of course, we should celebrate Memorial and Veterans Days so long as we’re determined to honor the memory of all veterans by making the future safer than the world we called on them to “please, please save!”
As for “America’s best,” I nominate the men and women of the American Red Cross!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 1, 2010
THE WORLD SERIES—AMERICA’S TRADITION OF UNPREDICTABILITY
By Edwin Cooney
As excited San Franciscans and Dallas/Arlingtonians wrap themselves in the passion of the 106th World Series, they’re merely carrying on a tradition -- and tradition is as American as cherry pie.
Teddy Roosevelt was President when the Boston Americans (now known as the Red Sox) took on the Pittsburgh Pirates in the first modern fall classic. The date was Thursday, October 1st, 1903. The place was the Huntington Avenue Grounds in Boston, Massachusetts.
Boston’s starter was Cy (Denton True) Young who would retire with a career record of 511 wins and 316 losses. His opponent was Deacon (Charles Louis) Phillippe whose career totals would be a mere 186 wins and 108 losses. One would naturally expect that the great Cy Young would win the first World Series game, except that Deacon Phillippe was the unpredictable 7 to 3 victor. The series would go for eight games and be determined when Boston clinched their fifth win in the best five out of nine series. Again, it wasn’t Cy Young who brought the glory to Boston, but “Big Bill” William Henry Dinneen who picked up three of Boston’s triumphs—Young getting the other two. The series would conclude on Tuesday, October 13th. In case you wondered, Bill Dinneen would actually have a losing career record of 170 wins and 177 losses.
On the opening day of the 1918 World Series, baseball spontaneously began a tradition. In the middle of the seventh inning, a military band played “The Star Spangled Banner.” Ever since that Thursday, September 5th (the earliest ever date for a World Series opener), the “Star Spangled Banner” hasn’t missed a major league game. That day’s tribute to Americans fighting and dying on the battlefields of World War I might well have been a factor in the decision by Congress and President Herbert Hoover to make Francis Scott Key’s poem and John Stafford Smith’s British men’s social club drinking song the National Anthem for America. Once again tradition and unpredictability became World Series partners.
As this is written, the San Francisco Giants appear to have a solid 2 games to nothing grip on the series outcome, but then again, numerous times teams down 2 games to nothing have triumphed as “World Champs.” For example:
The 1955 World Champion Brooklyn Dodgers were down 2 games to nothing before beating the Yankees for their first World Series triumph after eight tries. They’d lost to the Red Sox in 1916; to the Indians in 1920; and to the Yankees in 1941, 47, 49, 52 and 53.
The 1965 Los Angeles Dodgers had to come back from a 2/zip deficit to beat the Minnesota Twins in seven games.
The 1971 Pirates and the 1996 Yankees dropped their first two games to their opponents (the Orioles and the Braves, respectively) before bringing home the World Series bacon.
Then there are the sideline unpredictabilities about the World Series: how about the 1989 earthquake series between the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland A’s? The A’s would sweep the Giants, but it would take two weeks rather than five days. At 5:04 p.m. on Tuesday, October 17th, Candlestick Park was rocked by a 6.9 earthquake resulting in a loss of power to the stadium and a shaken community. Ten days later, on Friday, October 27th,, the series resumed and the A’s completed their sweep.
Who’d have predicted the “impossible dream” Red Sox of 1967? They never expected to get into the series and yet they took the favored Cardinals to seven games. Who would have predicted “The Miracle Mets of 1969” who, after losing the opener to the heavily favored Orioles, would win the next four in a row.
Then there was the spectacle in the 2002 World Series with Giants’ first baseman J. T. Snow, scooping up the team’s tiny bat boy, Manager Dusty Baker’s 3 year-old son, as he scored from second base on an extra base hit. The little fellow had wandered from the dugout onto the field while his father was otherwise occupied. Had there been a violent play at home plate consisting of a throw from the outfield and a home plate collision, there could have been a disaster.
Sports writers and fans will attempt to balance Giants’ pitching against the speed and power of the Rangers. Home field advantage will be weighed against momentum—which many insist doesn’t exist in baseball. Some will anguish for the Giants who haven’t won a World Series since they left New York 52 years ago. Others insist that justice requires a Rangers’ victory because they’ve never even been in a World Series. (Besides, in Texas, The Texas Rangers always get their target!) Therein lies the heart of the World Series story, Baseball’s traditional unpredictability. It’s about hope and disappointment. If “underdogs” only occasionally win (like the 1960 Pirates over the Yankees exactly 50 years ago), it’s all the sweeter to their fans.
Victory brings hope for more victory, yet loss is never quite strong enough to quench hope.
As for hope, it’s as traditional to Americans as the World Series and cherry pie!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
As excited San Franciscans and Dallas/Arlingtonians wrap themselves in the passion of the 106th World Series, they’re merely carrying on a tradition -- and tradition is as American as cherry pie.
Teddy Roosevelt was President when the Boston Americans (now known as the Red Sox) took on the Pittsburgh Pirates in the first modern fall classic. The date was Thursday, October 1st, 1903. The place was the Huntington Avenue Grounds in Boston, Massachusetts.
Boston’s starter was Cy (Denton True) Young who would retire with a career record of 511 wins and 316 losses. His opponent was Deacon (Charles Louis) Phillippe whose career totals would be a mere 186 wins and 108 losses. One would naturally expect that the great Cy Young would win the first World Series game, except that Deacon Phillippe was the unpredictable 7 to 3 victor. The series would go for eight games and be determined when Boston clinched their fifth win in the best five out of nine series. Again, it wasn’t Cy Young who brought the glory to Boston, but “Big Bill” William Henry Dinneen who picked up three of Boston’s triumphs—Young getting the other two. The series would conclude on Tuesday, October 13th. In case you wondered, Bill Dinneen would actually have a losing career record of 170 wins and 177 losses.
On the opening day of the 1918 World Series, baseball spontaneously began a tradition. In the middle of the seventh inning, a military band played “The Star Spangled Banner.” Ever since that Thursday, September 5th (the earliest ever date for a World Series opener), the “Star Spangled Banner” hasn’t missed a major league game. That day’s tribute to Americans fighting and dying on the battlefields of World War I might well have been a factor in the decision by Congress and President Herbert Hoover to make Francis Scott Key’s poem and John Stafford Smith’s British men’s social club drinking song the National Anthem for America. Once again tradition and unpredictability became World Series partners.
As this is written, the San Francisco Giants appear to have a solid 2 games to nothing grip on the series outcome, but then again, numerous times teams down 2 games to nothing have triumphed as “World Champs.” For example:
The 1955 World Champion Brooklyn Dodgers were down 2 games to nothing before beating the Yankees for their first World Series triumph after eight tries. They’d lost to the Red Sox in 1916; to the Indians in 1920; and to the Yankees in 1941, 47, 49, 52 and 53.
The 1965 Los Angeles Dodgers had to come back from a 2/zip deficit to beat the Minnesota Twins in seven games.
The 1971 Pirates and the 1996 Yankees dropped their first two games to their opponents (the Orioles and the Braves, respectively) before bringing home the World Series bacon.
Then there are the sideline unpredictabilities about the World Series: how about the 1989 earthquake series between the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland A’s? The A’s would sweep the Giants, but it would take two weeks rather than five days. At 5:04 p.m. on Tuesday, October 17th, Candlestick Park was rocked by a 6.9 earthquake resulting in a loss of power to the stadium and a shaken community. Ten days later, on Friday, October 27th,, the series resumed and the A’s completed their sweep.
Who’d have predicted the “impossible dream” Red Sox of 1967? They never expected to get into the series and yet they took the favored Cardinals to seven games. Who would have predicted “The Miracle Mets of 1969” who, after losing the opener to the heavily favored Orioles, would win the next four in a row.
Then there was the spectacle in the 2002 World Series with Giants’ first baseman J. T. Snow, scooping up the team’s tiny bat boy, Manager Dusty Baker’s 3 year-old son, as he scored from second base on an extra base hit. The little fellow had wandered from the dugout onto the field while his father was otherwise occupied. Had there been a violent play at home plate consisting of a throw from the outfield and a home plate collision, there could have been a disaster.
Sports writers and fans will attempt to balance Giants’ pitching against the speed and power of the Rangers. Home field advantage will be weighed against momentum—which many insist doesn’t exist in baseball. Some will anguish for the Giants who haven’t won a World Series since they left New York 52 years ago. Others insist that justice requires a Rangers’ victory because they’ve never even been in a World Series. (Besides, in Texas, The Texas Rangers always get their target!) Therein lies the heart of the World Series story, Baseball’s traditional unpredictability. It’s about hope and disappointment. If “underdogs” only occasionally win (like the 1960 Pirates over the Yankees exactly 50 years ago), it’s all the sweeter to their fans.
Victory brings hope for more victory, yet loss is never quite strong enough to quench hope.
As for hope, it’s as traditional to Americans as the World Series and cherry pie!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)