By Edwin Cooney
In response to my recent commentary on “common sense,” one of my readers sent me the following:
“Common sense tells me that it’s almost time to wish you holiday greetings. But there will be no nativity scene at the capitol. They can’t find three wise men in Washington D.C.”
I’m incredulous over that news, aren’t you? If there aren’t three wise men in the capital of the freest, richest, most vital nation on earth, what does that say about our past? What does it portend for our future? Might there be two or perhaps even one wise man in Washington, D.C.? Maybe he lives in the Maryland or Virginia suburbs of the capital. Of course, we can’t insist that he lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! If we did, we’d have to suggest that a social minority Democrat could be wise! Okay, if you insist, I’ll very reluctantly scratch that one -- after all, I’ve never claimed to be wise myself! Oh, well! Let’s see now! Hmmm! Maybe Chief Justice John G. Roberts could be considered a wise man. Hmmm! Nah! A truly wise man could hardly have been born in Buffalo, New York! I must add, however, that the wisest lady I ever knew was born in Buffalo. But we’re looking for wise men, aren’t we? If the President and the Chief Justice of the United States must be ruled out, who else is there?
Of course, wise men of biblical days advised absolute rulers. If things went well enough for those rulers, the designated wise men remained wise men. Otherwise, having been demoted to a rank lower than manhood itself, they probably disappeared. Thus, we have the inevitable question: what makes a man wise? That question brings up still another question: do men have a monopoly over women on wisdom?
Then there’s the daunting question: What exactly is wisdom? Owls are supposed to be wise. Foxes are wise, in a sly and “foxy” way, of course! Successful politicians are supposedly clever, manipulative and egotistic. As for lawyers, Republican lawyers are of course necessary beings while Democratic lawyers are grasping shysters lacking the least pretences to wisdom.
So, who’s wise and what is wisdom? Now, I’d be glad to define wisdom for you, but the question is whether or not you’d be wise enough to endorse my definition. After all, much wisdom is described in negative terms such as “the batter was wise not to swing at that pitch!” “Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread!” Wise men are prudent! The wise among us are more judicious than aggressive or creative! Finally, the wise ones, much of the time, are required to wear beards, aren’t they?
In the first fifty years of our federal republic (1789 - 1839), Washington, the two Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Jackson, a total of seven men, were largely regarded as wise men. In the second fifty years (1840 through 1890), Senators Clay, Webster, Calhoun and Presidents Lincoln and Grant, a total of five men, were regarded as wise. (Note that Clay, Webster and Calhoun helped bring about the Civil War, but they were seen as wise men nonetheless.) In the third fifty year period (1891 - 1941) Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes were among the wise of the land. The fourth fifty years (1942 to 1992), Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan and Chief Justice Earl Warren, a total of four men, were among the wise of that era. In the fifth fifty year period, the years since 1993, perhaps the wisest man of this generation so far is Colin Powell a man who decided in 1996 not to run for president.
As I perceive the political and socio/religious American scene in late 2011, cynicism appears much more prevalent than wisdom. What scares me is that we may be too cynical to even recognize wisdom.
Back in the 1950s, the late great broadcaster and newsman Edward R. Murrow along with his producer Fred W. Friendly put together a series of broadcasts in which prominent Americans such as Helen Keller, Helen Hayes, and Bernard Baruch described their fundamental beliefs. This series of broadcasts was called appropriately enough “This I Believe.” These personal philosophies were published in book form and became a bestseller.
Perhaps then, the beginning of wisdom is the willingness to believe in someone or some principle that enhances rather than inhibits the “better angels of our nature.” If that’s the beginning of wisdom, then there must be a touch of wisdom in most of us. Whether there’s a sufficient amount of wisdom in any of us to fully be considered “wise” is another question!
So, then, there are no wise men in Washington! Scary as that may be, the question is: are we wise enough to heed even one wise man -- let alone three of them? If there were three wise men, which one of them would we heed: the wise man of riches, the wise man of natural abundants, or the wise man of love? What say you?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, December 19, 2011
Monday, December 5, 2011
“AND THE WINNER IS…”
By Edwin Cooney
One of the hardest emotional and intellectual exercises for anyone to endure who supports an incumbent president is to listen to a political debate among the candidates of the opposing party. Difficult as it is, such an exercise can be fascinating and instructive.
It’s instructive, because it gives you an insight into the personalities and values of their candidates. It’s fascinating, because you learn how they evaluate the origin, nature and solvability of domestic and international problems.
Additionally, during the most recent GOP debate at Constitution Hall, there were two issues regarding our national security that were especially enthralling. The first had to do with the “war on terror.” The second one had to do with the issue of illegal immigration.
The “war on terror” question concerned civil liberties. Specifically, what should be our reaction in response to anyone, such as the 2009 Detroit “Christmas bomber,” whose mission was clearly an act of terror? Should he have been given his Miranda Rights and tried as a criminal (as was the case) or should he, a foreigner and suspected terrorist, have been tried by the military? Congresswoman Bachmann insisted that President Obama has turned our national security over to the Civil Liberties Union rather than to a responsible agency such as the CIA!
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich insisted that there’s a clear difference between a criminal act and an act of war. In a criminal act, asserted Gingrich, the government should be on the defensive to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, former Speaker Gingrich insisted that a terrorist act, being an act of war, should enable the government to utilize legal tools beyond the norm such as censure, seizure and interrogation. He and most of the other candidates cited President Lincoln’s Civil War measures to support this conclusion.
The exception was (you guessed it) Congressman Ron Paul. Congressman Paul, who is forever concerned about civil liberties, insisted that much of the problem has to do with our own carelessness with words and concepts. He pointed out, as I have since 2006, that we’re not engaged in a “war on terror,” that terror is a tactic or a mere element of conflict or war. He went on to insist that as a member of Congress, he had never voted for any declaration of war on Islam or on any other country. Vigorous and persuasive as his arguments were that we could alleviate terror by minding our own business, they were generally brushed aside by most of his political opponents. Thus, as Speaker Gingrich pointed out, terror is going to be with us for the rest of our lives. The public is left with the clear understanding that the Republican Party is the only party that is sufficiently interested and therefore able to maintain the security and safety of the American people. What else can one reasonably expect to glean (I suppose) from a Republican debate?
As for the issue of illegal immigration, there were a number of significant points brought out by the candidates. Governor Perry insisted that the number one national security priority is securing the Mexican border. Specifically, the governor promised that within twelve months of his inauguration, our border with Mexico would be secure. Next Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Governor Romney, and Speaker Gingrich engaged in a debate over the phrases “legal immigration” and “amnesty” and whether tolerance for illegal immigrants who have been here for 20 or 25 years should prevail. My personal regard went up several degrees for Newt Gingrich who has seldom given me a chance to even respect him, let alone love him. However, on this occasion, he insisted that the GOP could hardly be the party of the family if it didn’t find some way of allowing “illegal immigrant” Mexican families with 25 years of roots and traditions to remain in the United States. Newt Gingrich’s assertion was, for me, the moral high point of the entire debate.
When asked to name the dangers to America which have been getting less attention than they should, the candidates covered both the globe and the entire emotional spectrum. Former Senator Rick Santorum and Governor Perry are worried about socialism and Hezbollah in Latin America. Congressman Paul worries that we’ll continue to become involved in conflicts “that are none of our business.” Herman Cain and Mr. Santorum worry about China and cyber warfare. (Santorum also worries about the 25,000 abortions in China every day.) Speaker Gingrich worries about a possible electromagnetic pulse attack that could entirely disable the United States. Congresswoman Bachmann agrees with all her colleagues except Ron Paul, her congressional peer. Finally, Governor Jon Huntsman worries about a dying and desperate China and about jobs in America.
As for the debate, the issues that were raised were genuine enough. The debate was exceedingly partisan -- everyone knows America didn’t face critical issues before President Obama was elected! As for the candidates, I liked Gingrich, Huntsman, and Romney in that order!
And the winner was – oh, my! It can’t be true! I can’t believe it: “…fear itself!”
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
One of the hardest emotional and intellectual exercises for anyone to endure who supports an incumbent president is to listen to a political debate among the candidates of the opposing party. Difficult as it is, such an exercise can be fascinating and instructive.
It’s instructive, because it gives you an insight into the personalities and values of their candidates. It’s fascinating, because you learn how they evaluate the origin, nature and solvability of domestic and international problems.
Additionally, during the most recent GOP debate at Constitution Hall, there were two issues regarding our national security that were especially enthralling. The first had to do with the “war on terror.” The second one had to do with the issue of illegal immigration.
The “war on terror” question concerned civil liberties. Specifically, what should be our reaction in response to anyone, such as the 2009 Detroit “Christmas bomber,” whose mission was clearly an act of terror? Should he have been given his Miranda Rights and tried as a criminal (as was the case) or should he, a foreigner and suspected terrorist, have been tried by the military? Congresswoman Bachmann insisted that President Obama has turned our national security over to the Civil Liberties Union rather than to a responsible agency such as the CIA!
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich insisted that there’s a clear difference between a criminal act and an act of war. In a criminal act, asserted Gingrich, the government should be on the defensive to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, former Speaker Gingrich insisted that a terrorist act, being an act of war, should enable the government to utilize legal tools beyond the norm such as censure, seizure and interrogation. He and most of the other candidates cited President Lincoln’s Civil War measures to support this conclusion.
The exception was (you guessed it) Congressman Ron Paul. Congressman Paul, who is forever concerned about civil liberties, insisted that much of the problem has to do with our own carelessness with words and concepts. He pointed out, as I have since 2006, that we’re not engaged in a “war on terror,” that terror is a tactic or a mere element of conflict or war. He went on to insist that as a member of Congress, he had never voted for any declaration of war on Islam or on any other country. Vigorous and persuasive as his arguments were that we could alleviate terror by minding our own business, they were generally brushed aside by most of his political opponents. Thus, as Speaker Gingrich pointed out, terror is going to be with us for the rest of our lives. The public is left with the clear understanding that the Republican Party is the only party that is sufficiently interested and therefore able to maintain the security and safety of the American people. What else can one reasonably expect to glean (I suppose) from a Republican debate?
As for the issue of illegal immigration, there were a number of significant points brought out by the candidates. Governor Perry insisted that the number one national security priority is securing the Mexican border. Specifically, the governor promised that within twelve months of his inauguration, our border with Mexico would be secure. Next Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Governor Romney, and Speaker Gingrich engaged in a debate over the phrases “legal immigration” and “amnesty” and whether tolerance for illegal immigrants who have been here for 20 or 25 years should prevail. My personal regard went up several degrees for Newt Gingrich who has seldom given me a chance to even respect him, let alone love him. However, on this occasion, he insisted that the GOP could hardly be the party of the family if it didn’t find some way of allowing “illegal immigrant” Mexican families with 25 years of roots and traditions to remain in the United States. Newt Gingrich’s assertion was, for me, the moral high point of the entire debate.
When asked to name the dangers to America which have been getting less attention than they should, the candidates covered both the globe and the entire emotional spectrum. Former Senator Rick Santorum and Governor Perry are worried about socialism and Hezbollah in Latin America. Congressman Paul worries that we’ll continue to become involved in conflicts “that are none of our business.” Herman Cain and Mr. Santorum worry about China and cyber warfare. (Santorum also worries about the 25,000 abortions in China every day.) Speaker Gingrich worries about a possible electromagnetic pulse attack that could entirely disable the United States. Congresswoman Bachmann agrees with all her colleagues except Ron Paul, her congressional peer. Finally, Governor Jon Huntsman worries about a dying and desperate China and about jobs in America.
As for the debate, the issues that were raised were genuine enough. The debate was exceedingly partisan -- everyone knows America didn’t face critical issues before President Obama was elected! As for the candidates, I liked Gingrich, Huntsman, and Romney in that order!
And the winner was – oh, my! It can’t be true! I can’t believe it: “…fear itself!”
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 28, 2011
FUNNY DAYS—BIRTHDAYS!
By Edwin Cooney
I know, the oldest person in the world should be writing this, but even though I’m just a kid, kids know more about birthdays than anyone else—especially adults!
Okay! I’m 66 today. Do I mind admitting it? Well, sort of, for a small but nevertheless sufficiently nagging reason: I’d rather be telling you that I’m 35, 45 or even 55! After all, 66-year-old men don’t much encourage the romantic ardor of many ladies. Still, for the most part, I don’t mind owning up to it.
Birthdays can be humbling days. Three quarters of my first twenty years were spent away from home at a residential school for the blind. The major event of a good percentage of those birthdays was the “birthday spanking” all the guys were exceedingly anxious to administer. During gym class, 18 or 20 guys would line up with their legs spread apart and you were expected to crawl from front to back allowing each guy in line the opportunity to give you a hard whack on the bottom as you passed through. Inevitably, one or two guys would close their legs as you were halfway through and they got an extra whack at you. Believe me, there were more birthday whacks than birthday cakes where I went to school!
As one gets older, past the whacking and the “pin the tail on the donkey” birthday party era, birthday celebrations take on a little more dignity. Gone are the birthdays where your aunt or grandmother proclaimed with pride how tall and mature you’d become in such a short time. Birthday spankings are replaced by that inevitable needling -- even by your spouse and best friend -- as to how old you’re getting.
Of course, birthdays are a lot like any other day. The weather, as always, despite your most fervent birthday wishes, remains beyond your control. If you have a cold, as soon as you wake up on your birthday morning, you understand that colds are no respecters of “your special day.” Even on your birthday, the slacks that fit you when you were younger and thinner don’t magically fit you as the “birthday boy or girl!”
I feel especially sorry for two categories of birthday celebrants. First, there’s the situation twins must live with. Unless they’re especially close to one another, loneliness can be induced by the very act of inclusion. Their parents and friends invariably celebrate the birthday of “the twins” rather than the birthday of the individual twin. This can be especially painful for young twins. Then, there is the case of children born close to Christmas. There are several of those in my family. This is mostly difficult for kids. Parents can often soften this dilemma by seeing to it that special precautions are taken to maximize the specialness of that day, but it can be a problem. My birthday is almost a month before Christmas, but more than once as a kid, I’d receive a gift tagged “Merry Christmas, this is also for your birthday!”
The lives of two distinguished Americans demonstrate how fate can function on one’s birthday:
Warren Gamaliel Harding was born in Marion, Ohio on Thursday, November 2nd, 1865. Exactly 55 years later, on Tuesday, November 2nd, 1920, Harding was elected 29th President of the United States as he played golf in that small Ohio town.
Our 22nd Vice President, Levi Parsons Morton, who served from 1889 to 1893 under President Benjamin Harrison, was born in Shoreham, Vermont on Sunday, May 16th, 1824. He died at age 96 in Rhinebeck, New York. Guess when? You’ve got it: Sunday, May 16th, 1920. Yes, indeed! Birthdays can be both fateful and fatal!
As for my birthdays, I can’t complain. I’ve been rewarded more than I’ve been either hurt or ignored. It’s a tad embarrassing to be too much the center of attention. After all, too much attention can make you a” legend in your own mind,” as they say! Still, being the center of a special person’s love is a great thing. I should know: my best friend has made my birthday a special day of celebration for almost 40 years—and it’s been almost magical.
Birthdays measure age, but more importantly, they energize the giver and the receiver of birthday wishes. The recipient is energized by the expression of love offered by the giver and the giver is energized by the knowledge that those gifts of love are valued because the best that is in them is the source of the gift.
As for that annual reminder of impending old age, my guess is that it ends sometime around age…let’s see now…Ah, nuts!...Damned if I know!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
I know, the oldest person in the world should be writing this, but even though I’m just a kid, kids know more about birthdays than anyone else—especially adults!
Okay! I’m 66 today. Do I mind admitting it? Well, sort of, for a small but nevertheless sufficiently nagging reason: I’d rather be telling you that I’m 35, 45 or even 55! After all, 66-year-old men don’t much encourage the romantic ardor of many ladies. Still, for the most part, I don’t mind owning up to it.
Birthdays can be humbling days. Three quarters of my first twenty years were spent away from home at a residential school for the blind. The major event of a good percentage of those birthdays was the “birthday spanking” all the guys were exceedingly anxious to administer. During gym class, 18 or 20 guys would line up with their legs spread apart and you were expected to crawl from front to back allowing each guy in line the opportunity to give you a hard whack on the bottom as you passed through. Inevitably, one or two guys would close their legs as you were halfway through and they got an extra whack at you. Believe me, there were more birthday whacks than birthday cakes where I went to school!
As one gets older, past the whacking and the “pin the tail on the donkey” birthday party era, birthday celebrations take on a little more dignity. Gone are the birthdays where your aunt or grandmother proclaimed with pride how tall and mature you’d become in such a short time. Birthday spankings are replaced by that inevitable needling -- even by your spouse and best friend -- as to how old you’re getting.
Of course, birthdays are a lot like any other day. The weather, as always, despite your most fervent birthday wishes, remains beyond your control. If you have a cold, as soon as you wake up on your birthday morning, you understand that colds are no respecters of “your special day.” Even on your birthday, the slacks that fit you when you were younger and thinner don’t magically fit you as the “birthday boy or girl!”
I feel especially sorry for two categories of birthday celebrants. First, there’s the situation twins must live with. Unless they’re especially close to one another, loneliness can be induced by the very act of inclusion. Their parents and friends invariably celebrate the birthday of “the twins” rather than the birthday of the individual twin. This can be especially painful for young twins. Then, there is the case of children born close to Christmas. There are several of those in my family. This is mostly difficult for kids. Parents can often soften this dilemma by seeing to it that special precautions are taken to maximize the specialness of that day, but it can be a problem. My birthday is almost a month before Christmas, but more than once as a kid, I’d receive a gift tagged “Merry Christmas, this is also for your birthday!”
The lives of two distinguished Americans demonstrate how fate can function on one’s birthday:
Warren Gamaliel Harding was born in Marion, Ohio on Thursday, November 2nd, 1865. Exactly 55 years later, on Tuesday, November 2nd, 1920, Harding was elected 29th President of the United States as he played golf in that small Ohio town.
Our 22nd Vice President, Levi Parsons Morton, who served from 1889 to 1893 under President Benjamin Harrison, was born in Shoreham, Vermont on Sunday, May 16th, 1824. He died at age 96 in Rhinebeck, New York. Guess when? You’ve got it: Sunday, May 16th, 1920. Yes, indeed! Birthdays can be both fateful and fatal!
As for my birthdays, I can’t complain. I’ve been rewarded more than I’ve been either hurt or ignored. It’s a tad embarrassing to be too much the center of attention. After all, too much attention can make you a” legend in your own mind,” as they say! Still, being the center of a special person’s love is a great thing. I should know: my best friend has made my birthday a special day of celebration for almost 40 years—and it’s been almost magical.
Birthdays measure age, but more importantly, they energize the giver and the receiver of birthday wishes. The recipient is energized by the expression of love offered by the giver and the giver is energized by the knowledge that those gifts of love are valued because the best that is in them is the source of the gift.
As for that annual reminder of impending old age, my guess is that it ends sometime around age…let’s see now…Ah, nuts!...Damned if I know!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 21, 2011
A PEEK AT PAST NOVEMBER 21STS
By Edwin Cooney
Just one of the reasons history means so much to me is that even when one runs out of ideas to write about, there’s history with all of its intrigues into which one may delve. So, let’s take a peek at a few past November twenty-firsts!
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1654 -- Richard Johnson, the son of a freed black man and hence free himself, is granted 550 acres of land on the eastern shore of Virginia. At that time, chattel slavery was only thirty-five years old. Richard and his older brother John were the sons of Anthony and Mary Johnson who had earned their freedom in 1635. After five years of freedom, Anthony Johnson purchased his own black slaves and 200 acres of land along with some cattle and began raising tobacco. Yes, indeed, seventeenth century blacks could own land and other blacks, could sue white men in court, and could marry white women. Of course, that didn’t last long, although even into the 19th century there were a few black slave owners in America. Still, one November 21st long ago, a black Virginian acquired 550 acres of Old Dominion real estate. How about that!
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1787 -- Andrew Jackson is admitted to the North Carolina Bar. Although possessing a limited education, young Jackson had read and retained enough law to enable himself to become a Constable and Deputy Sheriff upon admission to the Guilford County Bar on that long ago Wednesday. The following year, he was transferred to the western district of North Carolina which today is the state of Tennessee. There he became a prosecuting attorney, then a district judge, a superior court judge, a congressman, a U.S. Senator (twice), and the 1812 War hero at the Battle of New Orleans. Finally, of course, he became our seventh President. Question: do you suppose “Old Hickory” was elected president because he was a good lawyer or because he was a hell-of-a good general and war hero?
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1920 -- Stan “The Man” Musial is born in Donora, Pennsylvania. A great professional athlete and a stellar citizen, Stan has been in baseball’s Hall of Fame since 1969. Hardworking, dedicated, and sincere on and off the field, he never had the slightest bit of scandal or impropriety linked to his name. A three time National League MVP winner, a seven time NL batting champion and a participant in three St. Louis Cardinal Championships, Musial was both highly competitive and a gentleman. The most eloquent testimony to his character is the Presidential Medal of Freedom presented to him by President Barack Obama last February. My guess is that neither you nor I own one of those medals!
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1941 -- Juanita Spinelli (aka “The Duchess”) became the first woman to be legally executed in California’s gas chamber. According to Clinton T. Duffy, a former warden of San Quentin prison, Spinelli was the hardest, coldest, most repulsive looking, evil prisoner -- male or female -- he ever met. She was hard even to like a little bit according to Warden Duffy. Although scrawny and sharp-featured, the 52 year-old grandmother was a former wrestler as well as a ruthless and brutal gang leader. She and her common-law husband, Michael Simeon, and one other gang member, Gordon Hawkins, were executed for two northern California murders which took place between January and April 1940. (Simeon was executed on November 28th, 1941, just a week after Spinelli). I include this story because -- despising the death penalty as I do -- I am trying to convince myself that in the wake of this evil woman’s execution, a huge chunk of evil was eradicated from humankind. Oh, that’s right: Adolph Hitler was still thriving that justice-laden Friday. Whoops!
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1963 -- The Beatles appeared on American television for the first time as a feature on the CBS Evening News. The irony is that the Beatles represented a dazzling future while our dazzling and glamorous President, John F. Kennedy was spending his last night politicking in Texas.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1990—The Charter of Paris was signed on this date effectively ending the cold war. The charter established the organization which guaranteed international security in Europe. No one will ever forget Pearl Harbor Day, V.E. and V.J. day and certainly not 9/11, but how many of us even know about the Paris summit and subsequent treaty that ended the 45 year reign of international terror we called “The Cold War”? In fact, had I known of its existence, I could have bragged about the depth of my knowledge and my historical sophistication. Oh well!
November 21sts are a lot like every other day, I suppose. Still, every day is at least a little unique -- don’t you think?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Just one of the reasons history means so much to me is that even when one runs out of ideas to write about, there’s history with all of its intrigues into which one may delve. So, let’s take a peek at a few past November twenty-firsts!
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1654 -- Richard Johnson, the son of a freed black man and hence free himself, is granted 550 acres of land on the eastern shore of Virginia. At that time, chattel slavery was only thirty-five years old. Richard and his older brother John were the sons of Anthony and Mary Johnson who had earned their freedom in 1635. After five years of freedom, Anthony Johnson purchased his own black slaves and 200 acres of land along with some cattle and began raising tobacco. Yes, indeed, seventeenth century blacks could own land and other blacks, could sue white men in court, and could marry white women. Of course, that didn’t last long, although even into the 19th century there were a few black slave owners in America. Still, one November 21st long ago, a black Virginian acquired 550 acres of Old Dominion real estate. How about that!
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1787 -- Andrew Jackson is admitted to the North Carolina Bar. Although possessing a limited education, young Jackson had read and retained enough law to enable himself to become a Constable and Deputy Sheriff upon admission to the Guilford County Bar on that long ago Wednesday. The following year, he was transferred to the western district of North Carolina which today is the state of Tennessee. There he became a prosecuting attorney, then a district judge, a superior court judge, a congressman, a U.S. Senator (twice), and the 1812 War hero at the Battle of New Orleans. Finally, of course, he became our seventh President. Question: do you suppose “Old Hickory” was elected president because he was a good lawyer or because he was a hell-of-a good general and war hero?
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1920 -- Stan “The Man” Musial is born in Donora, Pennsylvania. A great professional athlete and a stellar citizen, Stan has been in baseball’s Hall of Fame since 1969. Hardworking, dedicated, and sincere on and off the field, he never had the slightest bit of scandal or impropriety linked to his name. A three time National League MVP winner, a seven time NL batting champion and a participant in three St. Louis Cardinal Championships, Musial was both highly competitive and a gentleman. The most eloquent testimony to his character is the Presidential Medal of Freedom presented to him by President Barack Obama last February. My guess is that neither you nor I own one of those medals!
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1941 -- Juanita Spinelli (aka “The Duchess”) became the first woman to be legally executed in California’s gas chamber. According to Clinton T. Duffy, a former warden of San Quentin prison, Spinelli was the hardest, coldest, most repulsive looking, evil prisoner -- male or female -- he ever met. She was hard even to like a little bit according to Warden Duffy. Although scrawny and sharp-featured, the 52 year-old grandmother was a former wrestler as well as a ruthless and brutal gang leader. She and her common-law husband, Michael Simeon, and one other gang member, Gordon Hawkins, were executed for two northern California murders which took place between January and April 1940. (Simeon was executed on November 28th, 1941, just a week after Spinelli). I include this story because -- despising the death penalty as I do -- I am trying to convince myself that in the wake of this evil woman’s execution, a huge chunk of evil was eradicated from humankind. Oh, that’s right: Adolph Hitler was still thriving that justice-laden Friday. Whoops!
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1963 -- The Beatles appeared on American television for the first time as a feature on the CBS Evening News. The irony is that the Beatles represented a dazzling future while our dazzling and glamorous President, John F. Kennedy was spending his last night politicking in Texas.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1990—The Charter of Paris was signed on this date effectively ending the cold war. The charter established the organization which guaranteed international security in Europe. No one will ever forget Pearl Harbor Day, V.E. and V.J. day and certainly not 9/11, but how many of us even know about the Paris summit and subsequent treaty that ended the 45 year reign of international terror we called “The Cold War”? In fact, had I known of its existence, I could have bragged about the depth of my knowledge and my historical sophistication. Oh well!
November 21sts are a lot like every other day, I suppose. Still, every day is at least a little unique -- don’t you think?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 14, 2011
MY GOD! YOUR GOD! OUR GOD
By Edwin Cooney
No being or force has a greater effect on who you and I are than does that of God and what we perceive God to be. Our perception of God functions at the epicenter of our concepts of the significance of birth, morality, death and eternity. Hence, God plays some role in all of our lives, even in the lives of agnostics and atheists who are doubtful of God's existence or who insist that God doesn't exist at all. Therefore, God possesses the unique distinction of holding most people's attention, while at the same time remaining a mystery to virtually all of us.
I raise this subject because I am struggling, more than at any time in my life, to understand my relationship with God. I haven't any doubt as to the existence of a living God.
Like most of us, I was born and raised to believe in God, the Father Almighty, who sent Jesus Christ to earth to die for and thus cleanse our sins. Many times throughout my life I've felt blessed, comforted, guided and even protected by God. I've occasionally even believed that I understand God. What I've come increasingly to realize, however, is that I possess only a clue as to the essence of God.
The Reverend Leslie Weatherhead's little book called "The Will of God," which I read about a decade ago, offered me, and doubtless lots of other readers, a lovingly benign understanding that God wishes us well whatever turn life takes. Reverend Weatherhead, a World War II Era British clergyman, suggests that God's will is invariably to be the ruling factor once we enter eternity. Up until then, as I understand the good Reverend, God's work or will, here on earth, must be our work and, for better or worse, our will.
From as far back as I can remember, I've always believed in the Biblical perception of God the creator, God the protector, God the healer, and hopefully, God the forgiver. However, lately, I've become less sure not of the existence of God, but of the essence of God. Those of us who strive to be Christians have traditionally been imbued with the idea that God is our eternal King.
A king, by his nature, tends to be an absolute dictator. As many fundamentalist Christians remind the rest of us The Ten Commandments aren't the Ten Suggestions. Hence, as God is a King or if you prefer, a Heavenly King, God naturally takes it very, very personally when we're not in compliance with God's rules of conduct or worship. Preachers often warn us that God is a jealous God and that God is an angry and avenging God. On the other hand, preachers almost as often assure us God is a forgiving god, a healing God, a God of loving grace. (Some insist that the earmark of a good preacher is one who comforts the distressed and distresses the comfortable!)
It's been my experience that whenever I raise the question of the essence of God with my fellow Christians, steeped as they are in scripture, I'm urged to see what the Bible has to say about it. Invariably the Bible appears to tell me to get with the program or spend eternity in "you know where!," just as Britain's Henry the Eighth would have done.
Occasionally, I'm accused of trying to create my own God rather than accepting who God is. With that, I beg to differ. It's the other way around as I see it. The history of Godly perception is the history of fatherhood (God the Father), military warriors (God the Almighty General), and the King (hence God's kingdom). Accordingly, you and I are to understand that God Almighty is an earthly king with supernatural or Heavenly powers, who is ready to love us and preserve us if we praise and humble ourselves before God's all-consuming majesty. If we don't, well then, we've made another choice and can expect to be banished.
That's where, as the late Paul Harvey used to say, "we shuck right down to the cob." The fact is that the Holy Bible was written by men whose character was established by the sin of Adam and Eve vividly described as "the good book's beginning." As humankind is thus imperfect, they're incapable of writing or doing anything perfectly. Hence, to me, the Bible is the inspired rather than the actual word of God. For me, Biblical truth lies in its wisdom more than in its story.
Currently, I'm reading retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong's book "Why Christianity Must Change or Die." This book challenges many of our traditional Christian perceptions, while at the same time, acknowledging and even insisting that God is real.
I offer you a glimpse into my own struggle because I suspect many of you also, sometimes painfully, struggle to comprehend your relationship to and with God. I like to believe that ultimately, when you and I pass into eternity, the best that is within us will blend painlessly and peacefully with the loving energizing nature of God.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No being or force has a greater effect on who you and I are than does that of God and what we perceive God to be. Our perception of God functions at the epicenter of our concepts of the significance of birth, morality, death and eternity. Hence, God plays some role in all of our lives, even in the lives of agnostics and atheists who are doubtful of God's existence or who insist that God doesn't exist at all. Therefore, God possesses the unique distinction of holding most people's attention, while at the same time remaining a mystery to virtually all of us.
I raise this subject because I am struggling, more than at any time in my life, to understand my relationship with God. I haven't any doubt as to the existence of a living God.
Like most of us, I was born and raised to believe in God, the Father Almighty, who sent Jesus Christ to earth to die for and thus cleanse our sins. Many times throughout my life I've felt blessed, comforted, guided and even protected by God. I've occasionally even believed that I understand God. What I've come increasingly to realize, however, is that I possess only a clue as to the essence of God.
The Reverend Leslie Weatherhead's little book called "The Will of God," which I read about a decade ago, offered me, and doubtless lots of other readers, a lovingly benign understanding that God wishes us well whatever turn life takes. Reverend Weatherhead, a World War II Era British clergyman, suggests that God's will is invariably to be the ruling factor once we enter eternity. Up until then, as I understand the good Reverend, God's work or will, here on earth, must be our work and, for better or worse, our will.
From as far back as I can remember, I've always believed in the Biblical perception of God the creator, God the protector, God the healer, and hopefully, God the forgiver. However, lately, I've become less sure not of the existence of God, but of the essence of God. Those of us who strive to be Christians have traditionally been imbued with the idea that God is our eternal King.
A king, by his nature, tends to be an absolute dictator. As many fundamentalist Christians remind the rest of us The Ten Commandments aren't the Ten Suggestions. Hence, as God is a King or if you prefer, a Heavenly King, God naturally takes it very, very personally when we're not in compliance with God's rules of conduct or worship. Preachers often warn us that God is a jealous God and that God is an angry and avenging God. On the other hand, preachers almost as often assure us God is a forgiving god, a healing God, a God of loving grace. (Some insist that the earmark of a good preacher is one who comforts the distressed and distresses the comfortable!)
It's been my experience that whenever I raise the question of the essence of God with my fellow Christians, steeped as they are in scripture, I'm urged to see what the Bible has to say about it. Invariably the Bible appears to tell me to get with the program or spend eternity in "you know where!," just as Britain's Henry the Eighth would have done.
Occasionally, I'm accused of trying to create my own God rather than accepting who God is. With that, I beg to differ. It's the other way around as I see it. The history of Godly perception is the history of fatherhood (God the Father), military warriors (God the Almighty General), and the King (hence God's kingdom). Accordingly, you and I are to understand that God Almighty is an earthly king with supernatural or Heavenly powers, who is ready to love us and preserve us if we praise and humble ourselves before God's all-consuming majesty. If we don't, well then, we've made another choice and can expect to be banished.
That's where, as the late Paul Harvey used to say, "we shuck right down to the cob." The fact is that the Holy Bible was written by men whose character was established by the sin of Adam and Eve vividly described as "the good book's beginning." As humankind is thus imperfect, they're incapable of writing or doing anything perfectly. Hence, to me, the Bible is the inspired rather than the actual word of God. For me, Biblical truth lies in its wisdom more than in its story.
Currently, I'm reading retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong's book "Why Christianity Must Change or Die." This book challenges many of our traditional Christian perceptions, while at the same time, acknowledging and even insisting that God is real.
I offer you a glimpse into my own struggle because I suspect many of you also, sometimes painfully, struggle to comprehend your relationship to and with God. I like to believe that ultimately, when you and I pass into eternity, the best that is within us will blend painlessly and peacefully with the loving energizing nature of God.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 7, 2011
FROM WHENCE I CAME
By Edwin Cooney
About two weeks ago, a new reader of these weekly musings who proudly identifies himself as a “Conservative” asked me why I had abandoned my youthful Republican/Conservative roots in favor of 21st Century Liberalism. It’s a fair question. Hence, I offer to take you on my political journey: come along!
Growing up in the 1950s was both promising and perilous. The promise was our dedication to peace, prosperity and freedom. The perils were the threats of polio, Communism and nuclear annihilation. I became aware at an early age that “America the Beautiful” and I lived in a dangerous world. It was a world fast being dominated by a Communist monolith that was poised militarily and determinedly to conquer and communize America and the entire world. The 1950s was an era of air raid shelters, Sputnik, and a chronically angry Nikita Khrushchev whose hair trigger temper was backed up by huge nuclear rockets and a willingness to use them. Additionally, Premier Khrushchev seemed constantly to create a crisis that would justify nuclear warfare.
All this being the case, the best antidotes to these barbarian threats were bravery, patriotism, superior military hardware, and determined leadership. “Peace through strength” most called it.
Domestic concerns such as balanced budgets, civil rights, the minimum wage and teacher’s salaries, important as they were, ranked a distant second to national security. Even more, I came to believe that anyone willing to demonstrate for civil rights while the Russians were watching lacked a sense of both patriotism and national priorities.
My political heroes were -- like good boy scouts -- patriotic, tough, morally straight and decisive in their actions. Their names were Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater and, above all, J. Edgar Hoover. Their brave and the land that I loved safe.
Essentially, my early political awareness had mostly to do with my fears. My heroes feared big government and, if they feared big government, I feared it, too. Big government was both a question of practicality and morality. Moral men believed in state’s rights and that limited government was the best government because it was controllable by the people rather than “bureaucrats.”
Then came the 1960s and 1970s. With the advent of Leonid Brezhnev and the passing of Nikita Khrushchev, Russian rockets may have grown in numbers and precision, but they rattled less. My heroes convinced themselves, as did John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, that Communism was as dangerous in Vietnam as it was in either Russia or China. Therefore, any advancement of Communism -- no matter how localized -- was a threat to our security. Add to that the tragedy of Vietnam, the fate of John Kennedy and the political squalidness of Watergate and my political priorities began, ever so slowly, to shift.
Ebbing away was the immediacy of American Soviet nuclear confrontation. The Vietnam conflict with its legal, moral and legitimacy issues began to blur the once sharp distinctions in the cold war struggle. Did Marxists not have the same rights as democrats to unite their own country without the intervention of an ideologically opposing super power? Even more, does the fact that Communism prevails today in a united Vietnam cause us to sleep less securely at night? My old heroes insisted such would be the case. Do we gain if we cling to our fears, if our fears rather than our capacity for forward-looking government lie at the root of our political affiliation?
I’m not in the least ashamed of my once proud association with Conservatism. Nor did I think that I was joining the party of the angels that Saturday afternoon of October 30th, 1976 when I officially changed my party affiliation. Still, I was pleased to become a Jimmy Carter Democrat even though that had its own perils.
Today I’m a Barack Hussein Obama Democrat. Of course, our hopes and our fears dictate our political affiliation. I now worry about people’s right to healthcare regardless of previous condition or ability to pay. Money should never be the reason people live or die. I worry too about American joblessness. Of course, “free enterprise” requires that profits prevail over patriotism or else it would alleviate the situation. Its managers and benefactors would hire American just as they insist that consumers “buy American” and workers would be sufficiently -- rather than minimally -- paid. Today, the political descendants of my old ideological heroes would rather see an American president fail than cooperate with him in the passage of legislation that might be beneficial to the American people.
We live in a time when both Conservatives and Liberals are absolutely certain of their moral superiority. Liberals use their tradition of political independence to pressure their party leadership. Conservatives use their money-driven capacity for effective organization to keep their membership in line.
Of course, you and I affiliate with the political party we decide best meets our needs. However, what’s both sad and ultimately destructive is the following truth:
In 21st Century politics, issues matter much more than solutions!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
About two weeks ago, a new reader of these weekly musings who proudly identifies himself as a “Conservative” asked me why I had abandoned my youthful Republican/Conservative roots in favor of 21st Century Liberalism. It’s a fair question. Hence, I offer to take you on my political journey: come along!
Growing up in the 1950s was both promising and perilous. The promise was our dedication to peace, prosperity and freedom. The perils were the threats of polio, Communism and nuclear annihilation. I became aware at an early age that “America the Beautiful” and I lived in a dangerous world. It was a world fast being dominated by a Communist monolith that was poised militarily and determinedly to conquer and communize America and the entire world. The 1950s was an era of air raid shelters, Sputnik, and a chronically angry Nikita Khrushchev whose hair trigger temper was backed up by huge nuclear rockets and a willingness to use them. Additionally, Premier Khrushchev seemed constantly to create a crisis that would justify nuclear warfare.
All this being the case, the best antidotes to these barbarian threats were bravery, patriotism, superior military hardware, and determined leadership. “Peace through strength” most called it.
Domestic concerns such as balanced budgets, civil rights, the minimum wage and teacher’s salaries, important as they were, ranked a distant second to national security. Even more, I came to believe that anyone willing to demonstrate for civil rights while the Russians were watching lacked a sense of both patriotism and national priorities.
My political heroes were -- like good boy scouts -- patriotic, tough, morally straight and decisive in their actions. Their names were Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater and, above all, J. Edgar Hoover. Their brave and the land that I loved safe.
Essentially, my early political awareness had mostly to do with my fears. My heroes feared big government and, if they feared big government, I feared it, too. Big government was both a question of practicality and morality. Moral men believed in state’s rights and that limited government was the best government because it was controllable by the people rather than “bureaucrats.”
Then came the 1960s and 1970s. With the advent of Leonid Brezhnev and the passing of Nikita Khrushchev, Russian rockets may have grown in numbers and precision, but they rattled less. My heroes convinced themselves, as did John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, that Communism was as dangerous in Vietnam as it was in either Russia or China. Therefore, any advancement of Communism -- no matter how localized -- was a threat to our security. Add to that the tragedy of Vietnam, the fate of John Kennedy and the political squalidness of Watergate and my political priorities began, ever so slowly, to shift.
Ebbing away was the immediacy of American Soviet nuclear confrontation. The Vietnam conflict with its legal, moral and legitimacy issues began to blur the once sharp distinctions in the cold war struggle. Did Marxists not have the same rights as democrats to unite their own country without the intervention of an ideologically opposing super power? Even more, does the fact that Communism prevails today in a united Vietnam cause us to sleep less securely at night? My old heroes insisted such would be the case. Do we gain if we cling to our fears, if our fears rather than our capacity for forward-looking government lie at the root of our political affiliation?
I’m not in the least ashamed of my once proud association with Conservatism. Nor did I think that I was joining the party of the angels that Saturday afternoon of October 30th, 1976 when I officially changed my party affiliation. Still, I was pleased to become a Jimmy Carter Democrat even though that had its own perils.
Today I’m a Barack Hussein Obama Democrat. Of course, our hopes and our fears dictate our political affiliation. I now worry about people’s right to healthcare regardless of previous condition or ability to pay. Money should never be the reason people live or die. I worry too about American joblessness. Of course, “free enterprise” requires that profits prevail over patriotism or else it would alleviate the situation. Its managers and benefactors would hire American just as they insist that consumers “buy American” and workers would be sufficiently -- rather than minimally -- paid. Today, the political descendants of my old ideological heroes would rather see an American president fail than cooperate with him in the passage of legislation that might be beneficial to the American people.
We live in a time when both Conservatives and Liberals are absolutely certain of their moral superiority. Liberals use their tradition of political independence to pressure their party leadership. Conservatives use their money-driven capacity for effective organization to keep their membership in line.
Of course, you and I affiliate with the political party we decide best meets our needs. However, what’s both sad and ultimately destructive is the following truth:
In 21st Century politics, issues matter much more than solutions!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, October 31, 2011
DISCONCERTING — VERY DISCONCERTING!
By Edwin Cooney
As President Ford observed during his first address to Congress back on Monday, August 12th, 1974, “confession is good for the soul!” (Jerry, whose message to Congress was the necessity for budget cutting, publicly confessed to Speaker Carl Albert of Oklahoma that he — as a member of Congress — had often been willing to spend tax-payer money for worthy projects in Michigan while opposing wasteful spending in Oklahoma.) My confession is that some of my joy last May the 1st — as President Obama announced the capture, execution and burial at sea of Osama bin Laden — was partisan. The Republicans would be “green with envy,” as indeed they were, and still are! However, what it all means is far more important than political point scoring!
Back in 2004 when young Barack Obama addressed the Democratic National Convention, much of the power of his appeal was due to his opposition to the Iraqi war. He’d come out against an invasion of Iraq as early as September 2002 — six months before its March 19th, 2003 “shock and awe” outset. Obama’s meteoric rise was due to his articulate and even dynamic opposition to the Iraqi war, and many progressives easily and conveniently believed he opposed all war. Hence, it appeared we had a potential President with anti-war sentiments equal to George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy and Jimmy Carter. During the campaign when he insisted that he’d vigorously pursue al-Qaeda, few took him seriously. I certainly didn’t.
There is a parallel in our political history to this shift in likely presidential leadership. Between the end of World War II and 1971 there was little the Republican Party considered a higher priority than the unleashing of Chang Kai-Shek against Red China and the return of democracy to the Chinese mainland. Yet, it was Richard Nixon — one of the GOP’s staunchest anti-Communists of the 1950s — who, as President, gleefully announced his impending 1972 visit to the People’s Republic of China. Even more amazing, Republicans proudly campaigned on RMN’s “historic breakthrough” during the succeeding presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, back to twenty-first century politics! In late 2009 came the news that the President was sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Next, came the shocking news of that Sunday night when news blared across the nation that a force of Navy Seals under the direction of President Barack Hussein Obama, had cornered and ruthlessly killed Osama bin Laden in his Pakistan housing compound. What was most disturbing to many Obama supporters was that the president was almost as gleeful as George Walker Bush and Rush Limbaugh would have been had this deed been carried out before January 20th, 2009 — even more preferably during October of 2004.
Throughout his subsequent Sixty Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, not once was the President at all reflective about either the legality or the possible consequences of his actions. Many Democrats, me included, were saddened and even embarrassed that President Obama didn’t do a bit of public reflecting about such concepts as: the sanctity of international borders, the sovereignty of nations, rights of the accused, and above all — the regretability of gun-barrel justice.
Still, if it was necessary that Osama bin Laden be eliminated by order of an American President — and I believe it was — I’m generally glad that it was President Obama who gave the order.
Of course, the vast majority of Americans of all parties are glad that bin Laden is gone. Still, with every action there is not only a reaction, but there is often created precedence for an increasingly deadlier reaction to events than was previously the case.
Might President Obama’s decision to eliminate bin Laden in the way he did set a dangerous precedent? Might a future sitting or former American President be more subject to capture or elimination once our opponents become sufficiently capable of carrying out such ventures? On the other hand, the possibility of world peace might be strengthened if world leaders were a little more vulnerable than they currently are to international “justice.”
Throughout the “watch” of President Barack Hussein Obama — and Presidents ultimately catch both praise and blame for what occurs on their “watches” — we’ve witnessed the elimination of more hostile leaders than any President since FDR, who was largely responsible for the elimination of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.
Not even President Reagan’s record matches Barack Hussein Obama’s record of eliminating terrorist-oriented leaders. Specifically there are Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki (the man behind the 2009 Christmas bomber and the quashed New York Times Square bombing.) Then, there’s Muammar Gaddafi — whom President Reagan sought to and barely missed destroying.
The scary part of all this is, what’s next? Just as: President Reagan didn'’t anticipate the future significance of the Taliban when he aided Afghanistan freedom fighters against the Soviets; just as President Reagan didn’t anticipate trouble with Saddam Hussein when he sold him lethal weapons to use on the outlaw state of Iran; just as Presidents Clinton and G. W. Bush didn’t anticipate the cost of an Iraqi war; what hasn’t President Obama anticipated that could be vital to our future security?
Disconcerting — very disconcerting isn’t it how often we think we’re being intelligent and patriotic when we’re really being partisan!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
As President Ford observed during his first address to Congress back on Monday, August 12th, 1974, “confession is good for the soul!” (Jerry, whose message to Congress was the necessity for budget cutting, publicly confessed to Speaker Carl Albert of Oklahoma that he — as a member of Congress — had often been willing to spend tax-payer money for worthy projects in Michigan while opposing wasteful spending in Oklahoma.) My confession is that some of my joy last May the 1st — as President Obama announced the capture, execution and burial at sea of Osama bin Laden — was partisan. The Republicans would be “green with envy,” as indeed they were, and still are! However, what it all means is far more important than political point scoring!
Back in 2004 when young Barack Obama addressed the Democratic National Convention, much of the power of his appeal was due to his opposition to the Iraqi war. He’d come out against an invasion of Iraq as early as September 2002 — six months before its March 19th, 2003 “shock and awe” outset. Obama’s meteoric rise was due to his articulate and even dynamic opposition to the Iraqi war, and many progressives easily and conveniently believed he opposed all war. Hence, it appeared we had a potential President with anti-war sentiments equal to George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy and Jimmy Carter. During the campaign when he insisted that he’d vigorously pursue al-Qaeda, few took him seriously. I certainly didn’t.
There is a parallel in our political history to this shift in likely presidential leadership. Between the end of World War II and 1971 there was little the Republican Party considered a higher priority than the unleashing of Chang Kai-Shek against Red China and the return of democracy to the Chinese mainland. Yet, it was Richard Nixon — one of the GOP’s staunchest anti-Communists of the 1950s — who, as President, gleefully announced his impending 1972 visit to the People’s Republic of China. Even more amazing, Republicans proudly campaigned on RMN’s “historic breakthrough” during the succeeding presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, back to twenty-first century politics! In late 2009 came the news that the President was sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Next, came the shocking news of that Sunday night when news blared across the nation that a force of Navy Seals under the direction of President Barack Hussein Obama, had cornered and ruthlessly killed Osama bin Laden in his Pakistan housing compound. What was most disturbing to many Obama supporters was that the president was almost as gleeful as George Walker Bush and Rush Limbaugh would have been had this deed been carried out before January 20th, 2009 — even more preferably during October of 2004.
Throughout his subsequent Sixty Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, not once was the President at all reflective about either the legality or the possible consequences of his actions. Many Democrats, me included, were saddened and even embarrassed that President Obama didn’t do a bit of public reflecting about such concepts as: the sanctity of international borders, the sovereignty of nations, rights of the accused, and above all — the regretability of gun-barrel justice.
Still, if it was necessary that Osama bin Laden be eliminated by order of an American President — and I believe it was — I’m generally glad that it was President Obama who gave the order.
Of course, the vast majority of Americans of all parties are glad that bin Laden is gone. Still, with every action there is not only a reaction, but there is often created precedence for an increasingly deadlier reaction to events than was previously the case.
Might President Obama’s decision to eliminate bin Laden in the way he did set a dangerous precedent? Might a future sitting or former American President be more subject to capture or elimination once our opponents become sufficiently capable of carrying out such ventures? On the other hand, the possibility of world peace might be strengthened if world leaders were a little more vulnerable than they currently are to international “justice.”
Throughout the “watch” of President Barack Hussein Obama — and Presidents ultimately catch both praise and blame for what occurs on their “watches” — we’ve witnessed the elimination of more hostile leaders than any President since FDR, who was largely responsible for the elimination of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.
Not even President Reagan’s record matches Barack Hussein Obama’s record of eliminating terrorist-oriented leaders. Specifically there are Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki (the man behind the 2009 Christmas bomber and the quashed New York Times Square bombing.) Then, there’s Muammar Gaddafi — whom President Reagan sought to and barely missed destroying.
The scary part of all this is, what’s next? Just as: President Reagan didn'’t anticipate the future significance of the Taliban when he aided Afghanistan freedom fighters against the Soviets; just as President Reagan didn’t anticipate trouble with Saddam Hussein when he sold him lethal weapons to use on the outlaw state of Iran; just as Presidents Clinton and G. W. Bush didn’t anticipate the cost of an Iraqi war; what hasn’t President Obama anticipated that could be vital to our future security?
Disconcerting — very disconcerting isn’t it how often we think we’re being intelligent and patriotic when we’re really being partisan!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, October 24, 2011
IT’S THAT TIME AGAIN!
By Edwin Cooney
As this week’s musing comes tumbling head over heels -- or however it travels -- into your cyberspace mailbox, the 107th “World Series” is underway!
This year’s Fall Classic pits the new against the old, the Texas Rangers vs. the St. Louis Cardinals. The Texas Rangers were in the World Series in 2010 and were defeated by the San Francisco Giants. Thus, this is their second consecutive year playing for professional baseball’s “World” Championship. The franchise has been in existence since 1961 having spent its first eleven seasons in Washington, D.C. as the “new” Washington Senators. Then, in 1971, Senators’ owner Bob Short, a Minnesota Democrat who had managed Hubert Humphrey’s 1968 presidential campaign, moved the team to Arlington, Texas which is between Dallas and Fort Worth. Bob Short sold the Rangers in 1974. Since then, the Rangers have become very, very Republican. From 1989 until 1994, George Walker Bush was a co-owner. His Rangers presidency became almost as baffling as his United States presidency unless one believes that trading Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox for the aging Harold Baines was a good idea. Sammy would hit 66 home runs in 1998 to mention only one of his feats. (Note: it was the White Sox who moved Sosa on to the Cubs).
The St. Louis Cardinals are after their eleventh world championship which makes them second only to the Yankees in baseball championships: the Yankees have 27. The Cardinals’ first one came in 1926 when they defeated Babe Ruth’s New York Yankees in seven games. The Cardinals have a unique distinction over every national league team. They are the only team to hold a winning World Series record over the Yankees among teams who have played the Yankees in more than one fall classic. (The 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks and the 2003 Florida Marlins haven’t ever been defeated by the Yankees, but they’ve played the Bronx Bombers only once). The Cardinals defeated the Yankees in 1926, 1942 and 1964. The Yankees defeated the Cardinals in 1928 and 1943.
The Cardinals are rich in history. Many fans know about the Cardinal’s 1926 victory over Babe Ruth’s and Lou Gehrig’s mighty Yankee juggernaut, but time is dimming the memory of that mid-America triumph. Then, there’s the legendary Cardinal “Gas House Gang” consisting of such colorful characters as Dizzy and brother Daffy Dean. (Dizzy’s real name was Jay Hanna Dean and Daffy’s first name was Paul). There was also Pepper (Johnny) Martin, the “Wild Horse of the Osage” and Frankie Frisch, a graduate of Fordham University who nevertheless possessed a decidedly blue collar personality. Finally, there was Joe Medwick, who holds the distinction of being the only player in the history of baseball tossed from a World Series or any other game by order of the Commissioner of Baseball. He was ejected for his own personal security. (The occasion was the seventh and deciding game of the 1934 World Series, when Medwick and Tiger third baseman Marv Owen tangled in a collision at third base, the outcome of which favored Medwick and the Cardinals. The game was in Detroit and the fans grew sufficiently restless to—as Commissioner Landis saw it—to threaten Medwick’s safety. Hence, baseball’s dictatorial Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis ordered Medwick ejected from the game.)
The Texas Rangers, awesome in their power and formidable in their pitching prowess, are more than worthy opponents to the scrappy Cardinals. Lynn (Nolan) Ryan -- an enormous pitching legend -- is both team president and an on-the-field advisor to their manager, Louisiana-born Ron Washington. St. Louis manager Tony La Russa, a former journeyman infielder and a licensed attorney, and Ron Washington are an interesting combination of intellect and savvy reigning in opposing dugouts.
Who am I rooting for, you ask! For three good reasons and one personal prejudice, I’m for the Cardinals. First, the Cardinals have always been my favorite National League team -- until I moved to the Bay Area and became rather exposed to the Giants players, the broadcasters and the team’s folklore. Second, part of the Cardinals’ rich history is that they became the haven for my favorite ballplayer of all time after he left the Yankees in late 1966: Roger Maris. Third, another part of the Cardinal’s rich history is that they were the first major league team to have a woman owner. Her name was Helene Hathaway Robison Britton. She inherited the club from her Uncle Stanley Robison when he died in 1911. She owned the team through 1916 and, while the team didn’t go anywhere really, it was during her administration that they began to put together some of the pieces when they signed Rogers Hornsby, their great “second sacker” as Dizzy Deen would say. At the end of 1916, Mrs. Britton had divorced Mr. Schuler Britton (the team president) and had sold the team to Sam Breadon.
As to my prejudice, haven’t I already told you something about that? Didn’t I mention that the Texas Rangers -- and the whole state for that matter -- are very, very Republican these days? Anything that makes too many Republicans smile kind of makes me nervous!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
As this week’s musing comes tumbling head over heels -- or however it travels -- into your cyberspace mailbox, the 107th “World Series” is underway!
This year’s Fall Classic pits the new against the old, the Texas Rangers vs. the St. Louis Cardinals. The Texas Rangers were in the World Series in 2010 and were defeated by the San Francisco Giants. Thus, this is their second consecutive year playing for professional baseball’s “World” Championship. The franchise has been in existence since 1961 having spent its first eleven seasons in Washington, D.C. as the “new” Washington Senators. Then, in 1971, Senators’ owner Bob Short, a Minnesota Democrat who had managed Hubert Humphrey’s 1968 presidential campaign, moved the team to Arlington, Texas which is between Dallas and Fort Worth. Bob Short sold the Rangers in 1974. Since then, the Rangers have become very, very Republican. From 1989 until 1994, George Walker Bush was a co-owner. His Rangers presidency became almost as baffling as his United States presidency unless one believes that trading Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox for the aging Harold Baines was a good idea. Sammy would hit 66 home runs in 1998 to mention only one of his feats. (Note: it was the White Sox who moved Sosa on to the Cubs).
The St. Louis Cardinals are after their eleventh world championship which makes them second only to the Yankees in baseball championships: the Yankees have 27. The Cardinals’ first one came in 1926 when they defeated Babe Ruth’s New York Yankees in seven games. The Cardinals have a unique distinction over every national league team. They are the only team to hold a winning World Series record over the Yankees among teams who have played the Yankees in more than one fall classic. (The 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks and the 2003 Florida Marlins haven’t ever been defeated by the Yankees, but they’ve played the Bronx Bombers only once). The Cardinals defeated the Yankees in 1926, 1942 and 1964. The Yankees defeated the Cardinals in 1928 and 1943.
The Cardinals are rich in history. Many fans know about the Cardinal’s 1926 victory over Babe Ruth’s and Lou Gehrig’s mighty Yankee juggernaut, but time is dimming the memory of that mid-America triumph. Then, there’s the legendary Cardinal “Gas House Gang” consisting of such colorful characters as Dizzy and brother Daffy Dean. (Dizzy’s real name was Jay Hanna Dean and Daffy’s first name was Paul). There was also Pepper (Johnny) Martin, the “Wild Horse of the Osage” and Frankie Frisch, a graduate of Fordham University who nevertheless possessed a decidedly blue collar personality. Finally, there was Joe Medwick, who holds the distinction of being the only player in the history of baseball tossed from a World Series or any other game by order of the Commissioner of Baseball. He was ejected for his own personal security. (The occasion was the seventh and deciding game of the 1934 World Series, when Medwick and Tiger third baseman Marv Owen tangled in a collision at third base, the outcome of which favored Medwick and the Cardinals. The game was in Detroit and the fans grew sufficiently restless to—as Commissioner Landis saw it—to threaten Medwick’s safety. Hence, baseball’s dictatorial Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis ordered Medwick ejected from the game.)
The Texas Rangers, awesome in their power and formidable in their pitching prowess, are more than worthy opponents to the scrappy Cardinals. Lynn (Nolan) Ryan -- an enormous pitching legend -- is both team president and an on-the-field advisor to their manager, Louisiana-born Ron Washington. St. Louis manager Tony La Russa, a former journeyman infielder and a licensed attorney, and Ron Washington are an interesting combination of intellect and savvy reigning in opposing dugouts.
Who am I rooting for, you ask! For three good reasons and one personal prejudice, I’m for the Cardinals. First, the Cardinals have always been my favorite National League team -- until I moved to the Bay Area and became rather exposed to the Giants players, the broadcasters and the team’s folklore. Second, part of the Cardinals’ rich history is that they became the haven for my favorite ballplayer of all time after he left the Yankees in late 1966: Roger Maris. Third, another part of the Cardinal’s rich history is that they were the first major league team to have a woman owner. Her name was Helene Hathaway Robison Britton. She inherited the club from her Uncle Stanley Robison when he died in 1911. She owned the team through 1916 and, while the team didn’t go anywhere really, it was during her administration that they began to put together some of the pieces when they signed Rogers Hornsby, their great “second sacker” as Dizzy Deen would say. At the end of 1916, Mrs. Britton had divorced Mr. Schuler Britton (the team president) and had sold the team to Sam Breadon.
As to my prejudice, haven’t I already told you something about that? Didn’t I mention that the Texas Rangers -- and the whole state for that matter -- are very, very Republican these days? Anything that makes too many Republicans smile kind of makes me nervous!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, October 17, 2011
AMERICA’S NATIONAL AGENDA
By Edwin Cooney
During the 1960 presidential campaign, one of John F. Kennedy’s themes was “the unfinished public responsibility of our country” -- in other words, our National Agenda.
In last week’s commentary, which was largely designed to demonstrate that kept promises can be as dangerous as broken promises, I suggested (tongue in cheek) that political surprises would be preferable to promises. However, what we’re really talking about is America’s National Agenda which is renewable every four years with the election of a president.
Of course, Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, and Liberals all have their canned solutions to problems ranging from abortion to terrorism. Some of these solutions are legitimate and deserve bipartisan consideration -- if we can restore bipartisanism ever again to our national political dialog. Meantime, we’re faced today with Corporate Media America’s political agenda.
Through the establishment of the radio and television talk show, both the Right and the Left -- each representing fewer than 50% of the public -- seek to set the political agenda for the whole country. Since these idealists are morally and politically superior to you and me, they naturally have little time or inclination to listen -- let alone value -- what the rest of us have to say.
My biggest criticism of President Obama is that he’s allowed himself to be politically penned in and devalued by both the Left and the Right. Both regard themselves as his moral and political superiors, hence he’s worthy of neither. It’s obvious to any objective observer of his administration that he’s well to the right of the label “left-wing Islamic Socialist” that many on the right seek to stamp on his reputation. Apparently, to the shock of many Liberals and to the chagrin of even more Conservatives, he even shares Rush Limbaugh’s determination to wipe out both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Yet Liberals seem to have barely noticed that he clearly shares the Liberal’s job creation, healthcare, and environmental agendas.
As I’ve written numerous times, I was drawn to the then Senator Obama because of his interest in terminating the “culture war.” His political moderation is comparable to presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Ford in his leadership style. However, instead of setting his “anti-culture war” agenda, he has only let Congress and the people know what he wants to accomplish in piecemeal fashion. Hence, both his political opponents and his political friends (Liberals are every bit as petulantly dogmatic as Conservatives) appear to be out for his political hide.
The problem is that both the Right and the Left, good people who could be very helpful to any American president, have traded patriotism for dogmatism. How they see things is
vastly superior to the way nonpolitical people see them. After all, they are the political experts and the moral consciences of this free people. As such, they see themselves as having a legitimate license to cajole and manipulate voters and candidates expecting them to join them in their prejudices and to reinforce them in their self-interest driven solutions to problems both foreign and domestic.
I’ll ask this question once again as I’ve asked it before: why is it patriotic for a young person to give his or her well-being and perhaps life for his or her country when America is in trouble, but not equally patriotic to pay taxes and keep enterprises here in America for the benefit of those working men and women who face dire financial trouble?
America demands and indeed needs jobs, adequate protection against accidents and diseases, protection from international thuggery, and protection from internal fraud regardless of who’s behind it. America wants and deserves clean energy and educational opportunities for its youth and for those who need retraining in order to meet new job standards. The bottom line is that it is agenda-setting time and it is time for you and me to set America’s agenda. We can only effectively do that if our president takes the lead.
Speaking in Boston on the night of Monday, November 7th, the day before the 1960 election, John F. Kennedy put it this way:
“The great task of the president is to set before the American people the unfinished public responsibility of our country.”
There’ve been many historic and cultural changes in America in the last fifty-one years, but the idea that the president must take the lead in setting the National Agenda hasn’t changed.
I remain strongly and enthusiastically supportive of President Obama. Still I must assert that if President Obama won’t set a National Agenda, there are a mess of Republicans out there who’d be glad to try!
Goodness, that possibility is scarier than Halloween which is just around the corner!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
During the 1960 presidential campaign, one of John F. Kennedy’s themes was “the unfinished public responsibility of our country” -- in other words, our National Agenda.
In last week’s commentary, which was largely designed to demonstrate that kept promises can be as dangerous as broken promises, I suggested (tongue in cheek) that political surprises would be preferable to promises. However, what we’re really talking about is America’s National Agenda which is renewable every four years with the election of a president.
Of course, Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, and Liberals all have their canned solutions to problems ranging from abortion to terrorism. Some of these solutions are legitimate and deserve bipartisan consideration -- if we can restore bipartisanism ever again to our national political dialog. Meantime, we’re faced today with Corporate Media America’s political agenda.
Through the establishment of the radio and television talk show, both the Right and the Left -- each representing fewer than 50% of the public -- seek to set the political agenda for the whole country. Since these idealists are morally and politically superior to you and me, they naturally have little time or inclination to listen -- let alone value -- what the rest of us have to say.
My biggest criticism of President Obama is that he’s allowed himself to be politically penned in and devalued by both the Left and the Right. Both regard themselves as his moral and political superiors, hence he’s worthy of neither. It’s obvious to any objective observer of his administration that he’s well to the right of the label “left-wing Islamic Socialist” that many on the right seek to stamp on his reputation. Apparently, to the shock of many Liberals and to the chagrin of even more Conservatives, he even shares Rush Limbaugh’s determination to wipe out both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Yet Liberals seem to have barely noticed that he clearly shares the Liberal’s job creation, healthcare, and environmental agendas.
As I’ve written numerous times, I was drawn to the then Senator Obama because of his interest in terminating the “culture war.” His political moderation is comparable to presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Ford in his leadership style. However, instead of setting his “anti-culture war” agenda, he has only let Congress and the people know what he wants to accomplish in piecemeal fashion. Hence, both his political opponents and his political friends (Liberals are every bit as petulantly dogmatic as Conservatives) appear to be out for his political hide.
The problem is that both the Right and the Left, good people who could be very helpful to any American president, have traded patriotism for dogmatism. How they see things is
vastly superior to the way nonpolitical people see them. After all, they are the political experts and the moral consciences of this free people. As such, they see themselves as having a legitimate license to cajole and manipulate voters and candidates expecting them to join them in their prejudices and to reinforce them in their self-interest driven solutions to problems both foreign and domestic.
I’ll ask this question once again as I’ve asked it before: why is it patriotic for a young person to give his or her well-being and perhaps life for his or her country when America is in trouble, but not equally patriotic to pay taxes and keep enterprises here in America for the benefit of those working men and women who face dire financial trouble?
America demands and indeed needs jobs, adequate protection against accidents and diseases, protection from international thuggery, and protection from internal fraud regardless of who’s behind it. America wants and deserves clean energy and educational opportunities for its youth and for those who need retraining in order to meet new job standards. The bottom line is that it is agenda-setting time and it is time for you and me to set America’s agenda. We can only effectively do that if our president takes the lead.
Speaking in Boston on the night of Monday, November 7th, the day before the 1960 election, John F. Kennedy put it this way:
“The great task of the president is to set before the American people the unfinished public responsibility of our country.”
There’ve been many historic and cultural changes in America in the last fifty-one years, but the idea that the president must take the lead in setting the National Agenda hasn’t changed.
I remain strongly and enthusiastically supportive of President Obama. Still I must assert that if President Obama won’t set a National Agenda, there are a mess of Republicans out there who’d be glad to try!
Goodness, that possibility is scarier than Halloween which is just around the corner!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, October 10, 2011
AH, PROMISES PROMISES -- LET’S SEE NOW!
By Edwin Cooney
Someone asked me a couple of weeks ago: what would I promise the people were I to seek the presidency in 2012?
There are, as I see it, several types of promises in a good politician’s repertoire.
First, there’s the negative promise. Truman and Eisenhower were good at this kind of promise. Truman promised the people that if they’d get rid of that “good for nothin’” Republican 80th Congress, he’d see to it that real progress was made in America. Ike promised that he’d get rid of the “crooks and cronies” hanging around Harry Truman. What he could not promise was the total absence of Republican crooks and cronies.
Then there’s everyone’s favorite: the kept promise. Not all kept promises have been healthy for the country. Andrew Jackson promised in 1832 to veto the bill passed by Congress to re-charter the Bank of the United States. He kept that promise and decentralized the banking system enough to bring about a severe depression the year after he left office. Then, there was the case of James K. Polk. He kept all of his promises and involved us in a war with Mexico which heightened the slavery issue to the point that we fought a civil war about thirteen years after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. President Johnson promised a war on poverty and kept his word, but ever since then Conservatives have delighted in reminding us that it didn’t work.
Next, there’s the promise all good Americans patriotically detest: the broken promise. In 1980, candidate Reagan promised to balance the budget by 1984, but he not only broke that promise, he increased the national debt from one trillion at the close of Jimmy Carter’s administration to three trillion dollars in 1989. Then, there’s the case of FDR who promised during the 1932 campaign to balance the budget. Of course, the truth is that he never intended to keep that promise. However, he didn’t promise to close and reorganize the banks, he didn’t promise to create the Civilian Conservation Corps, the National Industrial Recovery Act, or the Agricultural Adjustment act and he also did not commit to Social Security until mid 1935.
Another type of promise is the broad sweeping promise. This can be an effective kind of promise as long as the public’s perception of it is the same as the president who promised it. That’s the promise to bring about “change.” Both candidates Obama and McCain promised change during the 2008 campaign.
However, a careful look at “change” can be a tad disconcerting. When Herbert Hoover took office on March 4th, 1929, America was, or appeared to be, prosperous. By the time President Hoover left office on March 4th, 1933, there had been considerable change -- very much to that good man’s chagrin.
President Reagan brought about “change” during his administration -- much of it good -- especially in foreign affairs. This included nuclear arms reduction and the destruction of “the evil empire.” Nevertheless, President Reagan’s administration didn’t come close to providing America with a problem-free future. After all, two entities that received considerable aid from Mr. Reagan were the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Taliban was the enemy of the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein was the enemy of Iran.
The ultimate question therefore is: are you willing to trust a candidate who makes no promises? Is the need for promises that of the candidate or of the voter? I refuse to insult you by answering that question. Ah! But I do have an antidote for the promise and it comes from the greatest politician of them all, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Above, I mentioned one of his major broken promises. I also listed a few of his achievements. There are more, many more that were good for the people: the Home Loan Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission which polices Wall Street, the Works Progress Administration which employed teachers, musicians, librarians and writers, and the Public Works Administration that oversaw huge construction projects such as roads, bridges, schools and hospitals to name a few. These beneficial achievements surely were a surprise to most people. Hence, the Cooney candidacy will substitute the promise with the surprise.
Therefore, should I run for President in 2012, any time a reporter or an interest group asks me my position on any matter I’ll have a ready answer: “Trust me, I’ll surprise you!”
Thus, the issues in 2012 will go from the complex to the simple. Which do you, the voter, prefer -- the promise or the surprise? Choose for yourself!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Someone asked me a couple of weeks ago: what would I promise the people were I to seek the presidency in 2012?
There are, as I see it, several types of promises in a good politician’s repertoire.
First, there’s the negative promise. Truman and Eisenhower were good at this kind of promise. Truman promised the people that if they’d get rid of that “good for nothin’” Republican 80th Congress, he’d see to it that real progress was made in America. Ike promised that he’d get rid of the “crooks and cronies” hanging around Harry Truman. What he could not promise was the total absence of Republican crooks and cronies.
Then there’s everyone’s favorite: the kept promise. Not all kept promises have been healthy for the country. Andrew Jackson promised in 1832 to veto the bill passed by Congress to re-charter the Bank of the United States. He kept that promise and decentralized the banking system enough to bring about a severe depression the year after he left office. Then, there was the case of James K. Polk. He kept all of his promises and involved us in a war with Mexico which heightened the slavery issue to the point that we fought a civil war about thirteen years after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. President Johnson promised a war on poverty and kept his word, but ever since then Conservatives have delighted in reminding us that it didn’t work.
Next, there’s the promise all good Americans patriotically detest: the broken promise. In 1980, candidate Reagan promised to balance the budget by 1984, but he not only broke that promise, he increased the national debt from one trillion at the close of Jimmy Carter’s administration to three trillion dollars in 1989. Then, there’s the case of FDR who promised during the 1932 campaign to balance the budget. Of course, the truth is that he never intended to keep that promise. However, he didn’t promise to close and reorganize the banks, he didn’t promise to create the Civilian Conservation Corps, the National Industrial Recovery Act, or the Agricultural Adjustment act and he also did not commit to Social Security until mid 1935.
Another type of promise is the broad sweeping promise. This can be an effective kind of promise as long as the public’s perception of it is the same as the president who promised it. That’s the promise to bring about “change.” Both candidates Obama and McCain promised change during the 2008 campaign.
However, a careful look at “change” can be a tad disconcerting. When Herbert Hoover took office on March 4th, 1929, America was, or appeared to be, prosperous. By the time President Hoover left office on March 4th, 1933, there had been considerable change -- very much to that good man’s chagrin.
President Reagan brought about “change” during his administration -- much of it good -- especially in foreign affairs. This included nuclear arms reduction and the destruction of “the evil empire.” Nevertheless, President Reagan’s administration didn’t come close to providing America with a problem-free future. After all, two entities that received considerable aid from Mr. Reagan were the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Taliban was the enemy of the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein was the enemy of Iran.
The ultimate question therefore is: are you willing to trust a candidate who makes no promises? Is the need for promises that of the candidate or of the voter? I refuse to insult you by answering that question. Ah! But I do have an antidote for the promise and it comes from the greatest politician of them all, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Above, I mentioned one of his major broken promises. I also listed a few of his achievements. There are more, many more that were good for the people: the Home Loan Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission which polices Wall Street, the Works Progress Administration which employed teachers, musicians, librarians and writers, and the Public Works Administration that oversaw huge construction projects such as roads, bridges, schools and hospitals to name a few. These beneficial achievements surely were a surprise to most people. Hence, the Cooney candidacy will substitute the promise with the surprise.
Therefore, should I run for President in 2012, any time a reporter or an interest group asks me my position on any matter I’ll have a ready answer: “Trust me, I’ll surprise you!”
Thus, the issues in 2012 will go from the complex to the simple. Which do you, the voter, prefer -- the promise or the surprise? Choose for yourself!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, October 3, 2011
WHAT ROGER WROUGHT!
By Edwin Cooney
The date was Sunday, October 1st, 1961. The clock at Yankees Stadium read 2:43 p.m. A crowd of only 23,154 watched the Red Sox big right-handed Virginian Tracy Stallard take his windup. Their focus, however, was the husky hitter standing in the left-handed batter’s box, his 35 oz Louisville Slugger cocked about the height of his left ear. Evan (Tracy) Stallard (he was always known by his middle name) drove his body and the five oz baseball toward home plate. Before the nine-and-a-half-inch leather-covered spheroid could reach catcher Russ Nixon’s glove there was a loud crack of bat on ball. The ball shot toward the Yankee bullpen in deep right field. It landed in the seats to the right of the bullpen some 365 feet from home plate. It was Roger Maris’ 61st home run of the 1961 American League season.
Nobody, not even Roger Maris’ bitterest detractor, doubted what he had just done, but what did it all mean? What had Roger Eugene Maris, a native of Hibbing, Minnesota who had spent his youth in both Grand Forks and Fargo, North Dakota, just wrought? Did he really understand its magnitude? Did his fans or his detractors?
Above everything else, Roger Maris cared most about his family, his faith, and his friends. Babe Ruth’s home run record, except as a mark to be matched or bettered, was of little interest to him. His status as a New York Yankee was important as a part of his professional obligation but it went no deeper than that. A small town man, he’d definitely have preferred to bring a championship to the Kansas City Athletics for whom he’d played from mid 1958 until he was traded to the Yankees in December of 1959.
The year 1961 found Roger Maris competing with teammate Mickey Mantle for the Babe’s almost sacred achievement.
In mid July, Baseball Commissioner Ford Frick, who had once been a friend and a ghostwriter for Babe Ruth, the “Sultan of Swat,” announced that if either Maris or Mantle were to be regarded as a single season home run champion, he’d have to hit 61 home runs in 154 games. Otherwise, an asterisk or some other mark would be put in the official record book to indicate a definite distinction between the old and new records. After all, the commissioner observed, the Babe had set his record of 60 home runs in the 154 game schedule of 1927. With the addition of two new franchises, the 1961 schedule consisted of eight more games -- a total of 162.
Still, as Roger Maris told reporters, he’d do his best. “I don’t make the rules,” he said.
Aside from the Babe’s ghostly presence, Maris’ teammate and friend Mickey Mantle was another factor. Although the press and media continuously sought to uncover jealousy between them, they were friendly enough to rent an apartment in Queens, along with teammate Bob Cerv, far from the prying gaze of the public eye!
Even Yankee fans who were perfectly willing to see Ruth’s record broken were split between the M&M boys. Most favored Mickey since the year 1961 marked the beginning of his eleventh season as a Yankee. It was only Maris’ second season in Yankee pin stripes.
Due to a late season injury and illness to Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris ultimately prevailed. His 61 home runs achieved a very practical goal: greater earning capacity for the security of his wife Pat and six children, Susan, Roger Jr., Kevin, Randy, Richard and Sandra.
However, young Maris was almost totally tone deaf to stardom. He bristled at questions he regarded as an invasion of his privacy. “I’m a married man,” is all he’d say in response to a question as to whether or not he “played on the road.” Often moody and “surly,” he wasn’t a storyteller. Unlike Mickey Mantle, Maris had no stories to relate about exploits with the adventurous, the famous, and the beautiful. Thus, long before he left the Yankees after the 1966 season, he was regarded by many as being unworthy of his own achievement.
As time moved on, people began to take a second look at Commissioner Frick’s asterisk. First, they discovered that it didn’t really exist. Second, they came to realize that other records achieved in a season or lifetime were accepted as such without comparing the number of games or chances held by previous record holders. Finally, time -- the great healer -- knit Roger Maris, the Yankees and the fans back together in a bond made up of sentiment and appreciation.
Fifty years is more than half a lifetime for most of us. Its glory is that it blends memory and outlook in such a way as to cause the past and the present to merge into the mellowest of experiences. By the time of his December 14th, 1985 death from lymphoma cancer, Roger Maris doubtless realized his own contributions to the turmoil of his unhappiest New York Yankee years. Still he could honestly retain his pride in his principles of hard work, loyalty and dignity.
What Roger Maris wrought occurred exactly 50 years and two days ago. He once observed that if he had it to do again, he wouldn’t change a thing. If I, as a mere observer, could relive it, I’d be delighted to do so. It would be even more thrilling if you could share its fullness with me!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
The date was Sunday, October 1st, 1961. The clock at Yankees Stadium read 2:43 p.m. A crowd of only 23,154 watched the Red Sox big right-handed Virginian Tracy Stallard take his windup. Their focus, however, was the husky hitter standing in the left-handed batter’s box, his 35 oz Louisville Slugger cocked about the height of his left ear. Evan (Tracy) Stallard (he was always known by his middle name) drove his body and the five oz baseball toward home plate. Before the nine-and-a-half-inch leather-covered spheroid could reach catcher Russ Nixon’s glove there was a loud crack of bat on ball. The ball shot toward the Yankee bullpen in deep right field. It landed in the seats to the right of the bullpen some 365 feet from home plate. It was Roger Maris’ 61st home run of the 1961 American League season.
Nobody, not even Roger Maris’ bitterest detractor, doubted what he had just done, but what did it all mean? What had Roger Eugene Maris, a native of Hibbing, Minnesota who had spent his youth in both Grand Forks and Fargo, North Dakota, just wrought? Did he really understand its magnitude? Did his fans or his detractors?
Above everything else, Roger Maris cared most about his family, his faith, and his friends. Babe Ruth’s home run record, except as a mark to be matched or bettered, was of little interest to him. His status as a New York Yankee was important as a part of his professional obligation but it went no deeper than that. A small town man, he’d definitely have preferred to bring a championship to the Kansas City Athletics for whom he’d played from mid 1958 until he was traded to the Yankees in December of 1959.
The year 1961 found Roger Maris competing with teammate Mickey Mantle for the Babe’s almost sacred achievement.
In mid July, Baseball Commissioner Ford Frick, who had once been a friend and a ghostwriter for Babe Ruth, the “Sultan of Swat,” announced that if either Maris or Mantle were to be regarded as a single season home run champion, he’d have to hit 61 home runs in 154 games. Otherwise, an asterisk or some other mark would be put in the official record book to indicate a definite distinction between the old and new records. After all, the commissioner observed, the Babe had set his record of 60 home runs in the 154 game schedule of 1927. With the addition of two new franchises, the 1961 schedule consisted of eight more games -- a total of 162.
Still, as Roger Maris told reporters, he’d do his best. “I don’t make the rules,” he said.
Aside from the Babe’s ghostly presence, Maris’ teammate and friend Mickey Mantle was another factor. Although the press and media continuously sought to uncover jealousy between them, they were friendly enough to rent an apartment in Queens, along with teammate Bob Cerv, far from the prying gaze of the public eye!
Even Yankee fans who were perfectly willing to see Ruth’s record broken were split between the M&M boys. Most favored Mickey since the year 1961 marked the beginning of his eleventh season as a Yankee. It was only Maris’ second season in Yankee pin stripes.
Due to a late season injury and illness to Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris ultimately prevailed. His 61 home runs achieved a very practical goal: greater earning capacity for the security of his wife Pat and six children, Susan, Roger Jr., Kevin, Randy, Richard and Sandra.
However, young Maris was almost totally tone deaf to stardom. He bristled at questions he regarded as an invasion of his privacy. “I’m a married man,” is all he’d say in response to a question as to whether or not he “played on the road.” Often moody and “surly,” he wasn’t a storyteller. Unlike Mickey Mantle, Maris had no stories to relate about exploits with the adventurous, the famous, and the beautiful. Thus, long before he left the Yankees after the 1966 season, he was regarded by many as being unworthy of his own achievement.
As time moved on, people began to take a second look at Commissioner Frick’s asterisk. First, they discovered that it didn’t really exist. Second, they came to realize that other records achieved in a season or lifetime were accepted as such without comparing the number of games or chances held by previous record holders. Finally, time -- the great healer -- knit Roger Maris, the Yankees and the fans back together in a bond made up of sentiment and appreciation.
Fifty years is more than half a lifetime for most of us. Its glory is that it blends memory and outlook in such a way as to cause the past and the present to merge into the mellowest of experiences. By the time of his December 14th, 1985 death from lymphoma cancer, Roger Maris doubtless realized his own contributions to the turmoil of his unhappiest New York Yankee years. Still he could honestly retain his pride in his principles of hard work, loyalty and dignity.
What Roger Maris wrought occurred exactly 50 years and two days ago. He once observed that if he had it to do again, he wouldn’t change a thing. If I, as a mere observer, could relive it, I’d be delighted to do so. It would be even more thrilling if you could share its fullness with me!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, September 26, 2011
AT THE ROOT OF WHAT MATTERS
By Edwin Cooney
Approximately ten days ago, my world was shaken with the news that President Obama’s job approval rating here in the state of California had dropped to 49%. I’ve observed the shifting forces of American political and social life enough to know that a month can be an eternity in romance and politics. Thus there was really little to worry about. Still, it mattered so much to me that I let it ruin my day.
Part of the reason it mattered so much was because I was reading and enjoying Jonathan Alter’s compelling book “The Promise,” an analysis of President Obama’s first year in office. The book is helpfully objective, giving the reader the full scope of what worked and what didn’t. The reader gets a look into the president’s personality and how he put together and worked with his administration. It was very enlightening with reasons rather than excuses for the outcome of events. I felt closer to understanding who he is and where he was taking the country and, while I buy most of it, I don’t buy it all. Suddenly, I had to face the reality of widespread displeasure with the president for whom I have considerable admiration and respect. This bump in the road or whatever it is has made me wonder:
Aside from the welfare of family and friends, my personal physical and emotional well-being and that of my country, what makes things matter? Is there a single factor or are there numerous reasons why I ponder, hope, and wonder why things matter?
Some things matter peripherally such as whether the New York Yankees or the San Jose Sharks (my favorite MLB baseball and NHL hockey teams) win, whether a friend cancels lunch once or twice, even whether or not my youngest son, who lives nearby, predictably contacts me. (After all, he has his own life to live.) All of these things have a way of balancing out thus providing me with a sufficient combination of gratification and a dab of uncertainty to keep me humble.
The question remains, however: what makes what matters most matter?
Of course, there’s interest and identification with family, country or religion, but there’s also a deeper factor. As I ponder the above question, one of the factors most common to most of us is the need to correctly assess the future.
Throughout our lives all of us have experienced all kinds of feelings. Different types of stories and the experiences of others have an effect on us. Some of us have a strong sense of spiritual, political or patriotic duty. Others possess a strong sense of justice. Many are energized by doing what we can to ensure the well-being of those we consider less fortunate than ourselves.
Of course, there are a lot of things which are vitally important that I deliberately let other people worry about. I am neither an economist nor an environmentalist. I don’t study geology to prevent earth quakes. I am not a doctor or a fireman. As for politics and matters of spirituality, I have a perspective on both. I’m always willing to share and even debate the significance of my perspectives, but I fully realize that I have no monopoly on either patriotism or wisdom.
Most of us exalt in joy for the good fortunes of those we love or who give us strength or optimism about the future. Most of us want the future to be compatible with what we hope and even believe it ought to be. Therefore, it matters when someone whom we believe can affect that future for the best seems to be in danger, political or otherwise.
Out of our hunger for gratification we seek partners along the way who may reinforce the numerous positive outcomes for which we strive and hope. What matters most to you and to me are likely to be as different as our individualities!
Once upon a time there was a man in Washington called “Harry the Hop.” His full name was Harry Lloyd Hopkins. His value to FDR during the Depression and to FDR and Churchill during the war was his ability to get to the heart of any question. Churchill came to call him “Lord Root of the Matter.”
For example, as head of the Works Progress Administration, he was advised that if he would just stop pressing for government work programs for the unemployed, the economy would pick up in the long run. His response was “people don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”
Whatever importance or priority you give to your politics or to your religion, who you are has more to do with their significance than their original value or validity.
Hence, it’s my guess that were I to ask “Lord Root of the Matter” what lies at the heart of all that matters, his answer would be simple and true—me and you.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Approximately ten days ago, my world was shaken with the news that President Obama’s job approval rating here in the state of California had dropped to 49%. I’ve observed the shifting forces of American political and social life enough to know that a month can be an eternity in romance and politics. Thus there was really little to worry about. Still, it mattered so much to me that I let it ruin my day.
Part of the reason it mattered so much was because I was reading and enjoying Jonathan Alter’s compelling book “The Promise,” an analysis of President Obama’s first year in office. The book is helpfully objective, giving the reader the full scope of what worked and what didn’t. The reader gets a look into the president’s personality and how he put together and worked with his administration. It was very enlightening with reasons rather than excuses for the outcome of events. I felt closer to understanding who he is and where he was taking the country and, while I buy most of it, I don’t buy it all. Suddenly, I had to face the reality of widespread displeasure with the president for whom I have considerable admiration and respect. This bump in the road or whatever it is has made me wonder:
Aside from the welfare of family and friends, my personal physical and emotional well-being and that of my country, what makes things matter? Is there a single factor or are there numerous reasons why I ponder, hope, and wonder why things matter?
Some things matter peripherally such as whether the New York Yankees or the San Jose Sharks (my favorite MLB baseball and NHL hockey teams) win, whether a friend cancels lunch once or twice, even whether or not my youngest son, who lives nearby, predictably contacts me. (After all, he has his own life to live.) All of these things have a way of balancing out thus providing me with a sufficient combination of gratification and a dab of uncertainty to keep me humble.
The question remains, however: what makes what matters most matter?
Of course, there’s interest and identification with family, country or religion, but there’s also a deeper factor. As I ponder the above question, one of the factors most common to most of us is the need to correctly assess the future.
Throughout our lives all of us have experienced all kinds of feelings. Different types of stories and the experiences of others have an effect on us. Some of us have a strong sense of spiritual, political or patriotic duty. Others possess a strong sense of justice. Many are energized by doing what we can to ensure the well-being of those we consider less fortunate than ourselves.
Of course, there are a lot of things which are vitally important that I deliberately let other people worry about. I am neither an economist nor an environmentalist. I don’t study geology to prevent earth quakes. I am not a doctor or a fireman. As for politics and matters of spirituality, I have a perspective on both. I’m always willing to share and even debate the significance of my perspectives, but I fully realize that I have no monopoly on either patriotism or wisdom.
Most of us exalt in joy for the good fortunes of those we love or who give us strength or optimism about the future. Most of us want the future to be compatible with what we hope and even believe it ought to be. Therefore, it matters when someone whom we believe can affect that future for the best seems to be in danger, political or otherwise.
Out of our hunger for gratification we seek partners along the way who may reinforce the numerous positive outcomes for which we strive and hope. What matters most to you and to me are likely to be as different as our individualities!
Once upon a time there was a man in Washington called “Harry the Hop.” His full name was Harry Lloyd Hopkins. His value to FDR during the Depression and to FDR and Churchill during the war was his ability to get to the heart of any question. Churchill came to call him “Lord Root of the Matter.”
For example, as head of the Works Progress Administration, he was advised that if he would just stop pressing for government work programs for the unemployed, the economy would pick up in the long run. His response was “people don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”
Whatever importance or priority you give to your politics or to your religion, who you are has more to do with their significance than their original value or validity.
Hence, it’s my guess that were I to ask “Lord Root of the Matter” what lies at the heart of all that matters, his answer would be simple and true—me and you.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, September 19, 2011
A LETTER TO GEORGE WASHINGTON
By Edwin Cooney
Dear General Washington,
Two hundred and fifteen years have passed since you announced the close of your magnificent service to “we, the people of the United States,” in the message that has come to be known as your “Farewell Address.” September 19th was on a Monday in 1796, as it is this year, but the world is so very different today from the world of your generation.
Forty-two other men, five of whom were of Your Excellency’s acquaintance, have succeeded you in the office you conducted so well. Today, a brilliant man whose social ranking would have only been equal to one of yours and Mrs. Washington’s slaves occupies the presidential mansion which you didn’t live to see completed. The country you sought to guide and govern now possesses fifty states in the Union rather than merely sixteen as when you passed away on the night of Saturday, December 14th, 1799 in the sixty-eighth year of your age. Then we were agrarian, now we’re superconductive or cyberspatial -- take your pick. Then we were isolated by weeks of travel from the old world. Now there is instant communication and only hours in time physically separate us from the “old world.”
Yet, with all these differences, we look back with reverence at the form of government we’ve inherited by your grace. Still, as much as we revere you, just as our own children react to our advice, we’ve heeded little of the six main themes of your Farewell Address. Even categorizing it as an “address” demonstrates our inexactitude in recall since your farewell was a letter, not a speech.
First sir, you urged us to revere our federal government as “a…main pillar in the edifice of your ... independence...your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty which you so highly prize.” Yet today, many among us show ideological and doctrinaire contempt for the federal government as you once did toward the British officer corps and the Parliament.
Second, you warned us of political parties which you insisted would distract the public councils (you probably meant congress) and enfeeble the public administration (the presidency, the function of which you gave such careful consideration). You asserted further that parties would agitate the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, and would kindle the animosities of one against the other which would open the door to foreign influence and corruption thus subjecting us to the policies and will of other nations. Your wisdom is borne out today by those who depend on Liberal and Conservative doctrines rather than on a careful study of history for their political faith.
Third, you stressed the importance of religion and morality as the security of property and reputation as well as solemn oaths that give integrity to lawful investigation in the courts of justice. Sadly, today logic and science too often trump faith and trust.
Fourth, you insisted on stable public credit advising that such credit should be used sparingly to avoid the accumulation of debt. In so doing, you reminded us that in order to pay off public debt there must be revenue and thus unpleasant taxes which you implied could poison the body politic. So it has, especially since your small community and semi-barter society has become a money-based society.
Fifth, you warned against permanent foreign alliances. You doubtless vividly recall the controversy caused by the Jay Treaty because it failed to halt England’s practice of boarding American merchant ships on the high seas and inducting American sailors into the Royal Navy. Surely you recall being branded “cowardice” for not standing up to Britain by allying with France in her latest war with England. Your idea of “national safety” was separation from European politics. Today, “collective security” is equated with national safety because since World War II we’ve abandoned isolation due to the power of “foreign influences.”
Sixth, and finally, you warned us to “….avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments” which you insisted under any government are to be regarded as being hostile to Republican Liberty.” In twenty-first century, America patriotism is too often measured by an individual’s reverence for the military over civilian authority.
Still, we must keep in mind that the Constitution, which you helped to create and to see to its adoption, modestly sought “a more perfect”-- not an absolutely perfect -- union. The young America you shepherded into being, marred as it was by religious persecution, chattel slavery and other examples of intolerance, remains humankind’s greatest and most enduring promise of ultimate justice.
Thus, with all of the imperfections of your day and ours, with all of the seemingly wasted wisdom of yesterday and today, your wish for us in the largest sense has truly been realized.
We devoutly offer you our gratitude because America, overall, has fared quite well!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Dear General Washington,
Two hundred and fifteen years have passed since you announced the close of your magnificent service to “we, the people of the United States,” in the message that has come to be known as your “Farewell Address.” September 19th was on a Monday in 1796, as it is this year, but the world is so very different today from the world of your generation.
Forty-two other men, five of whom were of Your Excellency’s acquaintance, have succeeded you in the office you conducted so well. Today, a brilliant man whose social ranking would have only been equal to one of yours and Mrs. Washington’s slaves occupies the presidential mansion which you didn’t live to see completed. The country you sought to guide and govern now possesses fifty states in the Union rather than merely sixteen as when you passed away on the night of Saturday, December 14th, 1799 in the sixty-eighth year of your age. Then we were agrarian, now we’re superconductive or cyberspatial -- take your pick. Then we were isolated by weeks of travel from the old world. Now there is instant communication and only hours in time physically separate us from the “old world.”
Yet, with all these differences, we look back with reverence at the form of government we’ve inherited by your grace. Still, as much as we revere you, just as our own children react to our advice, we’ve heeded little of the six main themes of your Farewell Address. Even categorizing it as an “address” demonstrates our inexactitude in recall since your farewell was a letter, not a speech.
First sir, you urged us to revere our federal government as “a…main pillar in the edifice of your ... independence...your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty which you so highly prize.” Yet today, many among us show ideological and doctrinaire contempt for the federal government as you once did toward the British officer corps and the Parliament.
Second, you warned us of political parties which you insisted would distract the public councils (you probably meant congress) and enfeeble the public administration (the presidency, the function of which you gave such careful consideration). You asserted further that parties would agitate the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, and would kindle the animosities of one against the other which would open the door to foreign influence and corruption thus subjecting us to the policies and will of other nations. Your wisdom is borne out today by those who depend on Liberal and Conservative doctrines rather than on a careful study of history for their political faith.
Third, you stressed the importance of religion and morality as the security of property and reputation as well as solemn oaths that give integrity to lawful investigation in the courts of justice. Sadly, today logic and science too often trump faith and trust.
Fourth, you insisted on stable public credit advising that such credit should be used sparingly to avoid the accumulation of debt. In so doing, you reminded us that in order to pay off public debt there must be revenue and thus unpleasant taxes which you implied could poison the body politic. So it has, especially since your small community and semi-barter society has become a money-based society.
Fifth, you warned against permanent foreign alliances. You doubtless vividly recall the controversy caused by the Jay Treaty because it failed to halt England’s practice of boarding American merchant ships on the high seas and inducting American sailors into the Royal Navy. Surely you recall being branded “cowardice” for not standing up to Britain by allying with France in her latest war with England. Your idea of “national safety” was separation from European politics. Today, “collective security” is equated with national safety because since World War II we’ve abandoned isolation due to the power of “foreign influences.”
Sixth, and finally, you warned us to “….avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments” which you insisted under any government are to be regarded as being hostile to Republican Liberty.” In twenty-first century, America patriotism is too often measured by an individual’s reverence for the military over civilian authority.
Still, we must keep in mind that the Constitution, which you helped to create and to see to its adoption, modestly sought “a more perfect”-- not an absolutely perfect -- union. The young America you shepherded into being, marred as it was by religious persecution, chattel slavery and other examples of intolerance, remains humankind’s greatest and most enduring promise of ultimate justice.
Thus, with all of the imperfections of your day and ours, with all of the seemingly wasted wisdom of yesterday and today, your wish for us in the largest sense has truly been realized.
We devoutly offer you our gratitude because America, overall, has fared quite well!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, September 12, 2011
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FOUR TRUTHS!
By Edwin Cooney
As far back as I can remember, I’ve been told how important it is to know and to tell the truth.
I’ve generally been successful at admitting the various truths about myself to others (although I often lie to myself about myself), but identifying worldly truths or reality is quite another task.
The first time I was ever aware of my president lying to me was back in May of 1960 when Ike said the U-2 spy plane shot down over the Soviet Union and piloted by Francis Gary Powers was a “weather plane.” What made President Ike’s lie worse was that it was uncovered by Nikita Khrushchev, a “fat little pig-eyed godless communist” whom
J. Edgar Hoover warned us not to trust. That was the beginning of my political disillusionment, but I didn’t realize it then. After all, I knew who I could really bank on for good judgment and especially for the absolute truth on all occasions: his name was Richard Nixon. (I was a childhood prodigy; I had wisdom beyond my years!)
Since my traumatic teen years, I have been looking for truths. I have been told that the clergy are the main source of truth, since their truth comes from Holy Scripture and from “above.” Yet it seems that too many of them are preaching divergent versions of the truth, so it gets rather confusing.
So, I stick to politicians. No, it’s not quite as bad as that: I wait for a politician to be nominated for the presidency and then I become a believer.
So, let’s see now: there was Ike and the weather plane -- then there was JFK’s fidelity to Jackie -- then there was Lyndon Johnson’s “generation gap.” President Nixon, who wasn’t a crook, had an honest wife and two lovely daughters. Honest Jerry, who taught us that “truth is the glue that holds us together,” had lots of questionable friends -- especially Richard Nixon. Jimmy Carter was a man of sterling truth and morality, who probably took himself more seriously than he did truth on occasion. Ronald Reagan undoubtedly was truthful in his intention to cut the size of government and government spending, but the real truth is that he did neither. George Herbert Walker Bush invited all of us to “read his lips” while promising us that he’d never raise taxes -- of course, he would not have raised taxes had it not been for those evil Democrats. President Clinton would have always told us the truth but, like the word “is,” he found truth difficult to define. President George Walker Bush thought he was telling the truth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that nasty untrustworthy Saddam Hussein let him down!
Last Thursday night, however, President Barack Obama offered us four truths:
Truth One is that we live in an economic emergency that has left millions of people jobless.
Truth Two is that both Republicans and Democrats have supported government programs when they have considered it politically and patriotically beneficial to their constituents.
Truth Three is that the public deserves to be protected from unscrupulous environmental, economic, and social forces beyond their control.
Truth Four, the most profound of these Obamian truths, is that in the current economic emergency, the public cares much less than politicians and media talk show hosts do about who will be elected in 2012.
Of course, President Obama isn’t the first leader to be truthful.
Ike told us the truth about the existence of the pervasive military industrial establishment.
JFK was truthful when he asserted that we could afford to go to the moon by the end of the 1960s.
Lyndon B. Johnson was truthful on the subject of civil rights.
Richard Nixon was truthful about the importance of our future relations with China.
Gerald Ford was truthful when he explained the Nixon pardon.
Jimmy Carter was truthful when he asserted that human rights were more important than international political or diplomatic conveniences.
Ronald Reagan was truthful when he characterized the USSR as “the evil empire.”
George H. W. Bush told the truth about the seriousness of drugs in America.
Bill Clinton told the truth when he said he had much to be forgiven for.
Finally, George Walker Bush told the truth when he assured America that the 2007 “surge” in Iraq would be successful.
I know, you all would like to know when Barack Obama might be less than truthful! Okay, here it is:
He may know damn well, although he isn’t telling us, that Americans have less in common than he has insisted we do! He may finally realize, after nearly four years of trying to work with his political opponents, that their political principles matter more to them than the common good!
If that possibility doesn’t scare you, it ought to!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
As far back as I can remember, I’ve been told how important it is to know and to tell the truth.
I’ve generally been successful at admitting the various truths about myself to others (although I often lie to myself about myself), but identifying worldly truths or reality is quite another task.
The first time I was ever aware of my president lying to me was back in May of 1960 when Ike said the U-2 spy plane shot down over the Soviet Union and piloted by Francis Gary Powers was a “weather plane.” What made President Ike’s lie worse was that it was uncovered by Nikita Khrushchev, a “fat little pig-eyed godless communist” whom
J. Edgar Hoover warned us not to trust. That was the beginning of my political disillusionment, but I didn’t realize it then. After all, I knew who I could really bank on for good judgment and especially for the absolute truth on all occasions: his name was Richard Nixon. (I was a childhood prodigy; I had wisdom beyond my years!)
Since my traumatic teen years, I have been looking for truths. I have been told that the clergy are the main source of truth, since their truth comes from Holy Scripture and from “above.” Yet it seems that too many of them are preaching divergent versions of the truth, so it gets rather confusing.
So, I stick to politicians. No, it’s not quite as bad as that: I wait for a politician to be nominated for the presidency and then I become a believer.
So, let’s see now: there was Ike and the weather plane -- then there was JFK’s fidelity to Jackie -- then there was Lyndon Johnson’s “generation gap.” President Nixon, who wasn’t a crook, had an honest wife and two lovely daughters. Honest Jerry, who taught us that “truth is the glue that holds us together,” had lots of questionable friends -- especially Richard Nixon. Jimmy Carter was a man of sterling truth and morality, who probably took himself more seriously than he did truth on occasion. Ronald Reagan undoubtedly was truthful in his intention to cut the size of government and government spending, but the real truth is that he did neither. George Herbert Walker Bush invited all of us to “read his lips” while promising us that he’d never raise taxes -- of course, he would not have raised taxes had it not been for those evil Democrats. President Clinton would have always told us the truth but, like the word “is,” he found truth difficult to define. President George Walker Bush thought he was telling the truth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that nasty untrustworthy Saddam Hussein let him down!
Last Thursday night, however, President Barack Obama offered us four truths:
Truth One is that we live in an economic emergency that has left millions of people jobless.
Truth Two is that both Republicans and Democrats have supported government programs when they have considered it politically and patriotically beneficial to their constituents.
Truth Three is that the public deserves to be protected from unscrupulous environmental, economic, and social forces beyond their control.
Truth Four, the most profound of these Obamian truths, is that in the current economic emergency, the public cares much less than politicians and media talk show hosts do about who will be elected in 2012.
Of course, President Obama isn’t the first leader to be truthful.
Ike told us the truth about the existence of the pervasive military industrial establishment.
JFK was truthful when he asserted that we could afford to go to the moon by the end of the 1960s.
Lyndon B. Johnson was truthful on the subject of civil rights.
Richard Nixon was truthful about the importance of our future relations with China.
Gerald Ford was truthful when he explained the Nixon pardon.
Jimmy Carter was truthful when he asserted that human rights were more important than international political or diplomatic conveniences.
Ronald Reagan was truthful when he characterized the USSR as “the evil empire.”
George H. W. Bush told the truth about the seriousness of drugs in America.
Bill Clinton told the truth when he said he had much to be forgiven for.
Finally, George Walker Bush told the truth when he assured America that the 2007 “surge” in Iraq would be successful.
I know, you all would like to know when Barack Obama might be less than truthful! Okay, here it is:
He may know damn well, although he isn’t telling us, that Americans have less in common than he has insisted we do! He may finally realize, after nearly four years of trying to work with his political opponents, that their political principles matter more to them than the common good!
If that possibility doesn’t scare you, it ought to!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, September 5, 2011
LABOR DAY -- AMERICA’S NEARLY ANONYMOUS HOLIDAY
By Edwin Cooney
I’m guessing that you know much more about the origins of Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, Memorial Day, and Independence Day than you ever knew about Labor Day!
Nevertheless, in lots of ways Americans celebrate Labor Day, the first Monday in September, almost the same way as they do Independence Day. There may be a few less parades, but the fireworks and picnics are about the same. A lady might don a light cardigan over her halter top, and a gentleman might wear a windbreaker over his t-shirt, but they can usually still comfortably picnic outdoors. Baseball pennant races are inevitably tighter and that makes the day more meaningful. Occasionally, to the glory of America, the National Football League’s first Monday night game of the season is televised Labor Day night.
America’s first Labor Day was celebrated on Tuesday, September 5th, 1882 by the Central Labor Union of New York City. For many years it was thought that Peter J. McGuire, Secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, was the force behind the original promotion of Labor Day by the Central Labor Union of New York City. However, it has recently been discovered that Matthew Maguire, Secretary of both Local 344 of the International Association of Machinists in Paterson, New Jersey as well as of the Central Labor Union of New York City, sent out the invitations to workers to attend the scheduled parade and picnic. Keep in mind that since it was an unofficial holiday, attendees would be sacrificing a day’s pay in order to participate in the first Labor Day -- so the invitations had to be pretty compelling. Hundreds of people did sacrifice and Labor Day became a municipal, next a statewide, and finally a nationally celebrated holiday.
Some people have concluded that the reason Peter J. McGuire was favored as the father of Labor Day over Matthew Maguire had mostly to do with Matthew Maguire’s politics. Although both men dabbled in Socialism as young labor activists, Matthew Maguire had the audacity to run as the Vice Presidential nominee on the Socialist Labor Party ticket in 1896 under the party’s presidential candidate Charles Horatio Matchett. Thus, because of Labor’s early association with Socialism both here and abroad, many Americans who insist that they admire nothing more than hard work have been quite touchy about celebrating the value of the American laborer.
However confused or hesitant Americans may feel about the political doctrines behind the celebration of Labor Day, next to getting a raise in pay, we love nothing more than a holiday. Hence, despite our suspicions of the motives, politics and the absolute loyalty of laborers, we take the day off.
Each of us, if we take the time to think of it, has our own personal reasons for celebrating Labor Day or any other day. For me, Labor Day is the equivalent of December 31st, the last day of the year. That means that tomorrow is the first day of the future. Of course, one can say that about any day on the calendar, but my way of looking at Labor Day goes back to my youth. Labor Day was the last day at home before going back to the residential school I attended. In that way, it was both sad and exciting. Tomorrow, I would see friends I hadn’t seen since June. I’d meet new friends, teachers and caregivers. The hot sticky summer would be replaced by the cool crisp temperatures and low humidity of fall. Of course, there was the “labor” of school work just ahead of me. While I can’t say that I looked forward to laboring in the classroom, the anticipation of classroom labor never spoiled my enjoyment of Labor Day.
Then, of course, there’s the definition of labor vs. work. Labor is usually associated with hard unskilled toil. Work, however physically hard it may be, is usually identified with the application of a skill. Thus, a lady labors as she gives birth and a gentleman labors to shovel snow from his driveway.
Additionally, there’s the American ambivalence about working and workers. If one works for oneself, one is celebrated as an entrepreneur: industrious, brave, and independent. A worker who looks to his or her union for support and guidance, especially political guidance, is regarded by many Americans as a prisoner of socialist thugs. The entrepreneur joins the Chamber of Commerce or the National Association of Manufacturers and becomes a “solid citizen.” A dedicated union worker is just a little suspect!
At the bottom of the barrel we find the worker who works for the government -- especially the federal government. No matter how long or hard this worker studied in college, no matter how much money was spent by the federal worker’s parents to send their child to college, he or she is contemptuously labeled “a bureaucrat.”
Still, most Americans genuinely admire the worker, because, as we work, whether we’re overcompensated or not compensated at all, we’re sharing with others the best within us.
Whether Labor Day is a mere holiday, the last day of the year, or the glorification of labor and/or work, make the best of it -- because Jack Frost is right around the corner!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
I’m guessing that you know much more about the origins of Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, Memorial Day, and Independence Day than you ever knew about Labor Day!
Nevertheless, in lots of ways Americans celebrate Labor Day, the first Monday in September, almost the same way as they do Independence Day. There may be a few less parades, but the fireworks and picnics are about the same. A lady might don a light cardigan over her halter top, and a gentleman might wear a windbreaker over his t-shirt, but they can usually still comfortably picnic outdoors. Baseball pennant races are inevitably tighter and that makes the day more meaningful. Occasionally, to the glory of America, the National Football League’s first Monday night game of the season is televised Labor Day night.
America’s first Labor Day was celebrated on Tuesday, September 5th, 1882 by the Central Labor Union of New York City. For many years it was thought that Peter J. McGuire, Secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, was the force behind the original promotion of Labor Day by the Central Labor Union of New York City. However, it has recently been discovered that Matthew Maguire, Secretary of both Local 344 of the International Association of Machinists in Paterson, New Jersey as well as of the Central Labor Union of New York City, sent out the invitations to workers to attend the scheduled parade and picnic. Keep in mind that since it was an unofficial holiday, attendees would be sacrificing a day’s pay in order to participate in the first Labor Day -- so the invitations had to be pretty compelling. Hundreds of people did sacrifice and Labor Day became a municipal, next a statewide, and finally a nationally celebrated holiday.
Some people have concluded that the reason Peter J. McGuire was favored as the father of Labor Day over Matthew Maguire had mostly to do with Matthew Maguire’s politics. Although both men dabbled in Socialism as young labor activists, Matthew Maguire had the audacity to run as the Vice Presidential nominee on the Socialist Labor Party ticket in 1896 under the party’s presidential candidate Charles Horatio Matchett. Thus, because of Labor’s early association with Socialism both here and abroad, many Americans who insist that they admire nothing more than hard work have been quite touchy about celebrating the value of the American laborer.
However confused or hesitant Americans may feel about the political doctrines behind the celebration of Labor Day, next to getting a raise in pay, we love nothing more than a holiday. Hence, despite our suspicions of the motives, politics and the absolute loyalty of laborers, we take the day off.
Each of us, if we take the time to think of it, has our own personal reasons for celebrating Labor Day or any other day. For me, Labor Day is the equivalent of December 31st, the last day of the year. That means that tomorrow is the first day of the future. Of course, one can say that about any day on the calendar, but my way of looking at Labor Day goes back to my youth. Labor Day was the last day at home before going back to the residential school I attended. In that way, it was both sad and exciting. Tomorrow, I would see friends I hadn’t seen since June. I’d meet new friends, teachers and caregivers. The hot sticky summer would be replaced by the cool crisp temperatures and low humidity of fall. Of course, there was the “labor” of school work just ahead of me. While I can’t say that I looked forward to laboring in the classroom, the anticipation of classroom labor never spoiled my enjoyment of Labor Day.
Then, of course, there’s the definition of labor vs. work. Labor is usually associated with hard unskilled toil. Work, however physically hard it may be, is usually identified with the application of a skill. Thus, a lady labors as she gives birth and a gentleman labors to shovel snow from his driveway.
Additionally, there’s the American ambivalence about working and workers. If one works for oneself, one is celebrated as an entrepreneur: industrious, brave, and independent. A worker who looks to his or her union for support and guidance, especially political guidance, is regarded by many Americans as a prisoner of socialist thugs. The entrepreneur joins the Chamber of Commerce or the National Association of Manufacturers and becomes a “solid citizen.” A dedicated union worker is just a little suspect!
At the bottom of the barrel we find the worker who works for the government -- especially the federal government. No matter how long or hard this worker studied in college, no matter how much money was spent by the federal worker’s parents to send their child to college, he or she is contemptuously labeled “a bureaucrat.”
Still, most Americans genuinely admire the worker, because, as we work, whether we’re overcompensated or not compensated at all, we’re sharing with others the best within us.
Whether Labor Day is a mere holiday, the last day of the year, or the glorification of labor and/or work, make the best of it -- because Jack Frost is right around the corner!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, August 29, 2011
AUGUST—A FATEFUL MONTH FOR PRESIDENTS
By Edwin Cooney
Exactly four weeks ago today, President Barack Obama faced a government debt limit crisis the outcome of which threatened the faith and credit of the United States as well as the ultimate political fate of the president himself.
Notice that I used the word “fateful” in my title, not fatal. A fateful event is, of course, a significant event or turning point in one’s personal or professional life. Everyone, presidents included, experience significant or fateful events every month of the year, but August, it seems to me, has been particularly fateful in the personal or political life of every president since Woodrow Wilson. See what YOU think!
For Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Tuesday, August 4th, 1914 was a bad day at the office and a worse day at home. The Twenty-Eighth President’s main areas of expertise and accomplishments were in domestic policy. On that day, President Wilson faced the necessity of becoming a significant player in foreign affairs as well -- for World War I had just broken out in Europe that day. Could he keep us out of the conflict? It was certainly hard for him to know. In fact, it was almost impossible for the president to be optimistic about much of anything that day.
Woodrow Wilson, a man with a strong religious faith, prayed desperately for two things that August. One of them was for peace in Europe. Even more fervently, one can be sure, Woodrow Wilson was praying that his beloved wife Ellen Axson Wilson might live to strengthen him as he grappled with the affairs of state.
Of course, not even the greatest among us always receives the answers they hope for from their prayers, not even the President of the United States of America. The lights went out in Europe that August 4th and two days later Ellen Wilson lost her battle with a kidney malady known as Bright’s disease. She had just turned 54 years old that May 15th. So devastated was the president that he told his closest advisor and friend Edward M. House that he hoped to be assassinated.
How Ellen Wilson’s death affected the president is certainly speculative, but it is highly likely that had she lived our history would have been different. In December 1915, the president married Edith Bolling Galt who, as the second Mrs. Wilson, almost single-handedly ran the Executive Branch of the government during the president’s debilitating illness in the fall of 1919. Is it likely that many other people could have managed the flow of paper work, regulated the decision-making process and successfully shielded the seriousness of the president’s illness from the Cabinet as well as from a special congressional investigatory team sent to the White House by Congress as she did? I suggest that it’s possible, but not likely.
Thursday, August 2nd, 1923 was a day of relaxation for a harried and haggard president, Warren G. Harding. Troubled by his knowledge of the Teapot Dome Scandal brewing within his administration, President Harding had undertaken a trip to Alaska that summer. He was resting at the Palace Hotel in San Francisco around 7:30 that evening following an attack of indigestion. His wife Florence (whom he often referred to as “the Duchess”) was reading to him from a magazine. The article she was reading was a favorable commentary on him and on his administration. “That’s good,” he said, “go on reading.” Mrs. Harding finished the article and left the room. Nurse Ruth Powderly discovered the president dead just seconds later.
For Vice President Calvin Coolidge, August was the month in 1923 when he became President. Shortly after two a.m. at his remote summer home in Plymouth Notch, Vermont, Coolidge got the word that President Harding had died. His father, a justice of the peace and a notary, swore him in as the country’s thirtieth president at 2:48 on the morning of August 3rd, 1923. The only witnesses were Grace Coolidge, a congressman and two reporters. By August 2nd, 1927, “Silent Cal,” a man who loved to play practical jokes, smoke big black cigars, and ride a mechanical horse, had had enough. His retirement statement from politics was short: “I do not choose to run for President in 1928.”
Presidents Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were all born in August: August 10th, August 27th, August 19th and August 4th respectively. For Presidents Johnson and Clinton, two days in August forever tarnished their careers. In LBJ’s case, Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution on August 7th, 1964. That congressional act, vigorously advocated by LBJ, eventually bogged down the administration and the nation in Vietnam to the nation’s distress and to the president’s political doom. For Bill Clinton, August 17th, 1998 was the day he was forced to concede that he had in fact been involved in an improper relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. As a result, he would become the nation’s third president to face impeachment by the Congress and the second president to be tried in the U.S. Senate.
On August 2nd, 1943, Navy Lt. John F. Kennedy, who had previously injured his back playing college football, suffered further spinal damage when his PT-109 torpedo boat was rammed by the Japanese destroyer Amagiri. Twenty years later, as president, he suffered an even worse August tragedy when his infant son Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, born on August 7th, lived only until August 9th.
August 10th, 1921 was the day that changed FDR’s life forever. He was at Campobello, New Brunswick where he and Eleanor vacationed every summer. The day before, he and his boys had fought a forest fire on a nearby island after which FDR took a dip in the frigid Bay of Fundy to cool off. He then jogged home. Feeling achy and chilly, he went to bed that night without eating supper. He awakened the next morning to discover that his legs couldn’t support his weight. It was polio, originally misdiagnosed as a blood clot. His life was forever changed, but many believe that his misfortune eventually turned out to be to America’s benefit. FDR’s paralysis, they insist, made “The Squire of Hyde Park” more sympathetic to the needs of the less fortunate than he had been – hence he created the New Deal.
On August 22nd, 1956, Dwight D. Eisenhower was successfully nominated for election to a second term as president and the same was true for Ronald Wilson Reagan on the same date in 1984. However, both saw their effectiveness and their presidential reputations markedly wane in their second terms.
August 14th, 1980 for Jimmy Carter and August 19th, 1992 for George Herbert Walker Bush were the dates that these presidents were successfully re-nominated. However, both would lose their re-election bids.
August 6th and 9th, 1945 saw the catastrophic results of President Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, respectively. The proud Japanese would surrender on August 14th, 1945. The man from Independence, Missouri, whom Joseph Stalin would refer to as “that noisy shopkeeper” (Truman once ran a haberdashery), fortunately remains the only man in the history of humanity to make that age-altering decision.
August 9th, 1974 was the day Gerald R. Ford found himself America’s Thirty-Eighth President thus faced with the monumental task of ending “…our national nightmare” known as Watergate. President Richard M. Nixon, as he tearfully left office that day, made this powerful observation: “Always remember, others may hate you. But those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."
On Monday, August 29th, 2005, President George W. Bush was in Coronado, California celebrating the 30th anniversary of Victory in Japan (V-J Day). He took along his guitar anticipating a fine old American country hoedown. Instead, Hurricane Katrina visited New Orleans catching the president and his administration ill-prepared, however well-intentioned. Although he’d remain president for nearly three years and four months more, Bush’s reputation as America’s mighty protector against terror and national tragedy was gone. His popularity faded, he headed toward the lower end of presidential ranking from where he looks up today at both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
President Obama’s ultimate political fate seems largely to depend on the super congressional committee designed to adjust the fiscal costs of government significantly downward so that we and future generations may afford to live in safety and security. President Obama’s attention to detail and his ability to compromise and persuade will no doubt make or break his August presidential fate.
The person who reaches the top of that greasy pole of American politics to become our president directs and faces passions that are more intense than they have ever been throughout human history. Nothing a modern president ever says, writes, or does will escape either someone’s warm applause or eardrum-puncturing jeers. Twenty-First Century presidents are likely to face more intense opposition than have any past chief executives.
Finally, if recent history is any indicator, my guess is that, for good or ill, the act that determines the fate of many future presidencies will likely occur in August! Would you bet against it? I certainly wouldn’t!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Exactly four weeks ago today, President Barack Obama faced a government debt limit crisis the outcome of which threatened the faith and credit of the United States as well as the ultimate political fate of the president himself.
Notice that I used the word “fateful” in my title, not fatal. A fateful event is, of course, a significant event or turning point in one’s personal or professional life. Everyone, presidents included, experience significant or fateful events every month of the year, but August, it seems to me, has been particularly fateful in the personal or political life of every president since Woodrow Wilson. See what YOU think!
For Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Tuesday, August 4th, 1914 was a bad day at the office and a worse day at home. The Twenty-Eighth President’s main areas of expertise and accomplishments were in domestic policy. On that day, President Wilson faced the necessity of becoming a significant player in foreign affairs as well -- for World War I had just broken out in Europe that day. Could he keep us out of the conflict? It was certainly hard for him to know. In fact, it was almost impossible for the president to be optimistic about much of anything that day.
Woodrow Wilson, a man with a strong religious faith, prayed desperately for two things that August. One of them was for peace in Europe. Even more fervently, one can be sure, Woodrow Wilson was praying that his beloved wife Ellen Axson Wilson might live to strengthen him as he grappled with the affairs of state.
Of course, not even the greatest among us always receives the answers they hope for from their prayers, not even the President of the United States of America. The lights went out in Europe that August 4th and two days later Ellen Wilson lost her battle with a kidney malady known as Bright’s disease. She had just turned 54 years old that May 15th. So devastated was the president that he told his closest advisor and friend Edward M. House that he hoped to be assassinated.
How Ellen Wilson’s death affected the president is certainly speculative, but it is highly likely that had she lived our history would have been different. In December 1915, the president married Edith Bolling Galt who, as the second Mrs. Wilson, almost single-handedly ran the Executive Branch of the government during the president’s debilitating illness in the fall of 1919. Is it likely that many other people could have managed the flow of paper work, regulated the decision-making process and successfully shielded the seriousness of the president’s illness from the Cabinet as well as from a special congressional investigatory team sent to the White House by Congress as she did? I suggest that it’s possible, but not likely.
Thursday, August 2nd, 1923 was a day of relaxation for a harried and haggard president, Warren G. Harding. Troubled by his knowledge of the Teapot Dome Scandal brewing within his administration, President Harding had undertaken a trip to Alaska that summer. He was resting at the Palace Hotel in San Francisco around 7:30 that evening following an attack of indigestion. His wife Florence (whom he often referred to as “the Duchess”) was reading to him from a magazine. The article she was reading was a favorable commentary on him and on his administration. “That’s good,” he said, “go on reading.” Mrs. Harding finished the article and left the room. Nurse Ruth Powderly discovered the president dead just seconds later.
For Vice President Calvin Coolidge, August was the month in 1923 when he became President. Shortly after two a.m. at his remote summer home in Plymouth Notch, Vermont, Coolidge got the word that President Harding had died. His father, a justice of the peace and a notary, swore him in as the country’s thirtieth president at 2:48 on the morning of August 3rd, 1923. The only witnesses were Grace Coolidge, a congressman and two reporters. By August 2nd, 1927, “Silent Cal,” a man who loved to play practical jokes, smoke big black cigars, and ride a mechanical horse, had had enough. His retirement statement from politics was short: “I do not choose to run for President in 1928.”
Presidents Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were all born in August: August 10th, August 27th, August 19th and August 4th respectively. For Presidents Johnson and Clinton, two days in August forever tarnished their careers. In LBJ’s case, Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution on August 7th, 1964. That congressional act, vigorously advocated by LBJ, eventually bogged down the administration and the nation in Vietnam to the nation’s distress and to the president’s political doom. For Bill Clinton, August 17th, 1998 was the day he was forced to concede that he had in fact been involved in an improper relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. As a result, he would become the nation’s third president to face impeachment by the Congress and the second president to be tried in the U.S. Senate.
On August 2nd, 1943, Navy Lt. John F. Kennedy, who had previously injured his back playing college football, suffered further spinal damage when his PT-109 torpedo boat was rammed by the Japanese destroyer Amagiri. Twenty years later, as president, he suffered an even worse August tragedy when his infant son Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, born on August 7th, lived only until August 9th.
August 10th, 1921 was the day that changed FDR’s life forever. He was at Campobello, New Brunswick where he and Eleanor vacationed every summer. The day before, he and his boys had fought a forest fire on a nearby island after which FDR took a dip in the frigid Bay of Fundy to cool off. He then jogged home. Feeling achy and chilly, he went to bed that night without eating supper. He awakened the next morning to discover that his legs couldn’t support his weight. It was polio, originally misdiagnosed as a blood clot. His life was forever changed, but many believe that his misfortune eventually turned out to be to America’s benefit. FDR’s paralysis, they insist, made “The Squire of Hyde Park” more sympathetic to the needs of the less fortunate than he had been – hence he created the New Deal.
On August 22nd, 1956, Dwight D. Eisenhower was successfully nominated for election to a second term as president and the same was true for Ronald Wilson Reagan on the same date in 1984. However, both saw their effectiveness and their presidential reputations markedly wane in their second terms.
August 14th, 1980 for Jimmy Carter and August 19th, 1992 for George Herbert Walker Bush were the dates that these presidents were successfully re-nominated. However, both would lose their re-election bids.
August 6th and 9th, 1945 saw the catastrophic results of President Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, respectively. The proud Japanese would surrender on August 14th, 1945. The man from Independence, Missouri, whom Joseph Stalin would refer to as “that noisy shopkeeper” (Truman once ran a haberdashery), fortunately remains the only man in the history of humanity to make that age-altering decision.
August 9th, 1974 was the day Gerald R. Ford found himself America’s Thirty-Eighth President thus faced with the monumental task of ending “…our national nightmare” known as Watergate. President Richard M. Nixon, as he tearfully left office that day, made this powerful observation: “Always remember, others may hate you. But those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."
On Monday, August 29th, 2005, President George W. Bush was in Coronado, California celebrating the 30th anniversary of Victory in Japan (V-J Day). He took along his guitar anticipating a fine old American country hoedown. Instead, Hurricane Katrina visited New Orleans catching the president and his administration ill-prepared, however well-intentioned. Although he’d remain president for nearly three years and four months more, Bush’s reputation as America’s mighty protector against terror and national tragedy was gone. His popularity faded, he headed toward the lower end of presidential ranking from where he looks up today at both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
President Obama’s ultimate political fate seems largely to depend on the super congressional committee designed to adjust the fiscal costs of government significantly downward so that we and future generations may afford to live in safety and security. President Obama’s attention to detail and his ability to compromise and persuade will no doubt make or break his August presidential fate.
The person who reaches the top of that greasy pole of American politics to become our president directs and faces passions that are more intense than they have ever been throughout human history. Nothing a modern president ever says, writes, or does will escape either someone’s warm applause or eardrum-puncturing jeers. Twenty-First Century presidents are likely to face more intense opposition than have any past chief executives.
Finally, if recent history is any indicator, my guess is that, for good or ill, the act that determines the fate of many future presidencies will likely occur in August! Would you bet against it? I certainly wouldn’t!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, August 22, 2011
OH! NO! HERE COMES LITTLE EDDIE!
By Edwin Cooney
“Oh, no! Here comes Little Eddie,” I mumbled as I sat down to write column number 250.
“That’s right,” said the little kid in me, “and I've got a few questions to ask you. The last time you were confronted about your column was after your 100th column back in June 2008. Then, "Ed," your alter ego, questioned you and he was way, way too soft on you. Now, it’s me, Eddie -- the little kid in you -- doing the questioning."
“That’s good, Eddie, but tell me, is it true that you sleep with a lollipop stuck in the corner of your mouth?” Eddie started stomping around while looking mighty mean.
“Okay, big boy!” said Eddie, “Why haven’t you continued writing those little presidential biographies some of your readers asked you to continue writing at the end of 2008? Lazy, are ya?"
“Sure, there’s a bit of laziness in me, but I thought it might be a good idea to wait until 2012, a presidential election year, before continuing to write them. Presidential birth dates on Mondays in 2012 will include Nixon on January 9th, FDR on January 30th, Lyndon Johnson on August 27th, and Jimmy Carter on October 1st.”
“That’s only four presidents!” Eddie sniffled. “Couldn’t you throw in Abraham Lincoln since February 12th is on a Sunday in 2012? After all, you featured seven different presidents in 2008!”
“Just for you, Eddie, I’ll think it over,” I said with what I hoped was a placating smile.
“Don’t patronize me, Edwin Cooney, I know how sly you can be. If you include a Lincoln bio you’ll find some clever way of linking Barack Obama to Lincoln or Lincoln to Barack Obama to boost Obama’s re-election chances. Why do you do such things? I remember the days when you were a Republican and had a clear vision of right and left, right and wrong, wise and foolish, America vs. the rest of the world. I used to admire you. Now all I am is a part of you. What happened, Edwin?”
“Oh, Eddie, stop! I admire and call on you lots and lots of times. I call on you when I get mustard on my shirt or coat. I call on you when I trip or slam my finger in a door. I call on you, or for your charm, when I’m feeling romantic or when I’m devastatingly unhappy in the far too frequent episodes I’ve experienced of love loss. However, as for the rest of your question, I suppose it’s a combination of age, experiences, and my interpretation of the meaning of historical events. When I was younger, things were either good or bad, right or wrong. As one gets older, evaluating one's convictions and experiences becomes more complicated.
“As for what changed politically for me, the Republican party that I grew up with became more dogmatically conservative. The new Republican party appears to believe that America is prosperous and good because of its engines: money, property, religion, and so on, while Democrats believe that what makes America great is the availability and effect that money, property, and religion have or don’t have on people. It's "trickle down" vs. "bubble up" opportunity economics! Our capacity for good belongs to no elite!"
“Okay, okay, enough with the speeches, big guy! You seldom praise God or America in your columns! Why these omissions?”
“I believe that “God is love.” I often write in praise of love, therefore as I see it, I praise God when I write of love—God’s greatest gift to us. As for America, I think it’s more powerful to write of any country’s many historic promises, principles, deeds and blessings than it is to write of any nation’s righteous sense of superiority!”
"Explain Lunkhead and Dunderhead! Why not Little Eddie and Big Eddie? Or why not interview the Republican elephant Abraham (or Abe) and the Democratic donkey Jack (as in Jackass) as you did once, rather than using those two silly names?"
“A reasonable question, Eddie! I deliberately chose those silly names because I think that the very absurdity of their names takes the edge off the controversial issues I have them discuss. If the reader is pleased with a position that either one takes, the reader can make the position his or her own without attributing it to any one person. Also, the reader can more easily disregard the more uncomfortable points that either comes up with in the knowledge that both, after all, are just silly guys with silly names -- so what do they know?"
“Pretty slick, Edwin! One more question since I can hear the ice cream truck coming down the block. You’ve written about the history of Christmas, Thanksgiving, Mother’s Day, and now, this year, Father’s Day—when are you going to write about Children’s Day?”
I started to answer him but suddenly he was headed toward that ice cream truck leaving his cherry red lollipop stuck to my light colored sport coat. I’m gonna kill that little kid in me yet! You just wait and see!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
“Oh, no! Here comes Little Eddie,” I mumbled as I sat down to write column number 250.
“That’s right,” said the little kid in me, “and I've got a few questions to ask you. The last time you were confronted about your column was after your 100th column back in June 2008. Then, "Ed," your alter ego, questioned you and he was way, way too soft on you. Now, it’s me, Eddie -- the little kid in you -- doing the questioning."
“That’s good, Eddie, but tell me, is it true that you sleep with a lollipop stuck in the corner of your mouth?” Eddie started stomping around while looking mighty mean.
“Okay, big boy!” said Eddie, “Why haven’t you continued writing those little presidential biographies some of your readers asked you to continue writing at the end of 2008? Lazy, are ya?"
“Sure, there’s a bit of laziness in me, but I thought it might be a good idea to wait until 2012, a presidential election year, before continuing to write them. Presidential birth dates on Mondays in 2012 will include Nixon on January 9th, FDR on January 30th, Lyndon Johnson on August 27th, and Jimmy Carter on October 1st.”
“That’s only four presidents!” Eddie sniffled. “Couldn’t you throw in Abraham Lincoln since February 12th is on a Sunday in 2012? After all, you featured seven different presidents in 2008!”
“Just for you, Eddie, I’ll think it over,” I said with what I hoped was a placating smile.
“Don’t patronize me, Edwin Cooney, I know how sly you can be. If you include a Lincoln bio you’ll find some clever way of linking Barack Obama to Lincoln or Lincoln to Barack Obama to boost Obama’s re-election chances. Why do you do such things? I remember the days when you were a Republican and had a clear vision of right and left, right and wrong, wise and foolish, America vs. the rest of the world. I used to admire you. Now all I am is a part of you. What happened, Edwin?”
“Oh, Eddie, stop! I admire and call on you lots and lots of times. I call on you when I get mustard on my shirt or coat. I call on you when I trip or slam my finger in a door. I call on you, or for your charm, when I’m feeling romantic or when I’m devastatingly unhappy in the far too frequent episodes I’ve experienced of love loss. However, as for the rest of your question, I suppose it’s a combination of age, experiences, and my interpretation of the meaning of historical events. When I was younger, things were either good or bad, right or wrong. As one gets older, evaluating one's convictions and experiences becomes more complicated.
“As for what changed politically for me, the Republican party that I grew up with became more dogmatically conservative. The new Republican party appears to believe that America is prosperous and good because of its engines: money, property, religion, and so on, while Democrats believe that what makes America great is the availability and effect that money, property, and religion have or don’t have on people. It's "trickle down" vs. "bubble up" opportunity economics! Our capacity for good belongs to no elite!"
“Okay, okay, enough with the speeches, big guy! You seldom praise God or America in your columns! Why these omissions?”
“I believe that “God is love.” I often write in praise of love, therefore as I see it, I praise God when I write of love—God’s greatest gift to us. As for America, I think it’s more powerful to write of any country’s many historic promises, principles, deeds and blessings than it is to write of any nation’s righteous sense of superiority!”
"Explain Lunkhead and Dunderhead! Why not Little Eddie and Big Eddie? Or why not interview the Republican elephant Abraham (or Abe) and the Democratic donkey Jack (as in Jackass) as you did once, rather than using those two silly names?"
“A reasonable question, Eddie! I deliberately chose those silly names because I think that the very absurdity of their names takes the edge off the controversial issues I have them discuss. If the reader is pleased with a position that either one takes, the reader can make the position his or her own without attributing it to any one person. Also, the reader can more easily disregard the more uncomfortable points that either comes up with in the knowledge that both, after all, are just silly guys with silly names -- so what do they know?"
“Pretty slick, Edwin! One more question since I can hear the ice cream truck coming down the block. You’ve written about the history of Christmas, Thanksgiving, Mother’s Day, and now, this year, Father’s Day—when are you going to write about Children’s Day?”
I started to answer him but suddenly he was headed toward that ice cream truck leaving his cherry red lollipop stuck to my light colored sport coat. I’m gonna kill that little kid in me yet! You just wait and see!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, August 15, 2011
SPANKING CONGRESS WITH THE CONSTITUTION—A GOOD OR BAD IDEA?
By Edwin Cooney
I confess: I, too, get frustrated with Congress, but that happens primarily when it passes laws that I regard as endangering your welfare or mine.
Twice in the last month, I’ve been sent an email encouraging passage of a proposed Twenty-eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
My teachers taught me that the Constitution was specifically constructed and established to provide for a new and balanced federal type of government to replace the lack of sound government under the Articles of Confederation. Quoting Patrick Henry’s observation that the Constitution was designed to limit rather than expand the authority of government, the author appears, for his or her own purpose, to deliberately mislead the reader as to the central purpose of our “Founding Fathers.” Certainly the Bill of Rights, passed by Congress in 1790, was indeed designed to enhance the rights of the people under the new Constitution, but it is vitally important that the reader understand what took place first. The Constitution itself was established to “secure the blessings of liberty” along with “the general welfare of all of the people.” Thus, this call to correct the dastardly deeds of Congress contains at the very outset of its appeal misleading historic information. It is neither logical nor instructive to describe the limitations of an historic document without first describing for what purpose it has been established!
There appear to be two purposes for this proposed Twenty-eighth Constitutional Amendment. The first is to eliminate our perpetual national debt. The second appears to be about punishing Congress (meanly and unjustly as I see it) for taking care of its own.
The heart of this proposed congressional fix has to do with congressional privileges --especially in the fields of healthcare, pensions, and pay increases. Thus it proposes seven changes which, it implies, will provide you and me with more honest, efficient and humble Congressmen and women. They are as follows:
(1.) no tenure or pensions -- current and former members will be immediately stripped of all pensions voted under past Congresses;
(2.) all congressional pension and health benefits shall immediately be moved to the social security system and can be used for no other purpose than social security benefits;
(3.) Congressmen and Senators will purchase their own future retirement with their own money;
(4.) Congress shall no longer have the power to raise its own pay -- future pay increases will be tied to the lowest CPI index at 3%;
(5.) Congress, as of January 1, 2012, loses its healthcare system and receives Medicare benefits like the rest of us;
(6.) Congress must abide by all laws it passes to govern the rest of us;
(7.) All previous congressional contracts which were established, not with the public, but for Congress’s own benefit, this author insists, should be null and void as of January 1, 2012.
Now there are some compelling aspects to this proposal. The most compelling is that it could conceivably save a few dollars. Second, it could conceivably change the type of person willing to run for Congress. However, the question is: would that be good or bad? Would fewer benefits attract the rich or the poor?
Part of the appeal for passage of this proposed constitutional amendment is that the original “founding fathers” sought “citizen legislatures.” The author of this email insists that our “founding fathers” only served briefly and then went home to go back to work. That assertion is patently untrue.
The Constitutional Convention was not packed with farmers (unless you call George Washington, James Madison, Edmund Randolph and others “farmers” rather than slave-owning planters). Nor were the Hamiltons, Jays and Shermans day laborers. When they left Congress, many of them went home to serve in the legislature, to run for governor or to become ministers to European courts.
More to the point, our founders, even during the Constitutional Convention (perhaps especially then), saw to it that the rights of the most powerful among them (such as the right to own slaves, to assign their customers to debtor’s prisons, to employ indentured servants, etc.) remained in place for the present.
It’s a good idea to consider the consequences of the types of people who may be attracted or discouraged should this proposed change actually occur.
Consider the following: would the lack of health care benefits attract rich or poor people to run for Congress? If “average citizen” types of people run for Congress, who would financially support their campaigns and to whom would they be subsequently indebted? If Congress were limited to the wealthy who could afford their own health care, what would that mean to your costly health needs and mine? If terms were limited, is it likely or unlikely that senators and representatives would be obliged to leave just as they were becoming familiar with how government really works as well as with the vital aspects of effective public policies?
Of course, Congress needs to be watched and even spanked occasionally, but spanking Congress with the Constitution and for the wrong reason is bound to affect you and me more than it would Congress.
Congress, as the late great humorist Will Rogers once observed, is filled with children who never grew up! If he was right, Congress simply wouldn’t understand the spanking in the first place!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
I confess: I, too, get frustrated with Congress, but that happens primarily when it passes laws that I regard as endangering your welfare or mine.
Twice in the last month, I’ve been sent an email encouraging passage of a proposed Twenty-eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
My teachers taught me that the Constitution was specifically constructed and established to provide for a new and balanced federal type of government to replace the lack of sound government under the Articles of Confederation. Quoting Patrick Henry’s observation that the Constitution was designed to limit rather than expand the authority of government, the author appears, for his or her own purpose, to deliberately mislead the reader as to the central purpose of our “Founding Fathers.” Certainly the Bill of Rights, passed by Congress in 1790, was indeed designed to enhance the rights of the people under the new Constitution, but it is vitally important that the reader understand what took place first. The Constitution itself was established to “secure the blessings of liberty” along with “the general welfare of all of the people.” Thus, this call to correct the dastardly deeds of Congress contains at the very outset of its appeal misleading historic information. It is neither logical nor instructive to describe the limitations of an historic document without first describing for what purpose it has been established!
There appear to be two purposes for this proposed Twenty-eighth Constitutional Amendment. The first is to eliminate our perpetual national debt. The second appears to be about punishing Congress (meanly and unjustly as I see it) for taking care of its own.
The heart of this proposed congressional fix has to do with congressional privileges --especially in the fields of healthcare, pensions, and pay increases. Thus it proposes seven changes which, it implies, will provide you and me with more honest, efficient and humble Congressmen and women. They are as follows:
(1.) no tenure or pensions -- current and former members will be immediately stripped of all pensions voted under past Congresses;
(2.) all congressional pension and health benefits shall immediately be moved to the social security system and can be used for no other purpose than social security benefits;
(3.) Congressmen and Senators will purchase their own future retirement with their own money;
(4.) Congress shall no longer have the power to raise its own pay -- future pay increases will be tied to the lowest CPI index at 3%;
(5.) Congress, as of January 1, 2012, loses its healthcare system and receives Medicare benefits like the rest of us;
(6.) Congress must abide by all laws it passes to govern the rest of us;
(7.) All previous congressional contracts which were established, not with the public, but for Congress’s own benefit, this author insists, should be null and void as of January 1, 2012.
Now there are some compelling aspects to this proposal. The most compelling is that it could conceivably save a few dollars. Second, it could conceivably change the type of person willing to run for Congress. However, the question is: would that be good or bad? Would fewer benefits attract the rich or the poor?
Part of the appeal for passage of this proposed constitutional amendment is that the original “founding fathers” sought “citizen legislatures.” The author of this email insists that our “founding fathers” only served briefly and then went home to go back to work. That assertion is patently untrue.
The Constitutional Convention was not packed with farmers (unless you call George Washington, James Madison, Edmund Randolph and others “farmers” rather than slave-owning planters). Nor were the Hamiltons, Jays and Shermans day laborers. When they left Congress, many of them went home to serve in the legislature, to run for governor or to become ministers to European courts.
More to the point, our founders, even during the Constitutional Convention (perhaps especially then), saw to it that the rights of the most powerful among them (such as the right to own slaves, to assign their customers to debtor’s prisons, to employ indentured servants, etc.) remained in place for the present.
It’s a good idea to consider the consequences of the types of people who may be attracted or discouraged should this proposed change actually occur.
Consider the following: would the lack of health care benefits attract rich or poor people to run for Congress? If “average citizen” types of people run for Congress, who would financially support their campaigns and to whom would they be subsequently indebted? If Congress were limited to the wealthy who could afford their own health care, what would that mean to your costly health needs and mine? If terms were limited, is it likely or unlikely that senators and representatives would be obliged to leave just as they were becoming familiar with how government really works as well as with the vital aspects of effective public policies?
Of course, Congress needs to be watched and even spanked occasionally, but spanking Congress with the Constitution and for the wrong reason is bound to affect you and me more than it would Congress.
Congress, as the late great humorist Will Rogers once observed, is filled with children who never grew up! If he was right, Congress simply wouldn’t understand the spanking in the first place!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, August 8, 2011
TIRED? BORED?—WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT??
By Edwin Cooney
So, you’re tired of so many things because they irritate you? Me, too!
Perhaps people get on your “last good nerve” on a daily basis.
People are invariably tired of politics, self-righteous religious types, secular human materialists, sports figures and movie stars (who are making more money than any “working man or woman!”). We’re tired of the “filthy corporate rich" and the “clinging expectant poor.” Yet the ramifications of a society without any one of these types of people could be disquieting!
Of course, really well paid working men and women would inevitably drive up prices, while the absence of those self-righteous religious types could mean that no one really believes in anything anymore -- certainly an alarming event in human affairs. Elimination of secular human materialists might well mean that we live in a theocracy rather than a democracy and that could be seriously detrimental to individual liberty. As for the absence of highly paid sports and movie stars, that could well mean that you and I simply don’t have enough money to pay for entertainment! Without the rich we’d be robbed of our self-justified envy! Without the poor we’d lose our sense of superiority!
As for politicians (yes, indeed, I deliberately saved them for last), the truth is that you and I wouldn’t be free without them! Can you name me a free society without politicians?
The problem, as I see it, is not really the existence or prosperity of any of the above. The problem is the vulnerability of our individual mind-sets to angry negativism. Some might argue that the real problem is the aging mind.
As we grow up, most of us are inculcated with a standard of values nurtured by the protective cocoon of our families, friends, teachers, and by our religious faith. We learn of what our country has done best along with the best characteristics of our founders minus even the slightest suggestion that they (or the nation they founded) consisted of fallible human beings. Then comes life experience and, after three or four decades of traumas both experienced and witnessed, our ideals are inevitably punctured (if not torn asunder) by reality, which, unlike most idealism, is neither consistent nor logical. Thus, as the result of chronic irritation, we often find ourselves losing our trust in almost everything if not in almost everyone.
Just the other day I received a message from someone who is exceedingly irritated by my continuing support of President Obama. His anger was filled with incredulity. It was personal more than it was logical or editorial. He seems to believe that Obama supporters consider the president to be “saintly” or above criticism. Perhaps he’s right; we may be as bad as today’s GOP which looks in vain among its presidential candidates for President Reagan.
What happens to too many of us, as I see it, is that we unconsciously grant too much power to those who differ with us politically, religiously, or even in the entertainment field -- especially sports. We seek constant reinforcement of our feelings, conclusions and beliefs. We make “nations” out of such realms as political talk show hosts and sports franchises. Thus we have phenomena such as “The Savage Nation” (talk show host Michael Savage), “Red Sox or Yankee Nation” (major league baseball), and
“Raider Nation" (NFL football).
These days, it seems that everything we love we sanctify with nationhood while anything that differs or opposes our views we consider at least emotionally treasonous!
Much of this, as I see it, has to do with the culture war that I personally detest so much. What neither side in this culture war grasps is how much it needs the other side. What would be the value of political Conservatism if there were no Liberalism? What would we Americans do if we didn’t have a world threat to protect against? Could labor do without management or management without labor? Even more unsettling: could there be right without wrong?
Perplexing and even irritating as all of these questions are, it does get old after a while, doesn’t it?
The evaluation of people, institutions, and events is essential to who we are -- painful, unsettling and emotionally fatiguing as that may be. Still, we could do ourselves a huge favor if we could consciously restrain the harshness of our criticism of one another and, with a little more frequency, grant each other the benefit of the doubt. Even more, we might even do ourselves a favor if we eased up on the tendency to take ourselves as seriously as we do.
Hey! Wait just a moment there! What are you pointing at me for? I have to take myself seriously. After all, I’m a columnist, aren’t I? Aren’t I?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
So, you’re tired of so many things because they irritate you? Me, too!
Perhaps people get on your “last good nerve” on a daily basis.
People are invariably tired of politics, self-righteous religious types, secular human materialists, sports figures and movie stars (who are making more money than any “working man or woman!”). We’re tired of the “filthy corporate rich" and the “clinging expectant poor.” Yet the ramifications of a society without any one of these types of people could be disquieting!
Of course, really well paid working men and women would inevitably drive up prices, while the absence of those self-righteous religious types could mean that no one really believes in anything anymore -- certainly an alarming event in human affairs. Elimination of secular human materialists might well mean that we live in a theocracy rather than a democracy and that could be seriously detrimental to individual liberty. As for the absence of highly paid sports and movie stars, that could well mean that you and I simply don’t have enough money to pay for entertainment! Without the rich we’d be robbed of our self-justified envy! Without the poor we’d lose our sense of superiority!
As for politicians (yes, indeed, I deliberately saved them for last), the truth is that you and I wouldn’t be free without them! Can you name me a free society without politicians?
The problem, as I see it, is not really the existence or prosperity of any of the above. The problem is the vulnerability of our individual mind-sets to angry negativism. Some might argue that the real problem is the aging mind.
As we grow up, most of us are inculcated with a standard of values nurtured by the protective cocoon of our families, friends, teachers, and by our religious faith. We learn of what our country has done best along with the best characteristics of our founders minus even the slightest suggestion that they (or the nation they founded) consisted of fallible human beings. Then comes life experience and, after three or four decades of traumas both experienced and witnessed, our ideals are inevitably punctured (if not torn asunder) by reality, which, unlike most idealism, is neither consistent nor logical. Thus, as the result of chronic irritation, we often find ourselves losing our trust in almost everything if not in almost everyone.
Just the other day I received a message from someone who is exceedingly irritated by my continuing support of President Obama. His anger was filled with incredulity. It was personal more than it was logical or editorial. He seems to believe that Obama supporters consider the president to be “saintly” or above criticism. Perhaps he’s right; we may be as bad as today’s GOP which looks in vain among its presidential candidates for President Reagan.
What happens to too many of us, as I see it, is that we unconsciously grant too much power to those who differ with us politically, religiously, or even in the entertainment field -- especially sports. We seek constant reinforcement of our feelings, conclusions and beliefs. We make “nations” out of such realms as political talk show hosts and sports franchises. Thus we have phenomena such as “The Savage Nation” (talk show host Michael Savage), “Red Sox or Yankee Nation” (major league baseball), and
“Raider Nation" (NFL football).
These days, it seems that everything we love we sanctify with nationhood while anything that differs or opposes our views we consider at least emotionally treasonous!
Much of this, as I see it, has to do with the culture war that I personally detest so much. What neither side in this culture war grasps is how much it needs the other side. What would be the value of political Conservatism if there were no Liberalism? What would we Americans do if we didn’t have a world threat to protect against? Could labor do without management or management without labor? Even more unsettling: could there be right without wrong?
Perplexing and even irritating as all of these questions are, it does get old after a while, doesn’t it?
The evaluation of people, institutions, and events is essential to who we are -- painful, unsettling and emotionally fatiguing as that may be. Still, we could do ourselves a huge favor if we could consciously restrain the harshness of our criticism of one another and, with a little more frequency, grant each other the benefit of the doubt. Even more, we might even do ourselves a favor if we eased up on the tendency to take ourselves as seriously as we do.
Hey! Wait just a moment there! What are you pointing at me for? I have to take myself seriously. After all, I’m a columnist, aren’t I? Aren’t I?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)