THE ROOT OF THE MATTER!

By Edwin Cooney

It’s tempting to label racial hatred, the availability of handguns, and people’s pride in or disdain for President Barack Obama as the prime factors in the church shootings nearly two weeks ago in Charleston, South Carolina, but I assert that the root of the Charleston tragedy is self-righteousness.  Thus I offer the following observation: the major human tendency we have to fear today is personal self-righteousness -- civil, political, and even moral self-righteousness -- which so dominates our energy and convictions that it obliterates reason, logic, and the essential authority of secular and spiritual law.

When our Founding Fathers established the Constitution and thus our federalist system nearly two and a half centuries ago, they created a system designed to meld the passions and practicality of free men and women as they strove to establish and maintain free and functional government.  No longer would we be ruled by the will or majesty of royalty, but rather by the reason and will granted to us as an individual birthright.  Hence, the era of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin showered us with almost boundless opportunity.  However, there were two gifts that were beyond their ken to grant us — respect and wisdom — two essential qualities to properly assess the legitimate freedoms and rights of other people.

Perhaps it was the realization that respect and wisdom would only be ours after centuries of both experiment and experience in self-government that was behind President George Washington’s warning in his farewell letter against our dependence on political parties.  Political parties, which increasingly are energized by political doctrine rather than by collective knowledge and wisdom, seem to render contempt toward the very idea of acknowledgement and compromise, the only two avenues to the success of republican government.       

Contempt toward the beliefs, rights, and even the legitimacy of others appears to be the “in” way of thinking, believing and thus acting in 21st Century America!  Hence, we come to our latest national tragedy, the outrageous murder of Reverend Clementa C. Pinckney and eight parishioners of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina around 9 p.m. on the evening of June 17th, 2015.

Those close to the investigation of Dylan Roof, the alleged murderer of these extraordinary men and women, have said that Roof’s bullets were intended to be the opening shots in a racial war.  As of this writing, however, just the opposite is occurring.  What’s even more encouraging is how genuinely and magnificently the families and closest friends of the victims are asserting love and forgiveness from within their personal heartbreak.

Absent, so far, is the threat of the street thug, the condemnation of the ambitious black politician or preacher and even the doomsday prognostic tomes of the sometimes-elitist socio/political commentator.  From President Obama on down, most of those who hold or hope to achieve supreme public responsibility seem to realize that some human tendency passed the point of worthy service on the night of June 17th, 2015. I identify that tendency as self-righteous thinking and behavior.

Even more gratifying, evidence to that possibility can be seen in the insistence, even on the part of southern governors, that the battle flag and statues of the Confederacy should be removed from prominent places in venues of national honor and placed in museums where they truly belong.

Of course, political beliefs and convictions are an essential part of a free society, the prime responsibility of which is to master its government.  However, for too long we’ve moralized rather than categorized public priorities.  We tend to preach and shame rather than attempt to persuade the unconvinced to share our convictions.  Thus, self-righteousness reigns supreme in 21st Century America.

Time invariably not only heals, but also sifts the real from the apparent.  It’s possible that as the intensity of the tragedy at the African Methodist Episcopal Church fades and is replaced by a contentious presidential campaign, some elements of the self-righteousness of our day will rear its ugly head.

Meanwhile, I’ll remember the call of those wounded families who treated their pain with their power to forgive.  I’ll remember the governors, congressmen and women, senators, and mayors who saw the victims’ tears and heard their cries and sought to remove symbols of their grief (namely, sacred Confederacy icons) from venues of honor at their own possible political cost!

Above all, I’ll remember the President of the United States of America who substituted the harsh demands of traditional self-righteous assurance with a call for “Amazing Grace!”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

WOW! QUITE A DECADE!

By Edwin Cooney

Ten years and one week ago I offered my first column to approximately 30 private readers, most of whom were family and friends, and to a gentleman who posted it on his Harlem-based website.  The date was Wednesday, June 15th, 2005.    The website was owned and managed by Mr. Dennis Holston.  It was Dennis who encouraged me to write a weekly column and although my work never gained the response from his website users that he and I had hoped for, Dennis remains a valued friend and reader today.

My readership, which has gone from the original 30 to approximately 200, consists of people who possess a variety of outlooks.  Most of my readership has been tolerant of my own personal socio/political orientation. However, several have given these weekly musings a disgusted “good riddance.” One of these is a member of my family; two others were friends from my California days.  What all of them have in common is allegiance to a certain ideology -- although not all conservatives have offered me a verbal or intellectual raspberry!

To inform, stimulate, and entertain are the goals for each week.  I’m pleased to say that I’ve achieved at least one of those goals most of the time - however, occasionally just barely!

As for the rewards, they’ve been quite numerous!  First, there’s the loving commitment of my editor who has been a dear close friend since the fall of 1973 when we attended graduate school together. Then, there’s the magnificent gentleman who has been having his favorite columns of mine (which now number more than 100) transcribed into Braille. (He’s threatened to have them transcribed into English as well so that I might comprehend what I’m writing!)  Next, I’ve had the honor of having one of my columns published in The Braille Monitor, the publication of the National Federation of the Blind.  Its editor, a real gentleman by the name of Gary Wunder, has become a reader, something of an intellectual soulmate and, I dare say, a friend. Finally, several of my columns were picked up and published in two local Vermont newspapers courtesy of Marianne Apfelbaum, a most delightful lady.

The question I’m asked most frequently is: how do you come up with topics every week?  The only response to that is that I have an ongoing interest in the way people react, rationalize and respond to their own experiences and to the world around them

When my first column which was entitled “What You Think, You Are!” was written and released, George W. Bush was about five months into his second term, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was expressing his support for President Bush’s increasingly unpopular war policy in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina was about two months away, and Barack Obama had just taken office as a U.S. Senator.  Nancy Pelosi had yet to become the first female Speaker of the House thereby, along with Hillary Clinton, giving conservatives fodder for their traditional contempt for ambitious women -- Sarah Palin excepted, of course!  Most of all, 2005 predated Barack Hussein Obama, his healthcare system and his capture of America’s most notorious enemy.  Against the background of these events, approximately 421 columns have been composed and saved under the category in my computer which I label Cooney’s Corner.

I love writing about topics that I regard as significant or substantial.  Perhaps my best column, which I entitled “Out of the Blue,” was an analysis of my own stereotypic assumptions and fears when I came in contact with a blind man who also had no hands at a Washington D.C. train station in June of 2007.  Other favorites have been: “Remembering Archie,” the story of Archie Mitchell, a preacher and missionary, who suffered two overwhelmingly outrageous misfortunes but continued his service to humanity.  (The first of these occurred when his 26-year-old pregnant wife Elsie and six children from their new Sunday school class were the only Americans to die within the borders of the United States during World War II. It’s quite a story! Archie’s second misfortune was sadder still if that’s possible.) Then there was the column about the preacher who befriended someone most of us would be repelled to even notice: Jeffrey Dahmer.

I’ve also written columns denying the existence of “common sense,” proclaiming the equal ownership of “political correctness” by conservatives as well as liberals, and asserting my opposition to capital punishment.  I’ve drawn attention to the waving of the Confederate flag by Americans who condemn some forms of treason but insist on glorifying the Confederacy that President Abraham Lincoln (whom many of the same people insist they revere) labeled a rebellion against the government of the United States.

Yes, indeed, the last 3,652 plus days have been a wonderful time during which to write.  Of course, I’d do it all over again and do it pretty much the same way.  Not having had the opportunity to teach at a college or university, I have found this forum to be quite a satisfactory substitute.

Of course, there are many more knowledgeable and skilled writers than I!  Some of them are fortunate enough to be syndicated - which is a place I occasionally visit in a dream or two.  Still, it’s hard for me to imagine that they enjoy what they do as much as I do!

As for the decade ahead, if you’re up for being informed and stimulated and occasionally entertained — I like to think that I’m the man to read!

We might even meet sometime in the unpredictable 3,653 days ahead!  Wow! What kind of a decade might that be?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

FIRST, INFORMATION IS PERSONAL, THEN IT’S MATERIAL!

By Edwin Cooney

As I’ve asserted from the very beginning, I have three goals each week for these musings: to inform, stimulate, and to entertain my readers.  These three goals reflect my personal lifelong ambitions as a kinsman, a friend or as a teacher — a professional position I never achieved.

Thus, each week I seek topics that reveal some notable aspect of history or contemporary life, a component of an event that hopefully stimulates thought through perspective, and   I try my best to offer them, in hopefully an entertaining style regardless of their importance or triviality.

A few days ago a former schoolmate of mine sent me a piece that both repelled and drew me.  It was titled “Blacks Versus Niggers.”

It repelled me because I despise the characterization of anyone as a “Nigger.”  However, it drew me because it appeared to have been written by an 83-year-old black resident of Ferguson, Missouri who, although a disabled veteran, had gone to college, raised a family and who very much believes in and loves America.  A law-abiding citizen, the author of “Blacks Versus Niggers” appeared to know much more about what it is like to be black than I do.  So, I read William G. Lillas’s open letter with interest.  As one who strives to always tell the truth as I understand it, I probably too often believe that everyone else is also truthful.  Furthermore, when reading or listening to someone, I insist on granting to them the benefit of the doubt most of the time.

First, Mr. Lillas draws a credible distinction between the decent and the criminal elements in the black community. Second, he rightfully asserts that violent protests destroy rather than build solid communities.  This observation was made more powerful by his endorsement rather than any objection to legitimate protest. Finally, his willingness to scold people he supposedly loves resonated with me.  Hence, I was ultimately more impressed with the strong points of his testimony even as I cringed at what seemed to be the political agenda of his “letter.”

One aspect of his letter that disturbed me from the outset was the tone of his clear political opposition to  “the liberal media’s bias.”  Apparently this 83-year-old gentleman really and truly believes that liberals possess a monopoly on bias.  Then, there was Mr. Lillas’s tendency to misstate and blur the histories of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin.  (Note: he never mentions Trayvon Martin’s last name.)  He states that Michael Brown had a long criminal record when he had no criminal record at all.  Next, he implies that both Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were defying the police.  Insofar as I’m aware, George Zimmerman has never been, or even claimed to be a policeman!

Finally, he made a rather amazing observation regarding the public’s reaction to the Rodney King and the O. J. Simpson trials.  Blacks, he reminds us, rioted after the Rodney King trial, but whites didn’t riot after the O. J. Simpson verdict.  Whites, he insists, haven’t rioted since maybe the Civil War.  Apparently, Twentieth Century anti-German riots in St. Louis during World War One and the lynching of blacks in the south isn’t considered “rioting” to Mr. Lillas.  The existence of the Ku Klux Klan doesn’t seem to have been enough of a legitimate threat to his fellow blacks to suit William G. Lillas.

As I mulled over this piece, I decided to share it with a couple of friends of mine for their reactions.  One of them informed me that according to Snopes.com William G. Lillas doesn’t exist.  This particular piece was released sometime last year but it didn’t specifically refer to Mr. Lillas by name.  However, it did assert that its author was a 70-year-old Korean War veteran without realizing that someone seventy years old in 2014 would have been no more than six when the war began and nine at its truce.  Hence, a 70-year-old veteran living in 2014 would have been too young to peel potatoes and shoot Korean and Chinese Communists which, according to the author, is all “nigger soldiers” were qualified to do.

This revelation makes my interest in the above-mentioned article seem quite silly doesn’t it?  So, you may well ask, why don’t I keep my intellectual and emotional weaknesses to myself instead of bothering you with them?

The answer to that is because I think I’ve finally grasped the keys to look for when presented with these nuggets of wisdom which you can use to more readily judge their credibility and practical validity.

First, be suspicious when liberals or conservative media are said to be at the heart of any social issue.  Second, be skeptical if the author brings controversial side issues into his argument that don’t have anything to do with the main point being made. (Note: Mr. Lillas brings the issue of illegitimacy and marital fidelity into the argument when his complaint is about criminality.)  Third, check the accuracy of historical events an author describes to back up their claims. Finally, just because a commentary appeals to your personal perceptions, even when I present it, its material speaks to its credibility at least as much as its source or its logic! Therein lies the lesson I’ve had to learn again and again.

Information that appeals to your personal comfort may be tempting. However, it’s practicality and validity most likely will be in its material substance.

As one who seeks to feed your knowledge, your intellect and your sense of well-being every week, I thought I should let you in on my latest lesson!

Please be so kind as to remind me of this lesson when I all too soon forget it!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

THE KEY TO WISDOM IS -- THE KEY TO ALL THINGS GOOD!

By Edwin Cooney

As approximately twenty Americans pursue the 45th presidency of the United States, that old issue, war or peace, is back with us once again.  Most would-be presidents try to have it both ways.  They insist that they pray for peace but the only way to achieve peace is to be ready for war.  That’s a non-response, of course, which is why presidential candidates prize that answer so much.

The major issue of most presidential campaigns in my lifetime (that is, since World War Two) has been, in one way or another, the issue of war versus peace.  Everyone (or at least almost everyone) hopes for peace but, since Pearl Harbor, no successful presidential candidate has been an outright  “peace” candidate.  The conventional cry is “Peace Through Strength.”  Hence, at least three times, the American people have stumbled into unnecessary and unwise wars.  Those times were 1964, 1988 and 2000.   

As a student of American history, I’ve concluded that the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World Wars One and Two were the only really “necessary” wars, that is, wars that we had to fight.

The Revolutionary War occurred because English and colonial cultures had grown so far apart that “Mother Britannia” never realized that her American child had grown up and no longer needed her protection or to meet her demands.  Thus, hostility ultimately trumped 18th Century geopolitical family values.

The Civil War occurred because, as is the case with so many marriages, union was no match for individual ambition: the South’s ambition was to retain and expand slavery and the North’s was to retain and dominate the Union.  (Note: northerners and westerners actually voted for Abraham Lincoln knowing that his election would likely mean southern secession, which would inevitably mean war.)

World War One occurred because Germany offered to reward an already hostile Mexican government if she attacked Uncle Sam in a justified war to reclaim her losses during the American Mexican War — a war declared “immoral” by two former American presidents, Ulysses S. Grant and Abraham Lincoln.

World War Two was the child of the vengeance the victors of World War One inflicted on the people of Germany!  (Had Winston Churchill’s rules of war been followed after World War One (“the war to end all wars”), World War Two would never have been fought!  Those Churchillian rules were: In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Good Will.)

We willingly inherited the Vietnam conflict from France when we cast it as a struggle against world communism rather than as an effort merely to unify Vietnam under one government.  

The Gulf One and Gulf Two wars were, like the two world wars, continuation conflicts. However, unlike World War Two, the second Gulf War peeled back the ugly scab, which was Saddam Hussein, to reveal the raw and festering religious infection embedded in Middle Eastern society whether Israeli, Arab, Persian, Christian or Muslim.  Hence, we’ve sunk even deeper than we already were into humankind’s boiling religious caldron.

Decades have passed since I first feared Nikita Khrushchev’s nuclear missiles, Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s Chinese hordes and, of more recent date, Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent “weapons of mass destruction.”

Most of our would-be presidents appear to be devotees of the analyses and slogans such as “Peace Through Strength” which have been with us since Harry Truman was president.  Most of the candidates want you to believe that they possess the wisdom to lead us through the perils ahead.  Most of them will tell you that the major international threat to our security is ISIS and, of course, that President Barack Obama has bumbled the crisis from the very beginning.  Some, for the benefit of political sensationalism, will even insist that President Obama created ISIS.

Your challenge and mine is to ask the right questions designed to bring to focus the real crisis --  if indeed such a crisis exists.  Here are a few inquiries I haven’t seen made as yet: When and what was the atmosphere created that made ISIS possible? How do you suppose ISIS is going to achieve its worldwide caliphate?  How can ISIS master humanity any better than the Nazis, the Communists, the USA or even the Almighty Himself?

Therefore, what real value is there in the suggestion of ISIS’s invincibility?  Will ISIS conquer the world by collecting baskets of heads?  What weaknesses, what vulnerabilities, will ISIS have to confront if they are to achieve what no one has ever achieved — namely, world domination?  I could be wrong, but it seems to me that history, after all, draws a distinction between good fighters and good governors!

ISIS appears to be a formidable battlefield opponent. They are quite capable of scaring the wits out of almost every civilized human being.  The question is at least twofold: what people have ISIS ever successfully governed? Do we really believe that freedom rather than intimidation is what inspires people?

The main reason the United States is almost always beset by international crisis is that her leaders historically have been unwilling to realistically and publicly grasp the weaknesses of our ideological opponents as well as their strengths.  Part of every would-be president’s appeal is that there is something out there from which he or she will rescue us.

That being the case, let us at least insist that our next president asks the right questions when making policy decisions by doing exactly that ourselves during the forthcoming campaign!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWINCOONEY