SOMETIMES I WONDER: WHAT ARE WE ALL ABOUT?

By Edwin Cooney

Some years ago I was astounded to read that a vacuum packet containing scissors, a bloody piece of gauze, and a portion of boxer Evander Holyfield’s ear bitten off by his opponent Michael Tyson was for sale on the internet.  The price was $17,000.  I was flabbergasted for two reasons.

First, anyone interested in such a gory specimen, I decided, must be pretty vulgar.  Second, it seemed incredible to me that someone who could pay $17,000 for such a packet had precious little cause to ever complain that the government was taxing him or her too much. (Note: it is possible and even likely that the above is merely an urban legend, unfortunately. However, what’s below is too true.)  As I write this, I’m now faced with an even more incredulous circumstance.

Before I begin hollering, I need to stipulate that we can’t afford to make this phenomena I’m about to complain of illegal.  After all, everyone has a right to be a fool as long as they allow the rest of us to thrive!

A few days ago, I read that George Zimmerman is accepting bids for the gun he used to shoot 17 year-old Trayvon Martin to death.  What’s even worse is that someone is apparently willing to pay $250,000 for it.

Now, I’m not interested in legalities.  I’ve not the slightest interest in what the National Rifle Association says nor am I much interested in what the anti-gun folks or even what the Constitution of the United States says.  I’m troubled about what the willingness of the purported buyer of Zimmerman’s tool of death says about our national state of mind and spirit.

Since reading in the New York Times about Mr. Zimmerman’s attempt to profit from his less than stellar notoriety, I’ve tried without success to find out who owns such historic weapons as John Wilkes Booth’s derringer, Charles Guiteau’s pistol, Leon Czolgosz’s weapon, and Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle.  Nor do I have a clue as to who possesses the guns used by James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan or Arthur Bremer.  It’s hard for me to imagine what kind of an individual would want any of these weapons except for their possible monetary value.  Of course, people have the right to own them and it’s hard to realistically insist that they aren’t  of some legitimate monetary value.  The ultimate question is, wouldn’t you have to despise the victim and love the deed in order to purchase one of these death deliverers?

If you love Ronald Reagan, would you pay to own John Hinkley Jr’s pistol?  Would a John Lennon fan want to own Mark David Chapman’s gun?  Happily, I’ve got my doubts!

I’m perfectly comfortable with the idea that the Smithsonian, the Lincoln Museum or Garfield’s or McKinley’s official museums might own these weapons because, dastardly as they are, they symbolize undeniable events in American history.  However, the possibility that an individual might seek to profit from or purchase such unpatriotic tools for monetary or bragging rights is to me beyond acceptability.

George Zimmerman was found not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin and, on the surface at least, he’s sticking to that verdict.  Ah! but wait a minute! Something is telling Mr. Z that his gun is really and truly valuable for a very special reason and that can’t be because the weapon still functions.   He must have done something not many people do with their personal weapons.  It

was something that causes him to feel a special pride and which that gun, he’s certain, represents.

Perhaps the gun represents a citizen’s determination to protect himself, but if that were the case, why wouldn’t Zimmerman keep it as a reminder to himself of his “responsible, or even heroic act of good citizenship?”  Zimmerman has obviously convinced himself that the gun that killed Trayvon Martin has a value perhaps equal to a weapon of war.  With whom, or with what people, must George Zimmerman be at war?

I can only guess, of course, but the answer I get is staggeringly unpleasant!

A six figure item has to have a value more worthy than mere cost.  Its value must be a value of cause, a cause that commemorates or inspires dangerous conduct traditionally performed by soldiers or, even more scary, warriors!  The mission of a warrior is to kill and be celebrated for killing.  The tragic truth is that George Zimmerman lives in a society that values killing so highly it is apparently willing to spend its monetary treasure to commemorate some person’s dehumanization and death.

Throughout our history we’ve established institutions to determine the guilt or innocence of the suspicious.  These institutions including the judiciary, grand juries, the police and, yes, the Second Amendment are far from either ideal or perfect. However they possess an expectation of restraint against the marauder even in times of danger.

As I see it, George Zimmerman is about as “not guilty” as O. J. Simpson.  For the time being, however, he is and should be treated as not guilty as judged.  George Zimmerman is legally a free man and as long as he comes under “the tongue of good report,” as the late Kentucky  Governor, U.S. Senator, and Baseball Commissioner A.B. (Happy) Chandler would put it, Zimmerman should be given the benefit of all doubt.  He has the legal right to sell his gun for whatever he can get for it.  Another reality is that we, his fellow citizens, have a right and a responsibility to take note of what he does especially in connection with that most unhappy incident.

Just like the story of O. J. Simpson, the story of George Zimmerman will ultimately unfold revealing who Mr. Zimmerman really is.  Had he shown sorrow or humility or a willingness to participate in an effort to overcome racial or cultural misunderstandings, his celebrity would be vastly different than it is today.  Perhaps even his gun might symbolize something more noble than it currently does.

Sadly, George Zimmerman appears to be about self-justification in his willingness to make public statements about Trayvon Martin’s parents as they struggle to cope with Trayvon’s death.  Even more tragic is the value some obviously well-healed Americans are willing to put on a killer’s gun!

Many would surely insist that these bidders are patriotic Christian Americans.  However, as I see it, anyone who’d pay $250,000 for Zimmerman’s gun is little more than a willfully frightened, weak-minded American, no matter how often he or she salutes Old Glory or sings “God Bless America.”                                                                                                                                                                                                 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT AFFORD!

By Ed Cooney

Earlier today while in conversation with a friend and reader of these musings, I made something of a confession and a value judgment.

I asserted that I was beginning to be bored with the fortunes of Donald Trump.  Realizing almost immediately that this was a dilemma, I changed my mind. The reason for my temporary boredom is my overall disgust with Donald J. Trump’s appeal. However, since  history, current events and the human dynamic are what I write about every week, I can’t afford to be bored with Donald J. Trump’s current prominent position in our body politic.

Many years ago when I was studying to become a social studies teacher, I learned about the various roles a teacher assumes in the classroom.  These include information provider, counselor, referee, storyteller, clerk, progress evaluator, and most intrepidly,  substitute parent.  There are musts and must nots in each of these roles.

I’m convinced that as individuals we give too little thought to the roles we play as parents, siblings, friends, professionals, and especially as citizens.  Parents probably play the most roles: counselor, entertainer, good and bad cop, companion, encourager, discourager, confessor, mediator, protector, and very often the role of a teacher — just to name a few.

Siblings are often babysitters, physical protectors, and fellow conspirators against the wishes of “grownups.”

Friends very often are in a position to serve as invaluable confidants and even as actual family members.

Professionals not only provide the public with goods and services, more importantly they provide the people with their best judgment of the goods and services they offer.  It is vitally important that these goods and services be of sufficiently high quality to keep the public coming back to them to receive what they offer.

Finally, there’s that vital role of citizen.  It has become intensely fashionable to see one’s role in our socio/political existences primarily as a taxpayer.  The fact of the matter is that we play many more roles than that of taxpayer.  We are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, parents, neighbors, consumers, judges of character, providers of professional goods and services, evaluators of those goods and services, entertainers, judges, experts, voters, officeholders, protectors of the less fortunate, encouragers of the successful, and finally,  according to Holy Writ, the keeper of our brothers’ and sisters’ welfare.

What we can and cannot afford to say, do, think, and even believe depends on what we expect of ourselves and hope to expect from others.

That’s why so much depends on what we say, do, think and believe in a free society  What society is all about has a direct effect on our values and those values compel the socio/political choices we make or decide to leave to others.

I have a friend who becomes almost apoplectic on the need for the passage of  effective gun control legislation. Yet almost in the same breath he insists that voting or anything we do does not matter. I attribute these obvious contradictory conclusions largely due to the discouragement this gentleman has  experienced on this personal priority.

Hence, the question I offer this week, though largely rhetorical, has special relevance particularly in a political year!

What can we as citizens afford to believe, think and ultimately do in this year that so many of us insist is so vital to our future?  Notice I’m not asking what’s comfortable to believe, think, or do! I am asking what we can afford to believe, think and do as we choose a course to the future.

Can we afford to be as angry as the citizens of Adolf Hitler’s Germany were after the Treaty of Versailles which ended World War I?  Can we afford to be as angry as the Iranians were after the 24 year reign of the Shah which was arranged by our intelligence community under the auspices of Kermit Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt’s grandson?  Can we afford to abandon NATO and urge the Japanese to design their own nuclear umbrella?  Remember, the Japanese are the only people in human history to have been the victims of not one but two nuclear bombs!  We were the deliverers of those bombs regardless of how “justifiable” our case was.  Is it good policy to provide a future Japanese generation resentful of this fact with the capacity to reap revenge 75 or perhaps 100  years from now? Note that  construction of nuclear weapons is already unconstitutional under their form of government which after all was practically dictated by General Douglas MacArthur. The righteous anger Mr. Trump and his supporters express in the area of foreign policy makes the above question of affordability both relevant and crucial to world peace. 

To afford an object, project, or a belief system is to spend something of value you possess to obtain its benefits.  As dissatisfied with existing conditions as you may legitimately be, the future’s unknowns must be anticipated as thoroughly as possible.

Much of this pertains more to the forces of thinking and energy that affect all political outcomes in this country than it does to the personal fortune of Mr. Trump. I insist that what we can and can’t afford will either compromise or squander tomorrow and the days after for ourselves and our progeny!

Thus my question is: what must American voters afford to consider and ultimately do next November 8th?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

DONALD J. TRUMP - MASTER OF “FEAR ITSELF!”

By Edwin Cooney

As business tycoon Donald J. Trump gathers in his Republican chips after vanquishing sixteen Republicans (notice I didn’t say fellow Republicans!), he’s fully aware of the power of fear — his most powerful and trusty weapon.  After all, he apparently believes he’s the master of fear.  Even more, he seems certain that he needs neither knowledge nor principle to prevail.  Thus, personal degradation of women, Hispanics, Muslims, and, of course, our foreign and domestic policies under President Obama constitute everything he’s about.  “Why change now?” he seems to reason. After all, a successful competitor shouldn't alter the strategy that has brought him or her this far!  That being the case, perhaps it’s time to review some pretty tough but compelling realities that are just ahead.

(1.) No one who has decided to vote for Donald Trump will be convinced not to, regardless of what you and I write or say.

(2.) Undecided voters, whatever their socio/political orientation, currently have only two realistic choices in the absence of a compelling third party candidate. Voters will elect either Donald J. Trump or Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton as America’s 45th President.

(3.) Like getting up in the morning, voting doesn’t have to be either pleasurable, let alone satisfying, to be vitally important. You may not satisfy your dreams or soothe your nightmares, but you can effectively alter the direction of that angry political bully charging toward you thereby seriously blunting his effectiveness.

(4.) Should you exercise your right not to vote, not only are you confirming your insignificance, you are actually empowering it.

(5.) The voter who votes sets standards for the future.   On the other hand, the voter who stays home meekly will abjectly surrender the future and that of his or her children and grandchildren to the whims of those who are likely to destroy that future.

As for Trump, the master of fear, notice how he exploits the voter’s fears yet offers no details as to how he will vanquish them — not that Donald Trump is by any means the first politician to be vague about his plans.  Mr. Trump apparently has decided that fear and uncertainty during a political campaign is precisely the best strategy for achieving victory.  After all, he appears to believe, if he offers answers to what worries voters, he and not his opponent will become the issue.  I’ll have more to say on that subject as the campaign goes on.

As for what Mr. Trump has to offer, he reminds voters every day that he is a businessman.  That means he is in control of all his domains.  No president, not even George Washington, has ever had the luxuries that a businessman has.  No American president appropriates or controls money as a business executive does.  Our elected chief executive has to function, unlike the business executive, with two coequal decision-making and confirming forces, Congress and the Supreme Court.  CEOs like Tom Watson of IBM, Steve Jobs of Apple, and Warren Buffett of GEICO fame never made decisions that could just be altered by Congress  — and Congress is eternally jealous of its historic prerogative to alter or reject presidential proposals or even executive authority.

As of today, we have had 44 men serve as President of the United States.  Most of them have been pretty determined if not willful men.  None of them (not even George Washington, Andrew Jackson, or Woodrow Wilson to name just three presidents) have avoided congressional “checkmate” at one time or another in their presidencies.

George Washington was so livid when South Carolina senators rejected his nominees for appointments to federal office in that state, that he refused ever to personally appear before Congress again.  They say his anger was terrifying to behold.

Andrew Jackson was censured by Congress in 1833 for his coercive policy enforcing the “Tariff of Abominations” bill  passed by Congress in 1828 and resisted by South Carolina.  (From there on in, Andrew Jackson was often derided as “King Andrew.”)

Woodrow Wilson, whose lifelong tendency was to make every issue a moral issue, damaged his dream of a League of Nations through his own self-righteousness when he willfully refused to respond to some legitimate concerns Congress had with the structure and functions of an international league in conjunction with our constitution.  Consequently, not only did Wilson destroy his dream out of his sense of moral superiority and self-importance, he made World War II almost inevitable.

If Donald Trump is the master of “fear itself”— that which FDR asserted in his first inaugural was our greatest challenge — the vital question is: as the master of fear, what does he intend to do with or accomplish by utilizing fear?

Whatever the deciding issue may be this fall, it’s not ultimately about what  Donald Trump thinks of Hillary Clinton or what  Hillary Clinton thinks of or believes about Donald Trump.  What is important is how they see us, and even more, how they value “we the people.”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

WHEN WAS AMERICA GREAT? - A FASCINATING QUESTION!

By Edwin Cooney

In a recent column, writer Margot Sanger-Katz focused on Donald J. Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again!” by wondering, “When was America Great?”

Approximately 2,000 registered voters were asked that question and their answers were fascinating.  Most said that the year 2000 was America’s greatest year.  We had a Democratic president, but that year a Republican president succeeded him.  Republican responders tended to say America was great in 1955 or, understandably, in the 1980s while Democratic voters asserted that the mid 1990s were America’s greatest years.  A few voters said 2008 was great even with the simultaneous occurrences of the national recession and the election of President Obama.

Hillary Clinton supporters tended to insist that the mid 1990s were the greatest years while Bernie Sanders voters suggested that the late 1960s were America’s greatest years.  There were scattered votes for 1776, 1789, 1800, 1860 and 1960.  

If someone was to ask me, and no one has, I’d choose an era rather than a specific year.  Before being specific, I think it’s a good idea to define what we’re looking for.

First, it’s important to separate the term “great” from the term “perfect.”  America has never been and never will be “perfect.”  It may become “more perfect,” the stated goal of the Preamble of the Constitution, but perfection needs to first be achieved by humankind before any nation state can proclaim political, social, economic or moral perfection.

Second, I’m convinced that greatness must be inclusive of the hopes, dreams and needs of the whole society, not just for the rich or the poor, the educated or uneducated, the Conservative or the Liberal, etc.

Third, America has to be a benefactor abroad just as we were in World War II, during the founding of the United Nations, as we administered the Marshall plan for the reconstruction of Europe, and performed other peace-strengthening tasks and programs.

Finally, I think America can only be great when it is in the mood to be great.  To be great is to be magnanimous at home as well as abroad. An angry nation is hardly in a position to listen to the hopes, fears and needs of sister nations.  Nor is an angry resentful America capable of inspiring, let alone nurturing, humankind.

America performed great tasks before it was truly great.  Such tasks included the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, passage of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and settlement of the North American continent (although that process had a very ugly side). Other accomplishments: Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, the great railroads were constructed, and there was a steady movement toward gratifying human rights here at home.

It’s my opinion that America was the greatest between 1933 and 1969 during the Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson administrations.  We gave and even guaranteed enough to each other to energize our capacity to share with the rest of the world.  This period included the opening of the United Nations, the Marshall plan, the Berlin airlift, and the establishment of NATO under Harry Truman.

Under Dwight Eisenhower, SEATO (the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) was established, Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) was decided, the interstate highway system was created, and the National Defense Education Act was adopted.

The Kennedy administration established the Peace Corps and the Alliance for Progress to assist the economies of Central and South American nations, envisioned landing on the moon, and, utilizing determination and restraint, prevented a super power nuclear disaster during the October 1962 Cuban missile crisis.

LBJ oversaw passage of the 1964 Civil Rights bill, the 1965 Voting Rights bill, fair housing, truth in packaging, and Medicare legislation.

Even with the close of this era, Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G. H. W. Bush, Clinton, G. W. Bush and Obama all proposed and signed legislation reflecting elements of American greatness.

The reputation for greatness usually is bestowed on nation states or empires once they have passed into history.  We have all read in our high school history texts of the great civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire and, of course, the magnificent British Empire which brought us into being.  These civilizations contributed such gifts as the domestication of animals, the creation of legal codes, great literature, and the founding of democratic institutions.

The years 1936 through 1969, I believe, showcased America at its highest level of greatness.  The American people and people all over the world benefited as Americans grew materially comfortable.  Even as they did so, their heritage began to warn them that there was still more work to do.  That warning was for this era of political and social discontent through which we’re currently passing and I’m sure it is derived from that social conscience handed down to us by Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison with later assists from Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 

When we admire the successful both at home and abroad who encourage and support the ambitions of working men and women, who in turn insist upon nurturing the poor, who then are energized and dignified by limitless potential, we will once again indeed be a nation of incredibly great people!

When that day comes, we will have reached an even longer era during which America will possess greatness. May that greatness be everlasting.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY