WELCOME TO THE 117TH “WORLDLY SERIES!”

By Edwin Cooney

Of course, it’s always been known as “The World Series,” even though originally only teams from the United States played in it. Then, Canada’s 1992 Toronto Blue Jays not only played in it, they actually won it. They and their fans were so captivated by their international triumph that they repeated themselves in 1993. Ever since then, the annual “fall classic” has become more international than ever before in the makeup of its teams. By the time you receive these observations on Monday, October 30th, the 2017 series could be history.

I’ve elected to call the “annual baseball fall classic” this year the “Worldly Series” because, when you think about it, that’s exactly what it is! To begin with, the series is loaded with all kinds of worldly things such as cheers, tears, fears and, of course — beers. Next, it’s about hope and pride, expectation and disappointment, madness and money. It’s all brought to you by auto and gasoline dealers, insurance companies (hello, Geico!), banks, and, of course, breweries.

As I point out almost every year, what intrigues me the most are the little things that come up when one is talking or writing about the World Series. I find it interesting to compare the opposing series managers. 

Houston Manager Andrew Jay Hinch, (A.J.) came up in 1998 as a catcher with the Oakland A’s. His lifetime statistics aren’t anything to write home about! He batted .214 and had an on base percentage at a microscopic .219. His slugging percentage was a meager .280. His seven year career was spent with the A’s, the Royals, the Tigers and, finally, the Phillies.   

The Dodgers’ manager David Ray Roberts was born in Okinawa, Japan on Tuesday, May 31st, 1972. His playing career began in 1999 as an outfielder with the Cleveland Indians and ended in September 2008 as a bench player with the San Francisco Giants. The summit of his career came during the 2004 playoffs between Roberts’ Red Sox and the New York Yankees. The Sox were down 3 games to 0 in the ninth inning of the fourth game. As the Yankees were literally tasting their victory champagne, Roberts entered the game and promptly stole second base to begin a Red Sox rally that lasted three more games.  The rally ended when the Red Sox defeated the Yankees thus breaking “the curse of the Bambino” which had lasted since the Sox traded Babe Ruth to the Yankees following the 1919 season. Thus, the Red Sox were finally free and went on to beat the St. Louis Cardinals in the 2004 World Series. Roberts’ playing stats were nearly as obscure as Hinch’s. He batted .266, with 23 home runs, 213 runs batted in, and 243 stolen bases. Like A.J. Hinch, David Roberts’ ticket to the Hall of Fame will be punched as a manager rather than as a player.

One of the irresistible phenomenons I raise each year is the prospect that an obscure player who only occasionally stands out as a diamond hero might end up being the star of the Series. For the Dodgers, my candidate would be Charlie Culberson, a rookie shortstop who wasn’t on the Dodgers’ roster until August of this year. He was only brought up to spell Corey Seager, last year’s N.L. Rookie of the Year, who was sidelined by a sore back. He has already hit a surprise home run and who knows what’s ahead! My Astros’ candidate is second-string catcher Evan Gattis who sent one out of the park in the final playoff game against the Yankees and is perfectly capable of doing the same thing to the Dodgers.

One of the most healthy aspects of watching or listening to the World Series is how much it all matters and yet how little it all matters at the same time. Neither victory nor defeat will affect our national economy, our national security, or our status as a world leader. As for your health, mental well-being, or pocketbook, that depends on how much you bet, who you bet, and perhaps how demanding for payment they might be. If either the Dodgers or the Astros are your team, the intensity of your reaction to defeat or victory could be rather intense, but my guess is you will survive the ordeal in reasonably good shape.

As for me, I don’t have a “horse” in this year’s race for Worldly Series glory, but I nearly did. After all, I’m a lifelong Yankee fan. However, I nearly rooted for the Dodgers because I much prefer the socio/political climate in California over that in Texas. Although there are a number of Dodgers for whom I have considerable affection (such as Sandy Koufax, Roy Campanella, Duke Snyder — after all, his given first name is Edwin —  and my favorite Yankee of the 1980s and 90s, Don Mattingly, who recently managed the Dodgers), I just can’t bring myself to root for them. As for the Astros, their victory would result in too many smiles on too many conservative Republican faces! Still, I’m rooting for them — sort of, that is.

Yes, indeed, when you come right down to it, the annual classic is a  “worldly” (rather than a spiritually significant) event. It’ll bless neither you, your family or your country, but somehow, at least for millions of people, it really does matter. It enables those faint of heart to hope. It’s a respite from politics — local, state, regional, national and, especially, international. Unlikely social, political, and spiritual bedfellows, more often than not, share the same passions for the same team. Worldly Series passion is ever contagious and compelling.

Like the Mississippi River, roll on, you “Worldly Series.” Let us feel your chills, as you feed us your thrills. Keep us wondering and waiting, reveling while celebrating the twists and turns of your story — which for one group of lucky fans will terminate in happy glory!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

MORALITY - DOES RELIGION HAVE A MONOPOLY ON IT?

By Edwin Cooney

In a very recent column, I proclaimed that contrary to the preachings of many Conservatives, there’s absolutely nothing either moral or immoral about being a Conservative. The same is also true of Liberalism or any other political “ism” if you ask me. So the question is:

If political ideology is amoral, is morality to be found solely in our Christian, Jewish, Muslim or kindred religious faiths? Well, let’s see now. What exactly is a religious faith?

As I understand it, a religious faith is a belief in the existence of a higher power with a greater knowledge and comprehension of the human condition than we mortals can possibly grasp. We Christians believe that God created all time and matter and has given us the resources to construct our lives and beings in such a way that over time morality will be as natural as breathing. After all, the more we learn about human nature, how it works, wherein lies its greatest assets and greatest liabilities, the more we’re likely to overcome our fears and thus treat one another as we ought. In other words, over time, we’re destined to love our neighbors as ourselves which Christians believe is God’s first law equivalent to the Ten Commandments and in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Just a few days ago, in response to last week’s column in which I raised the question of morality in politics, I got a letter from a Minnesota woman who has struggled as I have with the tendency on the part of political Conservatives to see themselves as morally superior to Liberal Christians.

Ideological Conservatives insist that their opposition to abortion, for instance, makes them morally superior to those who support freedom of choice as many (although not all) Liberals do. That sense of superiority can intimidate some potential Christians. Yet these same Conservatives support capital punishment because they know no other way to protect society from the marauder and the murderer. As this gentle lady points out, she might not ever choose to have an abortion, but she can’t and won’t condemn others for making an opposite decision.

As I see it, there is an overwhelming tendency on the part of many devout Christians to use human death to solve many of our problems be they matters of individual or international conflict. Both war and capital punishment are no more than prescriptions for “legal death.” You’ll have a hard time convincing me that killing is moral just because it’s legal.

What makes a person moral is only partly due to his or her religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are primarily interpretations of scripture or, specifically, God’s wishes for our individual well-being. One of Princeton University’s early presidents proclaimed at the close of the 18th Century that if God didn’t want human beings to get smallpox, he wouldn’t have created the disease. What this theologian failed to consider was that God had given human beings minds capable of overcoming smallpox and countless other human diseases. The earth may have been created in six days of some length beyond 24 hours, but humankind’s capacity to use God’s greatest gift took much longer to develop. The appearance of Holy Scripture even preceded the full utilization of humankind’s greatest gift: inventive intelligence.

I’m sure that probably most American Christians are convinced that humanity is becoming less morally inclined than were our ancestors. While I have yet to see a comprehensive study comparing our morality to that of our ancestors, I’m convinced that we are more morally oriented today than those who lived during the time of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson.

The time and resources we apply toward the overall improvement and comfort in individuals’ lives has never been equaled. The standards for safety in the workplace, the ending of abusive punishment in schools, the comfort and counseling we offer to one another in the face of all types of tragedy, these are a testimony to our increasing acknowledgment of each other’s right to consideration and dignity. Additionally, our willingness to protect the rights and safety of consumers, the social and financial status of the poor and the well-being of the planet are all moral issues.

As I see it, morality is not a matter of religious or political faith. It is ingrained in our DNA. Morality is centered in our consideration, inclusion and treatment of other human beings. Our relationship with that higher power, whatever name you give that power, is strictly an individual matter. As for myself, I reject the idea that by being “good” I am earning a place in Heaven or that because I’ve been “bad,” I am going somewhere else. To me, morality isn’t about being nice to other people in exchange for an eternal reward, it is about the “golden rule” because, for the most part, the golden rule works.

National policy such as institutional slavery or a policy of genocide against Native Americans are matters of morality. However, insofar as I’m aware, no nation, including America, will realize salvation because it has been blessed by God. 

As I see it, perhaps the most controversial issue in early 21st Century America, the abortion question, boils down to an individual’s relationship to both humanity and God. Very often opponents to abortion are the same people who continuously vote to withhold funding to feed the very babies they insist have a right to be born. Where’s the morality in that inconsistency?

I believe human morality doesn’t rely as much on what we believe as on what we do. I’m convinced that fundamentally immoral people are invariably unhappy people. 

No, people of faith, as moral as they may indeed be, have no monopoly on morality. While they possess a right and even a duty to witness to others, such witnessing must be inspiring rather than threatening to the nonbeliever.

As for my Minnesota friend, she is as entitled to be a Christian as Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, or Billy Graham. I am privileged to know and be close to many “liberal” or socially progressive Christians. Grace covers all. 

Now, it’s your turn! What say you?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

A FULL CIRCLE EXPERIENCE

By Edwin Cooney

In the first column I ever submitted to readers in June of 2005, I quoted an observation which I first heard while listening to a 1956 interview with Adlai E. Stevenson, the late Governor and two-time Democratic presidential nominee. Stevenson was often labeled, especially by political opponents, as an intellectual or “egghead.” The observation was that you may not be what you think you are, but what you think, you are.

Just last week, two readers sent me a copy of a message from an elderly gentleman asserting that he’d been robbed of his identity by a bunch of liberals.  While insisting “at least I know who I am,” the writer begins by asserting that because he was born white, he’s now considered a racist. My response to that is that if he’s sensitive to being labeled a racist, he’s likely guilty of the charge.

Next, he insists that because he’s a “fiscal and moral Conservative” he’s now a fascist. I wonder what the hell is a moral conservative? Since when was a political ideology a question of morality? Neither fascism nor communism are immoral in themselves. What was immoral about Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini was the way they applied their ideology.

He goes on to say that because he is a heterosexual, he must be a homophobe. Aside from the truth he reveals in his final observation, his sensitivity to that possible charge is as revealing as his likely racism.

Because he was christened  by parents who were and remained married, he’s seen as an infidel. This observation lets us in on his obvious religious intolerance.

Our author’s age and state of retirement makes him useless to the unsympathetic. Uselessness, in most instances, is a matter of choice. If you refuse to offer yourself or your time to others, it is likely you are pretty useless.

With the fact that he believes in hard work, fair play, and fair compensation according to each person’s individual merits, he believes he’s now viewed as an anti-socialist. Where he got that observation is indeed a wonderment. There’s nothing wrong with being anti-socialist any more than there’s anything wrong with being anti-fascist.

Because he thinks and reasons, thereby doubting much of what he reads in the mainstream media, he is a reactionary. What is this gentleman’s knowledge of the depth and history of the American media is the question here. A few years ago, Liberals demonstrated that they couldn’t afford to support “Air America.” Conservatives continue to support Fox News and other very profitable and powerful Conservative outlets to the point where Conservative media, be it Fox or Breitbart, now look pretty mainstream to this observer.

Finally, because he’s patriotic, supports the police and believes in our legal system. he is a xenophobic right wing Conservative. I’ll leave it to him to define the difference between “moral conservatism” and “right wing conservatism.”

Of course, this gentleman’s insecurities are all the “fault” of Barack Obama because all of this has occurred during the last seven or eight years. He ends this diatribe by insisting that he no longer knows what restroom to use! This last insecurity justifies the likelihood that he’s both racist and homophobic and is determined to remain in the closet, thus hiding both flaws. 

Wow! What a list of supposed grievances! This gentleman suffers from no identity crisis. He’s clearly proud of who he is. Therein lies not only his fallacy, but his lack of respect for the legitimacy of other people’s beliefs. 

What makes this all worrisome is that it meanly interprets the substance of how non-Conservatives view the Conservative movement. Even worse, it victimizes Conservatives who traditionally insist how much they deplore victimization. “Poor me, I’m so misunderstood,” this gentleman is saying.

Commentaries like this one stir resentment rather than informing or stimulating thought, two of the three purposes of these weekly musings. They poison the very source of free dialogue. If this gentleman really believes in liberty, this commentary doesn’t show it. This gentleman’s platitudes demonstrate how he thinks as well as who he really is.

So, I come full circle from my first column. None of us may be what or who we think we are. What we really are depends in the long run on how we think! There’ll be more commentary along this line! Stay tuned!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE OUTRAGED AMERICAN - A STATE OF MOOD, MIND, OR AN INSTITUTION?

By Edwin Cooney

The United States of America has always been a rather contentious land in which to live. From Tuesday, July 2nd, 1776, the very day that the Continental Congress passed the Declaration of Independence, we bonded out of necessity rather than “brotherly love.” The Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia didn’t like each other as much as John Adams liked George Washington, and many of the colonies broke their promises to support the Continental Army with their money throughout the Revolutionary War.

Once independence was achieved, there were territorial, jurisdictional and commercial   quarrels. It took George Washington’s courage to put his personal reputation on the line to compel the colonies to meet in Philadelphia in July 1787 so that they might bond against the threat of individual colonial alliances with “bad old Europe” with its tradition of royalty and religious chaos. Then there were quarrels over the expansion of American territory and slavery. Next came the Civil War and after that we began dividing ourselves between the supporters of labor versus management, federal obligations versus states’ rights and most dramatically between ideological left and right. These divisions existed largely in the background until Thursday, July 2nd, 1964.

On that day, a Southerner by the name of Lyndon Baines Johnson signed a bill which compelled white Americans to open their businesses and, even worse, their neighborhoods and schools, to black Americans. LBJ compounded the problem the following year when he urged passage of the Voting Rights Act and later the Fair Housing Act and on and on it went. January 20th, 2019 will mark the 50th anniversary of the end of LBJ’s “Great Society.” The very possibility that a progressive administration could one day return causes some of the richest and most powerful among us to noticeably cringe.

As the new Trump administration completes its ninth month, everyone appears to be at war with everyone else. The Republican far right appears to be ready to oust the moderate right from office. The president is mad at the GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and turmoil is ever present in the House making Speaker Paul Ryan’s job as much diplomatic as legislative. Even within the administration there are divisions which may well affect stability at home as well as abroad. Even worse, the president thrives on controversy.

Only a fortnight ago, President Trump was urging American businessmen in the form of football owners to fire employees, thus depriving them of making a living, because these football employees, most of whom are black, were kneeling rather than standing during the playing of “The Star Spangled Banner.” Thus football fans found themselves divided between loyalty to their favorite football franchise  and “…the land where their fathers died and the land of the pilgrims’ pride.” I heard longtime Green Bay Packers’ fans (they call themselves cheeseheads!) curse their team in favor of their president. Never again, they declared, would they be Packer fans because, apparently, kneeling during the National Anthem is not merely unpatriotic, it is downright immoral. As for the protestors, their delusion lies in the assumption that by making people angry, they’ll accomplish a “kinder, gentler America.” Both sides are unwisely and, I believe, unjustly defacing the American landscape of pure recreational enjoyment. Even more potentially devastating, as LBJ might put it, “they’re pissing in their own patch,” the source of their own financial and social salvation.

The root of the problem is simple. Historically, we have beaten ourselves over the head with our individual senses of morality. The fact of the matter is that few people, regardless of political, social, or spiritual standing, respond positively to the suggestion that what they’re doing, or especially who they are, constitutes immorality. Both slave owners and Native American fighters — especially Andrew Jackson who was both —  failed to recognize their personal immorality even though New England preachers insisted upon it. Woodrow Wilson made the League of Nations more of a moral issue than a practical one which was primarily why he lost his battle with Massachusetts Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. LBJ won his civil rights issues in Congress because he was more practical than moral and knew how to handle Congress from his days in both houses of that august body.

Up until the 1980s and 90s, politicians were almost as collegial as they were political. Today, with the advent of rich righteous Conservatism added to “Ivory Towered Liberalism,” John and Susie Q citizen are inevitable victims of holier than thou versions of right and wrong interpretations of morality. Here’s a very  brief list of what is a matter of morality and what is not:

(1.) Patriotism has nothing to do with morality.

(2.) Humanism has absolutely everything to do with morality.

(3.) Neither the flag nor the national anthem have anything to do with morality.

(4.) God ought not to be on our money - there’s little if anything about money that’s moral.

(5.) Insistence on morality as a governing factor invariably cheapens the very value of morality - especially on the part of flawed leaders.

(6.) Call me immoral and rather than inspiring me, you simply make me mad.

(7.) Anger, as legitimate and occasionally positively inspiring as it is, stirs accusation more than it does rectification.

(8.) Anger or, if you prefer, outrage has increasingly become an American habit.

(9.) Indulgence in political, idealogical, and moral outrage is much more fun than restraint!

(10.) Political indignation is the root of 21st Century American discontent, the modification of which ought to be a top national priority.

FDR was right.  “Fear of fear itself” remains Enemy Number One in America. It’s far easier to be angry than it is to be constructive. Anger paralyzes more than it frees the spirit. Anger makes opponents immoral thus putting them beyond reach.

How do I know you ask? The answer is simple.

I’m as guilty of it as anyone else. Just a few years ago, I learned that many seemingly contradictory truisms are equally true. Hence, all I’ve written above, true and compelling as it is, brings much less gratification than the pleasure of righteous outrage.

Here are two final truths:

It’s both naughty and nasty to assert that President Trump is a self-serving, egotistical jerk.

Second, it’s true — and this second truth truly sets me free!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY