FEBRUARY'S GREATEST LEGACY IS WANTONLY, EVEN ENTHUSIASTICALLY, BEING IGNORED!

By Edwin Cooney

Itty bitty 28-day February's most precious gift is wantonly and deliberately being ignored with plenty of forethought and even malice!

February's gifts include the births of four presidents: Ronald Reagan, William Henry Harrison, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. We are even supposedly at our most romantic every February 14th when we celebrate St. Valentine's Day in America, as we have since 1850. That historic year, Esther Howland, the daughter of a Worcester, Massachusetts merchant,  advertised her first valentine in her father's retail catalog. The celebration of Valentine's Day was open to everyone including the free, the imprisoned or those enslaved.

However, as I see it, America's greatest gift is Abraham Lincoln's observation that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." In his time, as our sixteenth president, Mr. Lincoln did everything he could to preserve our Union or, if you prefer, our national unity! Look as you may and you'll find no Abraham Lincoln utterance that disparaged Confederate General Robert E. Lee or even Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Unfortunately, search as you may, you'll find little of that nobility among our leaders or potential leaders in 21st Century politics.

Since the late 1980s when the fairness doctrine was deliberately dropped by President Reagan's Federal Communications Commission, the right to criticize our leadership has turned from a precious right to a profitable industry. Nor can ideological conservatives be exclusively blamed for this state of affairs. Liberal or progressive political leaders have also strived to maximize the effectiveness of their righteous anger.

If nothing else, the passing of Rush Limbaugh last Wednesday, February 17th dramatizes the state of our political affairs. Although I never wished him ill, I can't say that I will miss him. Still, there are millions of perfectly decent Americans to whom his passing is almost a personal loss as he advocated their freedom to despise with utter contempt their political opposites. The sad truth is that there is drama in political dissent that is unfortunately lacking in political unity. I remember that back in 1978, as President Jimmy Carter sought to bring the Israelis and Egyptians together, political critics on both sides seemingly strenuously sought to maximize the factors that would inevitably destroy the Camp David accords. Insofar as I know, the Middle East Accords  of March 26th, 1979 remain effective and intact!

Professional critics of all types would be well served to consider the following:

The politically-oriented criminalization of our national leaders in office merely poisons the reputation, effectiveness, and ultimate authority of the office that the critics seek to achieve and glorify! Second, political consensus is what ultimately produces lasting accommodation and ultimate success. Throughout the 1780s, just after our victory in the Revolutionary War, the economic crisis forced our original patriots to establish a constitution that provided a framework for mutual accommodation in economics as well as in politics.

As a Liberal Democrat, my opposition to President Trump up until January 6th, 2021 was primarily political and, yes, personal, but I didn't regard him as a criminal. Nor do I regard conservatism as being criminal, just narrow and mean-spirited when it comes to the comfort and rights of minorities.

The question today is:  whose freedom are American ideologues arguing about? If e pluribus unum (out of many, one) can't legitimately prevail, how can little February's most precious gift, national unity, endure? Everyone's plight must matter to a truly free people or else little else matters!

Even more to the point is the question: how “united” is the United States of America in 2021? Does that answer really depend on who is president?

If so, we've got a lot of thinking to do! 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY   

WHEN WHAT'S RIGHT BECOMES A MERE TECHNICALITY -- THAT'S WRONG!

By Edwin Cooney

The United States Senate's decision not to convict former President Trump constitutes a moral outrage. The 43 men and women who passed the buck from the moral sensitivities of an injured and politically endangered people to the criminal justice system have one thing in common: they are members of the Republican party.

Since the days of the "Reagan revolution,” the GOP has advertised itself as the party of the family, law and order, moral behavior, and spiritual purity as compared to the secular humanism, materialism, and relativism of the "Democrat party."

As a student of history and an interested individual, I'm comfortable and even fascinated by the points of view and activities of good politicians. Therefore, as disappointed as I was late this afternoon, I listened with interest to what Mitch McConnell had to say today about former President Trump's conduct since the election and specifically on that Tuesday, January 6th. While he was absolutely right in his characterization of the former president's irresponsible and criminal behavior that "terrible day," I was both saddened and outraged by his sudden switch from anger to technical analysis.

Senator McConnell appeared to duck behind the Constitution as he insisted that Mr. Trump couldn't be constitutionally punished for his behavior in office because his time had expired. In support of that conclusion, he asserted that Justice Joseph Story taught us that impeachment is a narrow tool for a narrow purpose. He said that according to Article II of the Constitution, only a sitting officeholder can be convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors. However, apparently even the founder of the recently organized right-wing organization the Federalist Society quarrels with Senator McConnell’s assessment of the constitutionality of impeachment.

On January 13th, the House of Representatives passed the single article of impeachment and attempted to submit it to the Senate before the end of Mr. Trump's presidency. The House was blocked from doing so partly due to the confusion that occurred as the Senate changed from a GOP majority to a Democratic Party majority. It’s notable that during the crucial time of transition, Senator McConnell demonstrated a lack of urgency to bring the House’s Impeachment Resolution before the Senate prior to the close of President Trump’s term.

Those of us who are disappointed at the Senate's decision on Saturday, February 13th can take some solace in that former President Trump is open to indictment and conviction on both civil and criminal grounds. However, I think we are justified in thinking that we've become the victims of a technical knockout!

Remember, justice delayed is invariably justice denied.

When President Richard Nixon resigned 47 years ago, many of us were disappointed with President Ford's pardon although most of us really didn't want to see him go to jail. It would have been enough to see him indicted and tried and then be pardoned.

This time, the phrase "jail to the chief" constitutes justice granted.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

WHICH WOULD YOU RATHER BE: RIGHT OR INTERESTING?

By Edwin Cooney

Last Monday, February 1st, I read a column in the editorial section of the New York Times by Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist, asserting that when indulging in conversation on controversial subjects, the outcome of those conversations is likely to be more satisfying if we stop trying to change each other's minds. Dr. Grant, whose interest has to do with the need for parents to vaccinate their children against the spread of communicable diseases, writes of the frustration he felt when he tried to convince a friend on several occasions who was totally opposed to giving vaccinations to his children to alter his outlook for the betterment of those children. The more he argued statistics and logic to his friend, the harder his friend resisted what he had to say. Anxious to keep his friend, Dr. Grant realized that it was time for him to stop being a "logic bully" and try another tactic.

The new method Dr. Grant discovered he calls “motivational interviewing.” Rarely can you or anyone else change a person's mind when they reach a conclusion. However, to the degree that your Donald Trump friend gets the idea that you're interested in his or her thinking, your conversation can take on a new flavor. While it's not likely that you'll change his or her outlook, you may discover that you and "the Donald" fan have kindred concerns if not kindred fears. The truth is that most of us, when we're interested in a controversial subject, seek solutions to issues according to our own experiences and value judgments. Subsequently, we come to own our conclusions and only time and new experiences can alter our outlook. Certainly we're not likely to allow ourselves to be wrenched from our conclusions by someone's prosecutorial or bullying tactics! 

About a year ago, I got a message from a reader telling me she was canceling her request to receive these columns because it was obvious to her that I'd taken the “liberal Kool Aid" which, she implied, poisons too many minds against reality and patriotism. Not wanting to be too presumptuous or aggressive, I wrote her back agreeing to take her off my reader's list. I'd have been better off and I think she'd have been better off if we'd indulged ourselves in a series of Adam Grant’s motivational interviews. People who enjoy observing or participating in debates are usually seeking information as to how to vote or what steps to take on a controversial matter or they may be primarily interested in seeing their position or candidate prevail in a debate. Seldom do those who debate change one another's mind!

As I understand it, the reward in motivational interviewing can be discovered as we get information about the variances of knowledge and actually comprehend the other person’s perception of a situation or an idea.

From the time we're very young, many of us are taught how important it is to be right about everything. Subsequently, having the right answer to every question becomes the sole point of learning.

Back in 2005 when I began writing these columns, I offered three purposes for these weekly musings. They were and remain as follows: to provide information, stimulate thought, and entertain the reader. Specifically, I've tried to avoid being too self-righteous when stating my position or opinion on controversial subjects. I've even been scolded by some readers for not being definite or even righteous enough in my conclusions. In personal political discussions however, I've been much less diplomatic when it comes to stating my opinion. Like too many other debaters, I've too often surrendered to the tendency to prosecute rather than actually communicate with those with whom I disagree!

Just recently I scolded a Trump supporter for not recognizing that most Americans voted against the president not because they particularly  preferred Joe Biden but because they were sick and tired of Donald Trump's anger. I've seen this gentleman once since that discussion and mentioned that I was looking forward to a further discussion of the 2020 election. "Nope," he said, "the election’s over. I won't be talking about it anymore!" My guess is that he'll talk about it with others, but not with me. I can't say I blame him!

Adam Grant says that if you get someone to talk about what it takes to solve a national issue, for example health care or climate change, they will be invariably more cautious and circumspect on the issue than when they address their feelings about a prescribed solution to those issues.

Yes, indeed, I still love a good argument or, if you prefer, a good debate. Nevertheless, from here on, I'm going to make an effort to be more circumspect as to whether or not the likely outcome of that discussion is about being right versus being companionable!

Adam Grant writes that he's come to realize that it's not his job in life to change others' minds. Me, too, Adam -- I hope!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

OUR MAN PHIL - A WONDER TO BEHOLD

By Edwin Cooney

About sixty plus nine tenths of a mile northeast of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in rural Jefferson county is a community of 5,790 people called Punxsutawney. Its inhabitants are mostly of German ancestry.

According to Wikipedia, Groundhog Day has its roots in the German Christian tradition of "Candlemas" during which the clergy would bless and distribute candles needed for light during winter. Originally, Germans used hedgehogs to symbolize Candlemas but once in America they switched to woodchucks. The scientific name for woodchuck is Marmota Monax. They weigh somewhere between 12 and 15 pounds and live between 6 and 8 years  They can climb trees and swim. They eat fruits and vegetables and whistle when they're frightened or looking for a mate so they're sometimes known as “whistle-pigs.”

They begin their hibernation in mid October and come out for good in March. During hibernation, their body temperature drops and they have a heartbeat of approximately 5 beats per minute. They emerge from hibernation to mate rather than to predict spring.

According to author Elizabeth Hanes, in addition to Punxsutawney Phil, there exist a number of famous woodchucks such as Shubenacadie Sam who dwells in a hollowed out log rather than underground. A native of Shubenacadie Provincial Wildlife Park in Nova Scotia, Sam, by virtue of living furthest east in North America, is the annual champion of all the woodchuck predictors. Then there's Charles G. Hogg known as  “Staten Island Chuck” who was born Monday, February 2nd, 1981 and lives in a luxury cabin at the Staten Island Zoo. Every Groundhog Day, the Mayor of New York hauls Chuck out of his cabin to predict when spring will arrive. New Yorkers boast that he has an 80 percent accuracy rate. He even has his own Twitter account so he can correspond with his many fans. In 2009, Chuck gained special notoriety when he bit Mayor Michael Bloomberg on the finger. Other notable groundhogs include General Beauregard Lee from Lilburn, Georgia who's quite the woodchuck with two honorary doctorates and a commendation from the National Weather Service and Wiarton Willie, an albino woodchuck who has led the three-day winter festival  at Wiarton, Ontario, Canada groundhog celebrations since Thursday, February 2nd, 1956. Willy also traveled with an entourage and had been linked to scandal. It's said that in 1999, the original albino woodchuck died suddenly just before the festival and was replaced by a stuffed woodchuck due to the emergency commands of convenience. (Note: Willie was pretty spectacular having lived some 43 years between 1956 and 1999 when most of his kin only live about 6 to 8 years!)

Punxsutawney Newspaperman Clymer H. Freas is credited with being the father of Groundhog Day and Punxsutawney Phil since that first fateful celebration in 1887. The ceremony took place at Gobbler Knob, a wooded section of Punxsutawney. Freas was president of the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club which served groundhog dinners at its lodge beginning in the 1880s.

So, sketchy as it is, now you have a brief history of the glory of Groundhog Day. Groundhog Day has absolutely nothing to do with money or politics! Or does it? Well, if you believe that neither politics nor money are at all involved in the celebration of Groundhog Day then you, like Charles G. Groundhog Chuck, must have had a bite of Mayor Bloomberg's finger!

One more thing — The next time you meet a politician you don't much like, why not call him “whistle-pig”?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY