NOW THEY WANT A DIVORCE!
By Edwin Cooney
It’s taken me awhile to know exactly how to respond to an email a dear friend and reader sent to me a couple of months ago. It appears that many people on the political right in this country want a divorce—a friendly divorce, of course.
It’s my experience that those who call for partings, especially political or romantic, always insist that they “…want to be friends, after all.” Of course, the painful aspect of separation invariably defies the main element of friendship which is mutually comfortable and supportive association.
What this email conveys is that many Conservatives have had enough. They suggest that we can equally divide the American landmass. They’ll take the flag, our national anthem, oil, cops, guns, doctors, trickle-down economics, the Bible and the Constitution.
Liberals can have taxes and redistributive economics, the United Nations, Barbra Streisand, universal healthcare, and a “nicey nice” foreign policy. Liberals can replace “The Star Spangled Banner” with “Imagine” or “Kumbayah.”
The author of this proposal does admit that the land divide would be the most difficult aspect of our divorce, so to that end he stops being specific. I’m not sure whether these people would force low income citizens who count on Social Security to move to the Liberal part of the divide or whether they would recognize the power and depth of relationships that aren’t primarily political or economic. They don’t say whether every person who remains in the America they would govern would have to march in lockstep with their socio/economic and religious/cultural mores. The point is, they want out. They don’t want to pay taxes to educate, house, feed or care for those who possess less than they do. However, they’ll insist that they love Jesus as long as we don’t institutionalize Jesus’ insistence that we love our neighbors as ourselves.
This, of course, isn’t the first time Americans have wanted to separate from one another. The first time was during the War of 1812 when New England Federalists no longer wanted to pay for and suffer from James Madison’s war that was stifling trade and profit throughout Federalist New England. As a result, they called the Hartford Convention of December 1814 which ultimately rejected separation or secession.
Then, of course, there was the Civil War when slave holders insisted that if they couldn’t hold on to enough political power to protect slavery, they’d create a separate society for slavery’s perpetuation.
What’s puzzling to me is that this cry for divorce is counter to the family values that Conservatives insist they believe in – even more than Liberals or “secular humanists.” Since divorce is mainstream these days and useful to men and women of all political doctrines and to most religious and cultural faiths, it is now as legitimate as chattel slavery was in the antebellum South.
What it appears to boil down to is that anything right-wingers or Tea Partiers are uncomfortable with is immoral. Hence, where divorce was once in itself immoral, it is now a sad but nevertheless legitimate way out. Never mind what scripture dictates: it’s okay. We just won’t talk about it.
After much consideration, granting that our clashing ideas and ideals are exceedingly uncomfortable, I deny the legitimacy of this proposed American divorce.
First, I don’t love anyone because they’re perfect, not even political Conservatives (vital as they are in a free society). Second, I don’t regard patriotism as the sole responsibility of soldiers. If it’s patriotic to ask young men and women to die on foreign battlefields, why isn’t it just as patriotic to ask powerful and articulate Americans to be patient and work with each other? Finally, no relationship is always comfortable, although the first priority of each of us in every type of relationship should be to maximize each other’s comfort and wellbeing.
The culture war through which we’ve been passing since the mid 1970s has created a set of professionals, many of them both entertaining and persuasive, who profit from making us angry at one another. I am referring to talk show hosts, political doctrinarians, and politicians of all stripes and types. We are thus institutionalizing disunity rather than fostering commonality.
Thirty years ago when Americans elected President Reagan, every fiber in my being resisted the political ideas and ideals of that man. Nevertheless, there remained in me the realization that I might be overlooking something very useful in his service. Perhaps he’d do something that I could accept if I’d only give him a fair chance to impress me. Ultimately, I had to grant that his leadership was significant enough to bring about the end of the cold war. Although I believe his role has often been overstated, the fact that he played a significant part in bringing this happy event about is undeniable. Ronald Reagan, a man with whom I’ve never been comfortable, is the same man in retrospect I must salute.
The very idea of a “friendly” political divorce, traditionally American as it is, must be denied as unrealistic and outrageously unpatriotic.
Besides, how can I divorce my brother and my sister and the obligation we both have to make tomorrow better than today?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, August 16, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
A LEGEND WITH A MODERN MORAL
By Edwin Cooney
A few days ago, someone sent me a delightful story with a modern moral. It was about the legendary Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Here is the story:
One day, the young King Arthur is captured and imprisoned by knights from another land. So handsome, charming and wise is youthful Arthur that, rather than executing him, the foreign potentate only conditionally sentences him to death. Arthur is allowed to return to his court for one year so that he might have sufficient time to answer the age-old question: “What does a woman really want?”
On the last day of the year, having exhausted all the wisdom in his kingdom, Arthur faces reality. He must consult the wicked, ugly, smelly witch who will demand that he pay her price before answering his inquiry! Her price is the hand in marriage of Sir Lancelot, the handsomest and most noble knight of Arthur’s round table. So gallant is Sir Lancelot that he agrees to sacrifice his freedom for marriage to this horrid female so that King Arthur’s life might be spared.
As you can guess, the old witch answers the question and marries Sir Lancelot. When his wedding night arrives, Lancelot is stunned to find in his bed not a smelly old witch, but a beautiful princess. While assuring him that she is really who she says she is, the once horrid witch says that since he was so kind to her, she would be her ugly self only half the time. She asks her new husband what half of the day he’d like to have her be beautiful and what half of the day she can go back to being the horrid wicked witch she has always been. When he responds that it’s up to her, she vows that since he’s willing to let her take charge of her own life, she’ll be eternally beautiful -- just for him.
So, we are assured that what a woman wants, more than conveniences or riches (and, you can be sure, much more even than any man!) is to be in charge of her own life.
Of course, one of the things men and women have in common is the reality that none of us is absolutely in charge of our lives, that situations exist in both society and nature that cause us to respond to rather than to direct life. Nevertheless, women progressives’ emphasis on women’s separateness too often appears that they’re anxious to rob both sexes of what they need most -- intimate romance!
No person, regardless of the depth of intimacy or the length of marriage, possesses another person. Telling someone that you are theirs or that you belong to them doesn’t make you their property. Any man who expects a woman to deny her personhood isn’t seeking a partner, he’s taking a prisoner and he ought to be arrested.
Historically, men have had a financial, legal and even physical advantage over women. Much of that advantage has been inherited from yesteryear when human survival was largely dependent on physical brawn. Humans being human, the physically fit who chopped down the trees, built the cabins and castles and hunted the deep dark forests for animals to feed and clothe the fair gender, naturally became dominant when it came time to establish societies with legal and moral standards.
At our worst, we men, whom I suspect are much weaker emotionally than women, too often become “bully boys” rather than real men when women don’t respond in a way that meets our needs. I’m not at all surprised when middle-aged women who have helped husbands get through college, supported the exacting demands of husbands’ professions and have occasionally suffered both physical and emotional abuse, decide not to remarry if they are abandoned or widowed. Why should they want to? As I see it, the woman who possesses sufficient energy to be romantic at middle age is worth her weight in gold.
Lest this male appear to be belittling his gender, I now turn to the best in men and (oddly enough) we find it implied in our modern legend.
Notice that Arthur is allowed to return home for one year to find the answer to the question put to him by his captor. How could that be?
The answer is because Arthur is a man of honor. Men of honor keep their word to their ladies and even to their enemies. Hence Arthur, being the man he is, would return to tell the potentate that he hadn’t found the answer to his inquiry “What do women want?” and would face his punishment.
What the story implies but doesn’t say is that Arthur did return and offered his captors and potential executers the answer to the puzzle. Arthur knew that really wise and honorable men of every land benefit most when their ladies feel supported and appreciated for their personhood.
Finally, even if Arthur returned and told the foreign potentate that what a lady wanted most was diamonds, even if he then went to his execution, he would have known that his land was under the capable guidance of Sir Lancelot who did know what a woman really wants!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
A few days ago, someone sent me a delightful story with a modern moral. It was about the legendary Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Here is the story:
One day, the young King Arthur is captured and imprisoned by knights from another land. So handsome, charming and wise is youthful Arthur that, rather than executing him, the foreign potentate only conditionally sentences him to death. Arthur is allowed to return to his court for one year so that he might have sufficient time to answer the age-old question: “What does a woman really want?”
On the last day of the year, having exhausted all the wisdom in his kingdom, Arthur faces reality. He must consult the wicked, ugly, smelly witch who will demand that he pay her price before answering his inquiry! Her price is the hand in marriage of Sir Lancelot, the handsomest and most noble knight of Arthur’s round table. So gallant is Sir Lancelot that he agrees to sacrifice his freedom for marriage to this horrid female so that King Arthur’s life might be spared.
As you can guess, the old witch answers the question and marries Sir Lancelot. When his wedding night arrives, Lancelot is stunned to find in his bed not a smelly old witch, but a beautiful princess. While assuring him that she is really who she says she is, the once horrid witch says that since he was so kind to her, she would be her ugly self only half the time. She asks her new husband what half of the day he’d like to have her be beautiful and what half of the day she can go back to being the horrid wicked witch she has always been. When he responds that it’s up to her, she vows that since he’s willing to let her take charge of her own life, she’ll be eternally beautiful -- just for him.
So, we are assured that what a woman wants, more than conveniences or riches (and, you can be sure, much more even than any man!) is to be in charge of her own life.
Of course, one of the things men and women have in common is the reality that none of us is absolutely in charge of our lives, that situations exist in both society and nature that cause us to respond to rather than to direct life. Nevertheless, women progressives’ emphasis on women’s separateness too often appears that they’re anxious to rob both sexes of what they need most -- intimate romance!
No person, regardless of the depth of intimacy or the length of marriage, possesses another person. Telling someone that you are theirs or that you belong to them doesn’t make you their property. Any man who expects a woman to deny her personhood isn’t seeking a partner, he’s taking a prisoner and he ought to be arrested.
Historically, men have had a financial, legal and even physical advantage over women. Much of that advantage has been inherited from yesteryear when human survival was largely dependent on physical brawn. Humans being human, the physically fit who chopped down the trees, built the cabins and castles and hunted the deep dark forests for animals to feed and clothe the fair gender, naturally became dominant when it came time to establish societies with legal and moral standards.
At our worst, we men, whom I suspect are much weaker emotionally than women, too often become “bully boys” rather than real men when women don’t respond in a way that meets our needs. I’m not at all surprised when middle-aged women who have helped husbands get through college, supported the exacting demands of husbands’ professions and have occasionally suffered both physical and emotional abuse, decide not to remarry if they are abandoned or widowed. Why should they want to? As I see it, the woman who possesses sufficient energy to be romantic at middle age is worth her weight in gold.
Lest this male appear to be belittling his gender, I now turn to the best in men and (oddly enough) we find it implied in our modern legend.
Notice that Arthur is allowed to return home for one year to find the answer to the question put to him by his captor. How could that be?
The answer is because Arthur is a man of honor. Men of honor keep their word to their ladies and even to their enemies. Hence Arthur, being the man he is, would return to tell the potentate that he hadn’t found the answer to his inquiry “What do women want?” and would face his punishment.
What the story implies but doesn’t say is that Arthur did return and offered his captors and potential executers the answer to the puzzle. Arthur knew that really wise and honorable men of every land benefit most when their ladies feel supported and appreciated for their personhood.
Finally, even if Arthur returned and told the foreign potentate that what a lady wanted most was diamonds, even if he then went to his execution, he would have known that his land was under the capable guidance of Sir Lancelot who did know what a woman really wants!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, August 2, 2010
THE BAD ONES
By Edwin Cooney
Of course we don’t purposely do it, but from time to time we really do choose bad presidents. Most Americans rate presidents largely on two considerations: “Did I like or agree with him?” or “Did he keep or break his word?”
Recently, for an internet presentation, I researched in some depth the five men who held the presidency between 1845 and 1860. With the exception of James Knox Polk (whom some scholars actually rate as a “near great president” since he accomplished in one term all of his campaign promises), the others (Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan) were exceedingly ineffectual. The question inevitably is: How could that be? Were they less educated or less capable than previous chief executives? The answer is that although Taylor and Fillmore (the 1848 Whig national ticket) were comparatively undereducated, the rest were on an educational par with earlier presidents.
What then makes a president great? What makes a president “bad”? As I’ve learned over the years, “great presidents” such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, have two things in common. The first is that they established institutions and traditions which favorably affected the structure of government or society for generations to come. The second thing is that they were willing to take major political risks to bring such changes about.
Some examples of these are George Washington’s personal construction of the Executive Branch of our government, Mr. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the subsequent passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution which ended slavery as the military went about the business of quashing the South’s rebellion, and FDR’s utilization of government as a legitimate tool for affecting the lives of the average citizen with the passage of Social Security, farming and banking legislation just to name a few items.
FDR also conducted us through a major world war which would enhance anyone’s reputation. Thus, great presidents have done things that construct or reconstruct thereby strengthening our nation in the process.
So, you ask, what makes a “bad president? Glancing at the names at the bottom of most presidential rankings, one inevitably sees such names as John Quincy Adams and Millard Fillmore. Adams, although experienced and highly principled, failed in office because he was seen by many as having made a “corrupt bargain” with House Speaker Henry Clay to be elected by the House of Representatives in February 1825 after the popular Andrew Jackson was not able to acquire enough electoral votes to win the presidency.
Millard Fillmore, whom John Quincy Adams befriended when they both served in the House of Representatives ten years or so after Adams’ presidency, failed because his enforcement of the fugitive slave law exacerbated rather than cooled the flames between the North and the South in the 1850s. Ulysses S. Grant, who was generally considered a great man and president during his lifetime, is regarded now as having failed as president for allowing himself to be used by corrupt men in politics and finance even as he remained pure in his personal and official conduct. Then there’s Herbert Clark Hoover—an excellent administrator and conscientious public servant who fed much of the world during World War I. He failed as president because he was unwilling to make essential economic and politically principled changes to meet the genuine economic distress which was visited on millions of Americans by the “Great Depression.”
Bad presidents are inevitably unpopular, and, not surprisingly, are seldom reelected -- President Grant being the exception. What bad presidents or presidencies have in common is that they are overwhelmed by the political and economic situations and circumstances they were elected to control. The immediate pre-Civil War presidencies failed because those presidents couldn’t see beyond the writ of the law. If slavery was lawful, men such as Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan said, then the law must be upheld. The principle that we are a government of laws and not of men sounded fine in the wake of Watergate, but as I see it, this very observation is what brought on the worst political and societal train wreck in our history.
No single principle or rule can be followed by someone who wishes to be President of the United States to insure presidential success or prevent a “bad presidency.” Presidents are rated by the people they serve. Presidents such as Truman and Eisenhower have risen since they left the White House and, as observed earlier, Ulysses S. Grant has declined in public and scholarly esteem over the years.
Ah! but therein lies one of the inevitable factors in any president’s fate. Presidents, good and bad, don’t do what they do in a vacuum. In each case, their reputation is sanctified by you and by me.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Of course we don’t purposely do it, but from time to time we really do choose bad presidents. Most Americans rate presidents largely on two considerations: “Did I like or agree with him?” or “Did he keep or break his word?”
Recently, for an internet presentation, I researched in some depth the five men who held the presidency between 1845 and 1860. With the exception of James Knox Polk (whom some scholars actually rate as a “near great president” since he accomplished in one term all of his campaign promises), the others (Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan) were exceedingly ineffectual. The question inevitably is: How could that be? Were they less educated or less capable than previous chief executives? The answer is that although Taylor and Fillmore (the 1848 Whig national ticket) were comparatively undereducated, the rest were on an educational par with earlier presidents.
What then makes a president great? What makes a president “bad”? As I’ve learned over the years, “great presidents” such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, have two things in common. The first is that they established institutions and traditions which favorably affected the structure of government or society for generations to come. The second thing is that they were willing to take major political risks to bring such changes about.
Some examples of these are George Washington’s personal construction of the Executive Branch of our government, Mr. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the subsequent passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution which ended slavery as the military went about the business of quashing the South’s rebellion, and FDR’s utilization of government as a legitimate tool for affecting the lives of the average citizen with the passage of Social Security, farming and banking legislation just to name a few items.
FDR also conducted us through a major world war which would enhance anyone’s reputation. Thus, great presidents have done things that construct or reconstruct thereby strengthening our nation in the process.
So, you ask, what makes a “bad president? Glancing at the names at the bottom of most presidential rankings, one inevitably sees such names as John Quincy Adams and Millard Fillmore. Adams, although experienced and highly principled, failed in office because he was seen by many as having made a “corrupt bargain” with House Speaker Henry Clay to be elected by the House of Representatives in February 1825 after the popular Andrew Jackson was not able to acquire enough electoral votes to win the presidency.
Millard Fillmore, whom John Quincy Adams befriended when they both served in the House of Representatives ten years or so after Adams’ presidency, failed because his enforcement of the fugitive slave law exacerbated rather than cooled the flames between the North and the South in the 1850s. Ulysses S. Grant, who was generally considered a great man and president during his lifetime, is regarded now as having failed as president for allowing himself to be used by corrupt men in politics and finance even as he remained pure in his personal and official conduct. Then there’s Herbert Clark Hoover—an excellent administrator and conscientious public servant who fed much of the world during World War I. He failed as president because he was unwilling to make essential economic and politically principled changes to meet the genuine economic distress which was visited on millions of Americans by the “Great Depression.”
Bad presidents are inevitably unpopular, and, not surprisingly, are seldom reelected -- President Grant being the exception. What bad presidents or presidencies have in common is that they are overwhelmed by the political and economic situations and circumstances they were elected to control. The immediate pre-Civil War presidencies failed because those presidents couldn’t see beyond the writ of the law. If slavery was lawful, men such as Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan said, then the law must be upheld. The principle that we are a government of laws and not of men sounded fine in the wake of Watergate, but as I see it, this very observation is what brought on the worst political and societal train wreck in our history.
No single principle or rule can be followed by someone who wishes to be President of the United States to insure presidential success or prevent a “bad presidency.” Presidents are rated by the people they serve. Presidents such as Truman and Eisenhower have risen since they left the White House and, as observed earlier, Ulysses S. Grant has declined in public and scholarly esteem over the years.
Ah! but therein lies one of the inevitable factors in any president’s fate. Presidents, good and bad, don’t do what they do in a vacuum. In each case, their reputation is sanctified by you and by me.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, July 26, 2010
BEWARE—PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE REMAINS AT LARGE
By Edwin Cooney
I devoutly wish, especially in the past few days, that I’d never met him. Yes, “Public Enemy Number One” is definitely male, for while he possesses elements of the fair gender, he’s constructed too solidly to be anything but male.
It’s not that he lacks wisdom or that he’s entirely antisocial; in fact, one of his most powerful weapons is that he can be very sociable. The burdens of parenthood are often eased when he directs their children. He must be captured and controlled by you and me, (especially by me) or he’s powerful enough to destroy us—individually and collectively. A list of his major achievements or dastardly deeds might be useful.
Going back to biblical times (sorry, but I’m not very knowledgeable about ancient history), he even stalked the Disciples of Christ, but they nevertheless kept spreading Christ’s gospel. Of course, it must be remembered that because they ignored him, most of the twelve died as martyrs to their creed.
It‘s not that he’s anti-religious. In fact, so powerful is Public Enemy Number One that he’s been given a vital role in all of humankind’s religious theologies with the possible exception of Buddhism or Hinduism –I’m not sure which. He is a vital part of the ying and the yang of human comprehension, similar to happiness and sadness, or love and hate.
Through the centuries, he’s befriended and victimized the most powerful rulers of nations including Henry VIII of England, Catherine the Great and Ivan the Terrible of Russia, Adolf Hitler, master of Germany’s Third Reich, and even some of our greatest presidents. Okay, since you insist, I’ll name two presidents who were especially adept at using Public Enemy Number One: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his youthful admirer Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Although we’re often stopped short and even thunderstruck by the force of Public Enemy Number One when we confront him, we still conveniently use him when we need to control other individuals and situations. His greatest offense is when he masquerades as bravery, political wisdom, religious piety, and especially—love.
Public Enemy Number One is especially cruel to the gentle and vulnerable among us. He institutionalizes loneliness and emptiness. He preys on those who have been the victim of physical disease, economic depression, war, injustice and individual infidelity. His worst sin is that he too often stultifies the possible when it sincerely offers the best for the future.
Public Enemy Number One is even worse than hate. Hate hides nothing. Hate’s purpose is domination and destruction. Hate at least is right out there for all to see and use for one’s own squalid advantage.
In fact, just like fire, atomic energy, and instantaneous communication, Public Enemy Number One is often vital to our own survival.
Nevertheless, more than hate, more than war, human prejudice, thievery, human betrayal, pain, and death itself—I despise him.
The late great J. Edgar Hoover used to insist that Public Enemy Number one was Al Capone, John Dillinger, Lucky Luciano or Joseph Stalin. He even suggested near the end of his forty-two year stint as FBI Director that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was pretty close to being Public Enemy Number One.
When I was growing up, I didn’t have a lot of enemies. Invariably, I assigned the position of Public Enemy Number One to certain teachers or residential school houseparents. As far as I was concerned, Public Enemy Number One’s most deadly weapons were school, coconut desserts, cauliflower, and asparagus -- I’ve since upgraded those vegetables, especially the former -- and, yes, please forgive me, dear God, long boring church services.
The damndest reality in the whole world however is that I need him. Without his damnable existence, I’d still be smoking a pack or so of cigarettes a day instead of puffing a gentle pipe. I’d cross streets less cautiously than I do. I’d be less diplomatic than I am. Impatience would inevitably overrule caution or diplomacy in my relationship with others. I’d probably talk too much and listen too little. Worst of all, if I hadn’t experienced Public Enemy Number One in recent days, I probably wouldn’t have anything to write about this week.
As persistent as he is, Public Enemy Number One’s most amazing quality is his audaciousness even though he’s been exposed for the villain that he is. He’s even been identified from the east steps of the Capital of the United States of America. History tells us that he was identified by the first of the two U.S. Presidents named above who asserted:
“This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly… So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself!”
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
I devoutly wish, especially in the past few days, that I’d never met him. Yes, “Public Enemy Number One” is definitely male, for while he possesses elements of the fair gender, he’s constructed too solidly to be anything but male.
It’s not that he lacks wisdom or that he’s entirely antisocial; in fact, one of his most powerful weapons is that he can be very sociable. The burdens of parenthood are often eased when he directs their children. He must be captured and controlled by you and me, (especially by me) or he’s powerful enough to destroy us—individually and collectively. A list of his major achievements or dastardly deeds might be useful.
Going back to biblical times (sorry, but I’m not very knowledgeable about ancient history), he even stalked the Disciples of Christ, but they nevertheless kept spreading Christ’s gospel. Of course, it must be remembered that because they ignored him, most of the twelve died as martyrs to their creed.
It‘s not that he’s anti-religious. In fact, so powerful is Public Enemy Number One that he’s been given a vital role in all of humankind’s religious theologies with the possible exception of Buddhism or Hinduism –I’m not sure which. He is a vital part of the ying and the yang of human comprehension, similar to happiness and sadness, or love and hate.
Through the centuries, he’s befriended and victimized the most powerful rulers of nations including Henry VIII of England, Catherine the Great and Ivan the Terrible of Russia, Adolf Hitler, master of Germany’s Third Reich, and even some of our greatest presidents. Okay, since you insist, I’ll name two presidents who were especially adept at using Public Enemy Number One: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his youthful admirer Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Although we’re often stopped short and even thunderstruck by the force of Public Enemy Number One when we confront him, we still conveniently use him when we need to control other individuals and situations. His greatest offense is when he masquerades as bravery, political wisdom, religious piety, and especially—love.
Public Enemy Number One is especially cruel to the gentle and vulnerable among us. He institutionalizes loneliness and emptiness. He preys on those who have been the victim of physical disease, economic depression, war, injustice and individual infidelity. His worst sin is that he too often stultifies the possible when it sincerely offers the best for the future.
Public Enemy Number One is even worse than hate. Hate hides nothing. Hate’s purpose is domination and destruction. Hate at least is right out there for all to see and use for one’s own squalid advantage.
In fact, just like fire, atomic energy, and instantaneous communication, Public Enemy Number One is often vital to our own survival.
Nevertheless, more than hate, more than war, human prejudice, thievery, human betrayal, pain, and death itself—I despise him.
The late great J. Edgar Hoover used to insist that Public Enemy Number one was Al Capone, John Dillinger, Lucky Luciano or Joseph Stalin. He even suggested near the end of his forty-two year stint as FBI Director that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was pretty close to being Public Enemy Number One.
When I was growing up, I didn’t have a lot of enemies. Invariably, I assigned the position of Public Enemy Number One to certain teachers or residential school houseparents. As far as I was concerned, Public Enemy Number One’s most deadly weapons were school, coconut desserts, cauliflower, and asparagus -- I’ve since upgraded those vegetables, especially the former -- and, yes, please forgive me, dear God, long boring church services.
The damndest reality in the whole world however is that I need him. Without his damnable existence, I’d still be smoking a pack or so of cigarettes a day instead of puffing a gentle pipe. I’d cross streets less cautiously than I do. I’d be less diplomatic than I am. Impatience would inevitably overrule caution or diplomacy in my relationship with others. I’d probably talk too much and listen too little. Worst of all, if I hadn’t experienced Public Enemy Number One in recent days, I probably wouldn’t have anything to write about this week.
As persistent as he is, Public Enemy Number One’s most amazing quality is his audaciousness even though he’s been exposed for the villain that he is. He’s even been identified from the east steps of the Capital of the United States of America. History tells us that he was identified by the first of the two U.S. Presidents named above who asserted:
“This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly… So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself!”
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, July 19, 2010
THE ENERGY OF COURAGE
By Edwin Cooney
Last week, I featured a story about U.S. Army Captain Ed Freeman who was given a medal for courage by President George W. Bush in March of 2001.
Captain Freeman had certainly demonstrated courage on September 14th, 1965 when he repeatedly flew his helicopter into danger during a battle in the Ia Drang Valley in South Vietnam. After fourteen missions and under intense enemy fire, “Too Tall” Ed Freeman rescued some thirty wounded men while also bringing in needed supplies of ammunition and water to the men in the field. Even more significant, Captain Freeman flew these missions despite the fact that Medevac pilots had been ordered not to go into the area due to the intensity of the enemy barrage. I noted that earlier in the day Captain Freeman had flown in many of those same men to confront this enemy which had dominated the area for some time. This day, his immediate reward for substituting duty and a sense of obligation to orders was multiple wounds to his legs and an arm.
Rather than offering my own opinion, I invited you, my readers, to tell me what you thought was the real energy behind Ed Freeman’s courage. Here are just some of your responses.
From Fessenden, North Dakota, a gentleman asserted: “Duty! He had a path to walk, and during his walk, he got the job done. No need for complications. Most often people look at things from a backward perspective, rather than a forward one. I doubt the man looked forward before he did the deeds, but only as we look backward do we realize his valor.”
From Huntsville, Alabama came a more terse response: “My take on Captain Ed Freeman is that he should be honored for what he did, I don't really care about why he did it.”
A reader in Oakland, California was even more to the point. The word “honor” was his only response.
From a lovely lady in Memphis, Tennessee came a gentler analysis: “Captain Freeman demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice and place another's needs and welfare above his own. Obviously, he values humanity.”
A clergyman friend of mine offered the following analysis: “Perhaps it was "loyalty", or maybe “guilt”: I put them in this situation, I must do what I can to support them and/or get them out."
Another reader from, I believe, Minnesota was also brief in her judgment: “It’s selflessness!”
Finally, a senior citizen asserted simply: “I say people do these things simply because they need doing...”
My take on what lay at the center of Ed Freeman’s courage concurs with most of the opinions offered above.
As I see it, conscience is the prime energizing force behind the good things we do. The task lying ahead of us may be painful, even life threatening, but once we’re faced with the reality in what must be done, invariably we do it.
Bravery or courage and even honor may be demonstrated by both sides in battle. The Gray (who fought to sustain chattel slavery) and The Blue (who fought officially to sustain our Union) both showed courage during our Civil War. German soldiers certainly demonstrated both courage and bravery as they fought Adolf Hitler’s war. Honor, after all (although not Hitler’s), was the center of the Prussian Generals’ creed. Surely, no one can doubt the bravery or courage of Communist forces during World War II despite the ruthlessness of the political creed under which they fought.
To possess a conscience automatically compels a sense of duty, honor, and obligation not only to our friends and loved ones, but also to our community, country, and our religious or political creed. Thus, the question: how much more compelling or potent do you suppose our political and religious creeds might be if they were advanced by conscientious advocacy rather than by querulous criticism of other political and religious creeds?
For me, our individual conscience is almost, but not quite, the most powerful force behind our best deeds and accomplishments.
Atop the pyramid of “the better angels of our nature,” as Lincoln used to say, only our capacity for one human force is powerful enough to master our consciences. My guess is that you probably know even better than I do what that is!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Last week, I featured a story about U.S. Army Captain Ed Freeman who was given a medal for courage by President George W. Bush in March of 2001.
Captain Freeman had certainly demonstrated courage on September 14th, 1965 when he repeatedly flew his helicopter into danger during a battle in the Ia Drang Valley in South Vietnam. After fourteen missions and under intense enemy fire, “Too Tall” Ed Freeman rescued some thirty wounded men while also bringing in needed supplies of ammunition and water to the men in the field. Even more significant, Captain Freeman flew these missions despite the fact that Medevac pilots had been ordered not to go into the area due to the intensity of the enemy barrage. I noted that earlier in the day Captain Freeman had flown in many of those same men to confront this enemy which had dominated the area for some time. This day, his immediate reward for substituting duty and a sense of obligation to orders was multiple wounds to his legs and an arm.
Rather than offering my own opinion, I invited you, my readers, to tell me what you thought was the real energy behind Ed Freeman’s courage. Here are just some of your responses.
From Fessenden, North Dakota, a gentleman asserted: “Duty! He had a path to walk, and during his walk, he got the job done. No need for complications. Most often people look at things from a backward perspective, rather than a forward one. I doubt the man looked forward before he did the deeds, but only as we look backward do we realize his valor.”
From Huntsville, Alabama came a more terse response: “My take on Captain Ed Freeman is that he should be honored for what he did, I don't really care about why he did it.”
A reader in Oakland, California was even more to the point. The word “honor” was his only response.
From a lovely lady in Memphis, Tennessee came a gentler analysis: “Captain Freeman demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice and place another's needs and welfare above his own. Obviously, he values humanity.”
A clergyman friend of mine offered the following analysis: “Perhaps it was "loyalty", or maybe “guilt”: I put them in this situation, I must do what I can to support them and/or get them out."
Another reader from, I believe, Minnesota was also brief in her judgment: “It’s selflessness!”
Finally, a senior citizen asserted simply: “I say people do these things simply because they need doing...”
My take on what lay at the center of Ed Freeman’s courage concurs with most of the opinions offered above.
As I see it, conscience is the prime energizing force behind the good things we do. The task lying ahead of us may be painful, even life threatening, but once we’re faced with the reality in what must be done, invariably we do it.
Bravery or courage and even honor may be demonstrated by both sides in battle. The Gray (who fought to sustain chattel slavery) and The Blue (who fought officially to sustain our Union) both showed courage during our Civil War. German soldiers certainly demonstrated both courage and bravery as they fought Adolf Hitler’s war. Honor, after all (although not Hitler’s), was the center of the Prussian Generals’ creed. Surely, no one can doubt the bravery or courage of Communist forces during World War II despite the ruthlessness of the political creed under which they fought.
To possess a conscience automatically compels a sense of duty, honor, and obligation not only to our friends and loved ones, but also to our community, country, and our religious or political creed. Thus, the question: how much more compelling or potent do you suppose our political and religious creeds might be if they were advanced by conscientious advocacy rather than by querulous criticism of other political and religious creeds?
For me, our individual conscience is almost, but not quite, the most powerful force behind our best deeds and accomplishments.
Atop the pyramid of “the better angels of our nature,” as Lincoln used to say, only our capacity for one human force is powerful enough to master our consciences. My guess is that you probably know even better than I do what that is!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, July 12, 2010
CAN YOU HELP?
By Ed Cooney
Just last Thursday morning, one of my readers sent me a piece that’s obviously been traveling around the internet for some time concerning U. S. Army Captain Ed Freeman’s extraordinary rescue mission during the battle of the Ia Drang Valley in Vietnam. It all took place on September 14, 1965.
On that bright Vietnamese morning, Captain Freeman had flown several troops into the Ia Drang Valley to confront enemy forces known to be in the area. Soon the enemy fire became so intense that not even Medevac helicopters were permitted to fly in supplies. Hence, “Too Tall” Ed Freeman came to the rescue. Armed with a sense of duty or perhaps personal obligation—take your pick—as a substitute for orders, Captain Ed flew fourteen missions bringing in needed water and ammunition and carrying out some thirty gravely wounded soldiers. His unarmed helicopter, you can be sure, took many, many hits. Captain Ed took four bullets in the legs and arm.
In March of 2001, President George W. Bush would justly honor Captain Ed Freeman in the East Room of the White House. However, if he was honored primarily for courage, as the citation reads, Captain Freeman was honored for the wrong reason. Sure, there was a strong element of courage in his deed, but, as I see it, courage and even bravery are but secondary motives behind incredible deeds.
What, you ask, is courage? My favorite definition for courage is John F. Kennedy’s definition as offered in his “Profiles in Courage.” JFK defined courage as “grace under pressure.”
“Ah, then,” you may well ask, “what is grace?”
As you might guess, there are several definitions. The first two have to do with physical movement, charm and beauty. However, grace is most compellingly described as one of the most admirable human attributes.
Grace can be defined as “a sense of fitness or propriety, a disposition to be generous or helpful, a sense of good will,” and, most compellingly of all, “a favor rendered by someone who need not do so.”
All of the above certainly described Captain Freeman. So what lies at the root of Ed Freeman’s courage?
The late, great Edward R. Murrow (one of my heroes) used to assert that courage is a “cheap commodity in wartime.” As an example of what he meant, Murrow often emphasized how courteous the British people were to one another during air raids. “People,” he observed, “who still remember to thank you for asking them to do you a favor, even under the bombs, aren’t greatly afraid.”
My difficulty with the piece this lady sent me lies not with Captain Freeman as a man of courage; he was certainly that and more. It seems to me that military types assign “courage” as the greatest human attribute when courage is only a facet of what is really our highest attribute.
Next to military heroes, probably the group of people most often assigned badges of courage are the terminally ill and the permanently disabled. Yet these are often the people with whom many able-bodied individuals avoid association. Countless times, I – and others – have been labeled “courageous” by observers just because we dare to cross the street aided by only a white cane. Yet, many of our admirers consciously, socially, professionally, and most certainly romantically separate themselves from us.
I, too, have avoided contact with other disabled persons and the terminally ill out of a set of my own fears. Like those who would award high honors to the brave men and women who defend America, I know that the terminally ill and disabled I occasionally avoid are courageous -- and yet I avoid them.
On September 14, 1965, Captain Freeman obviously did not avoid the very vulnerable. That he was courageous, there isn’t the slightest doubt. However, I insist that courage was only a small factor of the deed he performed that day.
That’s where I need your help. Eliminating courage and patriotism as satisfactory answers to my inquiry, what would you ascribe as lying at the root of Captain Freeman’s valor? What energized Ed Freeman’s courage and bravery?
As I asserted above, military types along with social and political conservatives insist on celebrating Captain Freeman’s admirable virtue -- courage -- but his courage is really only secondary. A mother who goes into a fire to rescue her baby is only secondarily courageous. A disabled college student who attends school doesn’t do so because he or she is brave or courageous. So, I insist that Captain Ed W. Freeman was far more than merely courageous on Tuesday, September 14, 1965.
If we as a people celebrate only our secondarily most powerful or significant human traits, how can we ever expect to live righteous, prosperous, peaceful, and secure lives in this uncertain world?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Just last Thursday morning, one of my readers sent me a piece that’s obviously been traveling around the internet for some time concerning U. S. Army Captain Ed Freeman’s extraordinary rescue mission during the battle of the Ia Drang Valley in Vietnam. It all took place on September 14, 1965.
On that bright Vietnamese morning, Captain Freeman had flown several troops into the Ia Drang Valley to confront enemy forces known to be in the area. Soon the enemy fire became so intense that not even Medevac helicopters were permitted to fly in supplies. Hence, “Too Tall” Ed Freeman came to the rescue. Armed with a sense of duty or perhaps personal obligation—take your pick—as a substitute for orders, Captain Ed flew fourteen missions bringing in needed water and ammunition and carrying out some thirty gravely wounded soldiers. His unarmed helicopter, you can be sure, took many, many hits. Captain Ed took four bullets in the legs and arm.
In March of 2001, President George W. Bush would justly honor Captain Ed Freeman in the East Room of the White House. However, if he was honored primarily for courage, as the citation reads, Captain Freeman was honored for the wrong reason. Sure, there was a strong element of courage in his deed, but, as I see it, courage and even bravery are but secondary motives behind incredible deeds.
What, you ask, is courage? My favorite definition for courage is John F. Kennedy’s definition as offered in his “Profiles in Courage.” JFK defined courage as “grace under pressure.”
“Ah, then,” you may well ask, “what is grace?”
As you might guess, there are several definitions. The first two have to do with physical movement, charm and beauty. However, grace is most compellingly described as one of the most admirable human attributes.
Grace can be defined as “a sense of fitness or propriety, a disposition to be generous or helpful, a sense of good will,” and, most compellingly of all, “a favor rendered by someone who need not do so.”
All of the above certainly described Captain Freeman. So what lies at the root of Ed Freeman’s courage?
The late, great Edward R. Murrow (one of my heroes) used to assert that courage is a “cheap commodity in wartime.” As an example of what he meant, Murrow often emphasized how courteous the British people were to one another during air raids. “People,” he observed, “who still remember to thank you for asking them to do you a favor, even under the bombs, aren’t greatly afraid.”
My difficulty with the piece this lady sent me lies not with Captain Freeman as a man of courage; he was certainly that and more. It seems to me that military types assign “courage” as the greatest human attribute when courage is only a facet of what is really our highest attribute.
Next to military heroes, probably the group of people most often assigned badges of courage are the terminally ill and the permanently disabled. Yet these are often the people with whom many able-bodied individuals avoid association. Countless times, I – and others – have been labeled “courageous” by observers just because we dare to cross the street aided by only a white cane. Yet, many of our admirers consciously, socially, professionally, and most certainly romantically separate themselves from us.
I, too, have avoided contact with other disabled persons and the terminally ill out of a set of my own fears. Like those who would award high honors to the brave men and women who defend America, I know that the terminally ill and disabled I occasionally avoid are courageous -- and yet I avoid them.
On September 14, 1965, Captain Freeman obviously did not avoid the very vulnerable. That he was courageous, there isn’t the slightest doubt. However, I insist that courage was only a small factor of the deed he performed that day.
That’s where I need your help. Eliminating courage and patriotism as satisfactory answers to my inquiry, what would you ascribe as lying at the root of Captain Freeman’s valor? What energized Ed Freeman’s courage and bravery?
As I asserted above, military types along with social and political conservatives insist on celebrating Captain Freeman’s admirable virtue -- courage -- but his courage is really only secondary. A mother who goes into a fire to rescue her baby is only secondarily courageous. A disabled college student who attends school doesn’t do so because he or she is brave or courageous. So, I insist that Captain Ed W. Freeman was far more than merely courageous on Tuesday, September 14, 1965.
If we as a people celebrate only our secondarily most powerful or significant human traits, how can we ever expect to live righteous, prosperous, peaceful, and secure lives in this uncertain world?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, July 5, 2010
WHAT DIDST THOU CELEBRATE YESTERDAY?
By Edwin Cooney
No, no! You can’t fool me. I saw you crunching potato chips—periodically soaking them in chip dip—munching on hotdogs, hamburgers, and barbecued chicken. Like “The Shadow” from old time radio, I was an unseen witness as you swallowed potato and pasta salads and gnawed corn from the cob while swilling down punch, soda and beer. I never saw your hand over your heart, but you stood up during the seventh inning stretch of that baseball game you were enjoying and belted out both “Take Me Out to the Ball Game” and “God Bless America.” What’s more, you didn’t even seem to care whether or not you were singing in tune. As I said, don’t kid me, you were definitely celebrating something quite special!
What? You were celebrating the Fourth of July, America’s birthday, you say? Wow! America’s 234th birthday, you insist! Yes, indeed, I know, that’s a mess of birthdays. Tell me, though, and be more precise, please: why were you celebrating America’s 234th birthday?
One of the most traditional American institutions is the Fourth of July speech or written commentary declaring what this hallowed day ought to mean to you. Hence, as something of a switch, I offer a set of questions that may enable you to decide for yourself (for a change) yesterday's real significance.
Which of the following do you most associate with the Fourth of July: fireworks, parades, toasted marshmallows, watermelon, soda, and beer -- or the assertion that “all men are created equal?”
Which of the following phrases fits the way you regard the Fourth of July: is it Independence Day or America’s birthday?
When was America conceived and what portion of the population was most responsible for nurturing America’s conception? Was it the rich, the poor, the average citizen, the religious, the good, the bad, the educated, the respectful, the opportunistic, the elite, or a combination of these? Be specific if you say “a combination” of all of the above.
If the American colonies were to be “free and independent states from Great Britain,” did that automatically mean a “republican form of government” for you and me?
Do the words “freedom” and “independence” mean the same thing? If not, how do they differ?
Did you celebrate what you’ve been told about America or what you’ve figured out for yourself?
If America’s independence is a gift from God is the independence of every other nation in the world also a gift from God?
Should God bless America exclusively? Should we care whether or not God blesses other nations as well?
If independence stands for freedom, what kind of freedom? Are we free to do what we want to, what we can, or what we ought?
If Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton were to return today, would they recognize Twenty-First Century America as their legacy? What aspects of American life would they endorse and which would they disown?
Did the Declaration of Independence guarantee personal freedom?
Has the celebration of the “Fourth of July” always been a nonpartisan event? Might Federalist New England have favored a different date for celebration than Democratic-Republican Virginia?
Finally, should we make room on the calendar (though admittedly there’s little room remaining) to celebrate “Freedom Day?”
Whoops! This was to be a questionnaire, not a commentary -- except that the idea behind the last question is for me so compelling!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No, no! You can’t fool me. I saw you crunching potato chips—periodically soaking them in chip dip—munching on hotdogs, hamburgers, and barbecued chicken. Like “The Shadow” from old time radio, I was an unseen witness as you swallowed potato and pasta salads and gnawed corn from the cob while swilling down punch, soda and beer. I never saw your hand over your heart, but you stood up during the seventh inning stretch of that baseball game you were enjoying and belted out both “Take Me Out to the Ball Game” and “God Bless America.” What’s more, you didn’t even seem to care whether or not you were singing in tune. As I said, don’t kid me, you were definitely celebrating something quite special!
What? You were celebrating the Fourth of July, America’s birthday, you say? Wow! America’s 234th birthday, you insist! Yes, indeed, I know, that’s a mess of birthdays. Tell me, though, and be more precise, please: why were you celebrating America’s 234th birthday?
One of the most traditional American institutions is the Fourth of July speech or written commentary declaring what this hallowed day ought to mean to you. Hence, as something of a switch, I offer a set of questions that may enable you to decide for yourself (for a change) yesterday's real significance.
Which of the following do you most associate with the Fourth of July: fireworks, parades, toasted marshmallows, watermelon, soda, and beer -- or the assertion that “all men are created equal?”
Which of the following phrases fits the way you regard the Fourth of July: is it Independence Day or America’s birthday?
When was America conceived and what portion of the population was most responsible for nurturing America’s conception? Was it the rich, the poor, the average citizen, the religious, the good, the bad, the educated, the respectful, the opportunistic, the elite, or a combination of these? Be specific if you say “a combination” of all of the above.
If the American colonies were to be “free and independent states from Great Britain,” did that automatically mean a “republican form of government” for you and me?
Do the words “freedom” and “independence” mean the same thing? If not, how do they differ?
Did you celebrate what you’ve been told about America or what you’ve figured out for yourself?
If America’s independence is a gift from God is the independence of every other nation in the world also a gift from God?
Should God bless America exclusively? Should we care whether or not God blesses other nations as well?
If independence stands for freedom, what kind of freedom? Are we free to do what we want to, what we can, or what we ought?
If Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton were to return today, would they recognize Twenty-First Century America as their legacy? What aspects of American life would they endorse and which would they disown?
Did the Declaration of Independence guarantee personal freedom?
Has the celebration of the “Fourth of July” always been a nonpartisan event? Might Federalist New England have favored a different date for celebration than Democratic-Republican Virginia?
Finally, should we make room on the calendar (though admittedly there’s little room remaining) to celebrate “Freedom Day?”
Whoops! This was to be a questionnaire, not a commentary -- except that the idea behind the last question is for me so compelling!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)