By Edwin Cooney
“Gotta love Florida's concealed hand gun law!” proclaimed the headline of an email a friend of mine sent me recently. Its author had a “happy” story to tell.
Two men, 22-year-old Donicio Arrindell and 21-year-old Frederick Gadson, were stupid enough to rob a Plantation, Florida Subway shop late on a Wednesday evening not long ago.
The two men surely saw the 71-year-old John Lovell finishing his meal as they robbed the cashier but must have disregarded him. Eventually, they got around to robbing him as well and shoved him into a bathroom. What they didn’t know, until it was too late, was that John Lovell, a former Marine pilot who’d flown both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson before working for Delta and then Pan Am, possessed a concealed weapon. He was also a crack shot.
When it was all over, Arrindell was dead and Gadson was in Broward Medical Center with a head wound.
We who have the luxury of reading the story can be excused, I suppose, if we view it much as we would a good western. After all, the “good guy” who was the victim of Arrindell’s and Gadson’s selfish and willful deed came out on top. However, I think it is fair to say that none of us would like to have personally witnessed or taken any part in that tragic incident.
Even more, as I see it, the tragedy goes beyond the actual occurrence of the incident to the forces that brought it about and subsequently echoed in the wake of the tragedy.
First, here are two young men with their entire lives ahead of them who somehow have gotten it into their heads that they, through the use of force, may reasonably obtain money by intimidating and perhaps harming the rest of us. Thus, they obtain masks and weapons and proceed to bully their way to their definition of prosperity.
Second, because men like Arrindell and Gadson do what they do, we’re compelled to spend billions of dollars a year on adequate police protection and penal retention which could be better spent on education, health care, or our own personal enjoyment.
Third, and even more tragic, we’re intimidated into believing that if everyone carried a gun, the incidence of crime throughout the country would dramatically diminish. In other words, if Arrindell and Gadson had known that Lovell was armed, and perhaps that every other restaurant in town was serving an armed customer, they wouldn’t have dared commit armed robbery!
We’re informed that thanks to Florida’s concealed weapon law, John Lovell, a man of steady nerve and skill with a firearm, was able to effectively end the criminal careers of Arrindell and Gadson. That’s all well and good, but there’s a crucial piece of information that’s not in the email that I received.
Many years ago, I had the occasion to ride on a Trailways bus between Batavia and Rochester, New York with an inmate who’d just been released from New York’s Attica State Prison. (Back then it was still called Attica State Correctional Facility.) That particular prisoner told me that many times those who commit armed robbery do so with empty weapons. He insisted that the weapon is often strictly for show. Thus, what we haven’t been told is whether either Arrindell’s or Gadson’s weapons were loaded. As some will justifiably point out, in no state is burglary or even armed robbery punishable by death.
Still, a largely unarmed public can be excused if it takes seriously the sight of a thug wielding a weapon whether empty or loaded. Nevertheless, I believe that we, the innocent public, often miscalculate the forces that motivate antisocial behavior.
As much as they need stopping, men and women desperate enough to commit antisocial behavior will never be stopped by sheer numbers. Whether they are involved in an armed robbery, murder, terrorism or international war, they face danger which is usually quite secondary to their cause. Adolf Hitler, as he demonstrated on April 30th, 1945, was ready to end his life, not as an act of apology or closure for his victims, but rather as a statement that he alone controlled his fate. Although Osama Ben Laden concealed himself for nearly a decade in that Afghan compound, he wasn’t intimidated from financing and directing terror by the likelihood of his own demise.
It’s my guess that, dominated by their frustrations and resentments toward society, neither Arrindell nor Gadson was capable of comprehending their ultimate fate; hence they gave in to their greedy hunger. My guess also is that John Lovell, being the respectable citizen he is, doesn’t view himself as quite the hero the author of that email sees him as being. My guess is that Lovell, however he may justify his own action that Wednesday night not so long ago, views that action with far more solemnity than he does with triumph.
Florida’s concealed weapon law may occasionally satisfy our legitimate outrage, but if we see it as an effective antidote to armed robbery, we’re nearly as foolish as both Arrindell and Gadson were.
No, I don’t “gotta love” Florida’s concealed weapons law. As a conscientious and informed citizen, I only “gotta” sadly acknowledge its existence!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, February 27, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
GO, MARY -- GO, GO, GO!!!
By Edwin Cooney
Due to the existence of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Mary Wolski got her job back the other day -- and a lot of people’s undies are in a bunch over it!
Mary Wolski was hired in the late 1990s as Erie, Pennsylvania’s first female firefighter. She had a spotless record until Thursday, December 28th, 2006 when she made a mood and drug-induced mistake.
Throughout the previous year, Mary had watched helplessly while her mother suffered from a staph infection. In the wake of her mother’s slow and painful death, Mary went into a severe depression and sought the support of a psychiatrist. Ultimately, she was taking six different drugs, some of which could bring on thoughts of suicide.
Then, on that fateful December day in 2006, Mary decided to end it. She traveled to her brother’s vacant home, filled the bathtub with old clothes and set them afire hoping that she would die of smoke inhalation. However, the heat was too intense so she doused the flames and then sought to cut her wrists. Subsequently, as the clothes were still smoldering in the tub, Mary’s colleagues at the Erie Fire Department became involved in her rescue.
Ultimately, the city of Erie fired Mary and Mary sued under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thus we have the debate:
Was Mary legitimately disabled? Does the ADA cover people with mental as well as physical disabilities? How significant was it that Mary, a firefighter, used fire to end her life? Might Mary’s rehiring bring about a dangerous degree of low morale in Erie’s fire department?
One of my very best friends lives in Erie and we’ll let him act as the judge for the lowest appeals court for the city of Erie and all right-thinking ADA supporters. This is what he wrote me.
OK, let's deal with Ms. Wolski's woes.
She had a spotless record as an Erie firefighter, a point for Mary.
She became depressed as a result of facing the long and difficult dying process of her mother, not Mary's doing, yet another point on Mary's side.
Indeed, she was under the care of a psychiatrist who had, one might argue, over medicated her, another point for Mary.
But as a firefighter, she set a fire, not a point for Mary. Granted, when she did so she was not in her right mind; and perhaps the fact that she had been a firefighter was part of the reason she chose fire, the destructiveness of which she had seen, first hand. But a firefighter who sets a fire, regardless of the accompanying circumstances, sacrifices his or her right to serve a community, putting out fires.
This kind of act is the unfortunate unlocking and opening of a hitherto nonexistent door; a door that once open, can be closed but can never be locked or eliminated. And the irreversible fact that the existence of such a door, having been brought to fruition by a servant whose responsibility it is to prevent the existence of such a door, should, in the view of this commentator, prevent that servant from serving in such a capacity wherein the opportunity is all too available to, once again, open that door.
The arrival of mental health challenges is almost always unfortunate. But the citizens of a community should not be put in a position wherein they might feel less than fully confident in the behavior of their public servants.
The death of a loved one is a trying time; but most individuals weather the process, and do so, as a rule, without abandoning a majority of their commitments to their chosen profession. A distraught firefighter who sets a fire is a troubled individual, one who deserves our empathy but not one who should be returned to the unspeakably difficult challenge of fighting fires in a community of more than 100,000 individuals. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a statute designed to level the playing field for members of our society who confront physical barriers, such barriers based on the presence of a physical limitation, not common throughout the rest of society. It is not, in my view, a statute which should allow an individual to return to an endeavor, the very nature of which the individual has transgressed, based on a temporary illness.
Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is herewith reversed with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted, Mr. Justice Chesterton
There are three questions before this court. The first is whether the city of Erie dismissed Mary Wolski with prejudice. Since the city fired rather than suspended her pending further investigation, the answer to that question is clearly in the affirmative.
The second question facing this court is Ms. Wolski’s condition at the time of the act. According to all testimony, Ms. Wolski was mentally and emotionally limited at the time she set the fire. The cause of her disability was physician proscribed drugs rather than the voluntary recreational abuse of drugs. As a person suffering from a disability, Mary Wolski had the right of protection and support under the ADA’s provisions that allow for overcoming barriers to employment. As this court sees it, the greatest barrier to forward progress is prejudice—and clearly, in this case, the city of Erie, Pennsylvania has shown prejudice throughout this unfortunate incident.
The third question before this court is the nature of Mary Wolski’s act. It must be observed that Ms. Wolski’s use of fire, which appears to particularly concern the good Justice Chesterton, was uniquely to her credit as opposed to her condemnation. Ms. Wolski’s use of fire was exceedingly skillful, limited and above all responsible. She set a fire in a bath tub, dousing it when she couldn’t use its effect. The fire was in a vacant house, controlled in its range and in its capacity to spread. No one was harmed nor was anyone intended to be harmed. Neither the city nor the district attorney chose at the time to indict her for the incident.
Ms. Wolski is now recovered. Her energy and determination for protecting the public is renewed. Released from the harsh medicines she was taking at the time of the incident, Ms. Mary Wolski is now fully capable of resuming her professional duties to which she has demonstrated unflagging dedication.
Accordingly, this court overturns the ruling of one Judge Chesterton with exceedingly vigorous prejudice!
Respectfully submitted,
Super Justice,
Edwin Cooney
Due to the existence of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Mary Wolski got her job back the other day -- and a lot of people’s undies are in a bunch over it!
Mary Wolski was hired in the late 1990s as Erie, Pennsylvania’s first female firefighter. She had a spotless record until Thursday, December 28th, 2006 when she made a mood and drug-induced mistake.
Throughout the previous year, Mary had watched helplessly while her mother suffered from a staph infection. In the wake of her mother’s slow and painful death, Mary went into a severe depression and sought the support of a psychiatrist. Ultimately, she was taking six different drugs, some of which could bring on thoughts of suicide.
Then, on that fateful December day in 2006, Mary decided to end it. She traveled to her brother’s vacant home, filled the bathtub with old clothes and set them afire hoping that she would die of smoke inhalation. However, the heat was too intense so she doused the flames and then sought to cut her wrists. Subsequently, as the clothes were still smoldering in the tub, Mary’s colleagues at the Erie Fire Department became involved in her rescue.
Ultimately, the city of Erie fired Mary and Mary sued under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thus we have the debate:
Was Mary legitimately disabled? Does the ADA cover people with mental as well as physical disabilities? How significant was it that Mary, a firefighter, used fire to end her life? Might Mary’s rehiring bring about a dangerous degree of low morale in Erie’s fire department?
One of my very best friends lives in Erie and we’ll let him act as the judge for the lowest appeals court for the city of Erie and all right-thinking ADA supporters. This is what he wrote me.
OK, let's deal with Ms. Wolski's woes.
She had a spotless record as an Erie firefighter, a point for Mary.
She became depressed as a result of facing the long and difficult dying process of her mother, not Mary's doing, yet another point on Mary's side.
Indeed, she was under the care of a psychiatrist who had, one might argue, over medicated her, another point for Mary.
But as a firefighter, she set a fire, not a point for Mary. Granted, when she did so she was not in her right mind; and perhaps the fact that she had been a firefighter was part of the reason she chose fire, the destructiveness of which she had seen, first hand. But a firefighter who sets a fire, regardless of the accompanying circumstances, sacrifices his or her right to serve a community, putting out fires.
This kind of act is the unfortunate unlocking and opening of a hitherto nonexistent door; a door that once open, can be closed but can never be locked or eliminated. And the irreversible fact that the existence of such a door, having been brought to fruition by a servant whose responsibility it is to prevent the existence of such a door, should, in the view of this commentator, prevent that servant from serving in such a capacity wherein the opportunity is all too available to, once again, open that door.
The arrival of mental health challenges is almost always unfortunate. But the citizens of a community should not be put in a position wherein they might feel less than fully confident in the behavior of their public servants.
The death of a loved one is a trying time; but most individuals weather the process, and do so, as a rule, without abandoning a majority of their commitments to their chosen profession. A distraught firefighter who sets a fire is a troubled individual, one who deserves our empathy but not one who should be returned to the unspeakably difficult challenge of fighting fires in a community of more than 100,000 individuals. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a statute designed to level the playing field for members of our society who confront physical barriers, such barriers based on the presence of a physical limitation, not common throughout the rest of society. It is not, in my view, a statute which should allow an individual to return to an endeavor, the very nature of which the individual has transgressed, based on a temporary illness.
Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is herewith reversed with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted, Mr. Justice Chesterton
There are three questions before this court. The first is whether the city of Erie dismissed Mary Wolski with prejudice. Since the city fired rather than suspended her pending further investigation, the answer to that question is clearly in the affirmative.
The second question facing this court is Ms. Wolski’s condition at the time of the act. According to all testimony, Ms. Wolski was mentally and emotionally limited at the time she set the fire. The cause of her disability was physician proscribed drugs rather than the voluntary recreational abuse of drugs. As a person suffering from a disability, Mary Wolski had the right of protection and support under the ADA’s provisions that allow for overcoming barriers to employment. As this court sees it, the greatest barrier to forward progress is prejudice—and clearly, in this case, the city of Erie, Pennsylvania has shown prejudice throughout this unfortunate incident.
The third question before this court is the nature of Mary Wolski’s act. It must be observed that Ms. Wolski’s use of fire, which appears to particularly concern the good Justice Chesterton, was uniquely to her credit as opposed to her condemnation. Ms. Wolski’s use of fire was exceedingly skillful, limited and above all responsible. She set a fire in a bath tub, dousing it when she couldn’t use its effect. The fire was in a vacant house, controlled in its range and in its capacity to spread. No one was harmed nor was anyone intended to be harmed. Neither the city nor the district attorney chose at the time to indict her for the incident.
Ms. Wolski is now recovered. Her energy and determination for protecting the public is renewed. Released from the harsh medicines she was taking at the time of the incident, Ms. Mary Wolski is now fully capable of resuming her professional duties to which she has demonstrated unflagging dedication.
Accordingly, this court overturns the ruling of one Judge Chesterton with exceedingly vigorous prejudice!
Respectfully submitted,
Super Justice,
Edwin Cooney
Monday, February 6, 2012
FOR WHOM SHOULD HE CARE?
By Edwin Cooney
I don’t know about you, but I wasn’t particularly surprised this week when I learned that the leading GOP presidential contender, Willard (Mitt) Romney has decided that he cares about neither the poor nor the rich since the rich can take care of themselves and the poor have a "safety net" under them. As for you in the middle class, the socio/political domain of workers who earn between $50,000 and $250,000, the handsome, articulate former Massachusetts governor has finally discovered you.
Up until now, you, the middle class, have been the strategic domain of President Obama who has kept his pledge not to increase taxes on you. Of course, the president’s opponents love to point out the obligations that “Obama Care” puts on everyone -- especially the middle class -- which they insist amounts to a tax increase. It is a reasonable argument when you’re being strictly political rather than responsibly objective. After all, a tax increase is more money taken for income taxes under the status quo, where healthcare is an additional service being offered which extends the status quo. Whatever position you take, the question remains: should the president especially care about classes of Americans?
Harry Truman, in had his usual straightforward way of looking at a president’s responsibilities, asserted that "the rich have the luxury of being able to pay lobbyists to come down to Washington to lobby Congress to meet their demands. There’s nothing wrong with them. As for the rest of America, the only lobbyist they have is the President of the United States. That’s his job -- to look out for the interests of the average person.”
The idea that the president should particularly care about anyone’s welfare is a relatively recent expectation.
In the early years of our republic, Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison held the view that a president should be politically “disinterested” in the outcome of public affairs as they directly affect the people’s lives. Recent scholars have suggested that one of the reasons Thomas Jefferson (our third president) fell out with Aaron Burr (our third vice president) was because Burr was more interested in serving people’s needs than he was in being the expected “disinterested” public servant. (Certainly his duel with Alexander Hamilton didn’t help, but it wasn’t the source of Jefferson’s unhappiness with Aaron Burr.) Presidential policies generally had to do with the broad interests of the young United States: our relations with Britain and France (George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison from 1794 through 1815), Indian affairs (Monroe through Cleveland from 1819 until 1887), and the Civil War (Lincoln through Hayes from 1861 through 1877). As late as the 1920s, Calvin Coolidge vetoed the McNary- Haugen Farm Relief Act designed to provide badly needed financial assistance particularly to western farmers who’d been plagued for several years by floods, droughts and soil erosion. Coolidge and many other Republicans saw direct assistance to farmers as “class legislation.” For the most part, government wasn’t seen as a legitimate tool on behalf of everyday working people until the New Deal. Thus, only since FDR has there been a debate about the legitimate role government should play in people’s lives.
Hence, the question: what should a perspective president care about?
During the course of one of his more folksy 1930s Fireside Chats, FDR put it this way:
“I like to think of our country as one home in which the interests of each member are bound up with the happiness of us all. We ought to know, by now, that the welfare of your family or mine cannot be bought at the sacrifice of our neighbor’s family; that our well-being depends, in the long run, on the well-being of our neighbors.”
FDR’s appeal brought about a solid political coalition of some farmers, laborers, students, Southern conservatives, northern and western liberals, and intellectuals that established moderate forward-looking government from the 1930s through the 1960s. Even Richard Nixon insisted that if a presidential candidate is to be successful, he must appeal to conservatives during the primaries but move to the left to accommodate the center during the general election (the opposite extreme to center in the Democratic party).
Hence, after months of appealing to the right, Governor Romney appears ready now to keel sharply to the center.
Will the GOP’s right wing allow him to do that? Will they interpret his move leftward as an effort to protect conservatism against the slings and arrows of the left until he can start practicing conservatism in the White House? Or will they see his move as a betrayal of conservative dogma to which all of the GOP candidates have paid such intense homage during this campaign?
Is it the poor, the rich or the middle class to which any successful presidential candidate must appeal? I say it’s the middle class. However, of the three class categories, the middle class is the most fickle and therefore the most dangerous. Their demands, resentments, and needs are so intertwined yet contradictory that they’re more easily offended than pleased—-and when offended they’re deadly!
Most of all, they possess more votes!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
I don’t know about you, but I wasn’t particularly surprised this week when I learned that the leading GOP presidential contender, Willard (Mitt) Romney has decided that he cares about neither the poor nor the rich since the rich can take care of themselves and the poor have a "safety net" under them. As for you in the middle class, the socio/political domain of workers who earn between $50,000 and $250,000, the handsome, articulate former Massachusetts governor has finally discovered you.
Up until now, you, the middle class, have been the strategic domain of President Obama who has kept his pledge not to increase taxes on you. Of course, the president’s opponents love to point out the obligations that “Obama Care” puts on everyone -- especially the middle class -- which they insist amounts to a tax increase. It is a reasonable argument when you’re being strictly political rather than responsibly objective. After all, a tax increase is more money taken for income taxes under the status quo, where healthcare is an additional service being offered which extends the status quo. Whatever position you take, the question remains: should the president especially care about classes of Americans?
Harry Truman, in had his usual straightforward way of looking at a president’s responsibilities, asserted that "the rich have the luxury of being able to pay lobbyists to come down to Washington to lobby Congress to meet their demands. There’s nothing wrong with them. As for the rest of America, the only lobbyist they have is the President of the United States. That’s his job -- to look out for the interests of the average person.”
The idea that the president should particularly care about anyone’s welfare is a relatively recent expectation.
In the early years of our republic, Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison held the view that a president should be politically “disinterested” in the outcome of public affairs as they directly affect the people’s lives. Recent scholars have suggested that one of the reasons Thomas Jefferson (our third president) fell out with Aaron Burr (our third vice president) was because Burr was more interested in serving people’s needs than he was in being the expected “disinterested” public servant. (Certainly his duel with Alexander Hamilton didn’t help, but it wasn’t the source of Jefferson’s unhappiness with Aaron Burr.) Presidential policies generally had to do with the broad interests of the young United States: our relations with Britain and France (George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison from 1794 through 1815), Indian affairs (Monroe through Cleveland from 1819 until 1887), and the Civil War (Lincoln through Hayes from 1861 through 1877). As late as the 1920s, Calvin Coolidge vetoed the McNary- Haugen Farm Relief Act designed to provide badly needed financial assistance particularly to western farmers who’d been plagued for several years by floods, droughts and soil erosion. Coolidge and many other Republicans saw direct assistance to farmers as “class legislation.” For the most part, government wasn’t seen as a legitimate tool on behalf of everyday working people until the New Deal. Thus, only since FDR has there been a debate about the legitimate role government should play in people’s lives.
Hence, the question: what should a perspective president care about?
During the course of one of his more folksy 1930s Fireside Chats, FDR put it this way:
“I like to think of our country as one home in which the interests of each member are bound up with the happiness of us all. We ought to know, by now, that the welfare of your family or mine cannot be bought at the sacrifice of our neighbor’s family; that our well-being depends, in the long run, on the well-being of our neighbors.”
FDR’s appeal brought about a solid political coalition of some farmers, laborers, students, Southern conservatives, northern and western liberals, and intellectuals that established moderate forward-looking government from the 1930s through the 1960s. Even Richard Nixon insisted that if a presidential candidate is to be successful, he must appeal to conservatives during the primaries but move to the left to accommodate the center during the general election (the opposite extreme to center in the Democratic party).
Hence, after months of appealing to the right, Governor Romney appears ready now to keel sharply to the center.
Will the GOP’s right wing allow him to do that? Will they interpret his move leftward as an effort to protect conservatism against the slings and arrows of the left until he can start practicing conservatism in the White House? Or will they see his move as a betrayal of conservative dogma to which all of the GOP candidates have paid such intense homage during this campaign?
Is it the poor, the rich or the middle class to which any successful presidential candidate must appeal? I say it’s the middle class. However, of the three class categories, the middle class is the most fickle and therefore the most dangerous. Their demands, resentments, and needs are so intertwined yet contradictory that they’re more easily offended than pleased—-and when offended they’re deadly!
Most of all, they possess more votes!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, January 23, 2012
WHOSE CHARACTER COUNTS?
By Edwin Cooney
Whose character counts is a question older than the Constitution of the United States, older than the Protestant Reformation and the Period of Enlightenment that followed it, older even than Magna Carta. In fact, the question is as old as humankind!
What was fascinating to me the other night in South Carolina during the GOP debate was how easily Newt Gingrich was able to redirect the issue of his personal character in front of that highly partisan audience -- and how easily that audience (including Newt’s highly moral fellow presidential candidates) bought into his redirection.
Speaker Gingrich’s redirection came in the form of his pompous outrage against the media for daring to even bring up what his former wife volunteered about his 1999 proposal that they have an “open marriage.” Before denying it, he preceded to blame the “elite media” for allowing his former wife’s story to be aired. He characterized the media not only for its elite stature, but even more, for a strategy of "…protecting Barack Obama by criticizing Republicans.”
As far back as 1980, Conservatives have told us that one of the major differences between conservatism and liberalism is conservative morality.
We were assured that President Reagan, unlike President Carter (as religious as Carter was), would bring morality to the body politic more effectively than Carter. Hence, every issue has now become a moral issue whether it is differences over public education, public housing, or the legitimacy of the income tax.
Ironically, Speaker Gingrich was perfectly willing to use the evil media to force the resignation of Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright in 1989 and to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998. My point is that both the morality issue and the convenience of the media are "legitimate" when they favor Conservatives. However, when they work against Conservatives, that appears to be another story.
Finally, do you suppose that President Obama doesn’t have his own issues with the media? If you believe that the media has spared President Obama, then how have you learned about his shortcomings-- both political and otherwise -- except through the media?
As for this observer, I care very little about Newton Gingrich’s marital morality or lack thereof. From a moral standpoint, Newt Gingrich is, as I see it, perfectly qualified to be president. Aside from this current controversy, our history is laden with questions about presidential morality or the lack of such.
In 1800, Thomas Jefferson became the first victim of moral attack during a presidential campaign. Remember, this was the man who largely wrote the Declaration of Independence and who is quoted again and again (especially by Conservatives) as the author of all that’s morally principled about our free society. He was attacked because he was a deist religiously rather than a proclaimed Christian. If he were elected, cried the Federalists, good citizens would be forced to hide their bibles. However, Jefferson did prevail. I wonder: what did either morality or immorality have to do with Jefferson’s greatest achievement, the Louisiana Purchase?
In 1828, the highly educated and principled John Quincy Adams faced Andrew Jackson, the marital bigamist and the crude frontier duelist, for the presidency. John Adams wanted to make lasting treaties with the Indians as required by some Supreme Court rulings. Andy Jackson wanted to move them west as quickly as it could be done. Granted, he hoped to do it without violence, but he was clearly willing to use violence when it became practical. Jackson won the election, but the moral question remains! Whose side had the high moral ground, do you think?
In 1860, candidate Lincoln was rather distinguished by his lack of church membership. He didn’t join a church until he got to Washington.
President Theodore Roosevelt wanted to remove “In God We Trust” from our money. As Teddy saw it, putting God’s name on our money was blasphemous. Apparently, TR believed that God was more important than money! Where do you suppose TR got his sense of morality?
In recent years, both parties have raised assistance to constituencies to the height of morality. In the 1930s, FDR clearly made help for the unemployed and the poor in general a moral issue. In the 1960s, civil rights was, as JFK put it, “…primarily a moral issue.” During the recent Iraqi war, antiwar protestors made President George W. Bush’s very advocacy of the war a moral issue.
The value in the question “whose character counts?” lies in the opportunity to consider everyone’s character. If Newt Gingrich goes to the White House next January, I’ll be sad, not because of his character, but because of his priorities. As I see it, we’ve never had a presidential candidate or a president who wasn’t genuinely interested in doing what he could for the betterment of our country. It’s not the morality one brings to the public service that counts. It's the applicability of practical priorities which move us onward and upward to that plateau of nobility, principle and purpose which our form of government is all about.
So, whose character counts, you ask. I hate to break it to you, but only yours and mine!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Whose character counts is a question older than the Constitution of the United States, older than the Protestant Reformation and the Period of Enlightenment that followed it, older even than Magna Carta. In fact, the question is as old as humankind!
What was fascinating to me the other night in South Carolina during the GOP debate was how easily Newt Gingrich was able to redirect the issue of his personal character in front of that highly partisan audience -- and how easily that audience (including Newt’s highly moral fellow presidential candidates) bought into his redirection.
Speaker Gingrich’s redirection came in the form of his pompous outrage against the media for daring to even bring up what his former wife volunteered about his 1999 proposal that they have an “open marriage.” Before denying it, he preceded to blame the “elite media” for allowing his former wife’s story to be aired. He characterized the media not only for its elite stature, but even more, for a strategy of "…protecting Barack Obama by criticizing Republicans.”
As far back as 1980, Conservatives have told us that one of the major differences between conservatism and liberalism is conservative morality.
We were assured that President Reagan, unlike President Carter (as religious as Carter was), would bring morality to the body politic more effectively than Carter. Hence, every issue has now become a moral issue whether it is differences over public education, public housing, or the legitimacy of the income tax.
Ironically, Speaker Gingrich was perfectly willing to use the evil media to force the resignation of Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright in 1989 and to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998. My point is that both the morality issue and the convenience of the media are "legitimate" when they favor Conservatives. However, when they work against Conservatives, that appears to be another story.
Finally, do you suppose that President Obama doesn’t have his own issues with the media? If you believe that the media has spared President Obama, then how have you learned about his shortcomings-- both political and otherwise -- except through the media?
As for this observer, I care very little about Newton Gingrich’s marital morality or lack thereof. From a moral standpoint, Newt Gingrich is, as I see it, perfectly qualified to be president. Aside from this current controversy, our history is laden with questions about presidential morality or the lack of such.
In 1800, Thomas Jefferson became the first victim of moral attack during a presidential campaign. Remember, this was the man who largely wrote the Declaration of Independence and who is quoted again and again (especially by Conservatives) as the author of all that’s morally principled about our free society. He was attacked because he was a deist religiously rather than a proclaimed Christian. If he were elected, cried the Federalists, good citizens would be forced to hide their bibles. However, Jefferson did prevail. I wonder: what did either morality or immorality have to do with Jefferson’s greatest achievement, the Louisiana Purchase?
In 1828, the highly educated and principled John Quincy Adams faced Andrew Jackson, the marital bigamist and the crude frontier duelist, for the presidency. John Adams wanted to make lasting treaties with the Indians as required by some Supreme Court rulings. Andy Jackson wanted to move them west as quickly as it could be done. Granted, he hoped to do it without violence, but he was clearly willing to use violence when it became practical. Jackson won the election, but the moral question remains! Whose side had the high moral ground, do you think?
In 1860, candidate Lincoln was rather distinguished by his lack of church membership. He didn’t join a church until he got to Washington.
President Theodore Roosevelt wanted to remove “In God We Trust” from our money. As Teddy saw it, putting God’s name on our money was blasphemous. Apparently, TR believed that God was more important than money! Where do you suppose TR got his sense of morality?
In recent years, both parties have raised assistance to constituencies to the height of morality. In the 1930s, FDR clearly made help for the unemployed and the poor in general a moral issue. In the 1960s, civil rights was, as JFK put it, “…primarily a moral issue.” During the recent Iraqi war, antiwar protestors made President George W. Bush’s very advocacy of the war a moral issue.
The value in the question “whose character counts?” lies in the opportunity to consider everyone’s character. If Newt Gingrich goes to the White House next January, I’ll be sad, not because of his character, but because of his priorities. As I see it, we’ve never had a presidential candidate or a president who wasn’t genuinely interested in doing what he could for the betterment of our country. It’s not the morality one brings to the public service that counts. It's the applicability of practical priorities which move us onward and upward to that plateau of nobility, principle and purpose which our form of government is all about.
So, whose character counts, you ask. I hate to break it to you, but only yours and mine!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, January 16, 2012
SOMETHING SO VERY, VERY PERSONAL!
By Edwin Cooney
No, the phenomena I’m about to address isn’t all about sports. It’s about that which pleases you and me. It’s about the sports teams we favor. It’s about our favorite actors and actresses. It’s about the people we love. Most of all, it’s about our individual capacity to be pleased about somebody else’s accomplishments, accomplishments over which we haven’t the slightest control.
The word for it is fandom. Fan or fandom is, of course, a short term for fanatic. Fanaticism causes us to focus our emotions on the outcome of events, many of which are primarily recreational, and some of which are very, very serious.
Fanaticism, especially political or religious fanaticism, can be dangerous and even life threatening. However, fandom or to be a fan, I believe, is not only wholesome, but healthy for our entire being.
During the late 1860s, the development of baseball “clubs,” gave local players and fans an opportunity to salve their hard scrabbled work-a-day existences with a little recreational activity. Hence, when that activity resulted in victory, there was inevitably a powerful boost in civic pride.
One of the more fascinating stories I’ve heard (perhaps it’s apocryphal, but somehow it’s too good not to be true) concerns one amateur fan’s fear of the development of professional baseball. The fear was that paid baseball players might ultimately mean the end of local pride in baseball for fans outside the large cities. The young man who expressed that fear was Clarence Darrow who went on to be perhaps the greatest criminal lawyer of his generation.
As asserted above, the root of fandom (as I see it) is that which gives us pleasure, beginning usually when we’re very young. If our parents, older siblings, favorite teacher, favorite uncle or cousin is a sports fan and partial to a particular sport or team, our emotional need for personal connection often compels us to go along with them. If we’re inclined to be interested in certain movies, music, poetry, or any number of things, parental or peer encouragement can be the vital factor in developing the intensity of our interest in the activity or in the good fortune of an individual performer or artist.
The fans of star musical performers can be quite intense when it comes to getting close to their heroes. I remember reading about a staunch Beatles fan who attempted to be mailed to George Harrison, I believe. Her friends packed her in a large crate with the necessary air holes (what else was in there we can only imagine!), sealed her up, and sent her on her way. Her journey suddenly ended when she tipped her box over while trying to remove her sweater. Perhaps a mail clerk thought there was something just a tad suspicious about a crate that turned itself over.
Political candidates rarely have fans. However, Jack Kennedy was treated much like Elvis Presley during his 1960 October campaign trip. The same was true of Bobby Kennedy in 1968. Teddy got similar treatment, although to a lesser degree, during his 1980 quest against President Carter.
Much of Barack Obama’s success four years ago was due to a certain star quality appeal among young people. A factor in this year’s election bid could be whether he can rekindle enough of his 2008 star power to bring about his re-election.
Our capacity to feel good about the accomplishments of others is both good for them and for us. The recording, movie, and book industry all depend on it. The more interests we have, the more likely we’ll be rewarded sometime during any calendar year with a sense of success. That sense of success amounts to a sense of confirmation of our capacity for positive judgment. You may lose the Super Bowl, but your favorite actor might win an Oscar. Your candidate may win an election while your favorite author is charged with plagiarism.
Of course, the amount of gratification one gets from the success of a cultural hero depends on one’s capacity for emotional perspective. Happily, the vast majority of “fans” have this positive aspect for favoritism well under control. Before a game, fans can be angrily insistent about the likelihood of their team’s success. However, most of the time, they accept the outcome with good grace. Likewise, fans of musical performers, movie actors and actresses, and even politicians very often keep their favorites in their hearts long after their popularity is history.
We can perhaps learn about a person’s personality by having him list his heroes at different times of his life. We might start that with our political candidates!
To be a fan is for me a healthy thing. However, to be someone else’s hero is a bit more taxing. How many “fans” do you have aside from your spouse and perhaps three or four close friends? How many “fans” would you like to have?
Your answer to that question might be quite revealing! My answer to that question is something of a plea. Please don’t love me too much: heights make me dizzy!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No, the phenomena I’m about to address isn’t all about sports. It’s about that which pleases you and me. It’s about the sports teams we favor. It’s about our favorite actors and actresses. It’s about the people we love. Most of all, it’s about our individual capacity to be pleased about somebody else’s accomplishments, accomplishments over which we haven’t the slightest control.
The word for it is fandom. Fan or fandom is, of course, a short term for fanatic. Fanaticism causes us to focus our emotions on the outcome of events, many of which are primarily recreational, and some of which are very, very serious.
Fanaticism, especially political or religious fanaticism, can be dangerous and even life threatening. However, fandom or to be a fan, I believe, is not only wholesome, but healthy for our entire being.
During the late 1860s, the development of baseball “clubs,” gave local players and fans an opportunity to salve their hard scrabbled work-a-day existences with a little recreational activity. Hence, when that activity resulted in victory, there was inevitably a powerful boost in civic pride.
One of the more fascinating stories I’ve heard (perhaps it’s apocryphal, but somehow it’s too good not to be true) concerns one amateur fan’s fear of the development of professional baseball. The fear was that paid baseball players might ultimately mean the end of local pride in baseball for fans outside the large cities. The young man who expressed that fear was Clarence Darrow who went on to be perhaps the greatest criminal lawyer of his generation.
As asserted above, the root of fandom (as I see it) is that which gives us pleasure, beginning usually when we’re very young. If our parents, older siblings, favorite teacher, favorite uncle or cousin is a sports fan and partial to a particular sport or team, our emotional need for personal connection often compels us to go along with them. If we’re inclined to be interested in certain movies, music, poetry, or any number of things, parental or peer encouragement can be the vital factor in developing the intensity of our interest in the activity or in the good fortune of an individual performer or artist.
The fans of star musical performers can be quite intense when it comes to getting close to their heroes. I remember reading about a staunch Beatles fan who attempted to be mailed to George Harrison, I believe. Her friends packed her in a large crate with the necessary air holes (what else was in there we can only imagine!), sealed her up, and sent her on her way. Her journey suddenly ended when she tipped her box over while trying to remove her sweater. Perhaps a mail clerk thought there was something just a tad suspicious about a crate that turned itself over.
Political candidates rarely have fans. However, Jack Kennedy was treated much like Elvis Presley during his 1960 October campaign trip. The same was true of Bobby Kennedy in 1968. Teddy got similar treatment, although to a lesser degree, during his 1980 quest against President Carter.
Much of Barack Obama’s success four years ago was due to a certain star quality appeal among young people. A factor in this year’s election bid could be whether he can rekindle enough of his 2008 star power to bring about his re-election.
Our capacity to feel good about the accomplishments of others is both good for them and for us. The recording, movie, and book industry all depend on it. The more interests we have, the more likely we’ll be rewarded sometime during any calendar year with a sense of success. That sense of success amounts to a sense of confirmation of our capacity for positive judgment. You may lose the Super Bowl, but your favorite actor might win an Oscar. Your candidate may win an election while your favorite author is charged with plagiarism.
Of course, the amount of gratification one gets from the success of a cultural hero depends on one’s capacity for emotional perspective. Happily, the vast majority of “fans” have this positive aspect for favoritism well under control. Before a game, fans can be angrily insistent about the likelihood of their team’s success. However, most of the time, they accept the outcome with good grace. Likewise, fans of musical performers, movie actors and actresses, and even politicians very often keep their favorites in their hearts long after their popularity is history.
We can perhaps learn about a person’s personality by having him list his heroes at different times of his life. We might start that with our political candidates!
To be a fan is for me a healthy thing. However, to be someone else’s hero is a bit more taxing. How many “fans” do you have aside from your spouse and perhaps three or four close friends? How many “fans” would you like to have?
Your answer to that question might be quite revealing! My answer to that question is something of a plea. Please don’t love me too much: heights make me dizzy!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, January 9, 2012
THEM “GOOD OLD DAYS”? -- NUTS!
By Edwin Cooney
I know I’m in trouble with some of you already -- which is perfectly understandable -- but today’s lifestyle is better than yesterday’s! Today’s generation does most things more efficiently and more conscientiously than ever before.
What brought all of this to mind was an article that two of my readers sent me called “That Green Thing.” Due to its brevity, I present it below in its entirety:
Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days." The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.” She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day. Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn't have the green thing back in our day. We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day. Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day. Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then. We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then. Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint. But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then? Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person. Remember: Don't make old people mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.
Okay, fair enough in view of the clerk’s careless slur. However, Love Canal near Niagara Falls, the pollution of every major river throughout the land, and the pollution of Pittsburgh are testimony that my generation and the one or two preceding it gave to the environment. What’s sad about this article is that it’s pointless. Any argument between the generations is an automatic victory for the future. If yesterday was better than today, then the people of yesterday failed their children.
Was yesterday better than today? Of course not! Does yesterday have legitimate lessons to teach? You bet it does! However, if yesterday is where you’d like to be, it’s likely that it's because you’re not satisfied with your contribution to the progress yesterday made in the life of humankind.
I, too, like yesterday for many reasons, among them the fact that we’ve come through all of the personal, national and international crises that confronted us. Today’s generation faces the same challenges.
The truth is that I like yesterday, too. However, what I like best about yesterday is that I was younger!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
I know I’m in trouble with some of you already -- which is perfectly understandable -- but today’s lifestyle is better than yesterday’s! Today’s generation does most things more efficiently and more conscientiously than ever before.
What brought all of this to mind was an article that two of my readers sent me called “That Green Thing.” Due to its brevity, I present it below in its entirety:
Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days." The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.” She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day. Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn't have the green thing back in our day. We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day. Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day. Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then. We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then. Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint. But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then? Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person. Remember: Don't make old people mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.
Okay, fair enough in view of the clerk’s careless slur. However, Love Canal near Niagara Falls, the pollution of every major river throughout the land, and the pollution of Pittsburgh are testimony that my generation and the one or two preceding it gave to the environment. What’s sad about this article is that it’s pointless. Any argument between the generations is an automatic victory for the future. If yesterday was better than today, then the people of yesterday failed their children.
Was yesterday better than today? Of course not! Does yesterday have legitimate lessons to teach? You bet it does! However, if yesterday is where you’d like to be, it’s likely that it's because you’re not satisfied with your contribution to the progress yesterday made in the life of humankind.
I, too, like yesterday for many reasons, among them the fact that we’ve come through all of the personal, national and international crises that confronted us. Today’s generation faces the same challenges.
The truth is that I like yesterday, too. However, what I like best about yesterday is that I was younger!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, January 2, 2012
A PROBLEM AND ITS SOLUTION -- BUNDLED TOGETHER -- JUST FOR YOU!
By Edwin Cooney
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
I hear the complaint every year and I suspect that you do, too. It’s about the “over-commercialization” of Christmas. I occasionally hear complaints about the over-commercialization of Mother’s Day and Valentine’s Day, but the over-commercialization of Christmas is a complaint that has become downright chronic.
Over-commercialization of a holiday means that its celebration is more about commerce than it is about the sincerity of love and the act of giving. I understand that -- but what’s behind that complaint, I wonder!
Going back to childhood, I was taught that we celebrate Christmas as the birthday of Jesus Christ and that we exchange gifts as we would if we could have given gifts to Baby Jesus. I was also instructed that such gift giving was meaningful as long as I kept in mind that Jesus was the center of the love behind it. Yet every year, I hear people who have received that same Christian message complaining about Christmas’ over- commercialization.
Due to its British origin, Christmas wasn’t widely celebrated in America immediately after the Revolutionary War. However, in 1822, Clement Moore’s “A Visit from St. Nicholas” began the popularization of Santa Claus in America. In the 1840’s, Americans became sympathetic with the Christmas plight of Charles Dickens’ Cratchit family. Yet, it wasn’t until the 1850’s that merchants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Cincinnati (cities with German and other ethnic populations) really began celebrating Christmas.
Although Christmas was celebrated at the White House in 1805 by Thomas Jefferson
and, in later years, by Andrew Jackson, Christmas apparently didn’t catch on at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue until the Christmas season of 1856. That’s when President Franklin (Handsome Frank) Pierce set up the first executive mansion Christmas tree. It was the last presidential Christmas for Franklin and Jane Pierce and the Christmas tree was something of a gift for President Pierce’s Sunday school class.
Ultimately, Christmas was endorsed by America’s first families. In 1870, Christmas became a federal holiday under Ulysses S. Grant. In 1789, President Benjamin Harrison was the first to put candles on the executive mansion Christmas tree. (President Harrison was scared to death of electric lights.) In 1893, First Lady Frances Cleveland, who wasn’t afraid of electricity, installed the first electric lights on the presidential Christmas tree. In 1923, Calvin Coolidge lit the first “national” Christmas tree.
One might observe that although the celebration of Christmas was originally of British, Dutch and German origin, we Americans inevitably made it our own celebration. As the biggest producers, marketers and consumers on this planet, Americans have made Christmas -- whatever it has become -- ultimately the product of the purest democracy.
Insofar as this observer is aware, Christmas hasn’t been forced on anyone rich or poor, religious or nonreligious, capitalist or socialist. Still, people believe that Christmas has become over-commercialized.
Part of the reason for this has to do, I think, with our belief that our religious and spiritual values should always be supreme over our material values. Then there’s the belief that our religious or spiritual values are vulnerable to our greed for material items such as good clothes, cars, computers, food and, of course, drink.
Another factor is perhaps the belief that the majority of the Christmas presents given in the Nineteenth century were made by hand. In comparison with the gifts we give today, they represented a higher degree of personal awareness, sharing and appreciation. Homemade gifts such as scarves, socks, sweaters, handmade jewelry, and ceramic ware have a special value because their design and construction represent personal knowledge of the recipient on the part of the giver. On the other hand, the scarves, socks, sweaters and manufactured jewelry which are purchased -- beautiful, comfortable and valuable as they may be -- often take second place to the personally designed gift.
Finally, there does exist the ugly head of peer pressure—-the expectation that at Christmastime we must participate in gift giving. Hence, we often put pressure on ourselves to give. To the degree that we feel compelled -- rather than free -- to give, Christmas becomes a personal tyranny. The belief that some entity outside our comfort or control has a hold on us enables us to believe that we are the victims rather than the masters of Christmas. Since the goal of commerce is profit making, over-commercialization is a powerful charge against the way we in America celebrate Christmas.
At the bottom of it all, however, lies the real problem: you and me! Anxious as we all are to demonstrate our love and to receive love from others, we worry about our adequacy and look for scapegoats when we feel inadequate.
So, the question is: What do we do about the over-commercialization of Christmas? The solution is simple: ignore it! It doesn’t exist! Love others as intensely and as genuinely as you can the year ‘round and what you can do at Christmas will adequately reflect the best of who you are!
You’ve got 51 weeks to get over your concern about the over-commercialization of Christmas.
READY! GET SET! GO!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
I hear the complaint every year and I suspect that you do, too. It’s about the “over-commercialization” of Christmas. I occasionally hear complaints about the over-commercialization of Mother’s Day and Valentine’s Day, but the over-commercialization of Christmas is a complaint that has become downright chronic.
Over-commercialization of a holiday means that its celebration is more about commerce than it is about the sincerity of love and the act of giving. I understand that -- but what’s behind that complaint, I wonder!
Going back to childhood, I was taught that we celebrate Christmas as the birthday of Jesus Christ and that we exchange gifts as we would if we could have given gifts to Baby Jesus. I was also instructed that such gift giving was meaningful as long as I kept in mind that Jesus was the center of the love behind it. Yet every year, I hear people who have received that same Christian message complaining about Christmas’ over- commercialization.
Due to its British origin, Christmas wasn’t widely celebrated in America immediately after the Revolutionary War. However, in 1822, Clement Moore’s “A Visit from St. Nicholas” began the popularization of Santa Claus in America. In the 1840’s, Americans became sympathetic with the Christmas plight of Charles Dickens’ Cratchit family. Yet, it wasn’t until the 1850’s that merchants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Cincinnati (cities with German and other ethnic populations) really began celebrating Christmas.
Although Christmas was celebrated at the White House in 1805 by Thomas Jefferson
and, in later years, by Andrew Jackson, Christmas apparently didn’t catch on at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue until the Christmas season of 1856. That’s when President Franklin (Handsome Frank) Pierce set up the first executive mansion Christmas tree. It was the last presidential Christmas for Franklin and Jane Pierce and the Christmas tree was something of a gift for President Pierce’s Sunday school class.
Ultimately, Christmas was endorsed by America’s first families. In 1870, Christmas became a federal holiday under Ulysses S. Grant. In 1789, President Benjamin Harrison was the first to put candles on the executive mansion Christmas tree. (President Harrison was scared to death of electric lights.) In 1893, First Lady Frances Cleveland, who wasn’t afraid of electricity, installed the first electric lights on the presidential Christmas tree. In 1923, Calvin Coolidge lit the first “national” Christmas tree.
One might observe that although the celebration of Christmas was originally of British, Dutch and German origin, we Americans inevitably made it our own celebration. As the biggest producers, marketers and consumers on this planet, Americans have made Christmas -- whatever it has become -- ultimately the product of the purest democracy.
Insofar as this observer is aware, Christmas hasn’t been forced on anyone rich or poor, religious or nonreligious, capitalist or socialist. Still, people believe that Christmas has become over-commercialized.
Part of the reason for this has to do, I think, with our belief that our religious and spiritual values should always be supreme over our material values. Then there’s the belief that our religious or spiritual values are vulnerable to our greed for material items such as good clothes, cars, computers, food and, of course, drink.
Another factor is perhaps the belief that the majority of the Christmas presents given in the Nineteenth century were made by hand. In comparison with the gifts we give today, they represented a higher degree of personal awareness, sharing and appreciation. Homemade gifts such as scarves, socks, sweaters, handmade jewelry, and ceramic ware have a special value because their design and construction represent personal knowledge of the recipient on the part of the giver. On the other hand, the scarves, socks, sweaters and manufactured jewelry which are purchased -- beautiful, comfortable and valuable as they may be -- often take second place to the personally designed gift.
Finally, there does exist the ugly head of peer pressure—-the expectation that at Christmastime we must participate in gift giving. Hence, we often put pressure on ourselves to give. To the degree that we feel compelled -- rather than free -- to give, Christmas becomes a personal tyranny. The belief that some entity outside our comfort or control has a hold on us enables us to believe that we are the victims rather than the masters of Christmas. Since the goal of commerce is profit making, over-commercialization is a powerful charge against the way we in America celebrate Christmas.
At the bottom of it all, however, lies the real problem: you and me! Anxious as we all are to demonstrate our love and to receive love from others, we worry about our adequacy and look for scapegoats when we feel inadequate.
So, the question is: What do we do about the over-commercialization of Christmas? The solution is simple: ignore it! It doesn’t exist! Love others as intensely and as genuinely as you can the year ‘round and what you can do at Christmas will adequately reflect the best of who you are!
You’ve got 51 weeks to get over your concern about the over-commercialization of Christmas.
READY! GET SET! GO!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)