OPINION: EASIER THAN THOUGHT, BUT ONLY MARGINALLY IMPORTANT

By Edwin Cooney

Strange as it may seem to those readers who’ve known me over the years, I’m often urged by some readers to be more definite in many of these writings as to what my opinion is on a topic that I’ve just used several hundred words to describe and analyze.

Throughout my life, I’ve often been seen as dogmatic, argumentative and, most certainly, opinionated.  Back in my “salad days,” I used to grant that my opponents were entitled to their own “stupid” opinions -- mine, of course, always being well thought out and right!  For my own good and for everyone else's peace, age has definitely mellowed me.

I’d be surprised if many of you have much doubt as to which political party or presidential candidate I support, or how I feel about capital punishment.  However, my elderly wisdom has taught me that the ultimate value to others of what I think or feel about any topic I write on is dependant on my capacity to rationally present and support it.

Subsequently, last Monday when I asked the question "does war have real merit if Congress declares it," I saw it as my task to provide information on the War of 1812 and its outcome, leaving it to you to decide the merit and wisdom of Congress’s action in its declaration.

One reader asserted, in reply to last week’s column, that because the Constitution requires Congress to declare war, it’s unlawful to declare war any other way.  That particular reader appears to believe that the law, in most if not all cases, must prevail.  Of course, whether or not I agree with that point of view -- and I don’t entirely buy it -- that view has a healthy dose of merit behind it.  Still, there are other factors that our “Founding Fathers” were incapable of taking into account when making that constitutional requirement.  For all their wisdom and foresight, eighteenth century wise men could not have been expected to comprehend and take into account the perils of twentieth and twenty-first century warfare.

My opinion matters to my friends and sometimes even to my lads, but its merit depends on the listener's or reader's evaluation of its wisdom or applicability.

Okay, here I go out on a nice, flimsy limb, opinion-waving from aloft.  Since I was very young, I’ve always been taught that I’m a sinner, that Christ gave His life to save me from sin.  Lately, however, I’ve come to a new conclusion.  I no longer believe in sin.  I believe that Christ lived to energize you and me to serve others with love and tolerance.  I no longer believe that Christ was born to die.  Now, that opinion won’t and shouldn’t resonate with you if you apply your spiritual principles according to scripture.  Still, I’ve just offered you that opinion.  If my opinion dovetails with your own, the chances are that you might not only find agreement or comfort in it, but also perhaps some wisdom.  If you see my opinion as being defiant of scripture you may well be offended by it.  If you’re an atheist or an agnostic, it’s likely you’ll find that opinion irrelevant.  Furthermore, that opinion probably hasn’t done much more than increase your knowledge of how my mind works.

It’s also my opinion that President Barack Obama ought to be re-elected in November.  Now, I could do a nice comparative analysis of Barack Obama’s first term record in comparison with the first term records of other presidents who have been re-elected and make a pretty good case for my position.  However, if you have a solid ideological mindset that’s different from mine, you can make a case for the opposition.  As for facts, compelling as they are, facts depend on circumstances and context and are vulnerable to other facts that have not been presented -- or selective logic.

It’s my opinion that one of the reasons political discourse in America has deteriorated in recent years is because Republicans, Conservatives, Democrats and Liberals see most differences as moral rather than as merely practical or politically strategic in nature.  Once again, too often opinion invariably stifles rather than stimulates thought. 

Even more, opinion by itself only reinforces those already convinced.  Thoughtful analysis and presentation is usually a more, if imperfect, path to a new mindset, especially when it takes into consideration elements of its counter-argument.  Of course, the greatest challenge to someone whose task is to persuade you or me is our embedded convictions.  I’ve always liked the observation that “truth may set you free, but first it’ll make you mad.”

Whoops, I almost forgot I didn’t offer an opinion in last week’s column.  So, here it is: the War of 1812, although dutifully declared by Congress, wasn’t any more necessary than almost any other war.   Even more tragic, those necessary wars were invariably the ultimate price of previously unnecessary wars -- declared or undeclared.

Here’s another opinion for you.  Stop by and see me and I’ll buy you a drink or even lunch.  Either will probably be more valuable to you than any opinion I might offer!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

DOES WAR HAVE REAL MERIT IF CONGRESS DECLARES IT?

By Edwin Cooney

It has become quite fashionable these days for political and social pundits to suggest that war would be more legitimate if it were still declared by Congress rather than advanced and conducted by our presidents.  Since today marks the two hundredth anniversary of the first of five historic declarations of war by Congress, now might be a good time to reevaluate the necessity and the legitimacy of the War of 1812 -- its very first war-making venture.

On Thursday, June 18^th, 1812, Congress, at the request of James Madison, responded affirmatively to the president’s request for a declaration of war against Great Britain.  The war crisis had long been brewing, extending back to the close of the Revolutionary War and the 1783 Treaty of Paris which forced Great Britain to recognize American independence.  Even after 1783 with peace officially in place, the British had followed what was called “Orders in Council.” They would board any American ship, seize any contraband -- especially when Britain was at war -- and impress into the Royal Navy any former British seaman or sailor who might have once served His Majesty’s Government.  Neither President Washington’s celebrated 1795 Jay Treaty nor President Jefferson’s 1807 trade embargo against both Britain and France alleviated this American irritant.

This ongoing insult to American sovereignty was further exacerbated by British exploitation of the increasing warlike activity of American Indians in the Northwest Territory. Additionally, men such as Kentucky’s Henry Clay and South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun were anxious to add Canada to America’s domain.

Two lesser known factors concerned the personages of two rather important men of that time.  James ("little Jemmy”) Madison, a giant of an intellect whom Washington Irving once described as a “withered little apple-John” of a man, had a lifelong fear of Indians.  Born in 1751, he had listened as a child to the bloodcurdling cries of Indians in the mountain forest near his Montpelier, Virginia plantation home.  The French stirred up that generation of Indians against English settlers and thereafter little Jemmy was frightened, believing in his soul that Indians were little more than savages.

The second prominent personage affected by events was British Prime Minister Spencer Perceval. Many insist he wanted to avoid war with America over the impressments issue, not so much for the sake of peace, but rather to cut down on the cost of war.  After all, Britain was then at war with Napoleon Bonaparte and didn’t need a war with its former colonies.  Hence, it has been said that Perceval was ready to alleviate one of America’s major irritants.  Then came Monday, May 11^th, 1812 and Spencer Perceval became the only British Prime Minister to be assassinated.  Perceval was shot to death in the lobby of the House of Commons by Liverpool businessman John Bellingham who had a date with the hangman eight days later.  Thus the process for repealing the Orders in Council was delayed.  Not until after Congress had declared war in the House of Representatives by a vote of 79 to 49 and in the United States Senate by a vote of 19 to 13 did news of the repeal of impressments reach Washington.

From the very outset, the war was pretty much a disaster.  Military victories, though occasionally spectacular, were few and far between.  General William Hull who led an invasion into Canada in August of 1812 became fearful that he might be attacked by Indians and cut off from his base in Detroit.  So Hull retreated to Detroit and subsequently surrendered the city to the British without firing a shot.  Court-martialed and sentenced to death, Hull was pardoned by President Madison due to his past service during the revolution.  In April of 1813, Major General Henry Dearborn invaded York, Ontario (renamed Toronto in 1834), burned and sacked the city, but did not hold it.  Only Oliver Hazard Perry’s naval victory and other gallant naval triumphs over the British on Lake Erie counted for much.  In October 1813, William Henry Harrison -- who would become our ninth president for one month in 1841 -- attacked the forces of the Shawnee Indians, killing their great chief Tecumseh at the Battle of the Thames near Windsor, Ontario Canada.

In August of 1814, largely in reprisal for our attack on York, the British invaded Washington and burned both the president’s mansion and the capital before returning to their ships in Chesapeake Bay.  Additionally, there was the December 1814 Hartford Convention, an abortive threat by New England Federalists to secede from the Union due to economic recession brought on by the war.

On Christmas Eve 1814, America and Britain, thoroughly tired of the war, settled everything by signing the Treaty of Ghent in Belgium status quo ante bellum: each side retaining prewar territory.  No mention of the impressments issue was made in the settlement but, with Napoleon defeated, the British were through with it all.  Of the 286,730 Americans who served in the war, 2,260 were dead and 4,505 were wounded.

Two weeks after the Treaty of Ghent was signed, "Old Hickory" (Andrew Jackson) overwhelmingly defended New Orleans against a British invasion.  British casualties were over 2,000 while American casualties were merely 21.

So were all of the political division, property damage and human destruction worthwhile?  Some might dare assert that they must have been, because, after all, Congress had declared it so!

Some, however, might observe that war is too important a matter to leave up to Congress!  Hmmm! What say you?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

MEETING LITTLE JOHNNY

By Edwin Cooney

We’ve all heard of him countless times, mostly in school room jokes, but occasionally in jokes about parenting.  Johnny’s the kid in the back of the room who’s smart: his wisecracking and even occasional off color remarks are loved by almost everyone from you to your Uncle Dudley!

Surprisingly, I met him the other day and was about to interview him for you when he started interviewing me.

“Hey, Mack,” he said, “I understand you write columns with the idea of telling people what they ought to know about history.  So how much do you really know about it?”

“Well,” I began to respond, but little Johnny was, as usual, not in the mood to give any quarter.

“What do you mean "well"? Either you’re some kind of historian or you’re not! Okay, who was the first President of the United States?” he challenged me, sticking the end of a long red liquorice stick into his mouth.

“George Washington, of course,” I snapped in stern school master fashion.

“Wrong!” little Johnny shot back, “It was John Hanson, President of the Continental Congress at the time Lord Cornwallis surrendered to George Washington and the French Navy at Yorktown on Friday, October 19^th, 1781.  Hanson, who signed the State of Maryland’s acceptance of the Articles of Confederation in 1781, was immediately elected President of the Continental Congress.  His formal title was “President of the United States in Congress Assembled.” George Washington, in response to President Hanson’s letter of congratulations, addressed his letter of response to “John Hanson, President of the United States.” How come you didn’t know that, Mack? Haven’t you ever read “The People’s Almanac” by David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace?” he asked.

“Well,” I began.

“Is that all you can say: well?”

Finally, as Johnny took time to chew on his liquorice stick I got a few words in.

“Of course I’ve heard and read the story of John Hanson, but the idea that he was in fact the first President of the United States is misleading regardless of his official title.  He was merely first among equals in the Continental Congress as he had no executive powers.  His duties were largely ceremonial although he was empowered to sign documents and letters as author Gregory Stiverson pointed out in the American National Biography."

“Yah, I know, and that’s the trouble with adults.  They always want things clean and simple.  More than one answer to almost any question often causes them to lose faith in the answers to all questions.  That’s why I have such problems with parents and teachers.  Parents, teachers, preachers and leaders spend their entire lives trying to convince themselves that most things are either right or wrong.  The fact is that everything is right and everything is wrong depending strictly on the question. We kids naturally understand that and resist the pressure adults put on us to be right about things for as long as we can.”

“Okay,” I said, “but isn’t it right to take direction from one’s parents, teachers, preachers and leaders?”

“Usually, maybe,” said Johnny as he swallowed the last of his candy and reached behind him to pick up his baseball bat.  “A better question is “isn’t it wise to take direction from adults who, after all, have lived in this world longer than all kids -- but me, of course!”

“That’s one of the things I wanted to ask you about in the interview I’ve been hoping to do for my column.  How long have you been a kid  -- and when do you expect to grow up?"

“Look, Mack, for all you think you know, you’re a helluva nice guy, but I don’t answer questions like that.  My Uncle Peter, who comes from the same place I do, taught me that the worst thing you can ever do is think you’re grown up.  That’s what happened to Captain Hook.  He grew up and got greedy and Uncle Peter had to feed him to the crocodile."

With one tap of his baseball bat on a tree branch a large red apple came down and he deftly caught it before it hit the ground.  Then he said, “Sorry Mack, recess is over. I’ve got to get back to class before teacher thinks she knows it all!”

Then, he was gone and I was left to ruminate over whether John Hanson ought to really and truly be considered our first president.

Suddenly, I realized where Johnny had gone.  He must be attending that little red schoolhouse just over the hill.  Soon I was peeking through the window of Johnny’s classroom just as the teacher was calling on him -- and I couldn’t believe my ears.

“Who was the first President of the United States?" The teacher asked as little Johnny’s hand shot straight up and his response was sharp and true.

“Since he was sworn in as Vice President before George Washington ever got to New York City, the answer has to be John Adams."

As always, the little guy’s answer flew from his lips on the wings of Johnny’s truth with the result that forced you, the listener,  to wonder.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

ROMNEY’S GOLDEN OASIS!

By Edwin Cooney

With his victory last Tuesday in the Texas GOP primary, it’s all but official that Willard Mitt Romney possesses the Republican presidential nomination.  As for his chances of winning the White House, dyed in the wool Republicans and Democrats will naturally differ in their assessments.  Incumbent presidents are traditionally declared failures by the opposition party almost from the very instant they lower their right hand after taking the presidential oath.  Barack Obama -- black, liberal, and suspected by many of being foreign born -- has been especially vulnerable to such speculation.  Many people have declared that President Obama will be a "one term president” every day of the 1,133 days that have passed between Inauguration Day 2009 and June 4^th, 2012.

So, what does history appear to tell us about Mitt Romney’s chances of defeating President Obama's bid for re-election?  The answer is that history’s signals are mixed.  Only fifteen of the 42 men who served as president before President Obama have been twice nominated and elected.  They are: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and G. W. Bush.

Four presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, were elected to “full presidential terms” after having served as Vice President and subsequently succeeding to the presidency upon the deaths of Presidents McKinley, Harding, Franklin Roosevelt and Kennedy.  Grover Cleveland was defeated in his 1888 bid for a second term, but came back four years later to defeat President Benjamin Harrison, who had defeated Cleveland while losing the popular vote in 1888.  Gerald Ford, who was not elected but was appointed vice president, lost his 1976 presidential election bid.

Thus, twenty-two presidents’ golden opportunity to serve the American people lasted only one full term or even less.

Whatever anti-Republican partisans may say about him, Romney -- a capable administrator and business executive -- is adequately qualified by most measurements to serve as president.  Like the Adams, Roosevelts, Kennedys and Bushes, Mitt Romney comes from a political family.  His father, after a successful career in the auto industry and as President of American Motors, was thrice elected Governor of Michigan before being appointed and serving as President Richard M. Nixon’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from 1969 to 1973.  In 1970, Mitt’s mother, Lenore (La Fount) Romney was the unsuccessful GOP U.S. Senatorial candidate in Michigan.

President Obama, like the ten major party presidential incumbents nominated and subsequently defeated before 2012 (John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush) lugs heavy political baggage into his re-election campaign.  (I exempted Theodore Roosevelt from this list because he was a third party nominee when he was defeated in 1912 rather than a major party candidate and he also was not an incumbent president.)

John Adams’ “cross” was the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 that threatened to have the president’s critics imprisoned during the emergency of a possible war with France.  John Quincy Adams’ baggage was the seeming corruption of his election over the popular war hero Andrew Jackson in the House of Representatives on February 17^th, 1825.  Martin Van Buren’s unwieldy load was the Depression of 1837.  Grover Cleveland was plagued by the unpopularity of his vetoes of Civil War veteran’s benefits.  Benjamin Harrison was dragged down by the 1890-91 recession.  William Howard Taft was sabotaged from within the Republican Party by Theodore Roosevelt.  Herbert Hoover was overwhelmed by the 1929 stock market crash and subsequent economic depression.  Gerald Ford committed political suicide when he pardoned former President Richard Nixon on Sunday, September 8^th, 1974.  Jimmy Carter was victimized by inflation, high interest rates and the Iranian hostage crisis.  George H. W. Bush was felled by the third party candidacy of businessman H [Henry] Ross Perot and a sluggish economy. 

President Obama carries as many as three pieces of heavy political baggage into the 2012 campaign: his perceived failure to mold prosperity out of the mess he inherited from the severe 2008 recession, the dubious effect of the healthcare program he signed into law, and the perception that he holds economic and social views outside the American political mainstream.

Thus Mitt Romney reaches a political oasis after nearly a year’s journey across the searing political wasteland.  During the next two months he may privately gloat over the political corpses of Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Paul, Bachmann, Huntsman and Cain.  What will really matter are the decisions he makes in anticipation of the daunting arctic political Iditarod which he’ll be contesting against President Obama just ahead of the cold November winds.

For the next sixty days, he may bask amidst GOP congratulations, endorsements and fundraising banquets.  How he assesses his presidential opponent, the person he chooses to put forth to be his running mate, and how effectively he masters the willful Tea Party element in the Republican Party will be crucial to either his success or his ultimate political undoing.

Most of all, whether he becomes president or, like John McCain before him, becomes President Barack Obama’s political trophy, is ultimately not up to him.  He may plan, spend, perform and strategize, but you and I will decide!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

FOR OR AGAINST—DOES IT MATTER?

By Edwin Cooney

“I voted against Obama in 2008 and will vote against him again in 2012.”  This emphatic statement sent me recently sums up the passion of millions of American voters.  The question I’m putting to you this week is: does this passion matter?  The answer to that question depends on what effect our political passions have on today’s trends in America’s capacity for liberty and tolerance.

At the close of his public service, George Washington warned us against the establishment of political parties which he insisted would distract the "public councils" (perhaps he meant Congress) and enfeeble the "public administration" (the presidency, the function of which he carefully nurtured).  President Washington further asserted that parties would agitate the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindling the animosities of one against the other thus opening the door to foreign influence and corruption and subjecting us to the policies and will of other nations.

It seems to me that Washington’s wisdom and foresight is borne out today by those who depend on prefabricated or canned Liberal and Conservative doctrines rather than on a dispassionate examination of history and current circumstances for the basis of their political decisions.

In the mid-1960s, when I was forming my first set of political “principles,” my Conservatism was constructed on my obsession to rid the land of Lyndon Baines Johnson and Hubert Horatio Humphrey.  Hubert, as I saw it, not only talked too much, too loudly and too squeakily, but was also permanently associated with the socialist if not communist “anti-American” labor movement.  Lyndon Baines Johnson, I convinced myself, was not only a hopelessly Liberal and power hungry politician but (I insisted) was the likely murderer of John F. Kennedy.  After all, I asked myself back then, wasn’t LBJ all-powerful in Texas? Wasn’t he likely very resentful and jealous of JFK about everything from his wealth to his office? Hadn’t the crime occurred in LBJ’s Texas fiefdom? Hadn’t LBJ directly benefited from JFK’s murder?  All of these circumstantial attitudes and situations convicted President Johnson in my mind if nowhere else.

Political hatred is far from new in politics.  Certainly the deeds of John Wilkes Booth (Abraham Lincoln), Charles J. Guiteau (James A. Garfield), Leon F. Czolgosz (William McKinley) and Lee Harvey Oswald (John F. Kennedy) attest to that.  However, in recent years, there has been a very special and virulent form of morality-driven vitriol that has been growing within us.

This modern form of political vitriol probably began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt as its target. Conservatives considered him the “root of all evil” and more.  That vitriol was surely strengthened by FDR’s willingness to not only note but even take glory in it.  In his famous acceptance speech in Philadelphia for the Democratic Party nomination for his second term, FDR labeled old guard Conservatives “economic royalists.”  In an address at Madison Square Garden on Saturday, October 31^st, 1936, he asserted "we know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred."

Whether FDR returned that hatred in full measure is unlikely because, after all, he was of the same social standing as most of his bitterest enemies.  Nevertheless, whether good naturedly or not, FDR certainly gave the institutionalization of political hatred a cheerful boost!

Since the Watergate era, the mid-1970s, ideological hatred has been made more potent by the intensification (or if you prefer, the "Nixonization") of personal hatred toward all political opponents, but especially against presidential candidates.  This intensity has grown geometrically, it seems, rather than mathematically.  This vitriol is far from healthy to our “body politic.”

If you’re a Carter critic, a Reagan ripper, a Bush basher, a Clinton castigator or an anti-Obama obsessionist, you are guilty of a serious political crime. 

The truth is that Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Joe Biden and, yes, Barack Obama are people of deserved respectability and of substantial achievement.  Poisoning the wellspring of liberty which is our trust in the person the majority of voters send to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue may be as American as cherry pie, but it is more destructive than Benedict Arnold, the Rosenbergs and John Lindh could have ever hoped to be.

To be for something or someone is healthy because it’s affirmative.  To be against something or someone ought to merely be the unavoidable side of choice.  Today, however, too many of us glory in what we’re against.  The moral degradation of the political opposition as a legitimate political alternative is both mean and reckless because it asserts that differences of opinion are unpatriotic and immoral.  As I see it, that’s one of the sheer paths to tyranny!

Freedom isn’t about your way or my way, freedom is about the considered possible application of many ways!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

A LETTER TO OUR LEADER

By Edwin Cooney

Dear President Obama,

Since you’re a politician running for re-election this year and I’m a voter whose opinions I’m told are as sacred if not as important as yours, I thought you might be interested in my reaction to your latest foreign policy venture.

Not that it’s been easy, but I’ve been with you from the beginning.  I voted for you twice in 2008: once during the primary when the then  “shrewish” Hillary Clinton was going around the country crying  “shame on you, Barack Obama!” and again in November when “Big Bad John” McCain and ”sidekick” Sara Palin were attempting to deny you and “jovial Joe” Biden the political victory you so richly deserved.  Since November 2008, Mrs. Clinton has been transformed into a worthy and respected Secretary of State,  Joe Biden has served as your invaluable assistant,  Senator McCain has become a mere critic and Ms. Palin has permanently gone moose- (or is it Russian-) hunting from her helicopter in Alaska. 

Since January 20^th, 2009, I’ve had your back whether seated in an armchair or atop a bar stool at my favorite watering hole.  I’ve battled those unrealistic Liberals who’ve criticized you for not getting behind single payer healthcare.  I’ve wrestled with those nasty Conservatives as they’ve labeled you a socialist, denied your Christianity and natural citizenship and called you a liar during your address to Congress in the summer of 2009.  (I can’t even begin to imagine the intensity of Conservative outrage had Barney Frank shouted at President Reagan in that way when he was addressing Congress!) However, I’m writing to you because, as much as I’m still with you, you make me nervous sometimes.

Last week, from Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan, you used the anniversary of your execution of Osama Bin Laden to announce a new phase in our relationship with Afghanistan.

The more I ponder your plan, Mr. President, the better I like it.  Its five components are simple and verifiable enough.  They are:

the steady and irreversible “Afghanization” of the struggle within Afghanistan against al-Qaeda;

the increase in and strengthening of the Afghanian security forces combating al-Qaeda;

our steady withdrawal from Afghanistan as we supply their security forces with the necessary equipment to combat counter-terrorism and strengthen democratic institutions within their borders;

a political settlement with the Taliban, the same organization President Reagan supported against the Soviets back in the 1980s, providing the Taliban permanently breaks with al-Qaeda;

and, finally, arranging with our NATO allies to provide ongoing military and economic support to an independent Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.

As I say, all of these things sound logical, doable, and even verifiable.  What nags at my Liberal or -- if you prefer -- Progressive conscience is the “reactionary” tone of too many of your recent statements on matters of foreign policy.

I confess that I’m quite comfortable with the absence of Osama Bin Laden and I’m equally comfortable with the jealousy voiced by Conservatives because you, rather than President George W. Bush, eliminated Osama Bin Laden.  (I know they’d appreciate it very much Mr. President if you didn’t mention your removal of the Bin Laden threat during the upcoming campaign!)

Having said all that, Mr. President, you make me less than comfortable every time you brag about your elimination of Bin Laden.  After all, don’t most Progressives (or Liberals, if you prefer) believe that we should regret killing of any kind, necessary as it may be, rather than celebrated?  Every time you gloat over your destruction of Osama Bin Laden, I long for the good old days when Lyndon B. Johnson slew his enemies “…with a heavy heart!”

Another thing you have a tendency to do lately, Mr. President, is to get too snuggly with the military.  According to our Conservative cousins, the rank and file of the military (patriotic as they are) are little more than contemptuous of you!  Hence, as you snuggle, they supposedly sneer.

Finally, like every president since Ronald Reagan, you close most of your speeches by asking God to bless America.  As long as you’re seeking God’s blessing, why not be happy with God’s blessings on all humankind!

Of course, I’m not and never will be President of the United States.  Thus I can only view the national and international political, socio/economic scene from the perspective of your lofty perch.  Still, I am a taxpayer and the Tea Party assures me that, as such, I’m the absolute guardian of all that’s wise and even that which may still be holy in America.

Yes, indeed, Mr. President, sometimes you make me nervous because I’m invariably forced, residing in this free society as I do, to come to grips with a reality that’s more scary than anything you have ever done. 

That reality is the likelihood that someone in this broad land of ours has a better sense than I do of what really matters

Oh! One more thing, Mr. President.  Is it true that Secretary of State Clinton calls you every morning at 3?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

IN SEARCH OF "NICE!"

By Edwin Cooney

As I was listening to the Yankees/Royals broadcast the other night, I learned that Yankee relief pitcher Mariano Rivera had injured the anterior cruciate ligament in his right knee and consequently will be out for the season.  In addition to that, he is 42 years old so this injury might well have a detrimental effect on his career.  Not only that, Mariano’s fate is likely to have a negative effect on the fate of the 2012 New York Yankees.  Not only that, Mariano, in addition to being a splendid athlete, is a genuine role model for other players and for kids who may one day become professional baseball players.  Not only that, Mariano, a native of Panama, (remember, the country we stole land from -- fair and square -- on which we built “our” Panama canal!) is a God-fearing family man.  Above all that, he’s a hell-of-a-nice guy.  (Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter is possibly even a nicer guy!)

That’s what I need you to help me with!  What makes people nice?  Can the “nice” among us have a serious flaw or two?  For example, might someone who’s in prison convicted of a felony of which they’re really guilty still be a nice guy or gal?  How many “nice” people do you know?  What about them makes them nice?  Are they really nice or perhaps only nice to you?

There are elements of "nice" that are pretty obvious.  Someone who is thoughtful and generally pleasant toward others most of the time possesses a strong element of niceness.  Someone who shares or is in other ways generous to most people is someone who might deserve the label “nice”.  In case you think I’ve run out of legitimate wonderments about “nice,” here are a few questions you might help me think about (if you yourself are really “nice”):

What percentage of the time does one have to behave “nicely” in order to rate as being nice?

Can somebody really be a “nice” person without others realizing it? In other words, can someone be “nice” in a vacuum?

Is “niceness” a learned phenomenon or is it a part of one’s nature?

Has Great Britain had any “nice” kings or queens?

Are people of the clergy naturally or automatically “nice”?

Are there “nice” politicians?

Does our Internal Revenue Service employ any “nice” people?

Have we had any “nice” presidents?

Was Leo (the Lip) Durocher right when he asserted that “nice” guys finish last?

Finally--get ready for this one!—was Jesus “nice?”

I know a few people I’d call nice and I know a lot of people who I not only love but also admire who I wouldn’t even consider as candidates for the label “nice.”  Well, maybe they’re candidates, but only that!

I have a special friend I’ll call JJ here.  (Those are not all of her initials). She’s “nice,” in my opinion, because she’s constantly sunny in disposition as well as being thoughtful of others.  No matter what subject you’re discussing with her, she’ll compel you to give the other person the benefit of the doubt.  I emphatically deny that I consider her "nice" just because she makes delicious Christmas cookies -- which she indeed does!

I know a gentleman who was once my pastor who I consider a genuinely “nice” person who is a cut above most people in awareness and consideration of others.

As for my best friend, to me and to many, many others, she’s splendid in so many ways, but “nice?" -- I can’t really say for certain.  Perhaps I’m simply too sentimentally close to her to make a judgment.

As for my lads, they’ve both grown “nicer” with maturity.  However, like their old man, being labeled “nice” is a goal yet to be realized.

As for myself, I’m not even close to "nice". I do possess some “golden virtues,” but I’m too opinionated, self-centered, egotistical, and confrontational to be a “nice guy”.

There are those among us who (believe it or not) don’t much like “nice” people.  I think that’s because “nice” people are pretty exacting role models to follow.  It may well be that those who don’t much like the “nice” people in the world struggle with a less than positive self-image.

Ah! Perhaps I’ve just run into a vital element of niceness!  Perhaps a really “nice” person must have a really positive self image!  Hmmm!

The late great comedian George Carlin, during a comic routine, labeled “nice” as not only boring but “flabby” as a way of describing someone’s day or personality.  Yet to be described as a “nice” person is a little like being treated to a delicious dessert -- or like being kissed on the cheek by someone who’s lingering kisses might indeed be available in the near future.

From all I’ve read, I can name five “nice” presidents—-Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, William Howard Taft, Warren Harding and Jerry Ford.  (Damn! All Republicans!}  Hence, a president can legitimately be categorized as "great" without also being a “nice” guy.

To be “nice” hardly calls for perfection, but it requires aspects of behavior and character that are both magnificent and immeasurable.

Hmmm! I wonder what they are!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY