WOW, WHAT A DEMAND!

By Edwin Cooney

I must repeat myself. Wow, what a demand! George Washington and John Adams never got over it, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison never got over it either. The “it” acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney wants you and me to "get over" is abhorrence of the practice of using foreign governments to do any president's domestic political dirty work! Wow, what an expectation!

One of the aspects of governing which conservatives are constantly urging liberals to respect is political/socio tradition. One of conservatives' most sacred traditions is separation from entanglements with other countries. Of course, post World War II conservatives recognize the need for alliances such as NATO, SEATO, The Organization of American States and reluctantly, much of the time, The United Nations. However, agreements and understandings between nations have had to do with policy — not politics. President Trump could have a "quid pro quo" with a foreign nation having to do with political alliances and international missions, but a quid pro quo encompassing domestic politics is beyond the political pale! You can be sure that had President Barack Obama asked a western European country or, even worse, a friendly African nation such as Kenya to do him a domestic political favor, the GOP House with its Freedom Caucus and its Federalist Society would have had the president's advisors appear before the House Judiciary Committee before the president could have texted Elijah Cummings to "save my tail.”   

Even more significant and revealing is what Chief Mulvaney's admonition to "get over it" implies. That implication is: "After all, we've used political quid pro quos before and we'll have to do it again and again!” If political quid pro quos are something we ought to "get over," there must be a precedent here somewhere. Might Mr. Mulvaney be revealing that there was really and truly something going on between the Trumps and the Russians during the 2016 campaign? (I'm just asking!)

There is a legitimate aspect to Mr. Mulvaney's admonition. As we progressives constantly remind our conservative cousins (and may they always be our political cousins!), as times change so do circumstances. The capacity of both world “do-gooders" and world "troublemakers" to make their marks is much, much greater than it was in 1807 when Thomas Jefferson, much to his reluctance, issued his embargo against both Britain and France. Many vital decisions, both tactical and strategic, must be made within a dangerously short period of time. The days when Congress had sufficient time to debate and deliberate are long past.

Here's another 21st Century circumstance the significance of which is hard to read. When did we become such pals with the Russians? I can remember days when my conservative friends would chide me for being so "buddy buddy" with Mikhail Gorbachev. Today's Republican Party under President Trump appears to be more comfortable with a former member of the Soviet KGB (the Soviet Committee for State Security) than with the director of either the FBI or the CIA. Is Mr. Putin's dislike for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton more significant than his Soviet past or his corrupt and suspiciously murderous present? Beyond that, I'm curious as to why Mr. Putin is tolerant of President Trump's coziness with the new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Of course, no one in their right mind would favor the return of the "cold war," but these changing political motives are invariably hard to swallow!

Millions of Americans are too busy working, raising children, talking and texting on their smartphones, taking that vital fifteen minutes to purchase Geico, eating and watching sports on tv to take much notice of changing international alliances, but it seems to this observer that the leadership of the GOP has some explaining and even educating to do regarding their current tolerance of both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky!

Yes indeed, there may be a lot to "get over,” but President Trump's willingness to use foreign agencies to advance his political career is absolutely not one of them!  As I see it, the utilization of foreign governments and agencies to advance any president's personal political goals is clearly an impeachable offense!

Such a practice is not only unpatriotic, it's just plain unneighborly. Just ask the late Mr. Rogers!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

OUR COMMON BOTTOM LINE

By Edwin Cooney

Before stating what I see as our common bottom line, I'll state my case for it. See if you can identify what it is before I assert it!

It all began on Tuesday, June 16th, 2015, the day Donald John Trump officially announced his presidential candidacy. Since that day, America has been subject to a continuous combination of virulent and tantrum-oriented hatred toward one another. The conductor of this socio/psychological state of affairs is obviously Mr. Trump. However, the cause isn't entirely due to Mr. Trump. He has just exploited an element of our nature, but he didn't create it!

Early on the morning of Wednesday, November 9th, 2016, during his acceptance speech and immediately after Wisconsin had given him its ten electoral votes to put him over the top, the new President-Elect uttered a real rarity: praise for Hillary Clinton. He reminded his supporters that Hillary Clinton had given tireless service to her country for which she should be acknowledged. The following day after visiting President Obama at the White House, he asserted that the president was "a good man." Then, suddenly and permanently, Mr. Trump was clean out of compliments or even friendly acknowledgement of all opponents, whether president or pauper.

Since the night of Sunday, March 12th, 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt sat in a small metal wheelchair before a bank of radio microphones to inform and reassure the American people of the necessity for and the workability of the banking holiday, the effect of a president's communication with the people has been of special interest to political scientists, sociologists, and just plain folks. Presidents have traditionally been very careful regarding how often and for how long they should address the public.

Presidents address the people through various forums and during significant events. They are radio and television addresses, usually from the Oval Office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, from the halls or the steps of the Capitol Building, from a celebrated gathering place such as Arlington National Cemetery, West Point or Annapolis, or invariably from "the stump" during a political campaign.

Eighty-six plus years have passed since FDR's first "Fireside Chat” and there have also been some memorable presidential addresses. Each president, from FDR through Barack Obama, has, on numerous occasions, spoken to the American people in different moods and with different purposes in mind. All of these communications from the president to the people have been delivered with the dignity and respect worthy of a free and accomplished people. After all, every communication creates an atmosphere in its wake. However, President Trump, so far, invariably addresses us almost exclusively in anger with an inevitable dose of self-braggadocio. His speeches are designed to turn us against one another. Like the movie patron who cries "fire" in a theater, Mr. Trump invariably sets fires even where the grass is green and unparched. His message is clear. To our president, half of us (if not more) are unworthy of his regard, or respect — let alone affection. Nearly every speech is the same old vitriol! is it any wonder why he may well be impeached?

So wearisome has his constant anger become as well as the atmosphere it creates,  that even to write about him has become downright boring! I'm even bored by my own anger with the president. I was raised to respect our president, even a president from the opposition. Thus, my boredom is accompanied by a sense of sadness and even guilt! 

The fault is hardly exclusively his. The question is, can we afford our own misery? If there's an old America to be revived or a new America to be created, can we afford to be angry as we seek to renew or rebuild?

As I've written on countless occasions, fear is the father of anger and, as I see it, our common bottomline is that virulent gripping, self-destroying fear!  America is afraid! Not only is it afraid of its president, it is afraid of its very self.

If you aren't scared, you may not be quite as patriotic as you think you are!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

BAD BOY, ROVER — YOU'VE ACTUALLY CAUGHT THE BUS!

By Edwin Cooney

Most of us understand the satisfaction a dog would get if it caught a boy on a bike. After all, almost any dog would enjoy chewing on a pant’s leg or a hunk of all American boy flesh, but what would happen if he caught a car or, especially, a bus? Dogs, especially American dogs named Rover, chase cars, trucks and even buses, you know! As I see it, that's exactly what Congressional Democrats caught back on Tuesday, September 24th when they announced that they were mounting an impeachment effort in the wake of President Trump's July 25th call to Vladimir Zelensky, the newly minted president of the Ukraine. It isn't that I think it's unfair to pick on President Trump, it's just that I think the risk of failure is too high. Almost as discouraging is the fact that if President Trump is convicted, President Michael Richard Pence will step onto center stage ready for a new president's political honeymoon — which would likely be uncomfortably close to the election day of 2020.

Then there is the history of presidential impeachment to consider. Impeachment charges were brought up against Presidents Andrew Johnson (March through May of 1868), Richard Nixon (January through August 1974), and William Jefferson Clinton (December 19th, 1998 through February 12th, 1999). Historically, the score is presidents: two, Congress: one. The Congress lost the two impeachments (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) that went to the Senate floor, but won the struggle with Richard Nixon who resigned before the House could vote for a bill of impeachment. Thus, technically, Mr. Nixon was never impeached. True, there were only about ten or eleven senators who would have sustained Mr. Nixon instead of the 34 needed. Still, the twists and turns during impeachment hearings can be quite unpredictable — even "rather shocking" as the British might put it.

In 1868, the Republicans had majorities in both houses, yet they couldn't convict President Andrew Johnson because six Republican senators  saw danger to the structure and workability of the government as being more important than anything that would be gained by removing President Johnson from office.  After all, Johnson would be succeeded by Ulysses S. Grant on Thursday, March 4th, 1869 regardless of what Congress did. The leader of the GOP resisters was William Pitt Fessenden, a highly respected senator from Maine. However, a single senator was refusing to disclose to either side in the debate whether he'd vote guilty or not guilty. The hero who ultimately cast the vote that saved President Johnson's bacon was Senator Edmund G. Ross of Kansas — a man who both politically and personally despised Andrew Johnson. As young  Senator John F. Kennedy dramatically pointed out in his celebrated book "Profiles In Courage," as Ross voted "not guilty" that afternoon of Saturday, May 16th, 1868, he found himself looking down into his political grave. Ross's "not guilty" vote cost him both political supporters and personal friends. He was forever after persona non grata in the GOP. However, in 1885, President Grover Cleveland appointed him, as a Democrat, Governor of the New Mexico territory. He died in New Mexico territory at age 80 on Tuesday, May 7th, 1907.

The shocking or amazing twist in the Clinton impeachment is in retrospect. The charges against "Slick Willie" were obstruction of justice and perjury. The underlying issue, however, was the president's treatment of women which today might well be enough to drive him from office.  Not one of the eight women serving in "the world's most deliberative body" voted against the president. This included Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine as well as Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Barbara Mikulski, and Patty Murray. Interestingly, three GOP gentlemen, John Chafee of Rhode Island, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Thomas Jeffords of Vermont voted Clinton "not guilty" on both obstruction of justice and perjury. Two additional Republicans, Slade Gorton of Washington State and John Warner, voted "not guilty" on perjury. (Note: Edwin E. Cooney of the state of permanent confusion would have convicted "Naughty Billy" on obstruction of justice!)

Thus, several questions:

Would these eight women (only three of whom remain in the Senate) vote "not guilty” for President Trump?

How many senators of both parties could honestly say —  let alone vote for — the proposition that President Trump isn't at least as guilty as Bill Clinton when it comes to the question of the way he treats women?

Third, hasn't one United States Senator (a Democrat from Minnesota named Al Franken) already been forced from public office for a lot less than President Trump's nasties?

What concerns me the most is the possibility that should the president be acquitted in the Senate of charges of unlawfully and unconstitutionally using foreign governments for his advantage in domestic politics, the public may well be successfully manipulated into believing that the president's misbehavior during the upcoming campaign amounts to double jeopardy despite the fact that there exists no double jeopardy in political parlance. (Note: The sometimes uncomfortable truth is that no politician is innocent of much of anything these days.)

Exactly what gang of vipers lives on that bus Rover has just caught is highly uncertain. Therein lies the nature of the impeachment probe as well as the details of the president's deeds or non-deeds. Even more, wouldn't all of America trust the conclusions and judgment of the voting public over those of elected politicians?

"Rover, you bad boy! Get back in your doghouse with your Democratic chewing-bone where you belong!”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

TITLES — ARE THEY SUBSTANTIAL OR ARE THEY MERELY AN ILLUSION?

By Edwin Cooney

I was riding home from bowling last Wednesday night with a good friend of mine, David. We were discussing newly existing circumstances and their significance within our bowling league. The changes have been both significant and severe. In the last year we've lost three of our sighted assistants, one to death, and the other two to resignation. Additionally, three bowlers who were active through the 2017-2018 season have passed away. We now have a new president, vice president (me), and that's it. Our president also serves as our treasurer owning, as she does, a business.  There exists among us seven bowlers a very limited idea of the value that functional structure brings to a group such as ours. Suddenly, David said to me, "I don't worry about titles and offices and such things as that. To you, everything is political!" "Not so much political," I said, "administrative or organizational perhaps, but not necessarily political.”

When I was growing up in the 1950s and 60s, there was a very high degree of emphasis on titles and positions of all sorts. These titles came from the expectations of parents, preachers, and teachers. We learned the significance of generals, captains, sergeants, and privates. Every police department had its chief. The town or city had its mayor, the state had its governor, and the President of the United States was at the head of America the Beautiful.

All of these titles and expectations of responsibility and accountability are inevitably interrelated in order that they ensure the maximum efficiency and effectiveness of our society or what we later learned to call in college "the body politic."

Still, with all of this historic practice of emotional, spiritual, intellectual, economic and socio/political organizational structure at the close of the second decade of the 21st Century, there seems to be less of a grasp of, or  respect for, vitally essential positions within society and even in life itself!

Not all of this is necessarily bad, either. After all, there are a lot of meaningless titles that have little to do with how well an organization functions. Life is always a bit of a weeding and pruning operation.

However, some stations in life are priceless. I'm thrilled every time one of my boys calls me “dad.” Yet I know of children who lovingly call their parents by their first names. The three I'm thinking about love their parents as much as my wife and best friend who wouldn't dream of addressing their parents so informally and familiarly. Within your family, you are inevitably a brother, sister, uncle, aunt or cousin. You're honored when you become a husband or wife, father or mother. Ultimately, there's that thrill of thrills when you become a grandma or grandpa!  

However, having asserted this, there are those among us who resist the possibility of being subject to a certain title. One of these types of people happens to be me.  A very minor reason I didn't go after a doctorate in education is that I couldn’t imagine being addressed as Dr. Cooney. Perhaps that's because way back in my childhood I wanted to be a medical doctor and was rather severely chided for my lack of realism. (The truth is that emotionally, for whatever reason, I still think that the title “Doctor” ought to be strictly applicable to a medical professional.)

Then, there's the historic reality that although there have been many heroic kings, queens, presidents, medical and other "doctors," no one achieves genuine human greatness through their title, whether inherited or earned.

As of this date, I happen to be president of two worthy organizations. One is merely a chapter of a very wide service club. I am the president of the Syracuse Host Lions Club in Syracuse, New York. My colleagues actually call me "King Lion.” (I'm much, much more comfortable being considered “president” than “King Lion.” The idea of any personal link with royalty is just simply beyond my imagination!) I’m also President of the New York State School for the Blind Alumni Association headquartered in Batavia, New York. This is largely a political position because in order to achieve it, I had to lose to formidable opponents three times. I've held this position since Tuesday, July 1st, 2014. In this position, I'm hardly either a dictator or ruler. I'm subtly deferred to because of my respected responsible accountability to the organization as a whole. I possess no grandeur nor should I. Still, I revere the office because of what it means to the membership which reflects the highest and most memorable achievements and principles of our residential school. 

The idea that the lack of respect for titles seems to be growing is disturbing to me for several reasons. First, with titles come expectations of coordinated responsibilities and accountabilities. Second, without these titles of respect and accountability, there is likely to be an era of chaos. Chaos is anarchy and anarchy invites and even encourages everyone for himself and himself alone. It would recall the period of time which existed between the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of our modern era in the mid-seventeenth century which recognized royalty, the church and little else as legitimate. That was the Medieval System throughout European history, one of my eras of study in college.

Try this observation on for size. You and I may be tired and disdainful of titles and privileges, but they are precisely what those who would mold democracy to their own profit cherish the most.

The significance of who we are through what we've achieved and the responsibilities and accountabilities to which we are committed constitute the bulwark of our liberty. It's as simple as that.

Whatever niche of responsibility and accountability you attain in any group in which you are a member, without taking yourself too seriously, do perform it to the hilt for, in the long run, your place and your mission is a vitally important thread in the fiber of your liberty and that of your children. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

"THE ONLY CURE..."

By Edwin Cooney

Ninety-one years have passed since Alfred (Al) Smith, the 1928 Democratic presidential candidate, uttered that immortal phrase: The only cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy!

According to a headline I recently saw in the New York Times, some 145 corporate executives have written the United States Senate that this gun violence crisis is simply unacceptable. They're right, of course, but before recommending a solution to the crisis, let's first examine the NRA/GOP/Trumpian solution. It can be summed up in two words: "MORE GUNS!"

The argument goes four-fold. First, more good people than bad people have guns. Second, limit the rights of good people to own guns and you automatically expand the number of bad people who will get guns. Third, as more good people carry guns, the message will go out loud and clear to the bad that it's becoming too dangerous to their well-being to own guns. Finally, the second amendment guarantees the individual's right to own guns. So, let's deal now with these four arguments.

I agree that there are more good people with guns than bad people with guns, but no assessment of the number of people who have guns has ever been a predictor of who will prevail in a gunfight.

Second, gunfights aren't won by numbers, they're usually won or lost by strategies and tactics. Good people, unlike baddies, aren't generally interested in using their guns in any kind of a battle situation. Hence, their mindsets aren't ordered toward aggressiveness nor battle discipline. Additionally, which group, goodies or baddies, are most likely to possess body armor?  

Third, the idea that "the bad" can receive messages is a nearly absolute myth. The bad among us are only different from the good in their perception of their lot in life. As they see it, their well-being, often their very safety, has already been taken from them. Bad people are usually on a mission to avenge their victimhood whether real or imagined. Their violence is not usually a child's dare. It's a mindset or attitude toward society in general. Too often, the outlaw equals the good guy in his or her willingness to kill in defense of their personhood and liberty.

Finally, there is the debatable applicability of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Here's that amendment in full:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The purpose of this amendment is the assurance that the people will permanently have the right to establish a well regulated militia to protect their liberty. The right to "bear arms" presupposes that guns will always be the most sufficient method available to defend our liberties. The validity of that amendment has been affirmed by the United States Supreme Court going back to 1934. I think it's important to remember three vital factors dating back to the 1790’s when that amendment was passed by Congress and ratified by the states.

First, a gun was more than a weapon during the days of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.  A gun was a vital tool for acquiring food and many of the materials for clothing. Anyone living outside of a city needed a gun for their mere existence. Back in the days of Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone, guns invariably dispatched more animals than they did people. In 2019, the difference between the number of animals and the number of people killed appears to be growing smaller.  Second, the weapons being developed that could threaten our liberties are invariably much beyond the capacity of any gun to stop them. China or Russia can steal your money and your liberty electronically faster than Jesse James, Billy The Kid, or Matt Dillon could ever draw. 

Florida GOP Senator Marco Rubio advocated last Friday in the New York Times for passage of greater background checks and the red flagging of potential gun-toting terrorists. One wonders when Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump will catch up to Senator Rubio. Soon, I hope!

I can't avoid the following question! If the right to form a well-regulated militia is the real issue here, might not the black and Hispanic parents of school children be encouraged to form such a militia to protect the liberties of their school children as long as their targets are the powerful men who support the NRA? Couldn't that legitimately be defined as "a well regulated militia”?

So, back to Al Smith: No! The cure for the ills from gun violence is not more guns.

It's time to widen background checks on those who purchase guns, tax the hell out of ammunition making it even higher than the tax on tobacco, and make it legal for local judges to investigate potential gun-toting terrorists.

It's time to bring an end to this gun violence before the persons and families of NRA lovers become someone's legitimate target in defense of their own liberties and that of their children's!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

SEE THAT GUY? HE'S RUNNING AGAINST HIMSELF! WOW!!!

By Edwin Cooney

Not very often, but occasionally, I wish I were an intimate friend of President Donald Trump. If I could have that man's attention and trust for just an instant or two, I would, as an act of patriotism rather than partisanship, demonstrate to him his political achilles heel.

Since "a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down,” I'd offer the names of three Democratic presidents for his consideration who ultimately tasted the bitter cup of abiding political distrust in the wake of their arrogance toward others.

Although President Thomas Woodrow Wilson was barely re-elected over former Associate Justice Charles Evans Hughes in November 1916, he was a very popular wartime president by late October of 1918. The economy was on a solid wartime footing and the news from Europe was that Germany was about to toss aside Kaiser Wilhelm the Third and surrender to The Allies. Nineteen eighteen was a congressional election year. Late in October, even as the news was getting better, President Wilson put out a plea for the election of Democrats as the only party which could help him win the war. The result was a disaster for President Wilson and his fellow Democrats. In the Senate, Democrats went from a 53 / 42 majority to a 48 / 47 minority. In the House, they slipped from a 216 / 210 minority to a 237 /191 minority. Within a year, Woodrow Wilson went from being a beloved world statesman to a defeated politician. His clearly arrogant moralizing and stubbornness cost him his League of Nations and a huge slice of his reputation in history. Today, rather than being considered a "great president,” he is now merely a "near great president."

Although Franklin Delano Roosevelt's fall wasn't nearly as great as President Wilson's, his failure to consult with either his cabinet or congressional leaders before he announced his decision to "pack" the Supreme Court severely damaged his political prowess until the outbreak of World War II. FDR's November 3rd, 1936 victory over GOP candidate Governor Alfred M. Landon was a massive one, forty-six states to Landon's two (Maine and Vermont). Roosevelt received 27,747,636 popular votes to Landon's 16,679,543.  FDR's  electoral vote was 523 to 8. Roosevelt's move to pack the Supreme Court was, to an arguable degree, reasonable. Like Woodrow Wilson whom FDR served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, FDR's act was both high-handed and arrogant — even though it had some merit. Subsequently, Franklin Roosevelt, great as he was, could not get either the public in general or the Democratic Party in particular to trust him with the absoluteness he surely craved. The party would nominate and elect him twice more, but its love was marred by uncertainty as to his personal integrity.

A few days ago I began reading Tim Alberta's new book “American Carnage: On the Front Lines of the Republican Civil War and the Rise of President Trump.” Within it, I found another president's arrogance. That president was a man named Barack Obama, a president I hold in very high regard. However, within three days of his inaugural, he made a blunder that cost him the ability to lead with a sufficiently high degree of effectiveness. According to Alberta's book, there were two crucial meetings between President Obama and the congressional leadership. The first occurred on Monday, January 5th, 2009 while Obama was President-Elect. When that meeting was over, GOP leaders were impressed with Obama's willingness to take into account GOP proposals on crucial issues. One GOP staffer observed, “if he governs like that, 

we're f—ked." In order to get a grasp on events, they needed to go to war with Obama. On Friday, January 23rd, when GOP House leaders handed the newly minted president the list of their priorities he'd invited them to present, his reaction was originally receptive. However, in the inevitable discussion of those GOP priorities, the president asserted: "You know elections have consequences and I won." That was the gateway Republicans were looking for to get at Obama's appearance of high purpose. For the next year and a half, President Obama had sufficient majorities in Congress to pass measures without Republican help. However, Republicans had an agenda of their own, namely that of purifying their party to appeal to American values over those of a left-wing president with African and perhaps even Islamic values. President Obama's blunder freed the GOP to define itself rather than follow a president it never intended to respect.

As I see it, President Trump's problem isn't conservatism. Conservatism appeals to people's intellectual, social and spiritual values. Most Americans are either drawn to or repelled by the policies and ultimately the person of the President of the United States. "I vote for the man" remains the individual personal proclamation down through the years.

Three years ago, Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by defining her as “a crook” among other things. Mr. Trump's victory apparently was more personal than it was patriotic or political. All of this president's challenges are personal rather than matters of principle or patriotism. Thus, in 2020, if he's to be re-elected, President Trump is going to have to face a formidable opponent plus the democratic presidential nominee. Unlike four years ago, President Trump has a record and an image he’s going to have to overcome. 

Donald Trump, meet your biggest opponent — Donald Trump!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

IT'S A BIRD! IT'S A PLANE! IT'S WONDER WAYNE!

By Edwin Cooney

Yes, indeed! I've got a very dear friend named Wayne. I've known only three Waynes in my life and they're all quite memorable. The first Wayne was the first black kid I ever knew. Wayne Anderson was often quite naughty, not because he was black, just because he was Wayne. I remember when we were in fifth grade anticipating our upcoming travels home from our residential school for Easter vacation. Wayne told the class, "My mama loves to see me come and she loves to see me go!" Wayne Number Two was the son of a Trailways bus driver in Batavia, New York. Wayne Fuller was a great guy and an excellent radio broadcaster. He actually broadcast baseball games of the Batavia Muckdogs of the New York-Penn League for a number of seasons. He also broadcast on WBTA-AM in Batavia. His specialty was oldies from the 1950s through the 1970s. Even while broadcasting, he worked for Trailways as had his dad. When Wayne passed away last year, his friends took him on a Trailways bus to his final resting place next to his mom and dad. 

Yet, there is one Wayne who is special to me and lives in my heart. I call him

“WONDER WAYNE.”

Dr. Wayne Mahood is a retired professor from the State University of New York at Geneseo. He was my professor of Secondary Education in Social Studies. Wayne taught education classes to potential teachers. I met him in late August of 1971 when I visited his office in a building known as "Blake C." I thought I'd introduce myself to all of my potential instructors before entering their classes.

Wayne was just 37 that fall. I liked him right away, primarily because almost from the very instant I sat down in his office he seemed exceedingly open to having a person with total blindness with an ambition to become a classroom teacher in secondary education in his class. From the very outset, he was both inquisitive and interested. Apparently, I made something of an impression on him. Almost immediately after I became one of his students, he made me the subject of an article he wrote for a professional journal. He once read me the article and it was quite flattering without being the least bit pedantic.

Wayne was most helpful to me both professionally and personally. In fact, he holds the distinction of being the only person to actually hire me professionally as a teacher. In the spring of 1975, I co-taught a graduate studies class in non-visual communication with a gentleman who had been my supervising teacher while I was student teaching. Additionally, Wayne recommended me for a high school social studies teaching position in the summer of 1973.

Through numerous luncheon conversations over the years, Wayne has taught me a number of valuable lessons such as how to draw distinctions between dogmatic and objective outlooks. He helped me to understand the significance of the social structure of various groups in society. During our education classes, we learned to take sociograms in order to realize the various levels of communication and socialization taking place in every segment of society.

When he learned that I was writing these columns, Wayne was very interested in becoming a reader. Few weeks have passed over the last fourteen years that he hasn't been available to offer a comment of some kind.

Wayne has an ongoing interest in local as well as in national history. He's written books about the Civil War and about a family member who was a sheriff in Missouri during the 1930s who suffered the indignity of having one of his black prisoners lynched from his jail. His special interest is the history and times of various generations of the Wadsworth family of Western New York.  The Wadsworths were longtime supporters of SUNY Geneseo. In 1960, when Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. resigned as Ambassador to the United Nations to join Richard Nixon as his potential vice president on the GOP national ticket, Jerry Wadsworth was appointed Ambassador to the UN by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Wayne has written several books on the history of that remarkable family which has been involved in public affairs since the 1790s. 

Forty-eight years have passed since I walked into Wayne's office during the week of Monday, August 30th, 1971. That was the week before the fatal Attica prison riots against Governor Nelson Rockefeller's Corrections Commissioner Russell Oswald. That was the fall that a Republican President, Richard Nixon, recommended that we Americans adopt wage and price controls in order to regulate inflation. It was the fall that Nixon prepared for his trip to China and we were all singing "Bye Bye, Miss American Pie."

There are two reasons I'm introducing Wayne to you. First, I would like Wayne to know  what he means to me and how highly I regard him. Second, although I am not related to him, he has nevertheless granted me a substantial legacy. That legacy is, to the extent I utilize it, a balanced outlook on matters public and private that I've tried to apply every time I sit down to write these weekly musings. A balanced outlook doesn't in any way rob one of the right to opinion, even severe or radical opinion on occasion. What it does do is allow one to reach decisions about events largely devoid of political dogmatism or what I call “canned thinking.” The fact of the matter is that Dr. Wayne Mahood, Professor of Education at SUNY Geneseo, showed me —  at one time a very dogmatic Republican — the pathway to both intellectual and even spiritual freedom.

Thanks, Wonder Wayne! Stand tall and proud, for you really and truly are "A LIVING WONDER!"

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY