WHICH WOULD YOU RATHER BE: RIGHT OR INTERESTING?

By Edwin Cooney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

OUR MAN PHIL - A WONDER TO BEHOLD

By Edwin Cooney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE IDEAL PRESIDENT

By Edwin Cooney

Throughout American history, leaders of business and commerce, military leaders, and political party leaders have sought every four years to create a consensus as to who might be the best President of the United States of America! Thus, the immediate and easiest answer to the above question, that it depends on the mood of the strongest and most resourceful decision makers, is null and void as a response to this commentary.

There have been three types of presidential leadership, as I see it. They are consensus builders, ideologues, and commander types.

Consensus builders include Washington (who was elected because he was a successful military commander, but ultimately governed through consensus building), Lincoln, Taft, Eisenhower, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama, and, I'm predicting, President Biden. They generally seek to please a broad section of voters large enough to sustain their leadership. (Remember that Abraham Lincoln was neither an abolitionist nor was he aggressive toward the South. Thus the Emancipation Proclamation was practical rather than ideological.)  Presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Reagan were both a combination of ideologues and consensus builders. (Note: Jefferson campaigned as a strict constitutional constructionist, but he departed from the Constitution when he purchased Louisiana because there is no prevision in the Constitution for the president to purchase territory from a foreign nation except through treaty — which the Louisiana Purchase was not.)

Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, Richard Nixon, Donald Trump and, to some extent, Harry Truman were commander-types. That means they had a plan or idea (or thought they had) from the very outset of their administrations and tried to direct America to their ideal via coercion if necessary, especially in the cases of Jackson, Cleveland, Nixon, and President Trump. As I see it, President Donald J. Trump is the most virulent of the “commander type” of president.

President Trump didn't lose to Joe Biden because he was a conservative or because he sought to protect us from abortionists, illegal immigrants, secular humanists, or even socialists or communists. He lost because from the very outset of his administration, President Trump was clearly more about himself than he was about any particular interest group unless a group's agenda clearly enhanced his personal reputation. Consensus to President Trump was a sign of political and individual weakness! Additionally, long before November 3rd, 2020, it was clear that the president was tone deaf to people’s reaction to what he both said and did, be they Democrats or men and women he'd appointed to his own cabinet and sub-cabinet.

Even more telling was his lack of a sense of what worked and what didn't work for him. From early March 2020, he hovered over the Covid-19 briefings by Dr. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx, continuously modifying their assessments of the severity of the pandemic to suit his own political reputation versus the public welfare. Even his tweets which had considerable effect in 2017, 2018, and well into 2019, lost steam due to their overuse and predictable flavor.

For me, the ideal president is a consensus builder. A consensus builder doesn't go into office without an idea of what he (or someday she) wants to achieve. For all his deliberately established reputation as a conservative, Ronald Reagan was ultimately a consensus builder which is actually part consensus building and partly idealistic leadership. Someone once wrote that President Reagan, like FDR and JFK, mastered "the art of the presidency” more than either their predecessors or their successors. Even those who master the art of the presidency don't escape ridicule. FDR was charged with believing himself to be indispensable in the presidency. It was claimed by some that FDR had "grilled millionaire” everyday for breakfast when, as he asserted during a fireside chat, “I’m a devotee of scrambled eggs!”  (According to her sons James and Elliot, scrambled eggs was the only dish Eleanor Roosevelt knew how to make. It was standard Sunday night cuisine at the White House.) Then there were two delightful criticisms about President Reagan's mastery of the presidency. Remember Colorado Congress Lady Patricia Schroeder's label of President Reagan as the “Teflon President” or the observation by one observer that "if President Reagan drove through a car wash with the top rolled down, Jimmy Carter, even in his absence, would get wet!"

The Smithsonian Institute, the close of "reconstruction" after the Civil War, the Peace Corps, the first nuclear test ban treaty, and the homeland security administration were all created by presidents whose election was questionable. That includes Presidents John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, John Kennedy, and George W Bush.

Yes, indeed! Give me a good-natured consensus builder, preferably with a plan more rational than his or her essential ego, and that's the president for me!

Let every future president's ideas, agenda and authority be subject to the ultimate scrutiny of a well-informed people and hopefully the last four years will have been a necessary but merely temporary nightmare!

Since the days of Lyndon Baines Johnson, I've carried in my pocket a small medallion of the sitting president of the United States whether or not I voted for him. Two of these presidents I've loved. The third one I originally loved, but later felt obligated to abandon in the wake of scandal. Two others I've admired, but with whom I felt politically incompatible. Still another, I voted for twice, but in the end I felt indifferent toward. Although I carried President Trump's medallion throughout his term, I was glad to put it aside last Wednesday noon.

The President of the United States has been for me the symbol of all that's beneficially possible because he or she is in a unique place to ensure the best outcome in national matters foreign or domestic. Observing how they do what they do, for better or worse, is both instructive and even entertaining. No president ought to be worshipped, but to deplore a president must never be a worthy goal intellectually, politically, or spiritually!

In the final analysis, we have an imperfect president occupying an imperfect office leading a free but imperfect people who, for the past 231 years, have only been able to  strive to be "...a more perfect union!"     

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY  

BIDEN'S MOST DAUNTING BUT ESSENTIAL CHALLENGE!

By Edwin Cooney

As Joe Biden takes the presidential oath on Wednesday, January 20th, 2021, he becomes the fourth president to face the monumental challenge of establishing and revitalizing national unity!

Under George Washington's administration, the whole country craved national unity even though the people's hearts, for the most part, remained with their home states. Seventy-two years later, as Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated, the southern part of the nation feared a possible downturn in its economy. Due to the possibility that slavery was vulnerable to abolishment, the South reverted to its original “Doctrine of State Sovereignty" and broke away via military rebellion.

By 1933, people faced and feared social and economic deprivation due largely to the degree of greed on the part of what Franklin Roosevelt called "economic royalists."

In his inaugural address, FDR did three things. First, he pronounced the nation's mood with his proclamation that “the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” He went on to thank God that our crisis was merely a material one. Second, he described in outline form the various measures he'd employ to put people to work and increase the purchasing power of the people's money. Finally, he took personal responsibility for the results of his efforts.

FDR entered the presidency blessed with several advantages. First, he was a pillar in his local religious community which in 1933 was vital for any successful politician. Second, his family was politically well-connected through his fifth cousin Theodore Roosevelt (his wife Anna Eleanor's Uncle Ted.) Third, he was Harvard and Columbia Law School educated with executive experience in Woodrow Wilson's cabinet and as Governor of New York State. Above all, he had an excellent array of personal talents from speech-making, and  salesmanship gifts in addition to his administrative abilities. He possessed an overwhelmingly charming personality and temperament.

Much of what Joe Biden possesses is obscured by the fact that his professional experience has been in the legislative rather than in the administrative branch of government. (Even as an executive when he held the office of Vice President, Joe Biden’s reputation was largely linked to that of his former chief, Barack Obama.) As he begins the most vital part of his life, he comes across, not only to the voter but to the educated commentator and even to some of his peers, as little more than competent. His power of persuasion is more personal than either intellectual or particularly logical. Yet, it's encouraging to realize that he's twice been chosen over the years to chair two vitally important and powerful Senate committees, Judiciary and Foreign Relations. (A lot of senators from both parties would give their eyeteeth to have chaired either committee, let alone both of them!) Like two of his vice presidential predecessors, Harry Truman and Gerry Ford, he’s plain-spoken and his word has always been good even when his judgment may have been questionable.

One more thing must be taken into account as we evaluate him just before he becomes president. For the last two years, President Trump has ridiculed all of his potential opponents, be it “Pocahontas" for Elizabeth Warren or "sleepy Joe" for Biden himself. However, the Trumps have paid special attention to Joe Biden. Obviously, "sleepy Joe" was the potential opponent Mr. Trump feared most! Why do you suppose that was? After all, Joe Biden wasn't nearly as socialistic as Ms. Warren or Senator Bernie Sanders. Yet, President Trump not only ridiculed him, but investigated him and his son Hunter.

Like Franklin Delano Roosevelt eighty-eight years ago, our new president must take and proclaim the nation's mood truthfully and powerfully. As was true in 1933, more than anything else, we're dangerously afraid of each other. (Note: that's "fear itself!") What he needs to convince us is that while the fundamentals of our economic structure are intact, they can only be rebuilt and strengthened as we attack Covid-19. Next, President Biden has to explain why his economic plan, as expensive as it must be, is designed to benefit the most populous part of the nation. He must explain why putting money in people's pockets will enrich the marketing element of the nation. Finally, while what he has to say about the past four years or about the crisis brought on by the January 6th attack on the Capitol may be something he is compelled to address, he must minimize his judgment of the causes and likely outcomes of that disastrous and "dastardly" attack.

If John and Susie Q Citizen are to get any inspiration from our newly minted President Joseph Robinette Biden, they must believe at the close of his historic address that the speech has been for and about them as well as above and beyond mere payback politics.

After all, payback politics is the child of “fear itself!"

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

MAY WE BE ENTERING A CALMER ERA?

By Edwin Cooney

No matter where you live or what social, religious, or political organization you may belong to, its unlikely that you can escape the feeling that we're doomed to endure a degree of emotional, intellectual and spiritual chaos that could result in the destruction of our civil society. However, I’m guessing that it's possible that a calmer society may be just around the corner.

Last Friday, January 8th, 2021, President-elect Joe Biden held a news conference to announce his nominees for Secretary of Labor, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, and for Secretary of Commerce, Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo.

However, what has been particularly encouraging and refreshing about the style and nature of President-elect Biden's communication with the American people is his overall civility. His instructions to incoming Attorney General Merrick Garland that he will not be the president's personal lawyer but the people's lawyer constitutes the highest degree of civil government.

Just as encouraging last Friday was his insistence that his priority wasn't the political destruction of President Trump and his supporters, but the construction of his administration and its plans for combating Covid-19 as well as the restoration of efforts to combat climate change along with the improvement of the economy for the benefit of victims of the pandemic.

When asked his reaction to President Trump's declaration that he would not be attending the upcoming Biden inauguration, the President-elect remarked that Mr. Trump's decision was one thing on which he and the president agreed. As for Vice President Mike Pence, Mr. Biden said that the vice president would be welcome. Just as gratifying to this observer was Joe Biden's assertion that the nation needs a Republican opposition that's both principled and strong.

As vital as politics is in a free society, in order to be effective, political competition must be regulated by a free and responsible constituency. Such regulation can never be the government's business as much as it must be the people's business. Throughout the 1930s, FDR used to insist that: "The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over its government.”

Over the years, I've heard and read what a number of commentators believe to be at the root of our present cultural divisions. Some insist that it all began with our national conflict over the war in Vietnam. Others say the civil rights struggle sufficiently divided America into hard conservative and liberal camps. Still others say it was the Watergate scandal. Still others point at LBJ, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. I suggest a more fundamental cause for the severity of our unhappy political, emotional, racial and religious divide is the loss of a vital break on political recklessness.

In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission instituted "the fairness doctrine" that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues in an honest, equitable and balanced fashion. This regulation was abolished in 1987 during the Reagan administration. Since then, public broadcasting has become a powerful tool for those who possess ample funds to use the public airwaves to promote their political agendas. Not only are many of the owners of large broadcasting entities wealthy, they have an agenda designed to maintain the prerogatives of the wealthy against the demands of middle and lower classes of society. I believe that the withdrawal of the fairness doctrine has gone a long way toward poisoning the political process here in the United States.

As I listened to Mr. Biden's announcements and responses to questions asked him by the media in attendance, what was refreshingly apparent was the calm noncontroversial way in which he responded. If Joe Biden lacks dynamism in his responses, there's still something analytically reflective and thoughtful about his approach to issues. Chalk it up to my degree of emotional weariness or naïveté if you must, but I've sensed way before the outset of the late presidential campaign, that a significant majority of our people are fed up with purely confrontational politics.

Poison politics eventually leads to despotism! It's as simple as that.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

WHO WON AND WHO LOST LAST NOVEMBER 3RD — A MAN, A PARTY OR BOTH?

By Edwin Cooney

Throughout the years of my political interest and attention, I've generally resisted the wisdom of those who insist that they vote for "the man" rather than "for a political party."  In the wake of the 2020 election, it's increasingly evident to me that the majority of American voters voted against a man more than they voted for a political party. Perhaps we will know more after tomorrow's vote in Georgia, but that doesn't guarantee that the above question will really be settled.

You may well ask, how important is it that we know the answer to that question? The answer is very simple. In politics, it's dangerous to continue a pattern of conduct that doesn't work. Of course, what works and what doesn't work changes from time to time. For example, the late 19th and early 20th Century practice of "front porch" presidential campaigns is a thing of the past, and it's likely that candidate and incumbent tweets constitute an era that has just begun! While I was growing up, candidates and political pundits often scolded candidates for getting too close to "the water's edge” when they became too strident.

Several days ago, an acquaintance of mine who is a Trump supporter wondered why the country would elect someone as old, sleepy, out of touch and, worst of all, as socialistic as Joe Biden who has been in politics far too long. As I see it, the reason Joe Biden was elected was because he was the only alternative to re-electing President Trump. I agreed with this particular gentleman that it didn't have to happen. Unlike this particular Trump supporter, I insist that the 2020 campaign ultimately was solely about Donald Trump just as the 1936 presidential election was about the person of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the difference being that FDR was personally about the well-being of the people. President Trump is more about settling scores whether they're with domestic political opponents or with foreign governments.

President Trump's candidacy or agenda in office was never about the nation's fears, hopes or priorities. Clearly a chronically angry man, Mr. Trump's resentments govern almost everything he has done from his continuous tweeting to his efforts to build a wall he never realistically could get Mexico to pay for.

Someone in the not too distant future will document and publish the reasons for the defeat of Mr. Trump last November. It's my guess that the results will show that most of his predecessors, whether or not they were defeated or re-elected, accepted the results with dignity if not always with grace. President Trump's major political flaw is his tendency to emphasize his resentments over the people's priorities.

History demonstrates that a new administration, in order to be successful, has to allow for some degree of continuity with its predecessors. For instance, President Eisenhower resisted Old Guard GOP efforts led by Senator John Bricker, Thomas E. Dewey's 1944 running mate, to limit the power of the president to negotiate treaties as FDR had done at Yalta and Harry Truman had done at Potsdam. Furthermore, Ike, in the face of conservative objections, challenged McCarthyism, and advanced a national highway reconstruction plan that was as New Deal-like as anything else you can imagine. The GOP under Ike went so far as to establish the cabinet department of Housing and Urban Development putting a woman at the head of it. The 1950’s Republicans hated FDR's New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair Deal, but they respected its appeal, if not its method or purpose. President Trump demonstrated no sense of continuity, but sought to destroy everything President Obama did regardless of Mr. Obama's continuing popularity with a sizable portion of the voting public.

Bill Clinton's welfare reform act was moderate enough to get the endorsement of conservative Republicans whose primary loyalty was to Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush  and centrist Democrats. Many liberal Democrats opposed President Clinton's brand of welfare reform.

I can think of no instance when President Trump sought to bring progressives into an effort to modify and improve Obamacare. Mr. Trump's alternative to Obamacare never saw the light of day because healthcare was never on the president's agenda or that of his party despite their insistence to the contrary.

As I see it, one of the realities of 21st Century America is that "we, the people,” whether we call ourselves Conservatives, Populists, Progressives, Liberals, Democrats, or Republicans, expect the United States government to protect us from what we regard as the dangerous consequences of outrageous fortune. Furthermore, regardless of how contradictory the elements of our complaints and fears may be, we expect the person of the President of the United States of America to be our champion. President Trump certainly championed a number of popular causes both legitimate and controversial, but few presidents in our history have ever sought to destroy the causes of the opposition like President Trump.

It's my guess that millions of Americans who voted for Mr. Biden remain uncertain as to the likelihood of his success. However, he comes to his office both approachable and optimistic. Unlike President Trump, he generally doesn't see his political opponents as corrupt or criminal. The criminalization of political opponents on the part of ideologically oriented candidates and supporters has gone on so long that it has poisoned the well of freely elected government which was one of President George Washington's fears about the establishment of political parties.

History will record that President Donald John Trump ultimately was his only real constituent. His self-indulgence became too evident for a truly united people to endorse!

In 1653, Oliver Cromwell (who would serve as Lord Protectorate of the British Commonwealth) used the following words to describe the uselessness of the parliament then in session. I suggest that these are the precise words which should be used as President Trump leaves office:

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart and let us have done with you! In the name of God, I say -- go!”

Only time will tell who won and who lost the 2020 election. Republicans made gains in the House which may be countered if the Democrats can take Georgia tomorrow.

It's just possible that our fears rather than our hopes prevailed last November!

I'll have more to say about fear very soon!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE PARADIGM OF AN INSTANT!

By Edwin Cooney

At 12:05 on Saturday, December 12th, 2020, as I was working on that week's column to you, our microwave suddenly caught fire after my wife Marsha moved it from its usual place on the left counter of our sink onto our stovetop while she cleaned the space under the microwave. At her call that something was amiss, I hurried into the kitchen and stood before the burning microwave. Marsha had already unplugged it so we couldn't imagine why it continued burning. After about a minute or two, Marsha called 911 and the fire company was on its way. As the trucks pulled in, the microwave began making a series of popping sounds and we evacuated the apartment as fire personnel came in. Immediately, the fire personnel began shouting for tenants to leave the building and we feared that the fire was progressing beyond our apartment. However, it soon became clear that such wasn't the case, although the cause, the costs, and the consequences were uncertain to us. What had happened still is a bit of a mystery to me, but it does make sense. When the microwave was moved onto the stove, the back part of it came in contact with the knob that controls the burner. Subsequently, we were literally cooking the microwave just as we would boil water or heat up other food on our stovetop. Had I known the stove was on, I'd have turned it off, but I didn't realize such was the case. Perhaps a sighted person would have realized what was happening, but we just didn't notice the cause. Believe me, we'll forever keep this instance in mind when we purchase, utilize and clean around a new microwave!

In my mind and, to some extent, Marsha’s, everything in our thoughts was pre and post 12:05 on Saturday, December 12th, 2020. It seemed clear to us in the wake of the incident that our lives might never be the same.

Of course, both of us can vividly recall other much more serious and lasting instances that have shifted our lives including the births of our children during our previous relationships, the passing of Marsha's father four years ago, our respective divorces, along with the joyful and tragic instances that have happened to others close to us.

History is loaded with instances beyond the anticipation of most of us. Surely our Founding Fathers couldn't have anticipated all of the headaches the people would face in a newly independent nation such as The War of 1812 with Great Britain or even the Civil War, the cause of which was largely due to our own treatment of a significant group of people we had imported to enslave. (Jefferson called slavery our national "fire bell in the night!”)

All of us have experienced joyful and tragic instances in our lives. Our individual task is to strive to recognize both the causes and effects of these instances so that we have a better chance of managing them when they occur.

The most difficult and ultimately devastating tragic instances are those we could have avoided had we modified our behavior before they occurred.

Neither civil law, international law, religious belief or faith, individual or protective wisdom can protect you or me from the forces of nature that can break our hearts. Still, awareness of how our personal activities affect the lives of people we've never even met can potentially modify the severity that those same people will experience in their personal lives.

I believe that the “Serenity prayer” ultimately reflects the surest pathway toward avoiding the "slings and arrows” of outrageous fortune!

May our God-granted intelligence focus our attention towards those attitudes and behaviors that will make the most of all of the opportunities open to us!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY