AN UNCHRISTIAN ACT BY CHRISTIANITY’S OLDEST INSTITUTION!

By Edwin Cooney

No, I'm far from being anti-Catholic although I've never been a member of that faith. There are elements and entities within that religion that the rest of us would do well to appreciate more than we do. A former sweetheart of mine who is a retired Methodist missionary used to say, "Every time you hear Ave Maria, don't you wish you were a Catholic?" I heartily share that sentiment! I'm also proud of the Catholic Churches anti-capital punishment stance, although I wouldn't do to pro-capital punishment parishioners what too many bishops are currently doing to President Biden!

As I understand it, a considerable number of American Catholic bishops propose to deny President Joseph R. Biden, only the second Roman Catholic ever elected President, the right to receive communion in view of his "pro choice" stance regarding abortion rights. They apparently have the right to do this despite the opposition of Pope Francis, the reigning vicar of Christ.

What bothers me, aside from my general support and sympathy for President Biden, is what I see as the pure cussedness and meanness behind it. Being a political entity, President Biden is naturally and even rightly subject to personal judgments, attacks, and criticisms, but it seems to me that to bar him from his right to the Holy Sacrament is downright medieval. It's my guess that in the wake of this decision, the next act the bishops will take is likely to be a declaration of  holy heresy against the president.

Before I offer my strongest objections to the bishops’ apparent attitudes, I must state my feelings regarding "pro life" and "pro choice."

I'm convinced that had I been conceived in 1975 rather than in 1945 I would likely have been aborted according to my legal illegitimacy. Hence, on the one occasion when I had a direct say about the use of abortion, I rejected it as an option and I would do it again. Nevertheless, I see the right of choice as an option of the individual according to his or her understanding of solemn moral judgment. I can and do respect men and women who insist on their right to have an abortion. I could easily love a woman despite her outlook on that subject. I simply would oppose the abortion of a child I had fathered! As I see it, a child is the responsibility of two parents, not just one!

I have three objections to the potential denial of President Biden's right to Holy Sacrament.

First, I'm convinced that this movement is not strictly about religious writ or doctrine. Conservative Protestants and Catholic officeholders continue the search for some aspect of Joe Biden's character that will put him on an equal standing regarding the moralities of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Hence we have the charge brought by Tara Reade a former Biden staffer that Biden had sexually abused her back in 1993. Apparently, that charge hasn't stuck. However, some folks are still trying to lower the president's level of decency in the public mind.

My second objection is to some degree doctrinaire. My understanding that Christianity is about such characteristics as charity, forgiveness and "Amazing Grace.” Thus my question is obvious: Where's either the charity or amazing grace in the consideration of these Holy Bishops?

Finally, one of my personal quarrels with my fellow Christians is: where is the hierarchy of sins? Ironically, the Catholic Church at one time categorized sins as venial and mortal and perhaps even as "cardinal sins.” and that's the closest understanding of the hierarchy of sins I've ever known about! It's my guess that there's little likelihood that Joe Biden has ever indulged in abortion except agreeing with the proposition that the right of abortion is personal rather than governmental and that the extent to which government should get involved in abortion activities solely reflects the right of the individual.

In closing, it's my understanding that one of the first twelve human beings to receive communion from Christ in that upper room was an Apostle named Judas Iscariot! If Judas Iscariot was eligible to receive communion from Jesus (whom he was apparently about to betray), certainly Joe Biden is worthy of Christ's grace, is he not?

Perhaps I just don't understand what I ought to grasp. If you like, you can straighten me out!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

THE INTUITIVE PSYCHOLOGIST? HEY, THAT'S BOTH YOU AND ME!

By Edwin Cooney

Hey there, don't try pulling the wool over my eyes, ‘cause I know you like I know me. Don't tell me you've never tried to understand who someone is by their behavior even though you have little or no psychological training! After all, I've done it thousands of times and even if you're only half the sinner I am, that's plenty of sinning!

That's why I paid attention to the obituary of Dr. Lee Ross by Alex Traub which I read last week in the New York Times. Back about 1977, young Dr. Ross wrote a piece he titled "The Intuitive Psychologist and His Short Comings." The substance of his book was what he termed "The Fundamental Attribution Error." So, you may well ask, what the hell is an “attribution error?"

The answer to that question is simple. Whenever or almost whatever and, especially, whoever we try and understand and assess, we ultimately attribute who they are by their personhood rather than by the circumstances that affect who they ultimately are.

Ross's work has increasingly been utilized by modern professors, psychologists and writers. The theory of fundamental attribution error compels one to take into account the social circumstances rather than the actions or personality under consideration.

We who attempt to understand the factors that have influenced historical movements and events too often focus on the personalities of individual leaders rather than on the factors that influenced those leaders who directed historical events. It's not enough to simply label the Kennedy Administration the “era of Camelot,” LBJ's time as "The Great Society," the Reagan Administration as "Morning in America,” or even the Trump Administration as “the era of damnation and disaster" which millions of Biden Democrats might be inclined to do — me included.

The question, as stated above, is to what might we profitably attribute historical events? The answer to that question broadly speaking is knowledge of and an understanding of the forces social, economic, political and spiritual that cause people to respond. It's all too easy to react to what happens in front of you (and sometimes it's absolutely necessary to respond to what's in front of you), but the truth might be that the cause of what you see is something you'll never know.

As Alex Traub writes in his obituary of Dr. Ross, you may be waiting in line when someone jumps ahead of you to obtain a product or benefit from a service. You're reaction to this "rudeness" is likely to consist of labeling this line-jumper as a jerk — the type who would snatch candy away from a baby or trip Santa Claus. The truth might be, however, that this line-jumper may be someone who's desperate to get to the airport to catch a flight to visit and comfort someone in his or her family who is dying.

Above, I listed and characterized the Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, and Trump administrations using judgmental terms by which they're generally recognized. The more truly informative and real question about these administrations is what forces, hopes, fears and ambitions brought them about thus causing them to function as they did?

Dr. Lee Ross's “fundamental attribution error” is applicable in relations personal and impersonal, conflicts local, state, regional, national as well as international.

I offer the following, although this is very personal, because it best illustrates the damage and even uncertainty that Fundamental Attribution Error brings about. I have never been able to learn what compelled my biological mother to keep me permanently separated from her and my two half sisters! To what was she subjected? What did she believe or not believe that led her to respond to my personal existence as she did? I've always wanted to know what she went through that caused her to "include me out" as one comic once put another dangerous circumstance! My life is permanently affected by mores and events I'll never know about!

If we could more readily employ Fundamental Attribution Integrity rather than Fundamental Attribution Error as we seek to understand our history and ourselves, the prospects for tomorrow would be as bright and shiny as a newly minted Abraham Lincoln penny!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE MAGNET THAT DRAWS AND DRAWS!

By Edwin Cooney

I can barely abide the 45th President of the United States. His persona, his name and even his voice are pretty hard for me to take at all comfortably!

I'll start from the beginning when I noticed him during the 2016 campaign. As it became pretty evident that not even disclosure of his tawdry outlook toward women was going to eliminate him from contention for the presidency, I interpreted his staying power to the weakness of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

His victory on November 8th, 2016 made it pretty clear to me that the failure of  the Clinton campaign, which was indeed pretty clumsy, had made Donald John Trump President-elect of the United States. After five and a half dreary and contentious years, I think I've finally hit upon the root of his appeal.

Before coming right out and telling you what I believe to be Mr. Trump's drawing power, I must begin by disillusioning two groups of Americans — Liberals and Conservatives.

Trump is not only neither of these two political and ideological entities, he's an entity all to himself as were some other willful international leaders in decades not too distant. Lenin and Castro rode Marx's ideology to the top of their bodies politic and Hitler manufactured his own party by linking socialism and Germanic nationalism together, but each of these three rose largely on the strength and dynamism of their personalities.

All of these men succeeded not because they were politically creative or clever, but rather, simply because they dared!

From as far back as I can remember, I've heard people wonder why we didn't more frontally challenge the Russians when we have always had the sufficiently superior technology to prevail. Why have we allowed racial minorities to threaten domestic tranquility when we've always had sufficient police power to say "no" and make it stick. Why have we not controlled large pharmacies when it comes to overpricing medical necessities when our government has the power to negotiate contracts with those who cooperate and deny companies who insist on overpricing medicines and other medical necessities.

Most Americans believe that success is about practicalities more than about ideology,. Besides, ideologies are invariably the playtoy of academicians who don't do “real” work and thus have a lot of time on their hands.   

If it itches, any Trumpite will simply tell you to scratch it. If someone pushes you, push them back. Never mind what their ethnicity, the color of their skin, or their political faith might be. Live on instinct! Don't explain — just do!

Mr. Trump has been pretty cagey when it comes to history and to politics. After all, according to his own evaluation, he was the “best president we’ve ever had” with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln. Exactly where Ronald Reagan comes in is a matter Mr. Trump doesn't have to discuss with anyone. The Bushes, Reagans, Fords, and most certainly the McCains have nothing on Donald Trump.

The man's audacity is both his message and his promise. Donald Trump knows what makes a lot of people angry and therefore, on their behalf, he's sure his outrage, even more than any solution, will make them glad! Practicality will invariably bring outcomes not achievable by mere ideological politicians.

To sum it all up, Donald Trump succeeds for one reason and one reason alone.

More than any other politician since perhaps Huey Long who advocated redistributing the wealth during the 1930s, Donald Trump dares to dare.

Only a Donald Trump possesses the audacity to dominate the party of Ronald Reagan by insisting he's closer to Abraham Lincoln than even the"Great Communicator” himself! Only Donald Trump possesses the audacity to overthrow a constitutionally-elected president and insist that once he regains power he will faithfully "preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution which he recently violated! Donald John Trump doesn't explain, he just does!

The question remains, will his audacity ultimately pay off? I'm audacious enough to think I have the answer to that question! 

It's only my opinion, but I'll tell you what it is sometime!!!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

WHAT I'M TO REMEMBER AND WHAT I'M TO PLEASE FORGET!!!

By Edwin Cooney

Back in the mid 1950s, Charlie Feathers and Stan Kesler wrote a song that young Elvis Presley sang on his way to fame and fortune. (By the way, “Fame and Fortune” was one of the first two songs Elvis sang in 1960 right after getting out of the army!) The song I'm referring to by Feathers and Kesler was called "I Forgot to Remember to Forget." Of course, the song was about his sweetheart (whoever she was), but since the event I referred to above, at least twice a year I'm reminded to remember the sacrifices of the soldiers who gave their health and their lives to keep us free. By the way, I have no quarrel over the money, medical benefits, or educational opportunities our political leadership insists we spend on the veterans that we, in many cases, coerced into military service. As far as I'm concerned, we owe it to them many times over. However, seldom do our presidents, whether named Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Obama, Trump or Biden, address the scourge of war that brought about their fame and, in many cases, their tragic misfortunes.

The president who came closest to addressing the roots of war was Jimmy Carter, the president too many Americans for a time came close to enjoy viewing with contempt. After all, is Jimmy Carter remembered more for the word malaise, a word he never used, or is he remembered more for the war with Panama which he avoided? (Fortunately, that time seems to have permanently passed!)

Since the founding of America, which abolished almost every aspect of royalty or feudalism (the system our European ancestors used to glorify and permanently sanctify those they sent to war by granting them earlships, dukedoms, and large tracts of land), nobility has been replaced with a brand of heroism that offers popularity and perhaps political prominence. Memorial Day was instituted in 1868 through an organization that was called "The Grand Army of the Republic." President Andrew Johnson wasn't its Commander-in-Chief because although members of the military were urged to join it and did so, it was separate from the Armed Forces of the United States. It was designed to see to it that Union soldiers got the benefits northerners believed they were entitled to. At its head was John A. Logan, then a Republican Senator from Illinois. Senator Logan rode his prominence nearly to the top of the greasy pole of American politics. Two years before his 1886 death, he was Senator James G. Blaine's Republican vice presidential candidate.

Too often we're legitimately urged to pause from our beer, parades, picnics, and baseball games to remember why we're celebrating Memorial Day or the Fourth of July, but practically no one seems to adequately recognize that at the root of a soldier's very existence dwells the flower of human failure. That failure is even worse than economic or fiscal failure because it primarily costs lives or worsens innocent lives! Here’s another irony: politicians are always ready to label opposition political ideologies as failures but they seldom view wars or near wars as a failure of government! 

Ask yourself the causes of every war we celebrate. Can you bring to mind the primary causes of those wars? Even if you grant that the Revolutionary War was about “taxation without representation,” remember that English voters didn't get adequate representation domestically until 1832, 51 years after Lord Cornwallis surrendered to George Washington at Yorktown. 

The War of 1812 insured the expansion of the country, but it resulted in the Civil War as did the Mexican War.

World War I was supposed to make the world “safe for democracy,” but democracy wasn't what Queen Victoria's grandson Willie (the German Kaiser) was capable of grasping.

Sadly, you couldn't convince Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, or Hideki Tojo that democracy was at all useful!

Was Hồ Chí Minh, North Vietnam's president, a criminal or a patriot to his fellow Vietnamese?

Saddam Hussein was a self-centered, ambitious, and totally unworthy jerk. Whose life in your family or mine was he worth trading for, regardless of what George Bush or James Baker advocated?

Finally, I assert that even when war is necessary, it constitutes utter failure no matter how much we love and admire the president who leads us thither!

Remember Memorial Day and the Fourth of July if you must, but don't forget that failure, rather than glory, is its father!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

DEFINING DEVIANCY DOWN - A REASON OR EXCUSE?

By Edwin Cooney

Back in 1992 New York, United States Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a giant of a man physically, spiritually and intellectually, was invited to give an address at the inauguration of the newly elected president of the American Sociological Association. Both a  historian and a sociologist (in addition also a politician) Moynihan's topic that day was our tendency to “define deviancy down” (or deviant behavior) in order to cope with it. For the last two weeks or so, I've given that observation a lot of thought and so I've decided to share my understanding of what "defining deviancy down" is all about.

Deviancy is behavior that's often both troublesome and hard to handle. As you can imagine, deviancy is one of the most constant threads that runs through history not only here in the United States, but throughout the world. As I understand it, “defining deviancy down” is occasionally both necessary as well as beneficial to the community. Keep in mind that deviant behavior may be viewed as "bad behavior," but it's far from always being criminal behavior since deviant behavior can be brought on by the attitudes, mores, and prejudices of society.  

During the first 50 years of our republic, chronic indebtedness meant jail time and ruined countless careers and lives. That was because 16th and 17th century indebtedness meant a loss of profit to everyone. Today, we encourage people to go into debt. We buy and sell debt because debt can be quite profitable to those who are sufficiently enterprising!

The questions for me are multiple. Is defining deviancy down always unwise? Can it be a good thing? Are parents, teachers, preachers, siblings, or politicians more likely to define deviancy down in order to cope with it? (My guess is that siblings are least likely to put up with deviant behavior! Offended young brothers and sisters demand justice and even retribution for offensive or bad behavior!)

As a student of history, I've lately been examining historic events that most indicate our tendency to define deviancy down. Above I mentioned Colonial Era indebtedness as an example of deviant behavior that once was a sin but something we actually encourage today.

Pat Moynihan says that we occasionally alter our reaction to certain types of behavior for altruistic reasons. However, he insists that failure to conscientiously and systematically recognize societal  deviancies is the reason why one in every three black men is under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, something that is invariably damaging to society. Broken families translate into broken communities. Here are a few historic events where failure to cope with deviant behavior has been catastrophic.

In late February of 1877, President Ulysses S. Grant, President-elect Rutherford B. Hayes, and the Republican Party leadership swapped the fate of free Blacks in the South for political victory in the seriously contested 1876 presidential election. That swap ended the era of Reconstruction and inaugurated the era of “Jim Crow.” Powerful elements of that era remain a part of 21st Century America. 

In his book "The Gathering Storm,” Winston Churchill writes that had Britain, France and other League of Nations countries militarily responded to Adolf Hitler's March 7th, 1936 occupation of the Ruhr Valley (which was located between Germany and France in violation of the Versailles and Locarno treaties), it's likely that the German generals’ aristocracy might have removed Hitler from power. The Ruhr Valley was officially part of Germany. Hence European and other League of Nations officials minimized Hitler's violation by asserting that all he really did was to go into his own back yard! Hitler claimed that the 48 hour period over the weekend of March 7th, 1936 was the most anxious period of his time as Germany's Führer. 

Two presidents, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, have escaped conviction in the United States Senate largely due to the unwillingness of their own party leaders to hold them to the high standards of behavior while in office.

I'm convinced that President Clinton was guilty of obstructing justice and I like to believe I'd have voted to convict him were I a member of the Senate. As for Mr. Trump, what's more bothersome than his personal fate is the almost complete lack of either truth or patriotism on the part of the leadership of the GOP.

What's most interesting and revealing about the late Senator Moynihan's categorization of the effect of deviant behavior is how often you and I individually invariably indulge in “defining deviancy down.”

I once  knew a couple who, as much as they opposed abortion, insisted that their daughter should have one when she became pregnant due to her disability. Looking back over the years I was a parent, I know that I tended to minimize the significance of my sons' behavior because by that minimization I could more easily handle it.

What's most illuminating about Senator Moynihan's observation and categorization of deviant behavior is how much more I now understand about human nature, my country,  and myself!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

LIZ CHENEY — HERO OR CALCULATING POLITICIAN?

By Edwin Cooney

I've always liked people of opinion and principle even though they can be hard to get along with! For much of my young adulthood, I was a principled and opinionated Republican. Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Ike, John Foster Dulles, Tom Dewey, Douglas MacArthur, J. Edgar Hoover, and Paul Harvey were among my favorite tellers of absolute truths. (Note: journalist Westbrook Pegler and radio broadcaster Fulton Lewis Jr were both before my time as was Walter Winchell, along with radio commentator H. V. Kaltenborn.) Hearing people speak their principled truths has always been exciting to me!

As arrogant and off-putting and even ignorant as these folks can often be, there's usually a star guiding them!

Conservatism was once my guiding star as it apparently is Liz Cheney’s. What's admirable to me about conservatives is their willingness to hold on to an idea or concept even as such ideas and concepts challenge their sense of well-being and comfort from time to time. Barry Goldwater wouldn't let conservatives get away with doing something that he criticized liberals for doing!

When Senator Goldwater learned that the Reagan Administration was mining the harbors of Nicaragua in late 1983 or early 1984, he blew his top, declaring in a letter to CIA Director William Casey: "This is no way to run a railroad...this is a violation of international law....it  is an act of war... I am pissed off...I don't like it, I don't like it one bit from the president or from you! I don't need a lot of lengthy explanations about it. The deed has been done. In the future if this continues I'm going to raise one hell of a fuss about it in public!" (Note: This quote comes from Godfrey Hodgson's book "The Gentleman from New York," a biography of Daniel Patrick Moynihan.)

Insofar as I know, Barry Goldwater was sufficiently powerful to be beyond any reprisals the Reagan Administration might be in the mood to inflict upon him. However, as I see it, Goldwater's letter of defiance was a courageous act if for no other reason than the reality that criticizing the actions of people we love is never easy. Just ask any parent if they enjoy scolding their children!

One of the more incredible realities of GOP House members depriving Ms. Cheney of her leadership position in their party is their willingness to punish her act of defiance while encouraging Donald Trump's violation of both the laws and the Constitution of the United States. By taking this act, they demonstrate for all to see the partisanship of their citizenship!

As for Elizabeth Cheney, the question is both simple and measurable. Did she risk her prominence within the party? Of course she did. Is such a risk heroic? If, as some suggest, she's merely manipulating herself politically to take command of a political movement against Donald Trump, that's pretty  risky, is it not? However, this hardly makes Ms. Cheney unique. I can think of at least three brave politicians who've risked their political necks while seeking high office.

In June of 1964, Barry Goldwater risked both his good character and political fortune when he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. Back in July of 1964, civil rights legislation was more than merely tolerable. It was, in addition to being good for Blacks, a popular tribute to the martyred John Fitzgerald Kennedy. "I'll pray for you, Barry," Everett Dirksen is said to have told Goldwater!

In September of 1976, presidential candidate Jimmy Carter had the nerve to tell the American Legion at their meeting in Denver that he would grant amnesty to Vietnam draft dodgers if he were elected president that November. Eight years later, former Vice President Walter Mondale, while accepting his party's presidential nomination in San Francisco, said that he would raise taxes should he be elected. (Note: To many, Fritz Mondale was foolish rather than honest!)

Of course, one doesn't have to be brave in order to be heroic! Both Dr. Jonas Salk who created the vaccine that overwhelmed polio and Dr. Louis Pasteur, the chemist who discovered the method of purifying milk, were certainly heroes despite little personal risk. Chemist Alexander Fleming, the inventor of penicillin, is still another example of heroic creativity.

As far as I'm concerned, as the enemy of my enemy is my friend, Elizabeth Cheney is at this time and on this occasion a hero of mine!

What say you?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

WHO'S RACIST, WHO'S NOT, AND WHEN ARE WE ALL RACISTS?

By Edwin Cooney

Racism has always been and probably always will be a part of our national culture as race is a major aspect of each of our beings! Fortunately or unfortunately, we can't be human without a race. Some of us are even multiracial. Hence, if you ask this observer, even the absence of racism is racist due to the reality of who each and every one of us really and truly is.

There are, as I see it, three elements of racial relations. First, there is the personal, second, the social, and then there's the political element.

The personal aspect of racial relations isn't strictly individual because it can and often is affected by the personal attitudes of our birth families towards men, women and children of other races and ethnicities. However, personal attitudes can readily be modified by what Mr. Lincoln called ""the better angels of our nature.”

I remember back in 2009 when the leadership of the GOP asserted that its top priority was the defeat for re-election of President Barack Obama. My instinctual reaction to the GOP priority was "damn those racist Republicans!" Then, I remembered that back as early as 1954 Adlai Stevenson, the 1952 opponent of President Eisenhower, declared that as Ike was the likely GOP candidate in 1956, the Democrats needed to be ready to defeat Ike for re-election regardless of his success.

In late 1961, President Kennedy was informed during a press conference that the Republican National Committee had just passed a resolution declaring that the Kennedy administration was pretty much of a failure. "I'm sure it was passed unanimously," the president promptly responded. And during the 1980s, Democratic leaders, despite President Reagan's vehement protests, labeled the president and his supporters as being fundamentally racist. With these instances in mind, along with a number of other ongoing political factors such as whoever holds the White House, I’m now reluctant to categorize the 2009's GOP priority as being strictly racist.  

One of the most vital elements in electoral politics is the strategy of appealing to and broadening the party's political base especially in areas of the country where it is strongest. The GOP, much to its discredit I think, decided back in the days of Nixon, Goldwater, and even old Ike, along with GOP national chairman Bill Miller (who would be Barry Goldwater's vice presidential running mate in 1964) to appeal to the Old South for its solid electoral majorities. To that end, the Democratic Party has become as unpopular as the "carpet baggers" and the "scalawags" in the defeated Confederacy of the late 1860s and 1870s up to 1877 when Presidents Grant and Hayes traded principle for practicality so that the GOP could hold the national executive office from 1877 with but two exceptions until 1933. [Note: in 1884 and 1892, Democrat (Stephen) Grover Cleveland was president and, between 1913 and 1921, the South's very own (Thomas)  Woodrow Wilson was president.]

As I see it, whenever an issue that affects the future of Blacks, Whites, or any other racial category is a major aspect of a piece of legislation or executive authority, that issue is a racist issue and, regardless of your position on such an issue, the position is racist because it directly has to do with the future well being of people due strictly to their racial makeup.

What puzzles me is the GOP's insistence on permanently offending future racial and ethnic voters who within a decade or two will constitute a majority of the population of the United States! White Anglo-Saxon Protestants will, within our lifetimes and old as we may be, constitute a minority of the American people. This will alter our attitudes toward immigration, health care, and most certainly voting rights.

Who people are and the culture that sustains their sense of personhood has been and perhaps always will be a factor in an otherwise free society. Because all national domestic issues affect men and women of all races, every issue is ultimately an issue of race. Thus, to the degree that I'm a racist, I consider myself an “equity racist” when it comes to America's reactions and values regarding the fates of racial groups!

Hence, the ultimate question inevitably is: who's a racist and who isn't? According to Americans' traditional political standards, those seeking to regulate race relations to the disadvantage of Blacks and other racial minorities, are defined as being racist. Those who support racial equality, or if you prefer, equity, I label as equity racists as stated above. Another way of answering this question would be to proclaim that issues, not people, are racist!

Let us hope that when Blacks and other current minorities become the majority, they will treat our children and grandchildren better than they've been historically treated from the days of Colonial Jamestown to the present days of GOP political reactionism!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY