By Edwin Cooney
I began last week’s column by observing that I’m not big on “what ifs” in sports, politics or in my personal life.
One of you, a wise and wonderfully sweet former teacher of mine, wrote me observing that “what if” is far less important than “what is” and of course she’s right.
All our lives, those who have authority or influence over us urge us to freely and cheerfully offer and expect the best from others. The problem is that, as hard as we try, the world is filtered through our awareness and that awareness is inevitably affected by our experiences. If we’ve had largely rewarding experiences, then it’s reasonably easy to expect and receive the best. If our experiences have been less than the best, even traumatic on occasion, acceptance of the best the future may hold for us can be pretty hard to swallow.
Did you ever stop and wonder what empowers you to dare? My third grade teacher, a lady with the formidable name of Sophie Peruzzin, used to call me “the darer.” I wasn’t as brave as some of the bigger boys, but I would often accept a dare.
At the east and west entrances of our main building on the campus of our residential school for the blind, there were about 10 or maybe 15 steps from ground level to the approach to the doors as I remember it. On the sides of the steps, there were two broad side railings that you could sit on. You could also jump from them. You could jump backwards from them, too. The first time you did that, you got “oos and ahs” from the kids who were a tad less brave than you. That turned a dare into a thrill. I never got as brave as a couple of kids who would, from a standing position, leap from the playground swing as it reached its greatest height, yelling “happy landing” as they jumped out. I had more sense than that! However, I earned Mrs. Peruzzin’s nickname for me at least up until the fourth grade!
Hence, we’re left with two things, the reward and the thrill. So, what is the reward when we dare to dare?
As I see it, what makes us dare is the value we put on the perceived gratification the dare offers. Youthful dares generally offer temporary thrills. However, as life moves on, both the risks and the rewards we seek become more formidable. Since we see “what is” primarily through the window of our own perceptions and experiences, what we fear losing most is control as we dare to dare.
A few years ago, there was a speedy ballplayer named Mickey Rivers -- “Mick the Quick” they called him. “Mick the Quick” was something of a philosopher. His real name was John Milton Rivers, so he was actually born into his avocation. One of his many observations went something like this:
“Ain't no sense worrying about the things you got control over 'cause if you got control over 'em, ain't no sense worrying. Ain't no sense worrying about the things you got no control over, 'cause if you got no control over 'em, ain't no sense worrying.”
Very few of us live absolutely alone. Invariably, we are dependent on others who also have a lifetime of needs and fears that makes life as it is quite treacherous. I think the surest way to make the best of “what is” is to think of and invite friends, business associates, family, and especially your lover to be your partner. Partners share ideas, plans, experiences and feelings, thus building something that is greater than the number of people involved.
Not all of your partnership experiences will be either easy or pleasant. Sometimes partners need steady support as they seek strength to perform their portion of the partnership. That may occasionally require a nurturing partner—-as all partners must be--to carry as much as 51 to 90 percent of the load. Partners offer quality time, sympathetic listening, acknowledgment and sharing. Each partner is required to protect and receive protection, to offer and receive respect and consideration, to care for and be cared about.
Together, partners can often replace the shadows of unhappy experiences to let in the golden light, not by magic but due to something they’ve been working for. Thus, acquaintances become friends, professional associates become teams, and business partnerships more likely become profitable. In families, healthy partnerships enhance life.
Once in a while, two special friends raise their partnership to a level that makes “what is” -- the present -- become the very best of all partnerships. I think they’re called romances!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, September 6, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
TWO FINE MEN, ONE GREAT MOMENT
By Edwin Cooney
I’m not big on “what ifs” in my personal life, politics, history or baseball. However, occasionally they’re just too compelling to ignore.
Most baseball fans are familiar with the “shot heard ‘round the world” at the Polo Grounds in New York even 59 years after it happened on Wednesday, October 3, 1951. That’s when Giants outfielder Bobby Thomson homered off Brooklyn Dodger pitcher Ralph Branca bringing the New York Giants from a 4 to 2 deficit to a 5 to 4 victory in the ninth inning of the final game of the National League playoffs. That moment and the two individuals involved have been celebrated on countless occasions and in countless ways over the years. The recent death of Bobby Thomson at Skidaway Island, Georgia on August 16th brings it to our attention once again with perhaps the greatest force since the day it occurred.
One of the most popular baseball trivia questions is: who was on deck behind Bobby Thomson when he hit the “shot heard ‘round the world?” The answer is Willie Mays, the man who would go on to hit 660 home runs during his All-Star career and become immortalized in the Baseball Hall of Fame. The implication of that question is, of course, that if Bobby hadn’t hit it, certainly Willie would have. Before expanding on the human aspect of this possibility, I’ll very briefly describe the situation.
Whitey Lockman and Clint Hartung were runners on second and third with one out. Bobby, the “Staten Island Scot” (he was born in Glasgow, Scotland on October 25, 1923), was at the plate. First base was open. The Dodgers could have walked the experienced Thomson who had driven in the Giants’ first run that day with a sacrifice fly to center field. He’d also homered off Ralph Branca in the first of the three National League playoff games two days previous. If they had walked Thomson to pitch to Mays, they would have had a force at every base. Had Bobby merely singled, it is likely that the game would have been tied at four each. Had Bobby “flied out” (hit the ball to any outfielder) with any depth, Clint Hartung would probably have scored from third and Mays would have come up with 2 out. Of course, anything might have happened within the game situation, but even more compelling than the game situation and its consequences, was the very human part of this event.
Bobby Thomson’s home run meant happiness for him and at least temporary devastation for Ralph Branca. There are audio recordings of both men after the game. In the joyous Giants’ clubhouse, Bobby responded to Giants’ announcer Russ Hodges’s inquiry as to whether he fell down coming around third base with “Fall down? I didn’t even touch the ground.” He’d just flown all the way around the bases. (Note: It’s been said that as the stunned and defeated Dodgers left the field, one man remained to make sure that Bobby Thomson touched every base. His name was Jackie Robinson).
Then there was Branca saying “Why me? Why me? Why did it have to be me?” Therein lies the human element that interests me most.
Bobby Thomson would play with the Giants through 1953. He would go on to the Milwaukee Braves where his broken ankle during spring training of 1954 would make way for Henry Aaron who would break Babe Ruth’s career home run record twenty years later. In 1957, he would return to the New York Giants for their last year in New York. Thomson would conclude his career with the Chicago Cubs, Boston Red Sox, and the Baltimore Orioles. He’d finish his career with 264 home runs and a solid .270 batting average.
Ralph Branca would pitch out of the bullpen for Brooklyn in ’52, go on to the Tigers in ’53, pitch briefly for the Yankees in ’54 and return to Brooklyn for a cameo appearance in 1956. He had a respectable 88 wins and 68 losses in his career.
Time can, if we allow it to, heal even the most devastating pain and put into perspective the most uplifting joy. Thus, beginning in the 1980s and extending almost to the present, Bobby Thomson and Ralph Branca relived that “historic moment,” not just for themselves, but for you and me.
I’m told that, for many years, Ralph and Bobby attended banquets, baseball card shows, charity golf tournaments and other events where they would pose for pictures, sign baseball cards and baseballs. For Ralph, it must have been cathartic. For Bobby, one would have to believe that it must have been both gratifying and humbling. Whoever had the audacity to bring the two men together is less important, I think, than their willingness, especially Mr. Branca’s, to publicly relive that incredible day—even if the almighty dollar was the elixir. Would such a sharing have worked had it been Branca and Mays? Would Willie’s stardom have dominated the force of a moment made more powerful because it took place between two men whose careers were mostly defined by that very moment? Might it have been called “Willie’s moment,” thus leaving little if any room for Ralph Branca?
From beginning to end, it seems, life is invariably loaded with ironies. Bobby Thomson, the man who hit the most glamorized home run in history, the man whose broken ankle in 1954 made way for Hank Aaron who would eventually go on to break Ruth’s mighty record, left us exactly 62 years to the date and day of the week of the passing of the Babe.
Wonders never cease, do they!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
I’m not big on “what ifs” in my personal life, politics, history or baseball. However, occasionally they’re just too compelling to ignore.
Most baseball fans are familiar with the “shot heard ‘round the world” at the Polo Grounds in New York even 59 years after it happened on Wednesday, October 3, 1951. That’s when Giants outfielder Bobby Thomson homered off Brooklyn Dodger pitcher Ralph Branca bringing the New York Giants from a 4 to 2 deficit to a 5 to 4 victory in the ninth inning of the final game of the National League playoffs. That moment and the two individuals involved have been celebrated on countless occasions and in countless ways over the years. The recent death of Bobby Thomson at Skidaway Island, Georgia on August 16th brings it to our attention once again with perhaps the greatest force since the day it occurred.
One of the most popular baseball trivia questions is: who was on deck behind Bobby Thomson when he hit the “shot heard ‘round the world?” The answer is Willie Mays, the man who would go on to hit 660 home runs during his All-Star career and become immortalized in the Baseball Hall of Fame. The implication of that question is, of course, that if Bobby hadn’t hit it, certainly Willie would have. Before expanding on the human aspect of this possibility, I’ll very briefly describe the situation.
Whitey Lockman and Clint Hartung were runners on second and third with one out. Bobby, the “Staten Island Scot” (he was born in Glasgow, Scotland on October 25, 1923), was at the plate. First base was open. The Dodgers could have walked the experienced Thomson who had driven in the Giants’ first run that day with a sacrifice fly to center field. He’d also homered off Ralph Branca in the first of the three National League playoff games two days previous. If they had walked Thomson to pitch to Mays, they would have had a force at every base. Had Bobby merely singled, it is likely that the game would have been tied at four each. Had Bobby “flied out” (hit the ball to any outfielder) with any depth, Clint Hartung would probably have scored from third and Mays would have come up with 2 out. Of course, anything might have happened within the game situation, but even more compelling than the game situation and its consequences, was the very human part of this event.
Bobby Thomson’s home run meant happiness for him and at least temporary devastation for Ralph Branca. There are audio recordings of both men after the game. In the joyous Giants’ clubhouse, Bobby responded to Giants’ announcer Russ Hodges’s inquiry as to whether he fell down coming around third base with “Fall down? I didn’t even touch the ground.” He’d just flown all the way around the bases. (Note: It’s been said that as the stunned and defeated Dodgers left the field, one man remained to make sure that Bobby Thomson touched every base. His name was Jackie Robinson).
Then there was Branca saying “Why me? Why me? Why did it have to be me?” Therein lies the human element that interests me most.
Bobby Thomson would play with the Giants through 1953. He would go on to the Milwaukee Braves where his broken ankle during spring training of 1954 would make way for Henry Aaron who would break Babe Ruth’s career home run record twenty years later. In 1957, he would return to the New York Giants for their last year in New York. Thomson would conclude his career with the Chicago Cubs, Boston Red Sox, and the Baltimore Orioles. He’d finish his career with 264 home runs and a solid .270 batting average.
Ralph Branca would pitch out of the bullpen for Brooklyn in ’52, go on to the Tigers in ’53, pitch briefly for the Yankees in ’54 and return to Brooklyn for a cameo appearance in 1956. He had a respectable 88 wins and 68 losses in his career.
Time can, if we allow it to, heal even the most devastating pain and put into perspective the most uplifting joy. Thus, beginning in the 1980s and extending almost to the present, Bobby Thomson and Ralph Branca relived that “historic moment,” not just for themselves, but for you and me.
I’m told that, for many years, Ralph and Bobby attended banquets, baseball card shows, charity golf tournaments and other events where they would pose for pictures, sign baseball cards and baseballs. For Ralph, it must have been cathartic. For Bobby, one would have to believe that it must have been both gratifying and humbling. Whoever had the audacity to bring the two men together is less important, I think, than their willingness, especially Mr. Branca’s, to publicly relive that incredible day—even if the almighty dollar was the elixir. Would such a sharing have worked had it been Branca and Mays? Would Willie’s stardom have dominated the force of a moment made more powerful because it took place between two men whose careers were mostly defined by that very moment? Might it have been called “Willie’s moment,” thus leaving little if any room for Ralph Branca?
From beginning to end, it seems, life is invariably loaded with ironies. Bobby Thomson, the man who hit the most glamorized home run in history, the man whose broken ankle in 1954 made way for Hank Aaron who would eventually go on to break Ruth’s mighty record, left us exactly 62 years to the date and day of the week of the passing of the Babe.
Wonders never cease, do they!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, August 23, 2010
FROM THE LOFTY TO THE LOWLY
By Edwin Cooney
As much as I like most of the editorials a wonderful friend sends me from the New York Times, these lofty commentators share in the same luxury as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and lovable Newt Gingrich.
Before getting specific as to the nature of this luxury, I must say that I was delighted with their praise for President Obama’s insistence that Muslims have the same religious rights as all other citizens. It seemed that the president was saying that Muslims have the right to build their proposed mosque in the vicinity of the 9/11 Ground Zero Memorial. However, the following day the president apparently stated further that he wasn’t commenting on whether or not he agreed with the location of the proposed mosque, but instead was only defending the rights that Muslims share with other religions.
According to the Times, nervous Democrats led by President Obama are “caving in” to those fretful GOP spokesmen anxious to identify the president and his party with evil anti-American alien forces. It follows, therefore, that by hedging on the issue of the mosque’s location, cautious Democrats appear to lack the courageous wisdom of New York Times commentators.
Of course, there’s a difference between the obligations of political commentators and those of President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed (who is running for re-election against a tough opponent in Nevada). Politicians, unlike radio and television talk show hosts and national columnists, depend on the deeply felt concerns of a cross section of voters to maintain their offices. On the other hand, while editorialists, commentators and talk show hosts do face pressure from sponsors, ratings, and deadlines, they maintain their positions with the expectation that what they say and write will be controversial. Politicians, however, are expected to build a constituent consensus for the benefit of all.
Invariably, the public is convinced that courageous politicians died out with the “Founding Fathers” and it appears that columnists, editorialists and talk show hosts are perfectly satisfied with this presumption. Sadly, most Americans don’t associate courage with elected politicians.
In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln, much to the frustration of abolitionist preachers and editorialists, denied Governor John C. Freemont the right to issue an Emancipation Proclamation in the divided state of Missouri. As “Father Abraham” saw it, Governor Freemont’s moral objective would be meaningless without the Union’s military success. Thus not until after the Union’s victory over General Lee at Antietam Creek in September1862 did Lincoln issue that historic and beloved Emancipation Proclamation.
Question: What do you think today’s New York Times would have said in an editorial concerning Lincoln’s courage? Abe Lincoln was leader enough to chart the best course toward his ultimate objective: slave emancipation.
The 1976 presidential campaign saw two courageous politicians squaring off against one another. President Gerald R. Ford had already dared to anger a sizable portion of the public (including this observer) when he pardoned Richard Nixon of all crimes and misdemeanors which he committed or may have committed during his administration. Jimmy Carter then cast away much of the advantage President Ford’s Nixon pardon gave him when he went before a meeting of the American Legion in Seattle and told them of his intention to provide amnesty to Vietnam War draft dodgers and deserters.
Question: How much credit do you suppose either man got for being courageous? Of course, there were issues of greater national importance, but few Americans came away from the 1976 election with the impression that they’d chosen between two exceptionally courageous and principled men for their president.
In 2004, President George W. Bush, despite embarrassing military setbacks, stuck to his game plan in Iraq. How many editorialists, commentators or talk show hosts who disagreed with GWB’s policy nevertheless gave him credit for persistence or courage?
Of course, the American body politic needs critical commentary whether by people like Limbaugh or like Maureen Doud of the Times. Nevertheless, this observer believes that people, for the health of their individual perspectives, would do well to keep in mind the safety of the commentator versus the legitimate vulnerability of the public servant.
From high atop the lofty perches of radio, television and newspaper executive tower suites, there often comes valuable wisdom. Ah! but this wisdom comes from the voices and computer terminals of men and women whose careers, incomes and egos are a lot safer than those of either the elected leader or the lowly citizen.
With that perspective as a free citizen, draw your own conclusions on the veracity of the commentator and the politician alike.
Even more, I invite you to wonder along with me if our society wouldn’t be just a tad healthier were we to allow ourselves to grant that our leadership is as courageous and principled as we’re absolutely certain we are.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
As much as I like most of the editorials a wonderful friend sends me from the New York Times, these lofty commentators share in the same luxury as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and lovable Newt Gingrich.
Before getting specific as to the nature of this luxury, I must say that I was delighted with their praise for President Obama’s insistence that Muslims have the same religious rights as all other citizens. It seemed that the president was saying that Muslims have the right to build their proposed mosque in the vicinity of the 9/11 Ground Zero Memorial. However, the following day the president apparently stated further that he wasn’t commenting on whether or not he agreed with the location of the proposed mosque, but instead was only defending the rights that Muslims share with other religions.
According to the Times, nervous Democrats led by President Obama are “caving in” to those fretful GOP spokesmen anxious to identify the president and his party with evil anti-American alien forces. It follows, therefore, that by hedging on the issue of the mosque’s location, cautious Democrats appear to lack the courageous wisdom of New York Times commentators.
Of course, there’s a difference between the obligations of political commentators and those of President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed (who is running for re-election against a tough opponent in Nevada). Politicians, unlike radio and television talk show hosts and national columnists, depend on the deeply felt concerns of a cross section of voters to maintain their offices. On the other hand, while editorialists, commentators and talk show hosts do face pressure from sponsors, ratings, and deadlines, they maintain their positions with the expectation that what they say and write will be controversial. Politicians, however, are expected to build a constituent consensus for the benefit of all.
Invariably, the public is convinced that courageous politicians died out with the “Founding Fathers” and it appears that columnists, editorialists and talk show hosts are perfectly satisfied with this presumption. Sadly, most Americans don’t associate courage with elected politicians.
In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln, much to the frustration of abolitionist preachers and editorialists, denied Governor John C. Freemont the right to issue an Emancipation Proclamation in the divided state of Missouri. As “Father Abraham” saw it, Governor Freemont’s moral objective would be meaningless without the Union’s military success. Thus not until after the Union’s victory over General Lee at Antietam Creek in September1862 did Lincoln issue that historic and beloved Emancipation Proclamation.
Question: What do you think today’s New York Times would have said in an editorial concerning Lincoln’s courage? Abe Lincoln was leader enough to chart the best course toward his ultimate objective: slave emancipation.
The 1976 presidential campaign saw two courageous politicians squaring off against one another. President Gerald R. Ford had already dared to anger a sizable portion of the public (including this observer) when he pardoned Richard Nixon of all crimes and misdemeanors which he committed or may have committed during his administration. Jimmy Carter then cast away much of the advantage President Ford’s Nixon pardon gave him when he went before a meeting of the American Legion in Seattle and told them of his intention to provide amnesty to Vietnam War draft dodgers and deserters.
Question: How much credit do you suppose either man got for being courageous? Of course, there were issues of greater national importance, but few Americans came away from the 1976 election with the impression that they’d chosen between two exceptionally courageous and principled men for their president.
In 2004, President George W. Bush, despite embarrassing military setbacks, stuck to his game plan in Iraq. How many editorialists, commentators or talk show hosts who disagreed with GWB’s policy nevertheless gave him credit for persistence or courage?
Of course, the American body politic needs critical commentary whether by people like Limbaugh or like Maureen Doud of the Times. Nevertheless, this observer believes that people, for the health of their individual perspectives, would do well to keep in mind the safety of the commentator versus the legitimate vulnerability of the public servant.
From high atop the lofty perches of radio, television and newspaper executive tower suites, there often comes valuable wisdom. Ah! but this wisdom comes from the voices and computer terminals of men and women whose careers, incomes and egos are a lot safer than those of either the elected leader or the lowly citizen.
With that perspective as a free citizen, draw your own conclusions on the veracity of the commentator and the politician alike.
Even more, I invite you to wonder along with me if our society wouldn’t be just a tad healthier were we to allow ourselves to grant that our leadership is as courageous and principled as we’re absolutely certain we are.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, August 16, 2010
NOW THEY WANT A DIVORCE!
By Edwin Cooney
It’s taken me awhile to know exactly how to respond to an email a dear friend and reader sent to me a couple of months ago. It appears that many people on the political right in this country want a divorce—a friendly divorce, of course.
It’s my experience that those who call for partings, especially political or romantic, always insist that they “…want to be friends, after all.” Of course, the painful aspect of separation invariably defies the main element of friendship which is mutually comfortable and supportive association.
What this email conveys is that many Conservatives have had enough. They suggest that we can equally divide the American landmass. They’ll take the flag, our national anthem, oil, cops, guns, doctors, trickle-down economics, the Bible and the Constitution.
Liberals can have taxes and redistributive economics, the United Nations, Barbra Streisand, universal healthcare, and a “nicey nice” foreign policy. Liberals can replace “The Star Spangled Banner” with “Imagine” or “Kumbayah.”
The author of this proposal does admit that the land divide would be the most difficult aspect of our divorce, so to that end he stops being specific. I’m not sure whether these people would force low income citizens who count on Social Security to move to the Liberal part of the divide or whether they would recognize the power and depth of relationships that aren’t primarily political or economic. They don’t say whether every person who remains in the America they would govern would have to march in lockstep with their socio/economic and religious/cultural mores. The point is, they want out. They don’t want to pay taxes to educate, house, feed or care for those who possess less than they do. However, they’ll insist that they love Jesus as long as we don’t institutionalize Jesus’ insistence that we love our neighbors as ourselves.
This, of course, isn’t the first time Americans have wanted to separate from one another. The first time was during the War of 1812 when New England Federalists no longer wanted to pay for and suffer from James Madison’s war that was stifling trade and profit throughout Federalist New England. As a result, they called the Hartford Convention of December 1814 which ultimately rejected separation or secession.
Then, of course, there was the Civil War when slave holders insisted that if they couldn’t hold on to enough political power to protect slavery, they’d create a separate society for slavery’s perpetuation.
What’s puzzling to me is that this cry for divorce is counter to the family values that Conservatives insist they believe in – even more than Liberals or “secular humanists.” Since divorce is mainstream these days and useful to men and women of all political doctrines and to most religious and cultural faiths, it is now as legitimate as chattel slavery was in the antebellum South.
What it appears to boil down to is that anything right-wingers or Tea Partiers are uncomfortable with is immoral. Hence, where divorce was once in itself immoral, it is now a sad but nevertheless legitimate way out. Never mind what scripture dictates: it’s okay. We just won’t talk about it.
After much consideration, granting that our clashing ideas and ideals are exceedingly uncomfortable, I deny the legitimacy of this proposed American divorce.
First, I don’t love anyone because they’re perfect, not even political Conservatives (vital as they are in a free society). Second, I don’t regard patriotism as the sole responsibility of soldiers. If it’s patriotic to ask young men and women to die on foreign battlefields, why isn’t it just as patriotic to ask powerful and articulate Americans to be patient and work with each other? Finally, no relationship is always comfortable, although the first priority of each of us in every type of relationship should be to maximize each other’s comfort and wellbeing.
The culture war through which we’ve been passing since the mid 1970s has created a set of professionals, many of them both entertaining and persuasive, who profit from making us angry at one another. I am referring to talk show hosts, political doctrinarians, and politicians of all stripes and types. We are thus institutionalizing disunity rather than fostering commonality.
Thirty years ago when Americans elected President Reagan, every fiber in my being resisted the political ideas and ideals of that man. Nevertheless, there remained in me the realization that I might be overlooking something very useful in his service. Perhaps he’d do something that I could accept if I’d only give him a fair chance to impress me. Ultimately, I had to grant that his leadership was significant enough to bring about the end of the cold war. Although I believe his role has often been overstated, the fact that he played a significant part in bringing this happy event about is undeniable. Ronald Reagan, a man with whom I’ve never been comfortable, is the same man in retrospect I must salute.
The very idea of a “friendly” political divorce, traditionally American as it is, must be denied as unrealistic and outrageously unpatriotic.
Besides, how can I divorce my brother and my sister and the obligation we both have to make tomorrow better than today?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
By Edwin Cooney
It’s taken me awhile to know exactly how to respond to an email a dear friend and reader sent to me a couple of months ago. It appears that many people on the political right in this country want a divorce—a friendly divorce, of course.
It’s my experience that those who call for partings, especially political or romantic, always insist that they “…want to be friends, after all.” Of course, the painful aspect of separation invariably defies the main element of friendship which is mutually comfortable and supportive association.
What this email conveys is that many Conservatives have had enough. They suggest that we can equally divide the American landmass. They’ll take the flag, our national anthem, oil, cops, guns, doctors, trickle-down economics, the Bible and the Constitution.
Liberals can have taxes and redistributive economics, the United Nations, Barbra Streisand, universal healthcare, and a “nicey nice” foreign policy. Liberals can replace “The Star Spangled Banner” with “Imagine” or “Kumbayah.”
The author of this proposal does admit that the land divide would be the most difficult aspect of our divorce, so to that end he stops being specific. I’m not sure whether these people would force low income citizens who count on Social Security to move to the Liberal part of the divide or whether they would recognize the power and depth of relationships that aren’t primarily political or economic. They don’t say whether every person who remains in the America they would govern would have to march in lockstep with their socio/economic and religious/cultural mores. The point is, they want out. They don’t want to pay taxes to educate, house, feed or care for those who possess less than they do. However, they’ll insist that they love Jesus as long as we don’t institutionalize Jesus’ insistence that we love our neighbors as ourselves.
This, of course, isn’t the first time Americans have wanted to separate from one another. The first time was during the War of 1812 when New England Federalists no longer wanted to pay for and suffer from James Madison’s war that was stifling trade and profit throughout Federalist New England. As a result, they called the Hartford Convention of December 1814 which ultimately rejected separation or secession.
Then, of course, there was the Civil War when slave holders insisted that if they couldn’t hold on to enough political power to protect slavery, they’d create a separate society for slavery’s perpetuation.
What’s puzzling to me is that this cry for divorce is counter to the family values that Conservatives insist they believe in – even more than Liberals or “secular humanists.” Since divorce is mainstream these days and useful to men and women of all political doctrines and to most religious and cultural faiths, it is now as legitimate as chattel slavery was in the antebellum South.
What it appears to boil down to is that anything right-wingers or Tea Partiers are uncomfortable with is immoral. Hence, where divorce was once in itself immoral, it is now a sad but nevertheless legitimate way out. Never mind what scripture dictates: it’s okay. We just won’t talk about it.
After much consideration, granting that our clashing ideas and ideals are exceedingly uncomfortable, I deny the legitimacy of this proposed American divorce.
First, I don’t love anyone because they’re perfect, not even political Conservatives (vital as they are in a free society). Second, I don’t regard patriotism as the sole responsibility of soldiers. If it’s patriotic to ask young men and women to die on foreign battlefields, why isn’t it just as patriotic to ask powerful and articulate Americans to be patient and work with each other? Finally, no relationship is always comfortable, although the first priority of each of us in every type of relationship should be to maximize each other’s comfort and wellbeing.
The culture war through which we’ve been passing since the mid 1970s has created a set of professionals, many of them both entertaining and persuasive, who profit from making us angry at one another. I am referring to talk show hosts, political doctrinarians, and politicians of all stripes and types. We are thus institutionalizing disunity rather than fostering commonality.
Thirty years ago when Americans elected President Reagan, every fiber in my being resisted the political ideas and ideals of that man. Nevertheless, there remained in me the realization that I might be overlooking something very useful in his service. Perhaps he’d do something that I could accept if I’d only give him a fair chance to impress me. Ultimately, I had to grant that his leadership was significant enough to bring about the end of the cold war. Although I believe his role has often been overstated, the fact that he played a significant part in bringing this happy event about is undeniable. Ronald Reagan, a man with whom I’ve never been comfortable, is the same man in retrospect I must salute.
The very idea of a “friendly” political divorce, traditionally American as it is, must be denied as unrealistic and outrageously unpatriotic.
Besides, how can I divorce my brother and my sister and the obligation we both have to make tomorrow better than today?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, August 9, 2010
A LEGEND WITH A MODERN MORAL
By Edwin Cooney
A few days ago, someone sent me a delightful story with a modern moral. It was about the legendary Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Here is the story:
One day, the young King Arthur is captured and imprisoned by knights from another land. So handsome, charming and wise is youthful Arthur that, rather than executing him, the foreign potentate only conditionally sentences him to death. Arthur is allowed to return to his court for one year so that he might have sufficient time to answer the age-old question: “What does a woman really want?”
On the last day of the year, having exhausted all the wisdom in his kingdom, Arthur faces reality. He must consult the wicked, ugly, smelly witch who will demand that he pay her price before answering his inquiry! Her price is the hand in marriage of Sir Lancelot, the handsomest and most noble knight of Arthur’s round table. So gallant is Sir Lancelot that he agrees to sacrifice his freedom for marriage to this horrid female so that King Arthur’s life might be spared.
As you can guess, the old witch answers the question and marries Sir Lancelot. When his wedding night arrives, Lancelot is stunned to find in his bed not a smelly old witch, but a beautiful princess. While assuring him that she is really who she says she is, the once horrid witch says that since he was so kind to her, she would be her ugly self only half the time. She asks her new husband what half of the day he’d like to have her be beautiful and what half of the day she can go back to being the horrid wicked witch she has always been. When he responds that it’s up to her, she vows that since he’s willing to let her take charge of her own life, she’ll be eternally beautiful -- just for him.
So, we are assured that what a woman wants, more than conveniences or riches (and, you can be sure, much more even than any man!) is to be in charge of her own life.
Of course, one of the things men and women have in common is the reality that none of us is absolutely in charge of our lives, that situations exist in both society and nature that cause us to respond to rather than to direct life. Nevertheless, women progressives’ emphasis on women’s separateness too often appears that they’re anxious to rob both sexes of what they need most -- intimate romance!
No person, regardless of the depth of intimacy or the length of marriage, possesses another person. Telling someone that you are theirs or that you belong to them doesn’t make you their property. Any man who expects a woman to deny her personhood isn’t seeking a partner, he’s taking a prisoner and he ought to be arrested.
Historically, men have had a financial, legal and even physical advantage over women. Much of that advantage has been inherited from yesteryear when human survival was largely dependent on physical brawn. Humans being human, the physically fit who chopped down the trees, built the cabins and castles and hunted the deep dark forests for animals to feed and clothe the fair gender, naturally became dominant when it came time to establish societies with legal and moral standards.
At our worst, we men, whom I suspect are much weaker emotionally than women, too often become “bully boys” rather than real men when women don’t respond in a way that meets our needs. I’m not at all surprised when middle-aged women who have helped husbands get through college, supported the exacting demands of husbands’ professions and have occasionally suffered both physical and emotional abuse, decide not to remarry if they are abandoned or widowed. Why should they want to? As I see it, the woman who possesses sufficient energy to be romantic at middle age is worth her weight in gold.
Lest this male appear to be belittling his gender, I now turn to the best in men and (oddly enough) we find it implied in our modern legend.
Notice that Arthur is allowed to return home for one year to find the answer to the question put to him by his captor. How could that be?
The answer is because Arthur is a man of honor. Men of honor keep their word to their ladies and even to their enemies. Hence Arthur, being the man he is, would return to tell the potentate that he hadn’t found the answer to his inquiry “What do women want?” and would face his punishment.
What the story implies but doesn’t say is that Arthur did return and offered his captors and potential executers the answer to the puzzle. Arthur knew that really wise and honorable men of every land benefit most when their ladies feel supported and appreciated for their personhood.
Finally, even if Arthur returned and told the foreign potentate that what a lady wanted most was diamonds, even if he then went to his execution, he would have known that his land was under the capable guidance of Sir Lancelot who did know what a woman really wants!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
A few days ago, someone sent me a delightful story with a modern moral. It was about the legendary Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Here is the story:
One day, the young King Arthur is captured and imprisoned by knights from another land. So handsome, charming and wise is youthful Arthur that, rather than executing him, the foreign potentate only conditionally sentences him to death. Arthur is allowed to return to his court for one year so that he might have sufficient time to answer the age-old question: “What does a woman really want?”
On the last day of the year, having exhausted all the wisdom in his kingdom, Arthur faces reality. He must consult the wicked, ugly, smelly witch who will demand that he pay her price before answering his inquiry! Her price is the hand in marriage of Sir Lancelot, the handsomest and most noble knight of Arthur’s round table. So gallant is Sir Lancelot that he agrees to sacrifice his freedom for marriage to this horrid female so that King Arthur’s life might be spared.
As you can guess, the old witch answers the question and marries Sir Lancelot. When his wedding night arrives, Lancelot is stunned to find in his bed not a smelly old witch, but a beautiful princess. While assuring him that she is really who she says she is, the once horrid witch says that since he was so kind to her, she would be her ugly self only half the time. She asks her new husband what half of the day he’d like to have her be beautiful and what half of the day she can go back to being the horrid wicked witch she has always been. When he responds that it’s up to her, she vows that since he’s willing to let her take charge of her own life, she’ll be eternally beautiful -- just for him.
So, we are assured that what a woman wants, more than conveniences or riches (and, you can be sure, much more even than any man!) is to be in charge of her own life.
Of course, one of the things men and women have in common is the reality that none of us is absolutely in charge of our lives, that situations exist in both society and nature that cause us to respond to rather than to direct life. Nevertheless, women progressives’ emphasis on women’s separateness too often appears that they’re anxious to rob both sexes of what they need most -- intimate romance!
No person, regardless of the depth of intimacy or the length of marriage, possesses another person. Telling someone that you are theirs or that you belong to them doesn’t make you their property. Any man who expects a woman to deny her personhood isn’t seeking a partner, he’s taking a prisoner and he ought to be arrested.
Historically, men have had a financial, legal and even physical advantage over women. Much of that advantage has been inherited from yesteryear when human survival was largely dependent on physical brawn. Humans being human, the physically fit who chopped down the trees, built the cabins and castles and hunted the deep dark forests for animals to feed and clothe the fair gender, naturally became dominant when it came time to establish societies with legal and moral standards.
At our worst, we men, whom I suspect are much weaker emotionally than women, too often become “bully boys” rather than real men when women don’t respond in a way that meets our needs. I’m not at all surprised when middle-aged women who have helped husbands get through college, supported the exacting demands of husbands’ professions and have occasionally suffered both physical and emotional abuse, decide not to remarry if they are abandoned or widowed. Why should they want to? As I see it, the woman who possesses sufficient energy to be romantic at middle age is worth her weight in gold.
Lest this male appear to be belittling his gender, I now turn to the best in men and (oddly enough) we find it implied in our modern legend.
Notice that Arthur is allowed to return home for one year to find the answer to the question put to him by his captor. How could that be?
The answer is because Arthur is a man of honor. Men of honor keep their word to their ladies and even to their enemies. Hence Arthur, being the man he is, would return to tell the potentate that he hadn’t found the answer to his inquiry “What do women want?” and would face his punishment.
What the story implies but doesn’t say is that Arthur did return and offered his captors and potential executers the answer to the puzzle. Arthur knew that really wise and honorable men of every land benefit most when their ladies feel supported and appreciated for their personhood.
Finally, even if Arthur returned and told the foreign potentate that what a lady wanted most was diamonds, even if he then went to his execution, he would have known that his land was under the capable guidance of Sir Lancelot who did know what a woman really wants!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, August 2, 2010
THE BAD ONES
By Edwin Cooney
Of course we don’t purposely do it, but from time to time we really do choose bad presidents. Most Americans rate presidents largely on two considerations: “Did I like or agree with him?” or “Did he keep or break his word?”
Recently, for an internet presentation, I researched in some depth the five men who held the presidency between 1845 and 1860. With the exception of James Knox Polk (whom some scholars actually rate as a “near great president” since he accomplished in one term all of his campaign promises), the others (Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan) were exceedingly ineffectual. The question inevitably is: How could that be? Were they less educated or less capable than previous chief executives? The answer is that although Taylor and Fillmore (the 1848 Whig national ticket) were comparatively undereducated, the rest were on an educational par with earlier presidents.
What then makes a president great? What makes a president “bad”? As I’ve learned over the years, “great presidents” such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, have two things in common. The first is that they established institutions and traditions which favorably affected the structure of government or society for generations to come. The second thing is that they were willing to take major political risks to bring such changes about.
Some examples of these are George Washington’s personal construction of the Executive Branch of our government, Mr. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the subsequent passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution which ended slavery as the military went about the business of quashing the South’s rebellion, and FDR’s utilization of government as a legitimate tool for affecting the lives of the average citizen with the passage of Social Security, farming and banking legislation just to name a few items.
FDR also conducted us through a major world war which would enhance anyone’s reputation. Thus, great presidents have done things that construct or reconstruct thereby strengthening our nation in the process.
So, you ask, what makes a “bad president? Glancing at the names at the bottom of most presidential rankings, one inevitably sees such names as John Quincy Adams and Millard Fillmore. Adams, although experienced and highly principled, failed in office because he was seen by many as having made a “corrupt bargain” with House Speaker Henry Clay to be elected by the House of Representatives in February 1825 after the popular Andrew Jackson was not able to acquire enough electoral votes to win the presidency.
Millard Fillmore, whom John Quincy Adams befriended when they both served in the House of Representatives ten years or so after Adams’ presidency, failed because his enforcement of the fugitive slave law exacerbated rather than cooled the flames between the North and the South in the 1850s. Ulysses S. Grant, who was generally considered a great man and president during his lifetime, is regarded now as having failed as president for allowing himself to be used by corrupt men in politics and finance even as he remained pure in his personal and official conduct. Then there’s Herbert Clark Hoover—an excellent administrator and conscientious public servant who fed much of the world during World War I. He failed as president because he was unwilling to make essential economic and politically principled changes to meet the genuine economic distress which was visited on millions of Americans by the “Great Depression.”
Bad presidents are inevitably unpopular, and, not surprisingly, are seldom reelected -- President Grant being the exception. What bad presidents or presidencies have in common is that they are overwhelmed by the political and economic situations and circumstances they were elected to control. The immediate pre-Civil War presidencies failed because those presidents couldn’t see beyond the writ of the law. If slavery was lawful, men such as Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan said, then the law must be upheld. The principle that we are a government of laws and not of men sounded fine in the wake of Watergate, but as I see it, this very observation is what brought on the worst political and societal train wreck in our history.
No single principle or rule can be followed by someone who wishes to be President of the United States to insure presidential success or prevent a “bad presidency.” Presidents are rated by the people they serve. Presidents such as Truman and Eisenhower have risen since they left the White House and, as observed earlier, Ulysses S. Grant has declined in public and scholarly esteem over the years.
Ah! but therein lies one of the inevitable factors in any president’s fate. Presidents, good and bad, don’t do what they do in a vacuum. In each case, their reputation is sanctified by you and by me.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Of course we don’t purposely do it, but from time to time we really do choose bad presidents. Most Americans rate presidents largely on two considerations: “Did I like or agree with him?” or “Did he keep or break his word?”
Recently, for an internet presentation, I researched in some depth the five men who held the presidency between 1845 and 1860. With the exception of James Knox Polk (whom some scholars actually rate as a “near great president” since he accomplished in one term all of his campaign promises), the others (Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan) were exceedingly ineffectual. The question inevitably is: How could that be? Were they less educated or less capable than previous chief executives? The answer is that although Taylor and Fillmore (the 1848 Whig national ticket) were comparatively undereducated, the rest were on an educational par with earlier presidents.
What then makes a president great? What makes a president “bad”? As I’ve learned over the years, “great presidents” such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, have two things in common. The first is that they established institutions and traditions which favorably affected the structure of government or society for generations to come. The second thing is that they were willing to take major political risks to bring such changes about.
Some examples of these are George Washington’s personal construction of the Executive Branch of our government, Mr. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the subsequent passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution which ended slavery as the military went about the business of quashing the South’s rebellion, and FDR’s utilization of government as a legitimate tool for affecting the lives of the average citizen with the passage of Social Security, farming and banking legislation just to name a few items.
FDR also conducted us through a major world war which would enhance anyone’s reputation. Thus, great presidents have done things that construct or reconstruct thereby strengthening our nation in the process.
So, you ask, what makes a “bad president? Glancing at the names at the bottom of most presidential rankings, one inevitably sees such names as John Quincy Adams and Millard Fillmore. Adams, although experienced and highly principled, failed in office because he was seen by many as having made a “corrupt bargain” with House Speaker Henry Clay to be elected by the House of Representatives in February 1825 after the popular Andrew Jackson was not able to acquire enough electoral votes to win the presidency.
Millard Fillmore, whom John Quincy Adams befriended when they both served in the House of Representatives ten years or so after Adams’ presidency, failed because his enforcement of the fugitive slave law exacerbated rather than cooled the flames between the North and the South in the 1850s. Ulysses S. Grant, who was generally considered a great man and president during his lifetime, is regarded now as having failed as president for allowing himself to be used by corrupt men in politics and finance even as he remained pure in his personal and official conduct. Then there’s Herbert Clark Hoover—an excellent administrator and conscientious public servant who fed much of the world during World War I. He failed as president because he was unwilling to make essential economic and politically principled changes to meet the genuine economic distress which was visited on millions of Americans by the “Great Depression.”
Bad presidents are inevitably unpopular, and, not surprisingly, are seldom reelected -- President Grant being the exception. What bad presidents or presidencies have in common is that they are overwhelmed by the political and economic situations and circumstances they were elected to control. The immediate pre-Civil War presidencies failed because those presidents couldn’t see beyond the writ of the law. If slavery was lawful, men such as Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan said, then the law must be upheld. The principle that we are a government of laws and not of men sounded fine in the wake of Watergate, but as I see it, this very observation is what brought on the worst political and societal train wreck in our history.
No single principle or rule can be followed by someone who wishes to be President of the United States to insure presidential success or prevent a “bad presidency.” Presidents are rated by the people they serve. Presidents such as Truman and Eisenhower have risen since they left the White House and, as observed earlier, Ulysses S. Grant has declined in public and scholarly esteem over the years.
Ah! but therein lies one of the inevitable factors in any president’s fate. Presidents, good and bad, don’t do what they do in a vacuum. In each case, their reputation is sanctified by you and by me.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, July 26, 2010
BEWARE—PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE REMAINS AT LARGE
By Edwin Cooney
I devoutly wish, especially in the past few days, that I’d never met him. Yes, “Public Enemy Number One” is definitely male, for while he possesses elements of the fair gender, he’s constructed too solidly to be anything but male.
It’s not that he lacks wisdom or that he’s entirely antisocial; in fact, one of his most powerful weapons is that he can be very sociable. The burdens of parenthood are often eased when he directs their children. He must be captured and controlled by you and me, (especially by me) or he’s powerful enough to destroy us—individually and collectively. A list of his major achievements or dastardly deeds might be useful.
Going back to biblical times (sorry, but I’m not very knowledgeable about ancient history), he even stalked the Disciples of Christ, but they nevertheless kept spreading Christ’s gospel. Of course, it must be remembered that because they ignored him, most of the twelve died as martyrs to their creed.
It‘s not that he’s anti-religious. In fact, so powerful is Public Enemy Number One that he’s been given a vital role in all of humankind’s religious theologies with the possible exception of Buddhism or Hinduism –I’m not sure which. He is a vital part of the ying and the yang of human comprehension, similar to happiness and sadness, or love and hate.
Through the centuries, he’s befriended and victimized the most powerful rulers of nations including Henry VIII of England, Catherine the Great and Ivan the Terrible of Russia, Adolf Hitler, master of Germany’s Third Reich, and even some of our greatest presidents. Okay, since you insist, I’ll name two presidents who were especially adept at using Public Enemy Number One: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his youthful admirer Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Although we’re often stopped short and even thunderstruck by the force of Public Enemy Number One when we confront him, we still conveniently use him when we need to control other individuals and situations. His greatest offense is when he masquerades as bravery, political wisdom, religious piety, and especially—love.
Public Enemy Number One is especially cruel to the gentle and vulnerable among us. He institutionalizes loneliness and emptiness. He preys on those who have been the victim of physical disease, economic depression, war, injustice and individual infidelity. His worst sin is that he too often stultifies the possible when it sincerely offers the best for the future.
Public Enemy Number One is even worse than hate. Hate hides nothing. Hate’s purpose is domination and destruction. Hate at least is right out there for all to see and use for one’s own squalid advantage.
In fact, just like fire, atomic energy, and instantaneous communication, Public Enemy Number One is often vital to our own survival.
Nevertheless, more than hate, more than war, human prejudice, thievery, human betrayal, pain, and death itself—I despise him.
The late great J. Edgar Hoover used to insist that Public Enemy Number one was Al Capone, John Dillinger, Lucky Luciano or Joseph Stalin. He even suggested near the end of his forty-two year stint as FBI Director that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was pretty close to being Public Enemy Number One.
When I was growing up, I didn’t have a lot of enemies. Invariably, I assigned the position of Public Enemy Number One to certain teachers or residential school houseparents. As far as I was concerned, Public Enemy Number One’s most deadly weapons were school, coconut desserts, cauliflower, and asparagus -- I’ve since upgraded those vegetables, especially the former -- and, yes, please forgive me, dear God, long boring church services.
The damndest reality in the whole world however is that I need him. Without his damnable existence, I’d still be smoking a pack or so of cigarettes a day instead of puffing a gentle pipe. I’d cross streets less cautiously than I do. I’d be less diplomatic than I am. Impatience would inevitably overrule caution or diplomacy in my relationship with others. I’d probably talk too much and listen too little. Worst of all, if I hadn’t experienced Public Enemy Number One in recent days, I probably wouldn’t have anything to write about this week.
As persistent as he is, Public Enemy Number One’s most amazing quality is his audaciousness even though he’s been exposed for the villain that he is. He’s even been identified from the east steps of the Capital of the United States of America. History tells us that he was identified by the first of the two U.S. Presidents named above who asserted:
“This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly… So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself!”
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
I devoutly wish, especially in the past few days, that I’d never met him. Yes, “Public Enemy Number One” is definitely male, for while he possesses elements of the fair gender, he’s constructed too solidly to be anything but male.
It’s not that he lacks wisdom or that he’s entirely antisocial; in fact, one of his most powerful weapons is that he can be very sociable. The burdens of parenthood are often eased when he directs their children. He must be captured and controlled by you and me, (especially by me) or he’s powerful enough to destroy us—individually and collectively. A list of his major achievements or dastardly deeds might be useful.
Going back to biblical times (sorry, but I’m not very knowledgeable about ancient history), he even stalked the Disciples of Christ, but they nevertheless kept spreading Christ’s gospel. Of course, it must be remembered that because they ignored him, most of the twelve died as martyrs to their creed.
It‘s not that he’s anti-religious. In fact, so powerful is Public Enemy Number One that he’s been given a vital role in all of humankind’s religious theologies with the possible exception of Buddhism or Hinduism –I’m not sure which. He is a vital part of the ying and the yang of human comprehension, similar to happiness and sadness, or love and hate.
Through the centuries, he’s befriended and victimized the most powerful rulers of nations including Henry VIII of England, Catherine the Great and Ivan the Terrible of Russia, Adolf Hitler, master of Germany’s Third Reich, and even some of our greatest presidents. Okay, since you insist, I’ll name two presidents who were especially adept at using Public Enemy Number One: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his youthful admirer Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Although we’re often stopped short and even thunderstruck by the force of Public Enemy Number One when we confront him, we still conveniently use him when we need to control other individuals and situations. His greatest offense is when he masquerades as bravery, political wisdom, religious piety, and especially—love.
Public Enemy Number One is especially cruel to the gentle and vulnerable among us. He institutionalizes loneliness and emptiness. He preys on those who have been the victim of physical disease, economic depression, war, injustice and individual infidelity. His worst sin is that he too often stultifies the possible when it sincerely offers the best for the future.
Public Enemy Number One is even worse than hate. Hate hides nothing. Hate’s purpose is domination and destruction. Hate at least is right out there for all to see and use for one’s own squalid advantage.
In fact, just like fire, atomic energy, and instantaneous communication, Public Enemy Number One is often vital to our own survival.
Nevertheless, more than hate, more than war, human prejudice, thievery, human betrayal, pain, and death itself—I despise him.
The late great J. Edgar Hoover used to insist that Public Enemy Number one was Al Capone, John Dillinger, Lucky Luciano or Joseph Stalin. He even suggested near the end of his forty-two year stint as FBI Director that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was pretty close to being Public Enemy Number One.
When I was growing up, I didn’t have a lot of enemies. Invariably, I assigned the position of Public Enemy Number One to certain teachers or residential school houseparents. As far as I was concerned, Public Enemy Number One’s most deadly weapons were school, coconut desserts, cauliflower, and asparagus -- I’ve since upgraded those vegetables, especially the former -- and, yes, please forgive me, dear God, long boring church services.
The damndest reality in the whole world however is that I need him. Without his damnable existence, I’d still be smoking a pack or so of cigarettes a day instead of puffing a gentle pipe. I’d cross streets less cautiously than I do. I’d be less diplomatic than I am. Impatience would inevitably overrule caution or diplomacy in my relationship with others. I’d probably talk too much and listen too little. Worst of all, if I hadn’t experienced Public Enemy Number One in recent days, I probably wouldn’t have anything to write about this week.
As persistent as he is, Public Enemy Number One’s most amazing quality is his audaciousness even though he’s been exposed for the villain that he is. He’s even been identified from the east steps of the Capital of the United States of America. History tells us that he was identified by the first of the two U.S. Presidents named above who asserted:
“This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly… So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself!”
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)