By Edwin Cooney
In response to my recent commentary on “common sense,” one of my readers sent me the following:
“Common sense tells me that it’s almost time to wish you holiday greetings. But there will be no nativity scene at the capitol. They can’t find three wise men in Washington D.C.”
I’m incredulous over that news, aren’t you? If there aren’t three wise men in the capital of the freest, richest, most vital nation on earth, what does that say about our past? What does it portend for our future? Might there be two or perhaps even one wise man in Washington, D.C.? Maybe he lives in the Maryland or Virginia suburbs of the capital. Of course, we can’t insist that he lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! If we did, we’d have to suggest that a social minority Democrat could be wise! Okay, if you insist, I’ll very reluctantly scratch that one -- after all, I’ve never claimed to be wise myself! Oh, well! Let’s see now! Hmmm! Maybe Chief Justice John G. Roberts could be considered a wise man. Hmmm! Nah! A truly wise man could hardly have been born in Buffalo, New York! I must add, however, that the wisest lady I ever knew was born in Buffalo. But we’re looking for wise men, aren’t we? If the President and the Chief Justice of the United States must be ruled out, who else is there?
Of course, wise men of biblical days advised absolute rulers. If things went well enough for those rulers, the designated wise men remained wise men. Otherwise, having been demoted to a rank lower than manhood itself, they probably disappeared. Thus, we have the inevitable question: what makes a man wise? That question brings up still another question: do men have a monopoly over women on wisdom?
Then there’s the daunting question: What exactly is wisdom? Owls are supposed to be wise. Foxes are wise, in a sly and “foxy” way, of course! Successful politicians are supposedly clever, manipulative and egotistic. As for lawyers, Republican lawyers are of course necessary beings while Democratic lawyers are grasping shysters lacking the least pretences to wisdom.
So, who’s wise and what is wisdom? Now, I’d be glad to define wisdom for you, but the question is whether or not you’d be wise enough to endorse my definition. After all, much wisdom is described in negative terms such as “the batter was wise not to swing at that pitch!” “Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread!” Wise men are prudent! The wise among us are more judicious than aggressive or creative! Finally, the wise ones, much of the time, are required to wear beards, aren’t they?
In the first fifty years of our federal republic (1789 - 1839), Washington, the two Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Jackson, a total of seven men, were largely regarded as wise men. In the second fifty years (1840 through 1890), Senators Clay, Webster, Calhoun and Presidents Lincoln and Grant, a total of five men, were regarded as wise. (Note that Clay, Webster and Calhoun helped bring about the Civil War, but they were seen as wise men nonetheless.) In the third fifty year period (1891 - 1941) Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes were among the wise of the land. The fourth fifty years (1942 to 1992), Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan and Chief Justice Earl Warren, a total of four men, were among the wise of that era. In the fifth fifty year period, the years since 1993, perhaps the wisest man of this generation so far is Colin Powell a man who decided in 1996 not to run for president.
As I perceive the political and socio/religious American scene in late 2011, cynicism appears much more prevalent than wisdom. What scares me is that we may be too cynical to even recognize wisdom.
Back in the 1950s, the late great broadcaster and newsman Edward R. Murrow along with his producer Fred W. Friendly put together a series of broadcasts in which prominent Americans such as Helen Keller, Helen Hayes, and Bernard Baruch described their fundamental beliefs. This series of broadcasts was called appropriately enough “This I Believe.” These personal philosophies were published in book form and became a bestseller.
Perhaps then, the beginning of wisdom is the willingness to believe in someone or some principle that enhances rather than inhibits the “better angels of our nature.” If that’s the beginning of wisdom, then there must be a touch of wisdom in most of us. Whether there’s a sufficient amount of wisdom in any of us to fully be considered “wise” is another question!
So, then, there are no wise men in Washington! Scary as that may be, the question is: are we wise enough to heed even one wise man -- let alone three of them? If there were three wise men, which one of them would we heed: the wise man of riches, the wise man of natural abundants, or the wise man of love? What say you?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, December 19, 2011
Monday, December 5, 2011
“AND THE WINNER IS…”
By Edwin Cooney
One of the hardest emotional and intellectual exercises for anyone to endure who supports an incumbent president is to listen to a political debate among the candidates of the opposing party. Difficult as it is, such an exercise can be fascinating and instructive.
It’s instructive, because it gives you an insight into the personalities and values of their candidates. It’s fascinating, because you learn how they evaluate the origin, nature and solvability of domestic and international problems.
Additionally, during the most recent GOP debate at Constitution Hall, there were two issues regarding our national security that were especially enthralling. The first had to do with the “war on terror.” The second one had to do with the issue of illegal immigration.
The “war on terror” question concerned civil liberties. Specifically, what should be our reaction in response to anyone, such as the 2009 Detroit “Christmas bomber,” whose mission was clearly an act of terror? Should he have been given his Miranda Rights and tried as a criminal (as was the case) or should he, a foreigner and suspected terrorist, have been tried by the military? Congresswoman Bachmann insisted that President Obama has turned our national security over to the Civil Liberties Union rather than to a responsible agency such as the CIA!
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich insisted that there’s a clear difference between a criminal act and an act of war. In a criminal act, asserted Gingrich, the government should be on the defensive to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, former Speaker Gingrich insisted that a terrorist act, being an act of war, should enable the government to utilize legal tools beyond the norm such as censure, seizure and interrogation. He and most of the other candidates cited President Lincoln’s Civil War measures to support this conclusion.
The exception was (you guessed it) Congressman Ron Paul. Congressman Paul, who is forever concerned about civil liberties, insisted that much of the problem has to do with our own carelessness with words and concepts. He pointed out, as I have since 2006, that we’re not engaged in a “war on terror,” that terror is a tactic or a mere element of conflict or war. He went on to insist that as a member of Congress, he had never voted for any declaration of war on Islam or on any other country. Vigorous and persuasive as his arguments were that we could alleviate terror by minding our own business, they were generally brushed aside by most of his political opponents. Thus, as Speaker Gingrich pointed out, terror is going to be with us for the rest of our lives. The public is left with the clear understanding that the Republican Party is the only party that is sufficiently interested and therefore able to maintain the security and safety of the American people. What else can one reasonably expect to glean (I suppose) from a Republican debate?
As for the issue of illegal immigration, there were a number of significant points brought out by the candidates. Governor Perry insisted that the number one national security priority is securing the Mexican border. Specifically, the governor promised that within twelve months of his inauguration, our border with Mexico would be secure. Next Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Governor Romney, and Speaker Gingrich engaged in a debate over the phrases “legal immigration” and “amnesty” and whether tolerance for illegal immigrants who have been here for 20 or 25 years should prevail. My personal regard went up several degrees for Newt Gingrich who has seldom given me a chance to even respect him, let alone love him. However, on this occasion, he insisted that the GOP could hardly be the party of the family if it didn’t find some way of allowing “illegal immigrant” Mexican families with 25 years of roots and traditions to remain in the United States. Newt Gingrich’s assertion was, for me, the moral high point of the entire debate.
When asked to name the dangers to America which have been getting less attention than they should, the candidates covered both the globe and the entire emotional spectrum. Former Senator Rick Santorum and Governor Perry are worried about socialism and Hezbollah in Latin America. Congressman Paul worries that we’ll continue to become involved in conflicts “that are none of our business.” Herman Cain and Mr. Santorum worry about China and cyber warfare. (Santorum also worries about the 25,000 abortions in China every day.) Speaker Gingrich worries about a possible electromagnetic pulse attack that could entirely disable the United States. Congresswoman Bachmann agrees with all her colleagues except Ron Paul, her congressional peer. Finally, Governor Jon Huntsman worries about a dying and desperate China and about jobs in America.
As for the debate, the issues that were raised were genuine enough. The debate was exceedingly partisan -- everyone knows America didn’t face critical issues before President Obama was elected! As for the candidates, I liked Gingrich, Huntsman, and Romney in that order!
And the winner was – oh, my! It can’t be true! I can’t believe it: “…fear itself!”
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
One of the hardest emotional and intellectual exercises for anyone to endure who supports an incumbent president is to listen to a political debate among the candidates of the opposing party. Difficult as it is, such an exercise can be fascinating and instructive.
It’s instructive, because it gives you an insight into the personalities and values of their candidates. It’s fascinating, because you learn how they evaluate the origin, nature and solvability of domestic and international problems.
Additionally, during the most recent GOP debate at Constitution Hall, there were two issues regarding our national security that were especially enthralling. The first had to do with the “war on terror.” The second one had to do with the issue of illegal immigration.
The “war on terror” question concerned civil liberties. Specifically, what should be our reaction in response to anyone, such as the 2009 Detroit “Christmas bomber,” whose mission was clearly an act of terror? Should he have been given his Miranda Rights and tried as a criminal (as was the case) or should he, a foreigner and suspected terrorist, have been tried by the military? Congresswoman Bachmann insisted that President Obama has turned our national security over to the Civil Liberties Union rather than to a responsible agency such as the CIA!
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich insisted that there’s a clear difference between a criminal act and an act of war. In a criminal act, asserted Gingrich, the government should be on the defensive to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, former Speaker Gingrich insisted that a terrorist act, being an act of war, should enable the government to utilize legal tools beyond the norm such as censure, seizure and interrogation. He and most of the other candidates cited President Lincoln’s Civil War measures to support this conclusion.
The exception was (you guessed it) Congressman Ron Paul. Congressman Paul, who is forever concerned about civil liberties, insisted that much of the problem has to do with our own carelessness with words and concepts. He pointed out, as I have since 2006, that we’re not engaged in a “war on terror,” that terror is a tactic or a mere element of conflict or war. He went on to insist that as a member of Congress, he had never voted for any declaration of war on Islam or on any other country. Vigorous and persuasive as his arguments were that we could alleviate terror by minding our own business, they were generally brushed aside by most of his political opponents. Thus, as Speaker Gingrich pointed out, terror is going to be with us for the rest of our lives. The public is left with the clear understanding that the Republican Party is the only party that is sufficiently interested and therefore able to maintain the security and safety of the American people. What else can one reasonably expect to glean (I suppose) from a Republican debate?
As for the issue of illegal immigration, there were a number of significant points brought out by the candidates. Governor Perry insisted that the number one national security priority is securing the Mexican border. Specifically, the governor promised that within twelve months of his inauguration, our border with Mexico would be secure. Next Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Governor Romney, and Speaker Gingrich engaged in a debate over the phrases “legal immigration” and “amnesty” and whether tolerance for illegal immigrants who have been here for 20 or 25 years should prevail. My personal regard went up several degrees for Newt Gingrich who has seldom given me a chance to even respect him, let alone love him. However, on this occasion, he insisted that the GOP could hardly be the party of the family if it didn’t find some way of allowing “illegal immigrant” Mexican families with 25 years of roots and traditions to remain in the United States. Newt Gingrich’s assertion was, for me, the moral high point of the entire debate.
When asked to name the dangers to America which have been getting less attention than they should, the candidates covered both the globe and the entire emotional spectrum. Former Senator Rick Santorum and Governor Perry are worried about socialism and Hezbollah in Latin America. Congressman Paul worries that we’ll continue to become involved in conflicts “that are none of our business.” Herman Cain and Mr. Santorum worry about China and cyber warfare. (Santorum also worries about the 25,000 abortions in China every day.) Speaker Gingrich worries about a possible electromagnetic pulse attack that could entirely disable the United States. Congresswoman Bachmann agrees with all her colleagues except Ron Paul, her congressional peer. Finally, Governor Jon Huntsman worries about a dying and desperate China and about jobs in America.
As for the debate, the issues that were raised were genuine enough. The debate was exceedingly partisan -- everyone knows America didn’t face critical issues before President Obama was elected! As for the candidates, I liked Gingrich, Huntsman, and Romney in that order!
And the winner was – oh, my! It can’t be true! I can’t believe it: “…fear itself!”
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 28, 2011
FUNNY DAYS—BIRTHDAYS!
By Edwin Cooney
I know, the oldest person in the world should be writing this, but even though I’m just a kid, kids know more about birthdays than anyone else—especially adults!
Okay! I’m 66 today. Do I mind admitting it? Well, sort of, for a small but nevertheless sufficiently nagging reason: I’d rather be telling you that I’m 35, 45 or even 55! After all, 66-year-old men don’t much encourage the romantic ardor of many ladies. Still, for the most part, I don’t mind owning up to it.
Birthdays can be humbling days. Three quarters of my first twenty years were spent away from home at a residential school for the blind. The major event of a good percentage of those birthdays was the “birthday spanking” all the guys were exceedingly anxious to administer. During gym class, 18 or 20 guys would line up with their legs spread apart and you were expected to crawl from front to back allowing each guy in line the opportunity to give you a hard whack on the bottom as you passed through. Inevitably, one or two guys would close their legs as you were halfway through and they got an extra whack at you. Believe me, there were more birthday whacks than birthday cakes where I went to school!
As one gets older, past the whacking and the “pin the tail on the donkey” birthday party era, birthday celebrations take on a little more dignity. Gone are the birthdays where your aunt or grandmother proclaimed with pride how tall and mature you’d become in such a short time. Birthday spankings are replaced by that inevitable needling -- even by your spouse and best friend -- as to how old you’re getting.
Of course, birthdays are a lot like any other day. The weather, as always, despite your most fervent birthday wishes, remains beyond your control. If you have a cold, as soon as you wake up on your birthday morning, you understand that colds are no respecters of “your special day.” Even on your birthday, the slacks that fit you when you were younger and thinner don’t magically fit you as the “birthday boy or girl!”
I feel especially sorry for two categories of birthday celebrants. First, there’s the situation twins must live with. Unless they’re especially close to one another, loneliness can be induced by the very act of inclusion. Their parents and friends invariably celebrate the birthday of “the twins” rather than the birthday of the individual twin. This can be especially painful for young twins. Then, there is the case of children born close to Christmas. There are several of those in my family. This is mostly difficult for kids. Parents can often soften this dilemma by seeing to it that special precautions are taken to maximize the specialness of that day, but it can be a problem. My birthday is almost a month before Christmas, but more than once as a kid, I’d receive a gift tagged “Merry Christmas, this is also for your birthday!”
The lives of two distinguished Americans demonstrate how fate can function on one’s birthday:
Warren Gamaliel Harding was born in Marion, Ohio on Thursday, November 2nd, 1865. Exactly 55 years later, on Tuesday, November 2nd, 1920, Harding was elected 29th President of the United States as he played golf in that small Ohio town.
Our 22nd Vice President, Levi Parsons Morton, who served from 1889 to 1893 under President Benjamin Harrison, was born in Shoreham, Vermont on Sunday, May 16th, 1824. He died at age 96 in Rhinebeck, New York. Guess when? You’ve got it: Sunday, May 16th, 1920. Yes, indeed! Birthdays can be both fateful and fatal!
As for my birthdays, I can’t complain. I’ve been rewarded more than I’ve been either hurt or ignored. It’s a tad embarrassing to be too much the center of attention. After all, too much attention can make you a” legend in your own mind,” as they say! Still, being the center of a special person’s love is a great thing. I should know: my best friend has made my birthday a special day of celebration for almost 40 years—and it’s been almost magical.
Birthdays measure age, but more importantly, they energize the giver and the receiver of birthday wishes. The recipient is energized by the expression of love offered by the giver and the giver is energized by the knowledge that those gifts of love are valued because the best that is in them is the source of the gift.
As for that annual reminder of impending old age, my guess is that it ends sometime around age…let’s see now…Ah, nuts!...Damned if I know!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
I know, the oldest person in the world should be writing this, but even though I’m just a kid, kids know more about birthdays than anyone else—especially adults!
Okay! I’m 66 today. Do I mind admitting it? Well, sort of, for a small but nevertheless sufficiently nagging reason: I’d rather be telling you that I’m 35, 45 or even 55! After all, 66-year-old men don’t much encourage the romantic ardor of many ladies. Still, for the most part, I don’t mind owning up to it.
Birthdays can be humbling days. Three quarters of my first twenty years were spent away from home at a residential school for the blind. The major event of a good percentage of those birthdays was the “birthday spanking” all the guys were exceedingly anxious to administer. During gym class, 18 or 20 guys would line up with their legs spread apart and you were expected to crawl from front to back allowing each guy in line the opportunity to give you a hard whack on the bottom as you passed through. Inevitably, one or two guys would close their legs as you were halfway through and they got an extra whack at you. Believe me, there were more birthday whacks than birthday cakes where I went to school!
As one gets older, past the whacking and the “pin the tail on the donkey” birthday party era, birthday celebrations take on a little more dignity. Gone are the birthdays where your aunt or grandmother proclaimed with pride how tall and mature you’d become in such a short time. Birthday spankings are replaced by that inevitable needling -- even by your spouse and best friend -- as to how old you’re getting.
Of course, birthdays are a lot like any other day. The weather, as always, despite your most fervent birthday wishes, remains beyond your control. If you have a cold, as soon as you wake up on your birthday morning, you understand that colds are no respecters of “your special day.” Even on your birthday, the slacks that fit you when you were younger and thinner don’t magically fit you as the “birthday boy or girl!”
I feel especially sorry for two categories of birthday celebrants. First, there’s the situation twins must live with. Unless they’re especially close to one another, loneliness can be induced by the very act of inclusion. Their parents and friends invariably celebrate the birthday of “the twins” rather than the birthday of the individual twin. This can be especially painful for young twins. Then, there is the case of children born close to Christmas. There are several of those in my family. This is mostly difficult for kids. Parents can often soften this dilemma by seeing to it that special precautions are taken to maximize the specialness of that day, but it can be a problem. My birthday is almost a month before Christmas, but more than once as a kid, I’d receive a gift tagged “Merry Christmas, this is also for your birthday!”
The lives of two distinguished Americans demonstrate how fate can function on one’s birthday:
Warren Gamaliel Harding was born in Marion, Ohio on Thursday, November 2nd, 1865. Exactly 55 years later, on Tuesday, November 2nd, 1920, Harding was elected 29th President of the United States as he played golf in that small Ohio town.
Our 22nd Vice President, Levi Parsons Morton, who served from 1889 to 1893 under President Benjamin Harrison, was born in Shoreham, Vermont on Sunday, May 16th, 1824. He died at age 96 in Rhinebeck, New York. Guess when? You’ve got it: Sunday, May 16th, 1920. Yes, indeed! Birthdays can be both fateful and fatal!
As for my birthdays, I can’t complain. I’ve been rewarded more than I’ve been either hurt or ignored. It’s a tad embarrassing to be too much the center of attention. After all, too much attention can make you a” legend in your own mind,” as they say! Still, being the center of a special person’s love is a great thing. I should know: my best friend has made my birthday a special day of celebration for almost 40 years—and it’s been almost magical.
Birthdays measure age, but more importantly, they energize the giver and the receiver of birthday wishes. The recipient is energized by the expression of love offered by the giver and the giver is energized by the knowledge that those gifts of love are valued because the best that is in them is the source of the gift.
As for that annual reminder of impending old age, my guess is that it ends sometime around age…let’s see now…Ah, nuts!...Damned if I know!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 21, 2011
A PEEK AT PAST NOVEMBER 21STS
By Edwin Cooney
Just one of the reasons history means so much to me is that even when one runs out of ideas to write about, there’s history with all of its intrigues into which one may delve. So, let’s take a peek at a few past November twenty-firsts!
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1654 -- Richard Johnson, the son of a freed black man and hence free himself, is granted 550 acres of land on the eastern shore of Virginia. At that time, chattel slavery was only thirty-five years old. Richard and his older brother John were the sons of Anthony and Mary Johnson who had earned their freedom in 1635. After five years of freedom, Anthony Johnson purchased his own black slaves and 200 acres of land along with some cattle and began raising tobacco. Yes, indeed, seventeenth century blacks could own land and other blacks, could sue white men in court, and could marry white women. Of course, that didn’t last long, although even into the 19th century there were a few black slave owners in America. Still, one November 21st long ago, a black Virginian acquired 550 acres of Old Dominion real estate. How about that!
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1787 -- Andrew Jackson is admitted to the North Carolina Bar. Although possessing a limited education, young Jackson had read and retained enough law to enable himself to become a Constable and Deputy Sheriff upon admission to the Guilford County Bar on that long ago Wednesday. The following year, he was transferred to the western district of North Carolina which today is the state of Tennessee. There he became a prosecuting attorney, then a district judge, a superior court judge, a congressman, a U.S. Senator (twice), and the 1812 War hero at the Battle of New Orleans. Finally, of course, he became our seventh President. Question: do you suppose “Old Hickory” was elected president because he was a good lawyer or because he was a hell-of-a good general and war hero?
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1920 -- Stan “The Man” Musial is born in Donora, Pennsylvania. A great professional athlete and a stellar citizen, Stan has been in baseball’s Hall of Fame since 1969. Hardworking, dedicated, and sincere on and off the field, he never had the slightest bit of scandal or impropriety linked to his name. A three time National League MVP winner, a seven time NL batting champion and a participant in three St. Louis Cardinal Championships, Musial was both highly competitive and a gentleman. The most eloquent testimony to his character is the Presidential Medal of Freedom presented to him by President Barack Obama last February. My guess is that neither you nor I own one of those medals!
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1941 -- Juanita Spinelli (aka “The Duchess”) became the first woman to be legally executed in California’s gas chamber. According to Clinton T. Duffy, a former warden of San Quentin prison, Spinelli was the hardest, coldest, most repulsive looking, evil prisoner -- male or female -- he ever met. She was hard even to like a little bit according to Warden Duffy. Although scrawny and sharp-featured, the 52 year-old grandmother was a former wrestler as well as a ruthless and brutal gang leader. She and her common-law husband, Michael Simeon, and one other gang member, Gordon Hawkins, were executed for two northern California murders which took place between January and April 1940. (Simeon was executed on November 28th, 1941, just a week after Spinelli). I include this story because -- despising the death penalty as I do -- I am trying to convince myself that in the wake of this evil woman’s execution, a huge chunk of evil was eradicated from humankind. Oh, that’s right: Adolph Hitler was still thriving that justice-laden Friday. Whoops!
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1963 -- The Beatles appeared on American television for the first time as a feature on the CBS Evening News. The irony is that the Beatles represented a dazzling future while our dazzling and glamorous President, John F. Kennedy was spending his last night politicking in Texas.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1990—The Charter of Paris was signed on this date effectively ending the cold war. The charter established the organization which guaranteed international security in Europe. No one will ever forget Pearl Harbor Day, V.E. and V.J. day and certainly not 9/11, but how many of us even know about the Paris summit and subsequent treaty that ended the 45 year reign of international terror we called “The Cold War”? In fact, had I known of its existence, I could have bragged about the depth of my knowledge and my historical sophistication. Oh well!
November 21sts are a lot like every other day, I suppose. Still, every day is at least a little unique -- don’t you think?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Just one of the reasons history means so much to me is that even when one runs out of ideas to write about, there’s history with all of its intrigues into which one may delve. So, let’s take a peek at a few past November twenty-firsts!
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1654 -- Richard Johnson, the son of a freed black man and hence free himself, is granted 550 acres of land on the eastern shore of Virginia. At that time, chattel slavery was only thirty-five years old. Richard and his older brother John were the sons of Anthony and Mary Johnson who had earned their freedom in 1635. After five years of freedom, Anthony Johnson purchased his own black slaves and 200 acres of land along with some cattle and began raising tobacco. Yes, indeed, seventeenth century blacks could own land and other blacks, could sue white men in court, and could marry white women. Of course, that didn’t last long, although even into the 19th century there were a few black slave owners in America. Still, one November 21st long ago, a black Virginian acquired 550 acres of Old Dominion real estate. How about that!
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1787 -- Andrew Jackson is admitted to the North Carolina Bar. Although possessing a limited education, young Jackson had read and retained enough law to enable himself to become a Constable and Deputy Sheriff upon admission to the Guilford County Bar on that long ago Wednesday. The following year, he was transferred to the western district of North Carolina which today is the state of Tennessee. There he became a prosecuting attorney, then a district judge, a superior court judge, a congressman, a U.S. Senator (twice), and the 1812 War hero at the Battle of New Orleans. Finally, of course, he became our seventh President. Question: do you suppose “Old Hickory” was elected president because he was a good lawyer or because he was a hell-of-a good general and war hero?
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1920 -- Stan “The Man” Musial is born in Donora, Pennsylvania. A great professional athlete and a stellar citizen, Stan has been in baseball’s Hall of Fame since 1969. Hardworking, dedicated, and sincere on and off the field, he never had the slightest bit of scandal or impropriety linked to his name. A three time National League MVP winner, a seven time NL batting champion and a participant in three St. Louis Cardinal Championships, Musial was both highly competitive and a gentleman. The most eloquent testimony to his character is the Presidential Medal of Freedom presented to him by President Barack Obama last February. My guess is that neither you nor I own one of those medals!
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1941 -- Juanita Spinelli (aka “The Duchess”) became the first woman to be legally executed in California’s gas chamber. According to Clinton T. Duffy, a former warden of San Quentin prison, Spinelli was the hardest, coldest, most repulsive looking, evil prisoner -- male or female -- he ever met. She was hard even to like a little bit according to Warden Duffy. Although scrawny and sharp-featured, the 52 year-old grandmother was a former wrestler as well as a ruthless and brutal gang leader. She and her common-law husband, Michael Simeon, and one other gang member, Gordon Hawkins, were executed for two northern California murders which took place between January and April 1940. (Simeon was executed on November 28th, 1941, just a week after Spinelli). I include this story because -- despising the death penalty as I do -- I am trying to convince myself that in the wake of this evil woman’s execution, a huge chunk of evil was eradicated from humankind. Oh, that’s right: Adolph Hitler was still thriving that justice-laden Friday. Whoops!
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1963 -- The Beatles appeared on American television for the first time as a feature on the CBS Evening News. The irony is that the Beatles represented a dazzling future while our dazzling and glamorous President, John F. Kennedy was spending his last night politicking in Texas.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1990—The Charter of Paris was signed on this date effectively ending the cold war. The charter established the organization which guaranteed international security in Europe. No one will ever forget Pearl Harbor Day, V.E. and V.J. day and certainly not 9/11, but how many of us even know about the Paris summit and subsequent treaty that ended the 45 year reign of international terror we called “The Cold War”? In fact, had I known of its existence, I could have bragged about the depth of my knowledge and my historical sophistication. Oh well!
November 21sts are a lot like every other day, I suppose. Still, every day is at least a little unique -- don’t you think?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 14, 2011
MY GOD! YOUR GOD! OUR GOD
By Edwin Cooney
No being or force has a greater effect on who you and I are than does that of God and what we perceive God to be. Our perception of God functions at the epicenter of our concepts of the significance of birth, morality, death and eternity. Hence, God plays some role in all of our lives, even in the lives of agnostics and atheists who are doubtful of God's existence or who insist that God doesn't exist at all. Therefore, God possesses the unique distinction of holding most people's attention, while at the same time remaining a mystery to virtually all of us.
I raise this subject because I am struggling, more than at any time in my life, to understand my relationship with God. I haven't any doubt as to the existence of a living God.
Like most of us, I was born and raised to believe in God, the Father Almighty, who sent Jesus Christ to earth to die for and thus cleanse our sins. Many times throughout my life I've felt blessed, comforted, guided and even protected by God. I've occasionally even believed that I understand God. What I've come increasingly to realize, however, is that I possess only a clue as to the essence of God.
The Reverend Leslie Weatherhead's little book called "The Will of God," which I read about a decade ago, offered me, and doubtless lots of other readers, a lovingly benign understanding that God wishes us well whatever turn life takes. Reverend Weatherhead, a World War II Era British clergyman, suggests that God's will is invariably to be the ruling factor once we enter eternity. Up until then, as I understand the good Reverend, God's work or will, here on earth, must be our work and, for better or worse, our will.
From as far back as I can remember, I've always believed in the Biblical perception of God the creator, God the protector, God the healer, and hopefully, God the forgiver. However, lately, I've become less sure not of the existence of God, but of the essence of God. Those of us who strive to be Christians have traditionally been imbued with the idea that God is our eternal King.
A king, by his nature, tends to be an absolute dictator. As many fundamentalist Christians remind the rest of us The Ten Commandments aren't the Ten Suggestions. Hence, as God is a King or if you prefer, a Heavenly King, God naturally takes it very, very personally when we're not in compliance with God's rules of conduct or worship. Preachers often warn us that God is a jealous God and that God is an angry and avenging God. On the other hand, preachers almost as often assure us God is a forgiving god, a healing God, a God of loving grace. (Some insist that the earmark of a good preacher is one who comforts the distressed and distresses the comfortable!)
It's been my experience that whenever I raise the question of the essence of God with my fellow Christians, steeped as they are in scripture, I'm urged to see what the Bible has to say about it. Invariably the Bible appears to tell me to get with the program or spend eternity in "you know where!," just as Britain's Henry the Eighth would have done.
Occasionally, I'm accused of trying to create my own God rather than accepting who God is. With that, I beg to differ. It's the other way around as I see it. The history of Godly perception is the history of fatherhood (God the Father), military warriors (God the Almighty General), and the King (hence God's kingdom). Accordingly, you and I are to understand that God Almighty is an earthly king with supernatural or Heavenly powers, who is ready to love us and preserve us if we praise and humble ourselves before God's all-consuming majesty. If we don't, well then, we've made another choice and can expect to be banished.
That's where, as the late Paul Harvey used to say, "we shuck right down to the cob." The fact is that the Holy Bible was written by men whose character was established by the sin of Adam and Eve vividly described as "the good book's beginning." As humankind is thus imperfect, they're incapable of writing or doing anything perfectly. Hence, to me, the Bible is the inspired rather than the actual word of God. For me, Biblical truth lies in its wisdom more than in its story.
Currently, I'm reading retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong's book "Why Christianity Must Change or Die." This book challenges many of our traditional Christian perceptions, while at the same time, acknowledging and even insisting that God is real.
I offer you a glimpse into my own struggle because I suspect many of you also, sometimes painfully, struggle to comprehend your relationship to and with God. I like to believe that ultimately, when you and I pass into eternity, the best that is within us will blend painlessly and peacefully with the loving energizing nature of God.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No being or force has a greater effect on who you and I are than does that of God and what we perceive God to be. Our perception of God functions at the epicenter of our concepts of the significance of birth, morality, death and eternity. Hence, God plays some role in all of our lives, even in the lives of agnostics and atheists who are doubtful of God's existence or who insist that God doesn't exist at all. Therefore, God possesses the unique distinction of holding most people's attention, while at the same time remaining a mystery to virtually all of us.
I raise this subject because I am struggling, more than at any time in my life, to understand my relationship with God. I haven't any doubt as to the existence of a living God.
Like most of us, I was born and raised to believe in God, the Father Almighty, who sent Jesus Christ to earth to die for and thus cleanse our sins. Many times throughout my life I've felt blessed, comforted, guided and even protected by God. I've occasionally even believed that I understand God. What I've come increasingly to realize, however, is that I possess only a clue as to the essence of God.
The Reverend Leslie Weatherhead's little book called "The Will of God," which I read about a decade ago, offered me, and doubtless lots of other readers, a lovingly benign understanding that God wishes us well whatever turn life takes. Reverend Weatherhead, a World War II Era British clergyman, suggests that God's will is invariably to be the ruling factor once we enter eternity. Up until then, as I understand the good Reverend, God's work or will, here on earth, must be our work and, for better or worse, our will.
From as far back as I can remember, I've always believed in the Biblical perception of God the creator, God the protector, God the healer, and hopefully, God the forgiver. However, lately, I've become less sure not of the existence of God, but of the essence of God. Those of us who strive to be Christians have traditionally been imbued with the idea that God is our eternal King.
A king, by his nature, tends to be an absolute dictator. As many fundamentalist Christians remind the rest of us The Ten Commandments aren't the Ten Suggestions. Hence, as God is a King or if you prefer, a Heavenly King, God naturally takes it very, very personally when we're not in compliance with God's rules of conduct or worship. Preachers often warn us that God is a jealous God and that God is an angry and avenging God. On the other hand, preachers almost as often assure us God is a forgiving god, a healing God, a God of loving grace. (Some insist that the earmark of a good preacher is one who comforts the distressed and distresses the comfortable!)
It's been my experience that whenever I raise the question of the essence of God with my fellow Christians, steeped as they are in scripture, I'm urged to see what the Bible has to say about it. Invariably the Bible appears to tell me to get with the program or spend eternity in "you know where!," just as Britain's Henry the Eighth would have done.
Occasionally, I'm accused of trying to create my own God rather than accepting who God is. With that, I beg to differ. It's the other way around as I see it. The history of Godly perception is the history of fatherhood (God the Father), military warriors (God the Almighty General), and the King (hence God's kingdom). Accordingly, you and I are to understand that God Almighty is an earthly king with supernatural or Heavenly powers, who is ready to love us and preserve us if we praise and humble ourselves before God's all-consuming majesty. If we don't, well then, we've made another choice and can expect to be banished.
That's where, as the late Paul Harvey used to say, "we shuck right down to the cob." The fact is that the Holy Bible was written by men whose character was established by the sin of Adam and Eve vividly described as "the good book's beginning." As humankind is thus imperfect, they're incapable of writing or doing anything perfectly. Hence, to me, the Bible is the inspired rather than the actual word of God. For me, Biblical truth lies in its wisdom more than in its story.
Currently, I'm reading retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong's book "Why Christianity Must Change or Die." This book challenges many of our traditional Christian perceptions, while at the same time, acknowledging and even insisting that God is real.
I offer you a glimpse into my own struggle because I suspect many of you also, sometimes painfully, struggle to comprehend your relationship to and with God. I like to believe that ultimately, when you and I pass into eternity, the best that is within us will blend painlessly and peacefully with the loving energizing nature of God.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 7, 2011
FROM WHENCE I CAME
By Edwin Cooney
About two weeks ago, a new reader of these weekly musings who proudly identifies himself as a “Conservative” asked me why I had abandoned my youthful Republican/Conservative roots in favor of 21st Century Liberalism. It’s a fair question. Hence, I offer to take you on my political journey: come along!
Growing up in the 1950s was both promising and perilous. The promise was our dedication to peace, prosperity and freedom. The perils were the threats of polio, Communism and nuclear annihilation. I became aware at an early age that “America the Beautiful” and I lived in a dangerous world. It was a world fast being dominated by a Communist monolith that was poised militarily and determinedly to conquer and communize America and the entire world. The 1950s was an era of air raid shelters, Sputnik, and a chronically angry Nikita Khrushchev whose hair trigger temper was backed up by huge nuclear rockets and a willingness to use them. Additionally, Premier Khrushchev seemed constantly to create a crisis that would justify nuclear warfare.
All this being the case, the best antidotes to these barbarian threats were bravery, patriotism, superior military hardware, and determined leadership. “Peace through strength” most called it.
Domestic concerns such as balanced budgets, civil rights, the minimum wage and teacher’s salaries, important as they were, ranked a distant second to national security. Even more, I came to believe that anyone willing to demonstrate for civil rights while the Russians were watching lacked a sense of both patriotism and national priorities.
My political heroes were -- like good boy scouts -- patriotic, tough, morally straight and decisive in their actions. Their names were Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater and, above all, J. Edgar Hoover. Their brave and the land that I loved safe.
Essentially, my early political awareness had mostly to do with my fears. My heroes feared big government and, if they feared big government, I feared it, too. Big government was both a question of practicality and morality. Moral men believed in state’s rights and that limited government was the best government because it was controllable by the people rather than “bureaucrats.”
Then came the 1960s and 1970s. With the advent of Leonid Brezhnev and the passing of Nikita Khrushchev, Russian rockets may have grown in numbers and precision, but they rattled less. My heroes convinced themselves, as did John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, that Communism was as dangerous in Vietnam as it was in either Russia or China. Therefore, any advancement of Communism -- no matter how localized -- was a threat to our security. Add to that the tragedy of Vietnam, the fate of John Kennedy and the political squalidness of Watergate and my political priorities began, ever so slowly, to shift.
Ebbing away was the immediacy of American Soviet nuclear confrontation. The Vietnam conflict with its legal, moral and legitimacy issues began to blur the once sharp distinctions in the cold war struggle. Did Marxists not have the same rights as democrats to unite their own country without the intervention of an ideologically opposing super power? Even more, does the fact that Communism prevails today in a united Vietnam cause us to sleep less securely at night? My old heroes insisted such would be the case. Do we gain if we cling to our fears, if our fears rather than our capacity for forward-looking government lie at the root of our political affiliation?
I’m not in the least ashamed of my once proud association with Conservatism. Nor did I think that I was joining the party of the angels that Saturday afternoon of October 30th, 1976 when I officially changed my party affiliation. Still, I was pleased to become a Jimmy Carter Democrat even though that had its own perils.
Today I’m a Barack Hussein Obama Democrat. Of course, our hopes and our fears dictate our political affiliation. I now worry about people’s right to healthcare regardless of previous condition or ability to pay. Money should never be the reason people live or die. I worry too about American joblessness. Of course, “free enterprise” requires that profits prevail over patriotism or else it would alleviate the situation. Its managers and benefactors would hire American just as they insist that consumers “buy American” and workers would be sufficiently -- rather than minimally -- paid. Today, the political descendants of my old ideological heroes would rather see an American president fail than cooperate with him in the passage of legislation that might be beneficial to the American people.
We live in a time when both Conservatives and Liberals are absolutely certain of their moral superiority. Liberals use their tradition of political independence to pressure their party leadership. Conservatives use their money-driven capacity for effective organization to keep their membership in line.
Of course, you and I affiliate with the political party we decide best meets our needs. However, what’s both sad and ultimately destructive is the following truth:
In 21st Century politics, issues matter much more than solutions!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
About two weeks ago, a new reader of these weekly musings who proudly identifies himself as a “Conservative” asked me why I had abandoned my youthful Republican/Conservative roots in favor of 21st Century Liberalism. It’s a fair question. Hence, I offer to take you on my political journey: come along!
Growing up in the 1950s was both promising and perilous. The promise was our dedication to peace, prosperity and freedom. The perils were the threats of polio, Communism and nuclear annihilation. I became aware at an early age that “America the Beautiful” and I lived in a dangerous world. It was a world fast being dominated by a Communist monolith that was poised militarily and determinedly to conquer and communize America and the entire world. The 1950s was an era of air raid shelters, Sputnik, and a chronically angry Nikita Khrushchev whose hair trigger temper was backed up by huge nuclear rockets and a willingness to use them. Additionally, Premier Khrushchev seemed constantly to create a crisis that would justify nuclear warfare.
All this being the case, the best antidotes to these barbarian threats were bravery, patriotism, superior military hardware, and determined leadership. “Peace through strength” most called it.
Domestic concerns such as balanced budgets, civil rights, the minimum wage and teacher’s salaries, important as they were, ranked a distant second to national security. Even more, I came to believe that anyone willing to demonstrate for civil rights while the Russians were watching lacked a sense of both patriotism and national priorities.
My political heroes were -- like good boy scouts -- patriotic, tough, morally straight and decisive in their actions. Their names were Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater and, above all, J. Edgar Hoover. Their brave and the land that I loved safe.
Essentially, my early political awareness had mostly to do with my fears. My heroes feared big government and, if they feared big government, I feared it, too. Big government was both a question of practicality and morality. Moral men believed in state’s rights and that limited government was the best government because it was controllable by the people rather than “bureaucrats.”
Then came the 1960s and 1970s. With the advent of Leonid Brezhnev and the passing of Nikita Khrushchev, Russian rockets may have grown in numbers and precision, but they rattled less. My heroes convinced themselves, as did John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, that Communism was as dangerous in Vietnam as it was in either Russia or China. Therefore, any advancement of Communism -- no matter how localized -- was a threat to our security. Add to that the tragedy of Vietnam, the fate of John Kennedy and the political squalidness of Watergate and my political priorities began, ever so slowly, to shift.
Ebbing away was the immediacy of American Soviet nuclear confrontation. The Vietnam conflict with its legal, moral and legitimacy issues began to blur the once sharp distinctions in the cold war struggle. Did Marxists not have the same rights as democrats to unite their own country without the intervention of an ideologically opposing super power? Even more, does the fact that Communism prevails today in a united Vietnam cause us to sleep less securely at night? My old heroes insisted such would be the case. Do we gain if we cling to our fears, if our fears rather than our capacity for forward-looking government lie at the root of our political affiliation?
I’m not in the least ashamed of my once proud association with Conservatism. Nor did I think that I was joining the party of the angels that Saturday afternoon of October 30th, 1976 when I officially changed my party affiliation. Still, I was pleased to become a Jimmy Carter Democrat even though that had its own perils.
Today I’m a Barack Hussein Obama Democrat. Of course, our hopes and our fears dictate our political affiliation. I now worry about people’s right to healthcare regardless of previous condition or ability to pay. Money should never be the reason people live or die. I worry too about American joblessness. Of course, “free enterprise” requires that profits prevail over patriotism or else it would alleviate the situation. Its managers and benefactors would hire American just as they insist that consumers “buy American” and workers would be sufficiently -- rather than minimally -- paid. Today, the political descendants of my old ideological heroes would rather see an American president fail than cooperate with him in the passage of legislation that might be beneficial to the American people.
We live in a time when both Conservatives and Liberals are absolutely certain of their moral superiority. Liberals use their tradition of political independence to pressure their party leadership. Conservatives use their money-driven capacity for effective organization to keep their membership in line.
Of course, you and I affiliate with the political party we decide best meets our needs. However, what’s both sad and ultimately destructive is the following truth:
In 21st Century politics, issues matter much more than solutions!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, October 31, 2011
DISCONCERTING — VERY DISCONCERTING!
By Edwin Cooney
As President Ford observed during his first address to Congress back on Monday, August 12th, 1974, “confession is good for the soul!” (Jerry, whose message to Congress was the necessity for budget cutting, publicly confessed to Speaker Carl Albert of Oklahoma that he — as a member of Congress — had often been willing to spend tax-payer money for worthy projects in Michigan while opposing wasteful spending in Oklahoma.) My confession is that some of my joy last May the 1st — as President Obama announced the capture, execution and burial at sea of Osama bin Laden — was partisan. The Republicans would be “green with envy,” as indeed they were, and still are! However, what it all means is far more important than political point scoring!
Back in 2004 when young Barack Obama addressed the Democratic National Convention, much of the power of his appeal was due to his opposition to the Iraqi war. He’d come out against an invasion of Iraq as early as September 2002 — six months before its March 19th, 2003 “shock and awe” outset. Obama’s meteoric rise was due to his articulate and even dynamic opposition to the Iraqi war, and many progressives easily and conveniently believed he opposed all war. Hence, it appeared we had a potential President with anti-war sentiments equal to George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy and Jimmy Carter. During the campaign when he insisted that he’d vigorously pursue al-Qaeda, few took him seriously. I certainly didn’t.
There is a parallel in our political history to this shift in likely presidential leadership. Between the end of World War II and 1971 there was little the Republican Party considered a higher priority than the unleashing of Chang Kai-Shek against Red China and the return of democracy to the Chinese mainland. Yet, it was Richard Nixon — one of the GOP’s staunchest anti-Communists of the 1950s — who, as President, gleefully announced his impending 1972 visit to the People’s Republic of China. Even more amazing, Republicans proudly campaigned on RMN’s “historic breakthrough” during the succeeding presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, back to twenty-first century politics! In late 2009 came the news that the President was sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Next, came the shocking news of that Sunday night when news blared across the nation that a force of Navy Seals under the direction of President Barack Hussein Obama, had cornered and ruthlessly killed Osama bin Laden in his Pakistan housing compound. What was most disturbing to many Obama supporters was that the president was almost as gleeful as George Walker Bush and Rush Limbaugh would have been had this deed been carried out before January 20th, 2009 — even more preferably during October of 2004.
Throughout his subsequent Sixty Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, not once was the President at all reflective about either the legality or the possible consequences of his actions. Many Democrats, me included, were saddened and even embarrassed that President Obama didn’t do a bit of public reflecting about such concepts as: the sanctity of international borders, the sovereignty of nations, rights of the accused, and above all — the regretability of gun-barrel justice.
Still, if it was necessary that Osama bin Laden be eliminated by order of an American President — and I believe it was — I’m generally glad that it was President Obama who gave the order.
Of course, the vast majority of Americans of all parties are glad that bin Laden is gone. Still, with every action there is not only a reaction, but there is often created precedence for an increasingly deadlier reaction to events than was previously the case.
Might President Obama’s decision to eliminate bin Laden in the way he did set a dangerous precedent? Might a future sitting or former American President be more subject to capture or elimination once our opponents become sufficiently capable of carrying out such ventures? On the other hand, the possibility of world peace might be strengthened if world leaders were a little more vulnerable than they currently are to international “justice.”
Throughout the “watch” of President Barack Hussein Obama — and Presidents ultimately catch both praise and blame for what occurs on their “watches” — we’ve witnessed the elimination of more hostile leaders than any President since FDR, who was largely responsible for the elimination of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.
Not even President Reagan’s record matches Barack Hussein Obama’s record of eliminating terrorist-oriented leaders. Specifically there are Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki (the man behind the 2009 Christmas bomber and the quashed New York Times Square bombing.) Then, there’s Muammar Gaddafi — whom President Reagan sought to and barely missed destroying.
The scary part of all this is, what’s next? Just as: President Reagan didn'’t anticipate the future significance of the Taliban when he aided Afghanistan freedom fighters against the Soviets; just as President Reagan didn’t anticipate trouble with Saddam Hussein when he sold him lethal weapons to use on the outlaw state of Iran; just as Presidents Clinton and G. W. Bush didn’t anticipate the cost of an Iraqi war; what hasn’t President Obama anticipated that could be vital to our future security?
Disconcerting — very disconcerting isn’t it how often we think we’re being intelligent and patriotic when we’re really being partisan!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
As President Ford observed during his first address to Congress back on Monday, August 12th, 1974, “confession is good for the soul!” (Jerry, whose message to Congress was the necessity for budget cutting, publicly confessed to Speaker Carl Albert of Oklahoma that he — as a member of Congress — had often been willing to spend tax-payer money for worthy projects in Michigan while opposing wasteful spending in Oklahoma.) My confession is that some of my joy last May the 1st — as President Obama announced the capture, execution and burial at sea of Osama bin Laden — was partisan. The Republicans would be “green with envy,” as indeed they were, and still are! However, what it all means is far more important than political point scoring!
Back in 2004 when young Barack Obama addressed the Democratic National Convention, much of the power of his appeal was due to his opposition to the Iraqi war. He’d come out against an invasion of Iraq as early as September 2002 — six months before its March 19th, 2003 “shock and awe” outset. Obama’s meteoric rise was due to his articulate and even dynamic opposition to the Iraqi war, and many progressives easily and conveniently believed he opposed all war. Hence, it appeared we had a potential President with anti-war sentiments equal to George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy and Jimmy Carter. During the campaign when he insisted that he’d vigorously pursue al-Qaeda, few took him seriously. I certainly didn’t.
There is a parallel in our political history to this shift in likely presidential leadership. Between the end of World War II and 1971 there was little the Republican Party considered a higher priority than the unleashing of Chang Kai-Shek against Red China and the return of democracy to the Chinese mainland. Yet, it was Richard Nixon — one of the GOP’s staunchest anti-Communists of the 1950s — who, as President, gleefully announced his impending 1972 visit to the People’s Republic of China. Even more amazing, Republicans proudly campaigned on RMN’s “historic breakthrough” during the succeeding presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, back to twenty-first century politics! In late 2009 came the news that the President was sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Next, came the shocking news of that Sunday night when news blared across the nation that a force of Navy Seals under the direction of President Barack Hussein Obama, had cornered and ruthlessly killed Osama bin Laden in his Pakistan housing compound. What was most disturbing to many Obama supporters was that the president was almost as gleeful as George Walker Bush and Rush Limbaugh would have been had this deed been carried out before January 20th, 2009 — even more preferably during October of 2004.
Throughout his subsequent Sixty Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, not once was the President at all reflective about either the legality or the possible consequences of his actions. Many Democrats, me included, were saddened and even embarrassed that President Obama didn’t do a bit of public reflecting about such concepts as: the sanctity of international borders, the sovereignty of nations, rights of the accused, and above all — the regretability of gun-barrel justice.
Still, if it was necessary that Osama bin Laden be eliminated by order of an American President — and I believe it was — I’m generally glad that it was President Obama who gave the order.
Of course, the vast majority of Americans of all parties are glad that bin Laden is gone. Still, with every action there is not only a reaction, but there is often created precedence for an increasingly deadlier reaction to events than was previously the case.
Might President Obama’s decision to eliminate bin Laden in the way he did set a dangerous precedent? Might a future sitting or former American President be more subject to capture or elimination once our opponents become sufficiently capable of carrying out such ventures? On the other hand, the possibility of world peace might be strengthened if world leaders were a little more vulnerable than they currently are to international “justice.”
Throughout the “watch” of President Barack Hussein Obama — and Presidents ultimately catch both praise and blame for what occurs on their “watches” — we’ve witnessed the elimination of more hostile leaders than any President since FDR, who was largely responsible for the elimination of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.
Not even President Reagan’s record matches Barack Hussein Obama’s record of eliminating terrorist-oriented leaders. Specifically there are Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki (the man behind the 2009 Christmas bomber and the quashed New York Times Square bombing.) Then, there’s Muammar Gaddafi — whom President Reagan sought to and barely missed destroying.
The scary part of all this is, what’s next? Just as: President Reagan didn'’t anticipate the future significance of the Taliban when he aided Afghanistan freedom fighters against the Soviets; just as President Reagan didn’t anticipate trouble with Saddam Hussein when he sold him lethal weapons to use on the outlaw state of Iran; just as Presidents Clinton and G. W. Bush didn’t anticipate the cost of an Iraqi war; what hasn’t President Obama anticipated that could be vital to our future security?
Disconcerting — very disconcerting isn’t it how often we think we’re being intelligent and patriotic when we’re really being partisan!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)