THE SPEECH PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD HAVE MADE ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1ST, 2020

My fellow Americans,

Since March 16th, you and I together have found it necessary to take time out from our usual and primary responsibility of making a living in order to plan our strategy for combating an enemy different from any national crisis in our history. The enemy we're facing today is more ruthless or powerful than any hungry, angry or vengeful foreign state. Being an international disease, COVID-19 is beyond mastery by treaty or military force. COVID-19's destruction will require powers beyond those of a constitutionally established military commander-in-chief. No president in American history has ever faced the challenge that confronts me as your president. I can only adequately face this challenge with your help.

As this pandemic threatens our economic well-being, we also feel a sense of insecurity, anxiety and fear. We find that we're faced with three immediate tasks. First, we need to agree upon our immediate priorities, then what those priorities will require of us, and how they will sufficiently relate to one another.

Our first priority is that of supplying every American household with funds sufficient to enable them to purchase the goods and services they require for their immediate safety and survival during this most difficult time of unemployment and decreasing economic and social resources. To overcome these unhappy circumstances, the Congress and I have agreed to put a floor under every taxpayer's household income throughout the country.

Our second priority during the immediate future will be to identify those methods and materials we'll need to utilize in order to minimize the spread of COVID-19.  I shall personally be overseeing and coordinating the manufacture, purchase, and distribution of face masks and other medical materials that are vital to the prevention of COVID-19 as well as for its treatment.

Priority number 3 in my mind is that of getting the best minds available to continuously monitor our reaction to this deadly pandemic. To that end, I'm appointing a national task force consisting of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as the creative ideas  of former Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter as we move step by step through the economic, social, and emotional adjustment required to bring about the ultimate destruction of this unprovoked challenge to our national well-being.  

During recent weeks there has been too much emphasis regarding how prepared we should or might have been to effectively cope with the Coronavirus. What matters most in the long run is what we all do to master this international enemy that threatens the well-being and future of men and women everywhere in the world. 

As I indicated a moment or two ago, our war on COVID-19, while not a military operation, will require you and me to be patient and brave, as well as steadfast in our determination to protect one another from harm. In order to do this, it's possible that we'll be forced to re-open our societal activities in phases. Sadly, and most anxiously, too little is known about both the immediate and long-term dangers there may be as we contract, pass through, and recover from this pandemic.

Since January 20th, 2017, my responsibility has been to protect America. To that end, I have no evidence to believe that this disease comes from the deliberate activity of any government. COVID-19 is therefore an act of nature rather than an act of war.

It's likely that as we re-open restaurants, bars, theaters, and even some out-of-door places of activity, there may be the need for the extensive use of face masks and hand sanitizer, as well as the need for an increasing number of testing sites.

As you return to work, some of you will encounter higher levels of risk than will others, due to the nature of your employment which may require increasing physical contact with one another as well as with the public. Therefore, anxious as you and I may be to normalize life throughout America, we must always be ready in our planning about life during the coming months to draw the distinction between needful activities and merely desirable ones.

For the sake of our families, our neighbors, our customers and our friends, each of us must be ready to be soldiers in our national struggle against an international pandemic as well as citizens whose first priority is for the safety and security of one another!

This outlook is the only sure path to a future that is creative, secure, and indicative of a free, prosperous and happy people.

As your president, I'm anxious to provide leadership down that path!

 

Thank You, God bless you, and goodnight!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

2020, THE BABY BASEBALL SEASON OF INTREPID PLAY

By Edwin Cooney

During the course of an interview late in 1996 on the NBC Game of the Week with Baltimore Orioles broadcaster John Miller and Acting Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig, the commissioner labeled Miller “a likely baseball purist.” 

Mr. Miller was shocked, as he had some views that were about needed changes in the game. In fact, John Miller not only advocated interleague play, he also loved the designated hitter!

About a week ago, my buddy whom I’ll call "Erie Michael,” proudly labeled himself a "baseball purist" due to his opposition to some of the changes that will be made in the  shortened 2020 season. These included the use of the designated hitter in the National League, the runner automatically put on second base at the beginning of each extra inning, relief pitchers compelled to pitch to at least three batters, and enforcement of the “20 seconds between pitch rule,” as well as new limited mound visits by the catcher and the manager to speed the game up.

“Erie Michael" knows exactly what will happen with a runner on second base and nobody out: "The batter will simply push the next pitch toward first base which will almost automatically move the runner to third with one out from where the base runner will score from third with the lead run on a sacrifice fly." My response was to remind him that although the runner, under the new rules, would have to be put on second base, there's no rule preventing the opposition from walking the next hitter, forcing a possible out at any base and/or a likely inning-ending double play. Where “Erie Michael” is absolutely right is when he acknowledges that the opponents can do that to one another inning after inning, thereby preventing the speeding up of extra inning games which this new rule is supposed to achieve.

My immediate quarrel with my friend was to ask this "baseball purist" when baseball stopped being pure? Perhaps it was when they moved the pitching mound from 45 feet to 60 feet, 6 inches. Perhaps it was when they limited free substitution in the late 1880s or when they banned the spitball, the shine ball and the emory ball in 1920. Perhaps baseball lost its absolute purity as late as 1969 (the centennial) when they lowered the mound from 15 inches to 10 inches.  (Of course, my friend could change his self designation as a baseball “purest" into that of a baseball traditionalist and it would be a bit harder to argue with him, but keep in mind that one of the biggest and most fun-filled parts of being a baseball fan is arguing with the decisions of the umpires or sports writers or simply with each other!)

Despite all of the disappointment, criticism and trepidation about the coming season and a very, very possible strike following the 2021 season when the current player ownership agreement ends, most fans I'm sure are ready to watch and listen to major league baseball even absent the sight and sound of fans at the ballpark! After all, baseball is always baseball. Just ask fans to remember what they did to make baseball happen while growing up in the streets, on the playgrounds, or in the pastures to make baseball as real as it could be even with the lack of equipment and ideal playing conditions. Those homemade rule modifications never killed or even threatened the spirit of the game. It's likely that these accommodations actually enhanced the value of baseball in their young minds and hearts.

When the 2020 season opens, the mighty Yankees who have won 27 World Series will face off against the new Washington Nationals who have won only one World Series — the only one in which they’ve ever played. The Yankees had to play in three World Series before winning the championship. (They lost to John J. McGraw's very proud New York Giants in 1921 and 1922 before putting it all together in 1923.)

"Ah," you say, "but talk about opening day! What might we look forward to on Thursday, July 23rd, 2020?”

Well, it's possible that Opening Day 2020 could be as glorious for Yankee pitcher Gerrit Cole as it was for Cleveland Indians’ Bob Feller in 1940 who pitched a no hitter against the White Sox. Feller gave up five walks and there were two errors behind him. The final score was one - zip. It was 47 degrees in Chicago and “Rapid Robert’s” parents and sister were in the stands. That very same day, Tuesday, April 16th, might have been a bit embarrassing for another “pitcher," President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose season opening day delivery beaned a Washington sports photographer, Irving Schlossberg. For a president seeking an unprecedented third term, beaning Mr. Schlossberg was hardly an auspicious beginning — unless, of course, he was one of those elephant types!

Perhaps the most inglorious opening day of all time was Tuesday, April 17th, 1945 in Cincinnati for rookie shortstop Frankie Zach of the Pittsburgh Pirates. Zach, while standing on first base, called time to tie his shoe while the opposing pitcher was delivering a pitch to Frankie's teammate Jim Russell. Russell promptly sent Reds' pitcher Bucky Walters’ pitch into the right field stands for a two run homer. However, the home run was disallowed as, unknown to Walters, the plate umpire had actually granted Frankie Zach's request, thereby nullifying Russel's blast. (Note: The Pirates lost that day by a run. Had Russel's home run been allowed, the Pirates may well have won the game by that single blast!) For millions upon millions of people, the grandest opening day was Thursday, April 17th, 1947, when Jackie Roosevelt Robinson (named after Teddy Roosevelt) got a bunt single off Boston Braves' pitcher Glenn Elliott in a game the Dodgers won 12 to 6 at Ebbets Field.

Ever since President William Howard Taft tossed his opening season pitch to the Washington Senator's Walter (Big Train) Johnson back on Thursday, April 10th, 1910, baseball and our national "body politic" have been more or less wedded. Might President Trump display Harry Truman’s audacity to toss out the first ball of an election year season? If President Trump demonstrates such audacity, might the Washington Nationals become "The Trumpville Nine?”

The ultimate glory is that as of today, Monday, July 20th, Erie Michael knows for sure that the baby 2020 season, insignificant as many fear it could be, means…

Bring on the cold beer. Runs, hits, errors, strikeouts, homers and the best cry of all: PLAY BALL!!! 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

SO, WHAT ARE THE REAL ISSUES IN 2020?

By Edwin Cooney

While talking with my friend “Dodger David” the other day, I discovered what could be a major distraction, rather than an issue, which could affect the outcome of the 2020 election.

Dodger David, despite his “second class” baseball taste, is a really fine fellow. He's good tempered, thoughtful, and generous, and I like him very, very much! However, in this instance, he confuses methodology with principle — and he's far from being alone. Here’s what I mean!

Dodger David finds little fault with the president's contempt for social distancing. However, he took an accusatory tone when he wondered out loud why protestors against the president, the police and Confederate 

monuments weren't showing adequate social distancing during their public meetings. Through such wondering, Dodger David reduced the four major issues concerning all of us to a single question. Which group of Americans, supporters of the president or those protesting the president, is most responsible for  spreading COVID-19? As I see it, herein lies that potentially serious social and political distraction. It's equivalent to something parents hear all the time when their kids are arguing with each other: "He started it!" The significant issue is how to handle the virus, not who started it! If the issue becomes who started and who's spreading COVID-19, we are arguing over the effect rather than putting maximum pressure on those who could rid us of it, thus making discussion of the whole issue pointless rather than substantive.  

The number one issue facing the American voter this November is how we can most effectively halt or ultimately cure and prevent COVID-19.

The second issue has to do with the necessity of bringing about social justice in the wake of the documentation on everyone's smart phone that racial justice on the part of too many police departments across the country just doesn't exist. This documented lack of equal justice raises the question as to why it doesn’t exist after 244 years of freedom and justice (supposedly) for all. The answer lies in this question: what have we been celebrating all these decades since the end of the Civil War? Who have we been celebrating? The answer to that is our celebration of Confederate generals, and even  Confederate culture. Additionally, we've ignored Confederate treason. 

The third major issue, and perhaps the most urgent one, has to do with climate change. If we insist that we love our children and grandchildren, how can we afford to ignore this issue?

A fourth major issue is President Trump himself. As it was said by Franklin Delano Roosevelt that the 1936 presidential election was about him, President Trump likewise believes that this election is about him. For both better and worse we chose FDR over Governor Alfred Landon of Kansas in 1936.

The question therefore is can we live with the worse aspects of President Trump for another term as we lived with the worse aspects of FDR in 1936? The fundamental difference between the two incumbent presidential candidates is simple. The 1936 election may have been mostly about FDR but, unlike President Trump, FDR was clearly and historically about you and me rather than about himself! 

If you're a Conservative, remember that despite Ronald Reagan's ideological differences with Roosevelt's legacy, it was FDR he quoted most and who he not so secretly admired.

A few weeks ago, I suggested that President Trump would be more effective as a leader if he were to ask every American to become a soldier in the fight against COVID-19 in the tradition of Lincoln during the Civil War, Wilson during World War I, FDR and Truman during World War II and even LBJ during the Vietnam conflict. Traditionally, Americans have responded overwhelmingly to such a presidential call at least at the outset of such a major crisis. In late 1979 and early 1980, Jimmy Carter, unpopular as he was at the time, had the support of most Americans following the taking of 53 of our diplomats and military personnel as hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran.    

Rather than appealing to the best in us, President Trump has  spent most of his time labeling and name calling, blaming and ridiculing, attacking the motives of state governors, suggesting that COVID-19 was manufactured to embarrass him and his administration during an election year and, worst of all, contradicting or minimizing the advice of his official COVID-19 advisors about the significance and strength of the disease. Even worse, time and time again he exposes some of his most loyal supporters and their friends and families to possible infection by the Coronavirus. In this way, he treats his supporters and opponents with the same contempt. For the very first time in our history, an American president is clearly more interested in his own well-being than he is about "the state of the nation."

Above I suggested that a debate over whether President  Trump's behavior or the behavior of demonstrators is merely a debate over methodology rather than over the substance of the next election. The danger is that as often as not, an effective distraction can prevail.

Despite the issues I've outlined above, the person of Donald John Trump may well be the most vital issue this November. Ultimately, I believe if President Trump isn't re-elected, he will have been defeated by who he is — thereby trumping what he currently is!

Standing in the East Room of the White House addressing a roomful of his supporters on the morning of August 9th, 1974, Mr. Nixon's final words included this sentiment:

"Always give your best, never get discouraged, never be petty. Always remember that others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. Then, you destroy yourself!"

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE ASSUMPTION OF EQUALITY: THEREIN LIES THE SOUL OF LIBERTY

By Edwin Cooney

Two days ago we celebrated the United States' 244th anniversary as an independent nation. Still, there's very little evidence that we, the sophisticated and well informed 21st century citizenry, have discovered our national soul! I insist our soul resides in the Declaration of Independence, because that's where our commitment to equality was born. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

As I was approaching voting age in the mid-1960s, ideological Conservatives began to openly quarrel with the literal applicability of the word "equal" or the concept of equality as it pertains to measuring the worthiness of people. The late great broadcaster Paul Harvey use to insist that of course there was no such thing as all men being equal. To that observation, he would dramatically insist: Mr. Lincoln himself was a splendid example of the fallacy of his own statement that all men are created equal! Lincoln, Mr. Harvey would insist, was far above mere equality!! Thus, Conservatives invariably threw down the gauntlet of liberty versus equality with liberty the natural winner. More about the reason for this deliberate quarrel later.

Thomas Jefferson, as one of the most powerful intellectuals and lawgivers of the 19th century, appealed to "nature's God" as being the foundation of American liberty. However, the man to whom the spirit of the Declaration of Independence came through to loudest and clearest was a Kentucky-born Illinois lawyer and legislator named Abraham Lincoln. Throughout his career in state and national politics, Mr. Lincoln asserted again and again that the law and the Constitution were the result of the proposition that all men are created equal. Hence, it was only natural that President Lincoln began his approximately three minute Gettysburg address thusly:

Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are CREATED EQUAL.

Now (he went on) we are engaged in a great civil war testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. Abraham Lincoln's dedication to the Constitution was, except from the standpoint of the most rabid secessionists, never in doubt. Mr. Lincoln's continuous reference to the equality of all the people rather than to their physical, emotional, spiritual, political or social inequities was deliberate. Essential as was the law and the Constitution, their ultimate value lay in "the better angels of our nature."

The equality of all, as I see it, identifies each person's essential being. Each of us is born with an aura -- a combination of presence and awareness which invariably links us to one another. Within that aura of existence we are by definition all equal.

The sad aspect of all this can be found in the way different groups of us seek to deny that essential reality. Progressives are loath to acknowledge this equality when they champion abortion rights. Conservatives do exactly the same thing when they deny the legitimacy of equal opportunity to women and minority groups of all kinds. This emphasis of physical and intellectual differences was modern conservatism's effort to justify its superior mores over the mores of the less fortunate.

Jefferson was determined to establish a society that refused to institutionalize either royalty or to exempt the better born from everyone else's responsibility to expand to future generations what he called "the disease of liberty."

If we really and truly allowed ourselves to follow Mr. Jefferson's historic assertion and Mr. Lincoln's most fundamental belief that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, we'd save ourselves a lot of needless pain!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

IS HISTORY A TEACHER, PREACHER, OR A PORTAL?

By Edwin Cooney

First, a confession: I regard the popular admonition that if one ignores history, one is destined to repeat it as arguable at best. Despite popular presumptions, history isn't a judge. It is ultimately a record of people, places and events. Here's an example of what I mean. In the wake of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in the late 1930s, our foreign policy leaders from John Foster Dulles through Henry Kissinger justified the war in Vietnam on the basis that history had taught us the lesson to never appease dictators whether fascist or communist. Because we listened to that version of history thereby ignoring other lessons, we subsequently frittered away the young and ultimately vulnerable lives of 58,000 plus Americans. The question today is what end did the Vietnamese War serve except to teach us a lesson we shouldn't have had to learn? (Note that we might have listened to another historical lesson — don't become entangled or allied with a foreign society you can't control — as Britain had in Palestine as well as in Greece, India, and Iran at the close of World War II.)

As a student of history, I've tried to follow the principle that to truly understand a prominent  event or an historic individual, one must keep in mind the mores of the time and determine how relevant the mores of a past era fit into today’s. Abraham Lincoln's attitudes toward blacks might well be considered close to reactionary in 2020, but in his own day he was regarded by many as being pretty close to an abolitionist!

It's perfectly legitimate to look back on the events of 1776 and celebrate Independence Day, thus celebrating and endorsing the urgency of that time by applying its meaning to our own era. However, there are a lot of practices and mores regarded as vital to that era that would be unacceptable in 2020. These would include slavery, indentured servitude, debtor’s prison, dueling, state sponsored churches and state sponsored prayers, as well as newspapers funded out of the cabinet by men named Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. (Jefferson paid money out of the State Department's budget to fund the National Gazette published by Philip Freneau while Hamilton used funds from the Treasury Department to fund The Gazette of the United States published by John Fenno. These were perfectly legal political practices at the time but would be regarded as close to being corrupt and criminal today.)

What can be constructive, if we'll let it be so, is what effect celebrating something like the Confederacy or even Columbus Day can have on the outlook and the fortunes of others.

It's my conclusion that what's causing so much trouble about so many people's celebration of the old Confederacy is that such celebrations distort a reality that has been too often ignored.  The establishment of the Confederate States of America was an act of treason, plain and simple. This is especially poignant in that so many Americans who express love for the Confederacy are so quick to label socialism and even liberalism as treasonous when both are merely ideologies. And, in case you've forgotten, capitalism isn't found in our constitution any more than any other political or economic “ism.”

Too often many of us have asserted what history will or won't proclaim about a particular event or individual. When Jimmy Carter lost the presidency to Ronald Reagan in 1980, I asserted that history would be much kinder to him than the present. I was wrong about that for two reasons. First, Jimmy Carter's post presidency has endeared him to many more people than his presidency, because the last time I checked, it’s the presidency and not the post presidency that is usually the topic of historic analysis.  Second, the study of each presidency lasts an eternity. Hence it is quite possible that a future generation's history student might alter its evaluation of him once again. Keep in mind that at the close of the 19th Century, Ulysses S. Grant was still regarded as a great general and as a near great president. General Grant is still rightly regarded today as a great general, but his presidency is rated as pretty average. Therefore, here is what I've learned about history:

History neither teaches nor preaches. History, like America, is discovered. History is a powerful portal through which we can view more information and more perspective than you and I can even begin to comprehend!

History will only teach you what you want to hear or know. History possesses neither conscience nor wisdom.

Accordingly, wisdom is strictly the obligation and responsibility of its students as they seek to apply the historical record to present circumstances and conditions. 

So, you ask, who are these students of history? That’s you and me.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE MISSING INGREDIENT

By Edwin Cooney

A few days ago, I got a telephone call from a friend I'll call LD. At the time of his call, I was struggling with what to write about this week and it was his question that brought about what you see here. Here's the substance of our conversation.

LD: Ed, what do you know about our first ever left-handed president?

I replied: I know his name was James Abram Garfield, that he was a Republican Congressman from Ohio, that he was a teacher and a preacher as well as a college president.

LD (with considerable pride): Well then, I know something about him you don't know. President Garfield could write Greek with one hand, and Latin with the other hand simultaneously. Isn't that impressive?

Me (not to be out done!): He was the first president since John Quincy Adams who possessed sufficient knowledge to administrate every office in his cabinet.

LD was right of course about President Garfield even though I didn't mention it in my immediate response. I  did know it. Beyond that, I began thinking what we know about so many presidents coupled with the comparatively little that we know about President Trump.

Until the 1930s, what Americans knew about their president was what the president’s friends and enemies wrote about him. Radio and newsreels brought FDR's cheerful, optimistic personality and "first class temperament” to the people’s attention even if it didn't inform them that he needed to use a wheelchair most of the time. Both radio and television brought forth President Truman's plain straightforwardness and President Eisenhower's engaging simplicity. There also was the Kennedy charm. (President Kennedy became "Jack" to millions.) Even though not all that people saw in their presidents was positive, at least there was room for both positive as well as for negative impressions.

Even more to the point, over time political advisors became increasingly aware of what effect any president's mood may have on voters. Presidential advisors often counseled the chief executive on the best way, given the circumstances, to approach the public. Presidents ignored such advice sometimes to their detriment — such as the time that Carter wore a cardigan rather than the standard suit coat during his first ever national broadcast following his 1977 Inauguration.

As I see it, President Trump is exhausting the public with his chronic  anger. A presidential attitude such as grim determination in the wake of genuine crisis or endangerment is not only understandable by the public, but even welcomed as they reflect the national mood. After all, as cheerful and optimistic as FDR usually was, his staff occasionally would warn each other that "the boss's Dutch is up." Standing before Congress on Monday, December 8th, 1941, President Roosevelt expressed his anger, but everybody else within the 48 states and in all of the territories was also angry.

Chronic anger appears to be the most effective way the President believes that he can successfully communicate with the American people. Up until the Trump presidency, Americans knew something noncontroversial about every president whether it was Obama's professorial manner of explanation, George W. Bush's love of pork rinds, Clinton playing the saxophone, George Herbert Walker Bush's dislike of broccoli, Ronald Reagan's jars filled with jellybeans, and so on. The most that America knows about President Trump is that he resents all opposition or resistance to any suggestion or directive that he hasn't himself initiated or endorsed. We don't know his son Barron and we barely know our First Lady. We need to see Trump’s charm, his optimism, along with "the better angels” of his nature before too many of us conclude that within his persona there are no angels at all.

Beyond everything we know or don't know about President Trump is that missing ingredient. Simply stated the missing ingredient in President Trump's relationship with the American people is his total lack of magnanimity for our worries not on his agenda.

President Trump's "October surprise" this election season must powerfully and persuasively demonstrate his capacity for genuine magnanimity for a much broader group of Americans than he's shown so far or he may find himself permanently unemployed!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

OUR PAST IS GONE, OUR PRESENT HAS A FEVER, AND OUR FUTURE IS IN THE BALANCE!

By Edwin Cooney

If you were born during the forties, the fifties, or even the sixties, adoration for America wasn't a conclusion you reached, it was a state of mind that was expected of you! From the days of Plymouth Colony through the Colonial Period, the Revolutionary War, the Alamo, the Civil War, and well into the Twentieth Century, America was only about its achievements. Those achievements have been indoctrinated into us. Only since circa 1970 have American studies forced an increasingly resentful citizenry to look both the past and the present in the eye. It's that simple. In other words, we've been kidding ourselves into believing, somehow, that those whom we've enslaved, robbed, swindled, gone to war against and even murdered, should naturally forgive us because they have become us. Besides, if they haven't become one of us, then they are hopelessly stupid and, worst of all, unworthy of us! Only those of us who are 100% white Anglo-Saxon Americans have earned the right to try and identify with our ancestors because that is just plain good old patriotism!  

Over the years, only the cynical have been comfortable with the reality that history is written by the successful amongst us. It’s no wonder that we have just begun to understand that good people have been forced to endure the existing slings and arrows of  outrageous fortune.                                                                                                                                                   

The old Confederacy is the most obvious point. You and I have grown up to admire the strengths and virtues of Abraham Lincoln as indeed we should. We can afford to do so because 'Honest Abe" was...well...honest! Unlike Union soldiers, we never faced the results of the  treachery of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, Jeb Stuart, or James (Stonewall) Jackson. Once they were defeated, we allowed monuments to be built, named forts, colleges and universities after them, and put statues of them into our National Hall of Fame treating them as reverently as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt! We've also glorified movies such as "Birth of a Nation" and "Gone With the Wind" and we've created such modern testimonies of our love for the Confederacy as "Dukes of Hazard" and more. (I admit that I am somewhat guilty of this as I have come to enjoy "Gone With the Wind" because I believe its characters adequately reflect the time with its delusional racial relationships. For instance, Rhett Butler openly ridicules "our glorious cause" to Scarlett O'Hara pointing out that if our leaders hadn't made the cause “glorious,” there would be no “cause” worth fighting for!)

What is almost, but not quite, criminal about this is best expressed with an example.

Since we glorify the Confederacy, what would our parents, teachers, preachers and policemen have thought after World War II if Truman or Eisenhower had allowed West Germany to erect statues and name colleges and universities after Hitler and other

Nazi leaders? In the wake of the Revolutionary War, there was no chance Philadelphians would have constructed a Benedict Arnold Boulevard! 

The next question to consider is which statues should come down and which should stay. I believe that any statue honoring a confederate's service in the 1861 rebellion should come down. Robert E. Lee's statue at West Point should stay as he served as Superintendent of that academy. George Washington and other slaveholding presidential statues should remain because they were more than mere slaveholders. As for one of my favorite controversial heroes, Sir Winston Churchill, he was way more than an imperialistic racist. However, note that Churchill’s racism is not celebrated. He is celebrated for preserving Britain from Adolf Hitler long enough to let Franklin Roosevelt complete the job.

At the very least, any soldier or statesman's statue erected in celebration of his or her fight to maintain slavery should be removed. Otherwise, if we’re going to celebrate those who insist on committing treachery, instituting slavery and even murder, we might as well drive down Al Capone Avenue instead of Michigan Avenue in Chicago. Equally disrespectful would be the naming of Timothy McVeigh Way in Oklahoma City, John Hinkley Avenue in downtown Santa Barbara, California or, even worse, driving by Mark David Chapman's statue in front of the Dakota in New York City. (That one would be gone before they got around to unveiling it!)

It is long time past the point when we can or even ought to afford to insist making heroes out of determined fools. As for fools in the Baseball Hall of Fame, they are not being celebrated as persons as much as for being outstanding performers on the baseball diamond! 

Even as we remove or destroy these monuments of our foolish past, let us remember

that it's always easier to destroy than to create. As President Harry Truman once observed: "Any fool can go out and start a war!”

It may well be that once we start celebrating people and institutions of value, we'll actually begin putting together a police force that knows how to wisely use force only when it can't be avoided.

As Americans we're more than justified when we feel pride in our legitimate institutions and achievements such as our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution as well as for the overwhelmingly good things we've created and shared with the rest of humanity.

As for our faults, it's way past the time we ought to acknowledge them. With regard to our history, it's time to take it more seriously!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY