There are priorities and then there are priorities. Game 7 in Boston!!!
There are priorities and then there are priorities. Game 7 in Boston!!!
Jim Coogan was born in XXXXXXXXXXXX. He attended elementary school and high school in XXXXXXXXXXXX where he achieved XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Graduating from XXXXXXXXXXX college in XXXXX, he XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. In 1968 he XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and later XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. He was a dedicated XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. During the Nixon presidency he XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and for that he was XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Joining the staff at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX in XXXX, Coogan rose quickly to become XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Some said that his rapid rise was due to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. He always denied that, preferring to cite XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX as the reason for his XXXXXXXXXXX. His marriage to XXXXXXXXXXX in XXXX produced three children. Their home in XXXXXXXX was the scene of a number of legendary XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
Always a person who would XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Coogan became well known as an XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. He always said that XXXXXXXX was the high point of his life. Following retirement from XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX after XXXX years, he teamed up with XXXXXXXXXX to form XXXXXXXXXXXXX. That endeavor brought him many XXXXXXXXXXX and saw him named as one of Cape Cod’s most XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. A humble man, Coogan always attributed what he’d become to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. In 2003, at the age of XXXXX, he began to travel the world, visiting places like XXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXX, and XXXXXXXXXXXX. Coogan always referred to his travels as XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Few could argue with that. Now in his twilight years, he is usually found XXXXXXXXXX or XXXXXXXXXXXXXX. When asked about this, he says, “XXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX are the reason I get up in the morning.” At XXXX years of age, it’s clear that Coogan views his life as XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. “I’ve been very XXXXXXXXXXXX,” he noted recently while standing near his XXXXXX. “No one could have ever XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.”
I was in Germany a week ago. While shopping in a little store off Berlin’s Alexanderplatz, I encountered Angela Merkel – literally bumped into her, actually. It wasn’t the first time Germany’s Chancellor and I had come together. A couple of years ago, while in Dresden waiting for a train connection to Prague, I’d noticed her standing on the opposite track platform. It was pretty much the same then. The most powerful woman in the world was still wearing an outfit that was Hillary Clinton, before there was Hillary Clinton. Maybe the color was a bit different but she had the same smile that I remembered from that earlier meeting. It struck me how coincidental it was that we’d meet again by pure happenstance, but there we were. The Chancellor seemed somewhat stiff and I sensed that her formality probably resulted from recognizing me as an American. We stand out like sore thumbs in Europe. I wondered if she was still angry about our National Security Agency tapping her phones a few years ago. Fortunately, I wasn’t wearing a MAGA hat. I knew how she felt about president Trump. Still, she gave no indication of being put off as I approached her. She just stood there. Other shoppers in the store seemed to have no interest in speaking with their leader and they laughed when I asked if someone would take a picture of the two of us – Angela and me. I’ll admit that the entire time our conversation was really one-sided but I knew that she was listening, because when the door to the store opened and a gust of wind came in, she leaned slightly forward as if to hear me better. As I moved to pay for my purchase, I tipped my hat and told her that I hoped her final two years as Chancellor would be good ones. I mentioned that our president was likely in his last two years as well. The two leaders would be going out of office together. As I waved good-bye, her eyes didn’t reveal anything but I did notice that her smile hadn’t changed.
A tale of two writers
By Jim Coogan
There is no evidence that the great nineteenth century writers Charles Dickens and Karl Marx ever met. Marx was a few years younger than Dickens but they were contemporaries in a changing world. Both men took different approaches in evaluating the social and economic conditions of their time. Dickens, in his novels, exposed the negative consequences of the new industrial age and its effects on the working class. In books like Oliver Twist, Hard Times, and in the journal “Household Words” that he edited, we are introduced to a dark world of poverty, crime, and hardship. While Dickens is celebrated as a literary genius, Marx, who advocated for economic reforms that would benefit the very class of people that Dickens wrote about, is reviled as a radical extremist whose ideas should be diminished and devalued. Indeed, many conservatives use the word “socialist” as a substitute for mayhem, disorder, and eventual economic ruin. The truth is that both Dickens and Marx were reacting to what some have termed, “capitalism without a conscience.” Each in his own way called for a just world.
Perhaps the negative reaction to Marx is the result of not understanding what socialism is. Too often when the suggestion of any kind of collectivism comes up, the line is drawn directly to Stalinism and Maoism. It’s understandable that this the typical reaction. The Soviet Union and communist China used the Marxist model to enslave masses of people. Politicizing socialism as they did meant the creation of top down dictatorships that benefitted a select few. And economic failure and the loss of individual freedom came with it. That result, however, was not what Marx advocated in Das Kapital. His basic philosophy was anti-capitalist. He decried the negative effects of the class system. While it’s easy to take offense at this today, remember, Marx was writing in a time of extreme social and economic inequality. He saw the poverty and squalor that Dickens wrote about. And like Dickens, he reacted to the inherited privilege of the ruling class that exploited industrial workers with low wages and long hours.
When we examine the lot of the laboring class in the late nineteenth century in both Europe and America, it was dismal. Six day work weeks of 12 hour days at subsistence wages was common. There was child labor and unsafe working conditions. Labor unions were banned. The Chartists in England and the agrarian reformers in America had been beaten down. Meanwhile, in what historians have called “the Gilded Age,” a small group of capitalists lived in unimaginable luxury in virtual palaces, removed from the day to day hardships of people who were barely surviving. This is what Dickens and Marx were responding to. With these conditions, there should be little wonder that the ideas of Marx began to take hold.
Today, we see the continuing erosion of the middle class while the aggregated fortunes of the top 10% amount to almost 40% of America’s wealth — double what the rest of the 90% has. While Republicans tout the increase in stock values in the past two years, the fact is that most Americans haven’t benefitted from this because they aren’t invested in the market. 80% of the worth of the stock market is owned by 10% of the population. The increases in values have gone largely to the wealthy who have seen their portfolios grow just as the capital gains tax has been reduced. We live now in a system where millionaires have literally purchased the government for their own advantage.
With all this, it’s astounding to me that pushing for higher taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations is seen as such a radical notion. When the president and other conservatives slam the idea of making the rich pay a larger share of taxes, claiming that it will kill jobs and crush the middle class, they stand on the side of modern day plutocrats — the 1%. And no wonder. That’s who they are.
We are our choices
By Jim Coogan
Almost monthly we see newspaper stories featuring people who have reached bottom. Whether it’s a result of substance abuse, a low paying job, loss of employment altogether or maybe facing prison for a crime, these individuals are portrayed as victims of a cruel environment where the cards were stacked against them from the start. .
Reading through these sad stories, one at first is moved at the plight of the featured individual. They are about to be evicted from their motel room, have used up all of the assistance available and are being forced to leave the state. They have no family to turn to. Usually there are children involved so it compounds the tragedy. But there is always more to the story. At about paragraph 12, we find that the person who is down and out dropped out of school. They had a child at 17, another at 20, and now at age 30 have another—all three by different fathers who are nowhere in the picture. If it’s a male, he’s also a school dropout, been in prison for some minor offense and is responsible for a child or two that he can’t support. He’s had a checkered work history and currently can’t find a job.
These are the typical scenarios of most of the people who end up falling through society’s cracks. And as much as their stories are heart wrenching—and they certainly are, the fact is that with few exceptions, most of these poor souls are where they are because they’ve made bad choices.
Am I being judgmental here? Certainly I am. I’ll admit that I’m a bit uncomfortable doing it. And my liberal friends will be aghast at my unwillingness to see the whole picture. “You’re not taking into consideration the circumstances,” they will say. “You can’t hold people responsible for the environments they came from.”
I beg to differ. There’ no doubt that some people clearly have more options than others. A wealthy white person has a wider range than say, a poor person of color. Women have historically had a more narrow range of alternatives than do men. But everyone has choices. Ultimately we decide who we will be when we make them
Rarely do I find myself standing with conservatives on just about anything. But they all agree, as do I, on three fairly basic rules that can give anyone, regardless of background, a better than even chance of success in this society. The first rule is finish high school. The second is not to have a child before marriage. And the third? Don’t get arrested before the age of 25.
It’s hard to argue against that.
In June of 1939 a group of European refugees arrived at the port of Miami aboard the German liner St. Louis. There were almost one thousand people on the ship, most of them Jews trying to escape the Nazi violence that had driven them from their homes. They were denied entry. A number of them ended up back in Europe and were sent to the death camps. America, which bills itself as a generous and compassionate country, has a mixed record of welcoming people who are fleeing tyranny. It seems that if those fleeing oppression fit the model of the dominant culture, the doors open a lot easier for entry then they do for people with the “wrong” religion, the “wrong” color, or the “wrong” language.
Right now the focus is on a large group of migrants who are marching through Mexico toward our southern border. The president has called this an “invasion” and has sent elements of the U.S. military to the U.S./Mexican border to stop them. Whipping up a climate of fear, he has framed this migration as a threat to national security. And this description plays especially well with his political base.
We ought to ask how this group of people, in large measure made up of women and young children, is a threat to American security. Are they armed? Will they storm the border and overwhelm any attempt to stop them. Are they all gang members? Will our military fire on them?
People with any sense of reality know the answers to these questions and will see this for what it is – a manufactured crisis that is being used for political ends. The word invasion seems hardly the proper description for a group of poor people fleeing the murderous region of Central America. El Salvador has the highest homicide rate in the entire world. Law and order has largely broken down. Gangs rule the cities. Honduras isn’t far behind averaging 20 homicides a day.
Illegal immigration is certainly a problem. There is no denying that. Obviously we can’t take all of the people who want to come here. And their might indeed be some bad people in that caravan. We need an orderly process that can screen those who might intend to do us harm from the great majority of whom just want a better life. The sad fact is that both our political parties continue to refuse to craft a solution to the issue, using immigrants as a means of scoring political points. Meanwhile those who are desperate to escape horrible conditions in their own countries have few options. Stay and die or take a long shot to get to the United States.
At a time like this, we should remember people like those Jews aboard the St. Louis who were refused entry and left to a dark fate by a callous nation. We should see clearly that where once America was seen around the world as a beacon of hope and compassion, under this current administration our country has become instead, a place of hate and intolerance. The current leadership goads its supporters to see immigrants as eroding the cultural values and norms of this country. It’s the same fear that has stigmatized every ethnic group that wanted to come to America. On the eve of the mid-term election we should ask ourselves – is this who we are? Is this what we want our country to be? And we should think about our own families and why they came here, all the while realizing the truth that a nation, like a tree, becomes stronger when it is grafted with new stock.