COMMON SENSE - IT DOESN'T EXIST AS IT MAKES NO SENSE!!

By Edwin Cooney

Let's see now, I've been writing columns and discussing them with readers since June 16th, 2005. The topic no one, not even my closest friends, agrees with me on is my insistence that there's no such thing as "common sense.” So, here's one more try.

Example: You're in an intense discussion on a subject with someone who insists your whole approach to that issue or circumstance or even behavior is totally wrong. Finally, your antagonist says: If you'd just use a little plain "common sense,” you'd change your mind!

With that admonition, the subject is closed. The issue is no longer about the substance of the topic at hand. It's now about the differences between you and the other party. If that other party is your parent, spouse, teacher, preacher, close friend, or your boss, their influence  and authority rather than how true their advice may be will inevitably carry the day. After all, everyone knows that somewhere out in the blue there lurks a body of pure "common sense" that, if tapped, can solve all mysteries, quandaries and challenges no matter how complex or serious. To that, I say “nuts!"

As I see it, “sense” is a combination of instinct, feeling, and logic which is applicable to any and all circumstances. "Common sense" insists that by human nature there is a common, positive or negative response to any and all circumstances which is readily available and obvious to everyone at all times. Were that the case, there would never be any disagreement between two people equipped with the same spiritual, emotional and mental coping mechanisms.

Invariably, people devoted, as most people are, to the existence of "common sense" insist that pulling one's hand from a flame or a hot stove is an example of "common sense.” To that I insist that the act of pulling one's hand from a flame or hot spot is instinctual. It's not even logical. One doesn't have either the time or inclination to decide whether it's healthy to keep one's hand in a flame.

Breathing, eating, sleeping, seeing, hearing, walking, and our capacity for emotional reactions to events are phenomena that are naturally available to us at birth. However, even these natural gifts are vulnerable to genetic interventions or other physical maladies that are too often beyond our control.

Beyond our instinctual or natural gifts is our reaction to the circumstances that create pain, stimulate hunger, cause anxiety or anger, or stimulate various types of love. All of these reactions are subject to both expectations and to the experiences we've had with those circumstances.

As I see it, too often "common sense" is ultimately a bullying tactic to keep any one of us in line. Here's a current example of what I mean: as we consider the value or lack thereof of impeaching President Trump, both sides appeal to our concept of "common sense" for and against impeachment.

I insist that the admonition to use “common sense" is mostly a myth, designed to somehow justify one person's dominance or superiority over another person's ideas.

Since we are all very human, we are subject to error from time to time. Thus, the true alternative to "common sense" is the phenomenon we ought to refer to as "good sense.” Good sense is an appeal to apply one's already recognized capacity for logic and wisdom.

Your spouse, child, other next of kin, neighbor, drinking buddy, student, or parishioner is, most of the time, someone who has not only the capacity for good sense, but their capacity for good sense might even be greater than yours! Rather than closing off all discussion by asserting that your contentious companion in a disagreement lacks "common sense," you should generously assume that he or she ultimately does share your capacity for good sense and it's likely that a resolution to your conflict will be closer than you ever thought was possible!

All of us are vulnerable from time to time to the misleading effects of myths. As I see it, ”common sense" is a mere myth. Good sense, on the other hand, is something that most of us possess in one way or another.

The fact of the matter is that our capacity to make any sense at all is highly individual. “Common sense” just doesn’t exist. If it did, our dream of “peace on earth” would surely be real rather than a prayer. 

I rest my case!  

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

IMPEACHMENT! IS IT ALL REALLY AND TRULY ABOUT POLITICS?

By Edwin Cooney

At the close of last week's musing, I asserted that politics is a combination of both principle and hoax. Hence, the question is: how can the impeachment process, legitimate and constitutional as it is, be anything other than both principle and hoax and, thus, all about politics? Since I'm of limited wisdom, I decided to connect once again with my old watering hole buddies, Lunkhead and Dunderhead, in order to get a bit of perspective. After all, if there's anyone who needs perspective more than me, I haven't met him!

Lunkhead and Dunderhead had obviously been waiting for me as I entered because there was an empty seat between them along the bar. Lunkhead had lately swapped his old battered fedora for a "Trump in 2020” baseball cap. He was still big and burly and he had an unlit heavily chewed cigar jutting out of the left side of his mouth which he'd periodically remove to take a swig of straight scotch. Dunderhead, slim and dapper with blonde curls sat with an IPA and a bowl of peanuts in front of him. Dunderhead had obviously just annoyed Lunkhead with a question or comment, because there was a rather satisfied smirk across his thin, mustachioed lips.

"Hey guys," I began, "isn't this impeachment business really all about politics?"

"Of course it is!" Lunkhead shot back. "Those damned Democrats just can't get over crooked Hillary's loss back in 2016. That's all there's ever been to their whining behavior since a really great president was finally inaugurated back on January 20th, 2017. It took President Trump to discover and expose "the deep state” that the liberal media designed for nothin' else except to wreck the people's confidence in President Trump," Lunkhead said as he gnawed down once again on his unlit cigar.

"Nuts!" Growled Dunderhead through clenched pearly white teeth, "There never has been and there never will be a "deep state.” The fact of the matter is that liberals are too contrary, even toward each other, to create such a phenomenon! Even more, the sad truth is that even if we can get Trump, we'd still have to live with a gentleman named Pence. They know it and they know that "crooked Hillary" is gone for good. They only hang on to her because they need her more than even we ever did!" Dunderhead went on, "Trump and his boot-licking supporters had to create a "deep state" in order to justify their own sense of victimhood. Trump's minions deny the legitimacy of victimhood to the poor and the minority, but they openly advertise its existence when it comes to their own woes!"

"Here's where Lunkhead is actually right for a change. Of course, impeachment is political!” asserted Dunderhead. “How could it be anything else? It was designed to be political. Congress can't send Trump to jail no matter how criminally nasty he's been, but they can legally remove him from office to face the music for his deplorable prejudices and unlawful behavior over the past twenty years or so."

"Ah!" Shouted Lunkhead slamming his empty scotch glass (which the bartender promptly refilled) down on the bar. "That's right and when that impeachment resolution goes before the people's United States Senate and is voted down, as it damned well better be, the political game will be over.”

"Maybe and maybe not," said Dunderhead. “First, there still has to be an election and I'm confident that a lot of decent people cringe on a minute by minute timetable because they've had enough of the self-serving dramatics and the obvious incompetence of the administration. Listen now, Lunkhead, it's obvious to me that Nancy Pelosi has something up her sleeve that'll rock Donald's smelly socks.”

“Nonsense!” shot back Lunkhead. "When the people's Senate finds President Trump not guilty, that'll be the second time the president has been found innocent of charges made against him. The first time was that Mueller report. This verdict will actually re-elect President Trump. Get it through your thick skull, Dunderhead. Just as Mick Mulvaney recently and succinctly put it, "get over it." Once you take this good advice, Dunderhead, and "get over it," it will set you free. You might even become a true American patriot one day!"

“Look, Lunkhead," began Dunderhead. "You're forgetting something — if you ever knew it! According to the rules of the House of Representatives, the majority may pass and then table a resolution. That means that the Democratic majority could pass Articles of Impeachment and then hold them until a more favorable time."

"Does that mean that they could hold up those Articles of Impeachment until after a possible re-election of President Trump?” I asked.

"Precisely and absolutely!” Dunderhead chortled.

The rest was all dramatic but inconsequential — sort of!

"That would be cowardly, just like traditional Democrats," Lunkhead shouted.

"That's just plain smart which President Donnie Johnny isn't!"  Dunderhead insisted.

Lunkhead, for the second but final time that night, slammed his empty scotch glass on the bar and headed toward the door with Dunderhead right on his heels. In defiance of the no smoking ban, Lunkhead's cigar came to life just as he pushed the door open and that sweet but pungent smell became quickly apparent.

Suddenly it was all over and, as I paid the check, my real value to Lunkhead and Dunderhead became, as the late great Richard Milhous Nixon might observe, "perfectly clear!"

Still, I knew that sooner than later, we’d all be back together at the old watering hole!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

WHAT'S AT THE HEART OF AMERICAN POLITICS — HOAX OR PRINCIPLE?

By Edwin Cooney

It's both right and traditional to say good things about George Washington, our "Founding Father," who was first so designated by President Warren Harding. However, like the rest of us, Papa George had a flaw or two. One, according to sources, was a monumental temper when provoked. The other, misjudgment, common to all of us, can be found in his "farewell address" which, rather than a speech,  was a letter in the Philadelphia American Daily Advertiser of Monday, September 19th, 1796. In that letter, Washington issued a warning to avoid party politics, but without the suggestion of a practical alternative.

His warning was to avoid involvement in political parties and to rely strictly on the passage of constitutional amendments rather than narrowly focused laws for the solution of ongoing conflicts. History demonstrates that as close as Washington was to both Thomas Jefferson, his original Secretary of State, and Alexander Hamilton, his personal friend, aide-de-camp during the revolution and Secretary of the Treasury during the first part of his presidency, he apparently couldn't convince either man to alter his desire to create political parties. Thus, by warning against the formation of political parties, Washington tainted them by reputation even before they could taint themselves through pettiness and self-serving statements of purposeful achievement and grandeur. As a result of a famous warning minus a creditable solution, we find ourselves 223 years after Washington's famous letter in a hell of an emotional and spiritual quagmire. Here's the fundamental problem.

Since political parties are traditionally tainted, only the most dedicated politically-oriented citizens consider them relevant and worthy of joining, let alone taking them seriously. The rest of us, to the extent we accept politics as a "necessary evil," identify with individual candidates. Saying "I vote for the man, not the party!” has become the most traditional and popular admonition of political principle throughout American history.  As I see it, that particular assertion misses the mark as to what voting is all about. After all, we're supposedly a government of laws and not of people.

The value of any political party is what it stands for. The Democratic Party founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison stood for decentralized or state government providing for the people’s needs over the use of the federal or central government. Federalists — later Whigs and Republicans — stood for the central government over state government. The reason for that was because its constituency, the American system of business, had to cross state lines in order to function, let alone prosper. Business and commerce were simply too big and potentially profitable to be effectively regulated by any individual state government.

Today's Democratic Party stands for active service on behalf of a broad spectrum of a  socially oriented constituency, even with their differing and often conflicting social and political objectives. The purpose of government, Democrats insist, is that of improving the "general welfare" of the people as a whole. 

Today's Republican Party is about supporting and sustaining business and commerce which they regard as the two most vital engines of our economy. As Calvin Coolidge once put it: economy reaches everywhere.

So, you ask, when did central or "big government" become bad for business but a benefactor for the people? The answer is during the Depression when big business was championed by the central government, but ultimately defrauded and economically broke the American people. FDR's New Deal took over the central government and employed and increased the purchasing power of John and Suzie Q. Citizen. However, when Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, the old Dixie wing of the Democratic Party, fearing association with and (even worse) obligation to blacks, married the business wing of the Republican Party even though during pre Civil War days the South trumpeted the human “benefits” of its system of slavery over the profit-oriented motive of both the Whig and Republican parties. After all, slaves were taken care of from cradle to grave. Northern capitalism used people and, when it wasn't profitable to pay them, let them starve. Conservative southerners in 1964 swapped their traditional cradle to grave concern for blacks and signed on to the profit motivation of the old northern industrialism even though it had once defeated and humiliated their beloved confederacy.

As for today's parties, conservatism, nativism, and religious fundamentalism dominate the Republican Party. Liberalism, environmentalism and social welfare are on the agenda of today's Democratic Party. Today's Democratic Party is the direct managing tool of government. Today's Republican Party uses business and commerce as legitimate tools for managing the government. 

As for "the best candidate," although it's only natural to endorse the person who is simpatico with our general approach to things, we can be better served if at times we're a little uncomfortable with the direction of an individual. That's when an individual is providing leadership.

What separates Donald Trump from other legitimate activist presidents isn't his conservatism, but rather his overall adolescence. He thinks and acts like a rebellious adolescent. Even when he gives someone the benefit of the doubt, it is to bolster himself politically.

I wish we weren't impeaching President Trump, because I fear it's to his advantage. Still, since I believe he sought to bribe the President of Ukraine, and since bribery is clearly an impeachable offense according to Article II of the Constitution as well as almost a violation of historical rules that conduct our relations with other countries, I'd vote to convict. No, this impeachment effort may not be practical, but it is far from a “hoax.”

As I read American history of the four presidential impeachments, only President Andrew Johnson's was actually a hoax! Andrew Johnson's sin was defiance of the “Tenure of Office Act.” It was passed by Congress, vetoed by Johnson, passed over Johnson's veto, and eventually declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. No president, not even President Donald Trump, should be impeached for merely defying Congress. After all, Harry Truman gave Congress “hell” all the time!

Whether the American political system is principle or hoax, as sad as it is to say this, sometimes it is both!

As for President Washington's "flaw" referred to above, all must be forgiven. After all, not even George Washington was as flawless as President Trump, was he?! 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

A SPECIAL THRILL!

By Edwin Cooney

I experienced an unexpected and special thrill just today and I'm anxious to share it with you because of what it means to me!

As many of you are aware, for the past six years I've been president of the Alumni Association of my alma mater, the New York State School for the Blind, a residential school in Batavia, New York. Batavia is situated on the New York State Thruway between Rochester which is 31 miles to its east and Buffalo which is 36 miles to its southwest. When I was young, Batavia was a city of about 18,000 people, pretty convenient for both working and shopping for its citizens.

A residential school, there were about 200 students who attended NYSSB from all parts of Upstate New York. One of the attendees during the mid 1950s was a boy named Karl, who was also known as Mickey. Michael was his middle name Karl told me. Karl was born in Schenectady and lived in Scotia, a suburb of Schenectady.

Karl and I weren't particularly close which means we really didn't play together much and when I chatted with him early today, I could tell that his memory of me was vague. However, he was very pleasant as he confirmed the reality of the memories I have of him. For instance, I remember he had a sister Marilyn, I recalled that his nickname was Mickey, that he had a lot of sight for one of our students, and that he used to stand up on a playground swing and swing as high as he could and, just before bailing, cry out "happy landing!"

As of this writing, Karl's presence takes me back across the decades of friends and experiences to a time, although bedecked with its own worries, that was comparatively a time of innocence.

In a vivid way, he is a most pleasant part of my history. I've always been impressed with his childhood daring and even more with the fact that he got away with it unscathed!

Hence my question is obvious. Has anyone suddenly and unexpectedly appeared in your life thus taking you back to a time so very different from today? If so, I hope there's a gift in it for you as there was for me.

Like our families, neighborhoods, country and even the world in which we dwell, each of us possesses a multi-faceted history filled with sunny rooms and dark places each of which leaves a subtle but nevertheless permanent impression on much of what follows in our lives. I've spent probably less than a total of five minutes recalling Karl since I last knew him some 63 years ago. However, my memory of him is both happy and even wondrous.

During our short chat, I didn't inquire and he didn't offer anything about his life experience. I haven't a clue (well, only a faint clue!) as to whether he went to college (although I highly suspect he did!) Nor do I know anything about his politics or his marital experience — if he even had one. I share this with you for two reasons both practical and substantive.

First, I hope this enables you to recall a time and event that energizes your memory and your sense of well-being.

Second, if you're so inclined, remember that everything, great and small, is the result of someone else's hopes, fears, ambitions and accomplishments.

We all, more often than we realize, have an effect on someone else's life experience in some small way.

I hope there's a day in your future that gratifies you just as this day does for me.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

REMEMBER, WE’RE FROM “THE LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE!”

By Edwin Cooney

It ALMOST doesn't matter what one’s position on the upcoming impeachment battle is. The important thing to remember is that all of us are from “the land of the free and the home of the brave." Accordingly, whichever side we take in this, the most wrenching battle of our 46-year-old culture war, it's important that we carry three vital items with us into the conflict.

First, we must acknowledge and even respect what we know about the legitimacy of the opposition. Mistrust or hatred of our political opposition won't bring about victory.

Second, our strategic thinking must be designed to counter those of our opponents.

Third, we must have a strategy not only for victory, but a strategy for governing once we prevail.

As I've stated in recent musings, were I in Congress, I would have held off on an impeachment effort thereby saving my political ammunition for the upcoming election. However, those who are in a better position than I to effectively analyze the political atmosphere in Washington have, for the present, decided to pursue an impeachment effort. It's important to remember that impeachment is a political process not a legal struggle. Thus, politicians rather than lawyers will be practicing their trade in the immediate future. (I almost felt sorry last Thursday as I listened to Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee, as he listed all of the outrageous and unfair attacks Democrats have made against President Trump from the day he was elected to the present. Then I recalled the unwillingness of men such as Mr. Nunes to grant that President Barack Obama was even an American citizen. I also wondered when President Trump ever granted any political opponent the slightest benefit of any doubt as I recalled his slanders against his fellow Republicans during the 2016 primaries and my sorrow just melted away!)

As I've asserted before in these musings, during recent campaigns, Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals have substituted legitimate policy differences for the criminalization of their political and ideological opponents to the country's detriment. To the extent that you and I have indulged ourselves by being swayed by this tactic, we deserve what has happened to us. What these authors of ideological theory and personal smear have succeeded in doing is to devalue the influence and integrity of the very offices that they are seeking. Nevertheless, our current challenge is to discern how specific actions by President Trump actually endanger us.

Back in 1796, when President Washington warned against the formation of political parties in his farewell message, he never offered an alternative method for selecting the leaders of our republic. Thus we are left with a leadership selection process that's both competitive and antagonistic by its very nature. Many of our "Founding Fathers" believed that only property owners and the more educated among us should have the voting franchise. However, what Jefferson called "the disease of liberty" proved to be very contagious and now all of us have converted this "disease" into a human right. Even more to the point, the most significant element of a human right is the obligation of personal responsibility in the exercise of that right. I was reminded just a few days ago that back in 1992 when there was a question as to what degree candidate Bill Clinton had consorted with Soviet officials in his opposition to the Vietnam War, the Bush administration actually refused to investigate the seriousness or innocence of candidate Clinton's activities when he visited the Soviet Union while he was in college. In other words, unlike President Trump, President George H. W. Bush refused to use a foreign government to his advantage during a political campaign he would ultimately lose.  

Recognizing that in a democracy there must always be room for compromise but that no one can be expected to cooperate when backed into a corner, I'd be willing, if I were a member of the House of Representatives, to support a censure of the President by the House and the Senate rather than indulging in a Senate trial. This is the very position I took back in 1999 when Bill Clinton faced impeachment and conviction via the Congress. The absolute truth is that the United States Senate, as it is now politically composed, will not convict President Trump in a Senate trial.

As for the people, as fickle and easily manipulated as they can be at times, I'll take a chance on their political judgment.

After all, this not only remains the land of the free and the home of the brave, it's also the home of the most humane and conscientious people in human history!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

A NEW WAY, A NEW SAY!

By Edwin Cooney

As I listened to and read the tweets and the testimony from Friday's impeachment hearing, I began to be alarmed about a number of things.

First, there was the very need for impeachment hearings.

Second, there is the likelihood that the hearings and the process will not succeed in the conviction of President Trump.

Third, there was the obvious harassment of Marie Yovanovitch, a nonpolitical but professional diplomat, whose job of representing America was obviously politicized by her boss President Trump.

Fourth, and most stressing of all, there was that intimidating tweet from the president even as she was testifying.

Fifth, the president's angry and outrageous self-justification against the reaction by the media and the Democrats to the way he reacts to things or, if you prefer, his "modus operandi."

As the hours pass, I'm becoming increasingly unhappy with my own resentful reactions toward the president and the state of affairs he's put us through, not due to their lack of justification, but for two other perhaps more significant reasons.

First, my anger toward and resentment of the president is largely due to how difficult it has become for intelligent, well-meaning, and knowledgeable leaders to reach a bipartisan consensus as to what’s real and what’s partisan about the crisis through which we’re passing. In other words, truth and reality have become distorted making it more difficult to develop a sense of direction and thus peace of mind about the future. 

For instance, throughout the Watergate era, there was a consensus that when President Nixon was forced from office, we’d be a government of laws and not of men. Hence, the political and social crisis would pass. Second, even more, I spent last weekend insisting that peace is a state of mind rather than an absence of war. The fact of the matter is that modern lingo and politics have had a tendency to enhance rather than denigrate the very idea of conducting war itself.

Traditionally, war has been a state of political and social existence between nations that have been or are about to be militarily engaged in battle. I've always been rather fascinated with the words Franklin D. Roosevelt used back on Monday, December 8th, 1941 when he asked Congress for a declaration of war against Japan. Here they are:

"I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire." (Note that the president was both specific about the date and the act that brought about that "state of war.”) In other words, there was no ongoing ideological or sociological cause of the war. Since that Monday, December 8th, 1941, because the very idea of war is so deadly, politicians have been using the idea of war to tackle any number of unhappy conditions, projects or activities that threaten the safety and happiness of a people. These include the “cold war,” wars on disease, the war on poverty, the war on crime, and, finally, the culture war which has been going on since 1973, a war which many sociologists and historians insist was launched by Roe v. Wade.

As you read this, you may well insist that this musing is little more than an exercise in intellectual semantics. However, I insist that semantics or language altogether reflects our thoughts just as our thoughts reflect our conclusions about circumstances and even life itself. If we are perpetually at war, then most of the time we are not at peace! If we're perpetually not at peace, we're obviously unsettled and angry, are we not?

I'm not suggesting that either you or I should be in denial, or try in any other way to mask our feelings about President Trump, pro or con. However, I do suggest we should compel ourselves to think more affirmatively about the type of leadership we prefer rather than to merely curse the darkness.

As I listened to the president's self-justification regarding his own attitude toward his political opposition casting them all as liars and of being entirely dishonest, I wanted to ask him when was the last time he granted any opponent the benefit of the doubt he demands for himself.

The unhappy fact for me is that President Trump as president is a reality. It would be silly to pretend that nothing he says or does really matters by saying all politicians are crooked or dishonest. The reality of President Trump will be of vital importance as long as he's in office. What we need is a new paradigm or way of thinking about who he is and what he does!

Here's the bottom line. As Mick Mulvaney might say: Get over him, especially if pondering him is poisoning you! If he's angering you too much, he's got you exactly where he wants you!

By all means, avoid going to war with him. Be at peace with your convictions and the peaceable intentions behind those convictions and you'll be at a peaceful state of mind — thus a new way and a new say!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE "WAR TO END ALL WARS" -- AN ARMISTICE, NOT A PEACE!

By Edwin Cooney

Exactly 101 years ago this very day, the war declared so that all humanity would end all wars was halted by an armistice rather than by a peace. The first mistake, of course, was to not adequately distinguish between an armistice and a peace and to plant that distinction in the public mind.

So, what was the ultimate problem? Was it a worldwide language barrier that no national leader could possibly comprehend? Of course, President Woodrow Wilson, British Prime Minister David Lloyd-George and French Premier George Clemenceau understood perfectly well what they were both saying and doing! However, the devil was in the details.

The 1918 Armistice was an agreement merely to stop the fighting without putting the German leadership in a position of being forced to surrender. The Paris Peace Conference would complete the substantive details. Ultimately, time demonstrated that Britain and France, even more than most nations, saw profit more satisfactory to their people than peace. For Britain and France, both profit and peace were the same thing. However, a mere peace couldn't mend their hurts or heal their injured national dignity which was responsible for beginning the conflict in the first place. Thus, the huge war debt the peace conference would force Germany to pay, no matter how difficult it might be for a defeated nation to feed, clothe and pacify its melancholy inhabitants, would cost both sides an even more devastating war in a mere twenty-one years.

The leaders of Britain, France, and the United States, as different as they were in personality, background, and experience, all saw themselves as democratically chosen  representatives of a free people. Thus, the people's suffering was their political obligation to heal as quickly and profitably as they could, and to the maximum degree possible. Thus, work-a-day, and live-a-day folks didn't often draw distinctions between an armistice and a peace. (Just a short time ago, I wrote a column noting that the Korean conflict in 1953 was concluded by an armistice and not a peace.) The allies (Britain, France, Italy, Russia, and the United States) signed a "peace treaty” designed to draw much of the wealth and vital resources of the vanquished Central Powers which consisted of Germany, Turkey, Austria and the Austrian Empire (which was to be dismantled.) 

The League of Nations was designed by Thomas Woodrow Wilson, the son of a Presbyterian Minister, and only reluctantly agreed to by David Lloyd George, the son of a Welsh Unitarian Minister and teacher, and by French Prime Minister George Clemenceau, the son of a French atheist. It was more of a political arrangement than it was a spiritual covenant. President Wilson, an American political practitioner who saw his election as our 28th president as an act of God as much as it was a political achievement, believed that a league of nations would ultimately provide the opportunity for international unity which would morally compel sustained international peace. The Treaty of Versailles which contained the League was ultimately rejected by the United States Senate under the leadership of Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr., a friend of Theodore Roosevelt’s and a bitter opponent of President Wilson. Both Wilson and Lodge were very willful men of substantial intellect who saw themselves as one another's moral and intellectual superior. Both men poisoned the League's potential by their personal vanity. Ultimately, there came a war claiming 50,000,000 plus rather than the 40,000,000 casualties and deaths of the just concluded “war to end all wars!"

Even today, as much as most of us are opposed to war, somehow the nature of peace  too often escapes us. According to the Dutch 17th century philosopher Baruch Spinoza, peace is not the absence of war, peace is a state  of mind! It would seem to me that both war and peace are a state of mind. During the middle ages, wars were seasonal, often fought on open fields and away from heavily populated cities. Most of the weapons inflicted personal injuries rather than multiple injuries to multiples of people. Thus, there is the distinctive possibility and even the likelihood that war may yet change in ways we cannot even fathom. 

Just a few years ago, during the Carter administration to be precise, much horror was expressed with the development of the neutron bomb designed to kill people and leave physical structures intact. "What's war coming to?” People wondered if our leaders see value only in the maintenance of structures at the close of a devastating war.

It's just possible, even probable, that war may come to mean merely the destruction of a nation's functional economic and productive capacity. Perhaps we'll go to sleep one evening and wake up the next day wholly intact minus our money and property which was confiscated by another nation's super computer system while we slept. Let's call it the super grabber computer system. Rather than Communism, Fascism, Socialism, or any other social “ism,” we may be conquered by something called “Systemism.”

For most people, World War I was over on Saturday, June 28th, 1919 when Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau put their signatures to the Versalles Treaty containing the League. However, when our Senate rejected participation in The League in November 1919 and March 1920, we found ourselves still at war with Germany. Thus, on Saturday, July 2, 1921, while changing his golf shoes between games at the estate of Joseph Sherman Frelinghuysen, Sr. in Raritan, New Jersey, President Warren G. Harding signed the Knox-Porter Resolution. It had been passed by the Senate as a substitute peace treaty with Germany. (Who says vital business doesn't occur while playing golf?)

Beware of an ironic reality: the conditions that bring about both war and peace are never predictable!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY