|
10 Dec 01 - 10:05 PM (#607611) Subject: Department of Peace From: Bobert Those of whom have visited Tweeds Blues may have allready run into pinko commie peace-nic Bobert but here I am in Mudsville singing the same old song. In 1969, at a ripe age of 23, Dennis Kucinich was elected to the Cleveland City Coucil and in 1977, Dennis the Menace was elected Clevelend's mayor. He is now a 3rd term U.S. Congressman from the 10th district of Ohio. On July 18th of this year, he offered H.R. 2459, which, if passed, would create a cabinet level post and a Department of Peace. This is not a joke and he now has some 30 plus co-sponsors of the bill. If you believe there are better ways to solve differences of opiniond between groups of humans than to kill one another, you might want to check out his web site. www.house.gov/kucinich If this is something that Mudfolk all ready have discussed, forgive me. But revisit the issue non the less. |
|
10 Dec 01 - 10:20 PM (#607620) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: catspaw49 Cleveland is always an interesting political part of the state. Conservative to almost radically liberal, it often sways the state vote. Ohio, still a pretty solid bed of Taft Republcanism (witness the latest generation of Taft as Governor), also sent one of the most liberal senators in history to Washington for many years....Howard Metzenbaum. Yeah Bobert, I like Kucinich too......Here's blue clicky to his site......Rep. Dennis Kucinich Spaw |
|
10 Dec 01 - 10:52 PM (#607637) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Amos It's an interesting notion, indeed. But I'd like to see the design. Organizing the top level of the Federal Gummint to prosecute peace would be one helluvan experiment, and it would be likely to display the seamy side of some of our exalted representatives. It would rule out a lot of big-money players (like the arms dealers, and the military industrial complex types) for one thing. For another, while it is easy to identify weapons of destruction ranging from mano-a-mano to city-leveling daisycutters, it is a lot harder to identify the weapons of peace -- they aren't usually made of steel and IC chips. And it opens the door to realy scary areas like humanity, awareness, win-win solutions, and so forth. Great idea, but it won't be an easy row to how! A. |
|
10 Dec 01 - 11:55 PM (#607671) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: katlaughing Bobert, thanks! There was a press relase which I posted amidst the rubble of September 11th about some high level government officials from India meeting with the Shrub about using alternative methods of protection and it mentioned Dennis' bill. Nice to know it is still alive. kat |
|
11 Dec 01 - 02:52 PM (#607906) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Hollowfox Hey Bobert! It sounds like you live less than 100 miles from me. Where you at, man? I'm in godhelpus Youngstown. |
|
11 Dec 01 - 02:57 PM (#607914) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Gareth I hope the intention is good, but I can't help thinking about Orwells 4 ministries. Ministry of Love (MiniLov) that dealt with hate. Ministry of Truth (Minitrue) that dealt with lies. Ministry of Plenty (Miniplenty) that dealt with shortages. and Ministry of Peace (Minipeace) that dealt with War. Gareth, on Airstrip One. |
|
11 Dec 01 - 03:08 PM (#607918) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: GUEST Lets have an election, just one, just for fun, where we elect only strange, wacky types. Ones not afraid to take a public city bus to work, not afraid to invent new ways to spend our dough (I say an idea for a new cabinet post should be a requirement to get on the ballot for any federal post). How about having faith in the group not allowing a shortsighted quirky notion get too far; otherwise why have democracy. |
|
11 Dec 01 - 03:41 PM (#607928) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Jack the Sailor You'd need a huge Plowshares Industial Complex to make the whole institutional peace thing work. Besides SAC (Strategic Air Command) beat them to it. Remember "Peace is Our Business" You don't need Orwell for doublespeak! |
|
11 Dec 01 - 03:51 PM (#607933) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: GUEST,Bobert My condolences to you Hollowfox in Youngstown. Just funnin'. I live in Harpers Ferry, WV, but I know a bit about Youngstown since my late wife, bless her soul, was from there. Actually Austintown off of Mahoney. Graduated from Fitch as in the Fitch Falcons. Ahh, I wrote a song about if which I call "Youngstown Night" which talks about what it was like to grow up in Youngstown in the 50's when the Jeaneete Blast Furnace kept the skies lit at night and folks had jobs. There used to be a sculpter/ painter/ artsit who had taken over one of the towntown bildings accross the street from the big department store that was torn down about 5 years ago. This guys name is Scott Pergandi and I bought two pieces of his work. Cool guy and he doesn't pay a nickle in rent. Just squats there in that three story store front and unless he's been run out has about a dozen other folk who live there too. Heard of him? Thanks for your post. Peace may be an absolute that is not attainable but is a worthwhile goal. Mankind CAN do a lot better and will have to as the earth becomes more tribalized. We certainly don't have a President or Cabinet that has even the slightest knowledge of peace. Even today, Junior continues to beat his war drum and use the memory of 9-11 to sell his star wars. The military industrial complex has never had it so good... Sorry about rambling. Ol' bobert tends to get wound up... |
|
11 Dec 01 - 04:00 PM (#607942) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: catspaw49 Ya' know Bobert, I've been to Harpers Ferry a number of times and I have never seen a single harper being ferried nowheres. Seems like kinda' false advertizing to me. Spaw |
|
11 Dec 01 - 04:08 PM (#607952) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Steve in Idaho Spaw - Harper used to ferry his butt across the river several times a day. It was the bridge business that put his name up and him out of business. Sad tale but true I fear - Steve |
|
11 Dec 01 - 04:10 PM (#607955) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: catspaw49 Well I'll be......You could knock me down with John Brown!!! Spaw |
|
11 Dec 01 - 04:31 PM (#607971) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: GUEST,Claymore Actually the bill was formulated in the Clinton era as the Department of Piece, but the Republicans spoiled the party when they changed the spelling. Gary Condit even added an amendment to allow for an in-depth study of low self-esteem in Jewish American Princesses, but history (or herstory) overtook them. |
|
11 Dec 01 - 06:12 PM (#608025) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Steve in Idaho Actually - doesn't this Department of Peace sound a bit oxymoronic? I mean along with military intelligence - doesn't this all come out of the government funnel?? I like Claymore's definition - "And now for Commmming attractions. . . . . . " Steve |
|
11 Dec 01 - 07:48 PM (#608079) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Bobert Yes, Department of Peace is oxymoronic to anyone who is illequipped to grasp the concept. Einstein said that a problem can not be solved with the same conscientiuos that created it. Over simpilified? I don't think so. Once one grasps the concept it is very natural. Through out history win-loss events have been precipitated by other win-loss situations. It's self perpetuating. Dialog and communication get labeled by those who tend to profit in conflict as weekness. Meanwhile, as more people die, these folks "laugh all the way to the Swiss banks". (Dylan). $300 billion this year for war. $Zip for peace. |
|
11 Dec 01 - 08:12 PM (#608089) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Amos Well, I'm still interested in knowing how money "for peace" would be spent. I can come up with some interesting possibilities -- for example, bombarding hostile governments with Mrs Field's cookies in individual cartons, or hiring phone-love gals to call up the Saddams of the world and just melt them out of their antagonisms, or flooding the radical Muslims' wives with pictures of the split levels and SUVs being enjoyed by their suisters in Europe, ANZO and the US -- or maybe training a couple of buses full of eight year olds and shipping them to the Krmlin (or wherever) to meet with heads of state about how naughty they are being. 'Course if you really wanted peace, you could start a huge campaign to deny the orgnaizational force of warmaking bodies. Volunteers only, mano a mano in some desert arena big enough to dump all the fatcats and hotheads in. Put a big fence around it and let them chew each other up. This doesn't even touch on the budget for education. Oh, documented compassion -- home videos of the abused childhood of anyone toward whom we might feel homicidal so we have to sit through their point of view before we ship out. Gunsights that put pictures of Bambi or Minnie on any target just before the trigger gets pulled. I could go through a few zillion single handed here!! LOL!! A |
|
11 Dec 01 - 09:58 PM (#608125) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Bobert Well, Amos, you've answered your own question. It's about communication, education and taking the time to see what the other guy is thinking rather than pulling the trigger. I know you're just funnin' but it really is that simple. And as for your idea of pitting volunteers against one another? Hey, I think that anyone who shows up at the gun store and wants to buy an assault weapon so they can go out and do some "sport" shooting that these folks would have to spend one week with their new assualt weapons inside a compound filled with other nutballs who have just bought assault weapons, after being told that everyone in that compound it out to get ya. Yep, you don't hear the N.R.A. saying that. I'm just funnin, Amos, but I do believe that peace beats the heck out of killin' folks.... |
|
12 Dec 01 - 04:55 PM (#608588) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: GUEST,Claymore Actually the armed compound thing reminds me of some of the best times I had in the Marine Corps. And later in police work, we used to say you got far more cooperation with a smile and a gun, than you did with just a smile. Why, if you gave them the ol' .38 Q-tip, they would crawl out the car's vent window for you. I have to say that in my personal opinion (which of course is worth nothing to anyone but me) the idea of a Department of Peace is a truely looney idea, unclear in concept, conceived by sophmoric diletantes (who smoked too many joints without a helmet) to pander to the few people left whose best week was some year in the sixties. Yo, it was a great party, but now your mother's calling and you have to go home... |
|
12 Dec 01 - 05:12 PM (#608596) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Jack the Sailor Peace being defined as the absence of war... How about... Instead of Environment: The Department of Not-polluting DEA: The Not Taking illicit Drugs Agency Justice: Department of Don't Commit and Crimes and we won't have to put you in Jail. What about the Peace Corps and the State Department? Aren't they concerned with peace? What about the U.N.? We don't need another Bureaucracy. |
|
12 Dec 01 - 05:54 PM (#608615) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Bobert LOL. But did you folks who are quick to defend business as usual even go to Dennis Kucinich's website and read his ideas? We're spending $300B a year for defense, and throw in another $50B to $100B this year and next killing folks and defending against folks who are trying to kill us. What if we spent a mere 1% of that budget to fund a Department of Peace and what if from that departments efforts the next Afganistan War was averted? Impossible? Not really. Every thing exists because of an idea. In this ever shrinking tribalized world a shift in the way people deal with conflict is overdue. I'd just ask that those who continue this thread, read Kucinich's proposal first. Thanks. Peace. |
|
13 Dec 01 - 09:54 AM (#608951) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: A Wandering Minstrel Seems like a damn good place to start from to me. and a logical extension of the Bradford University Dept. of Peace. www.brad.ac.uk/acad/peace (I'll get around to learning blue clickies one of these days :) ) |
|
13 Dec 01 - 10:54 AM (#608994) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: katlaughing Seems like a lot of people are too comfy in their "little boxes" to even wrap their heads around such a concept. The typical derision of a new and unusual idea is a surprise here, at the Mudcat, I expected better. Bobert, hang in there. I believe it's time has come. What a wonder...daring to believe we can work towards a time of no war. If we do not begin to first imagine it, then to act upon that desire, it may never happen. Oh, and Claymore, just for the record, I've never smoked a joint, never worn a helmet except on a motorcycle, and most of my best weeks have come with the wisdom of age and self-awareness in my 40's. I find your generalisation to be that of an apparent "sophmoric (sic) diletante." kat |
|
13 Dec 01 - 10:55 AM (#608995) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Steve in Idaho Oh Bobert - Do you not believe that Marines don't understand the true meaning of peace? Or that those of us, me included, that "run out and buy assault weapons" are ill equipped to understand the full ramification of what I am buying and what I am going to do with it? Communication and education are the answer - but those take time and I'll wait on that component, teach my children the responsibilities of gun ownership, and watch everything the government does in my name with a bit of a jaundiced eye. As an NRA member I believe it takes both sides to make an argument for the middle. And there is no legislation that will remedy stupidity. So all in all I am glad you support and advocate for this fine principle. But I firmly do not believe we will see this implemented in my lifetime just as this fight with terrorism will not end in my lifetime. I would hope that my Grandkids could see this occur. Semper Fi Claymore Steve |
|
13 Dec 01 - 03:00 PM (#609150) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Jack the Sailor Bobert, Of course Peace is a great idea, Of course there are better ways to solve conflict. But I believe what we have to hope for and work for is that EVERY Department of the the government, especially those which deal with other countries, is concerned with peace. I am not out to defend business as usual, I just don't see another bureaucracy as being a solution. The barriers to this being that (1)war related interests have so much money and lobbying power. (2) There is no peace without strength cutting back on defence per se will not help. (3) We already have a number of institutions which address these issues. Why not simply put more effort and resources into those? |
|
13 Dec 01 - 03:11 PM (#609160) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: DougR I think most people in the U. S. (not including the rest of the world because the issue is addressed to U. S. legislation)want peace. I don't believe creating another federal agency will ensure it. The only way to ensure it, is to be stronger than everyone else; have more effective weaponry than anyone else, and the willingness to use it (as we are now) if peace is threatened. That's my belief, anyway. DougR |
|
13 Dec 01 - 05:02 PM (#609228) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: GUEST,Claymore Kat, I'll trade you my "sophmoric" (sp-sophomoric) for your "generalisation"(sic) (sp-generalization). Or would it be a generalisation to believe you don't live in a glass house? |
|
13 Dec 01 - 09:40 PM (#609400) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Bobert Another of Einstien's obsevations that "insanity" is repeating a behavior expecting different results. Making war is not unlike the guy trying for the three thousanth time to figure out which shell covers the pea. This isn't about the Marines, or the N.R.A., or teaching your kids that peace can only be achieved by having a bigger stick than the other guy. ("You kids play nicely now or I'll kill both of you.") This is an age of possibility. Mankind has come so far in the last 50 years. Peace is possible and the kind of thing that I want MY government involved. If one lets cynicism rule one's thinking then the ol' bobert can see why it is so very difficult to comprhend a governemnt actually acting to promote betterment of our lives. But if enought folks can push the cynicism aside then the possiblity of PEACE is, well... possible. |
|
13 Dec 01 - 09:55 PM (#609409) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Amos ANd just to make it clear, I wasn't deriding th enotion of pouring billions into peace. My point was much simpler and much less dunderheaded than that, Ms Laughing!! I was serious when i said I would like to see the design. In order to design something, you have to know how to get where you're going. We've all enjoyed breakouts of peace, more here than elsewhere, and more since 1975, I would guess, than before it. But who among you knows enough about the dynamics of the time andf the people involved to hazard a guess as to what "causes" peace to occur? Which of the many elements are the most important? Prosperity, I might guess; but there have been some prosperous societies which were always getting mucked up in battle/ Maybe some sort of spiritual focus? How ya gonna fund that? Or maybe some other kind of "meme" being circulated around. Point is it is easy to call for billions to be spent on peace, and no-one really knows what the weapons are!!! Don't laugh -- mrs Fields' Cookies might just be the answer -- chocolate, don'cha know. I wasn't deriding the impulse. But where's the PLAN??? A |
|
13 Dec 01 - 10:15 PM (#609422) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: DougR Amos: did you REALLY post that last message? Doesn't sound like you to me. DougR |
|
13 Dec 01 - 10:18 PM (#609424) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: katlaughing Perhaps one would find out if one had the funds to do so, Amos? Certainly plenty of government money has gone to fund finding answers about weapons of war, why not to answer those about peace which you've just brought up? How will we ever know if someone isn't brave enough to look into it and seek the answers with adequate funding? Hell, the money spent finding out if Clinton really had a blowjob or not would've been a good start, though I doubt Ken Starr would have been the appropriate investigator. Einstein also said something to the effect of we cannot simultaneously prepare for war and expect peace. There has to be a fundemental change in the way people think in order for there to ever be a chance. If we had a Dept. of Peace, even if all it did was produce enough ads of positive imput to counteract all of the negativity people are bombarded with, day in and day out, it would be worth it. If one tells a child, every day of their life, that they are worthless, ugly etc., eventually they will believe it and manifest it in their lives. Same goes for positive imput, but what a different manifestation one expects and can receive! Claymore, some may think it an affectation of mine, but I prefer British spelling, hence the "generalisation." kat |
|
13 Dec 01 - 11:23 PM (#609451) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Bobert Since I just tunneled in this joint by fate I don't have a clue who you are, Katlaughing, but the ol' bobert certainly likes the way you are wired. Hey, if we can't win over these folks over to PEACE then I'll have my cousin, Buddy, beat em' up. Whaddayathink? Just funnin... |
|
13 Dec 01 - 11:34 PM (#609454) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Amos All right, then!! Let's give it a try!! You could probably BUY peace world-wide with the money the Army has wasted in SW development of the last fiveyears all by itself!!! Not spent....just the money they have wasted!! First thing we should look for is the professionals who really have learned the ropes of peace, spent their lives waging it, etc -- not just those with peaceful natures but the guys who have worked the street. Rev Jesse Jackson? I dunno. Who are the real pros in the Peacefaring business? A |
|
14 Dec 01 - 01:17 AM (#609480) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: katlaughing Bobert, **BG** I used to call Spaw my evil twin, but then he did something so nice, I promised not to call him that ever again, so I guess I am his evil twin, now.**BG** You came over from Tweedom, right? That has to be alright, in my book.:-) If ya really want to get an idee about some of us, click on the Quick Links, go to the Members REsources and check out the photos of us all, then send yer mug to Pene so'se we can get a gander o'you, too, eh? And, if ya want to check out some more of my wiring, you could always go read a few of my past political commentaries on a simply constructed, out-of-date, needs-to-be-worked-on website right here. Thank yew, kindly! Amosdarlin', I'll get back to you.:-) kat |
|
14 Dec 01 - 04:48 AM (#609523) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: GUEST,Dewey I think the idea of a Department of Peace is a noble one. Yes, we all know that War can lead to peace too, EVENTUALLY, after all the ugliness and blood 'n guts is over! And over somewhere else, (namely outside the U.S.A.) Outside the superpower: in a torn and devasted country like Afghnistan for example. What a price the U.S. has had it pay (and by doing it the ugly way: securing peace through the devastation of an angry, poor and abandoned country the world forgot) Most Wars I am convinced are fought because of needs, needs which are UNMET, to which creates hatred, ignorance, irrational resentment and corrupt governments in abandoned and forgotten nations throughout the world. Many of the wars, especially in Africa, are simply over resources. Sure, the Congressman is being laughed at for his proposal. But, remember: they laughed at Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations too! I doubt however that anyone would laugh today. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting and trying to promote and secure peace throughout the world. It is the KEY, yet it is the one proposal so often ignored! It further disgusts me that so many people would rather see the bombs fly instead as the main solution for peace. Bombs are the last resort! And the ugliest one at that! Yet unfortnately most American's seem to want to use them as the first and final solution above all other means. Their money would be much better spent in peacebuilding I believe! The Department of Peace Sounds Like a Grand and Novel Idea to me. It's usually the guy who comes up with the unconventional idea that also has the right one I have found! We've had the Department of War, and the Twentieth Century was undoubltedly the bloodest Century in human history. Its time we try and consider something new and different, this just could be it. Reguardless it still should gets its chance to be tried in my book! Dewey
|
|
14 Dec 01 - 12:41 PM (#609707) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: DougR Jessie Jackson? I don't think so. Before Jessie is considered for anything, he should first account for all the money he has spent that has been donated to his organization. My humble opinion at least. DougR |
|
14 Dec 01 - 12:53 PM (#609720) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Amos OK, then. Who ARE the wagers of peace? Where should we look for the brains to really envision acheivable goals in this direction, come up with the brilliant strategems and campaigns? I can think of one really interesting intersection of sets that could be a resource pool: mothers and admen. We should scour PR and advertising firms for women who are ALSO mothers, and I bet we would find some candidates!! May doctors or alternative healers could provide a few likely leads. And let there be plenty of music lovers on the staff. Maybe we should get a rare female Admiral to be the figurehead so she can kick Senators and such around with vigah when they get to obstreperous about their military-industrial voters. Instead of rows upon rows of steely, bomb-heavy bombers flanked by jetplanes armed with death, we could have air cavalcades of manned balloons sprinkling brochures and dirigibles in bright colors flying low and playing music. Come to think of it, if we just spent the money we spend organizing, manning, and building for war on training giant music camps, where the sergeants turned out qualified quartets, pickers, orchestras, conductors, song writers and performers, etc. we could enlist all the unemployed of Afghanistan and turn out new heights of musical accomplishment!! Boot camp would be a hoot!! Large scale campaigns coordinated by conductors instead of generals!! And that's just one branch!! A
|
|
14 Dec 01 - 01:24 PM (#609743) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Steve in Idaho Just watch how threads evolve here at the Cat and you should be able to see why peace is so elusive. I heard somewhere that the Japanese were considering buying all of the nuclear weapons in the world just to get rid of them (apparently at some point they were wealthy enough to do this). I certainly liked the idea. And money is going to be a major player in this thing. I firmly believe the ONLY way to real peace is to make it more profitable than war. Steve |
|
14 Dec 01 - 01:35 PM (#609755) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: katlaughing I would turn first to His Holiness, the Dalai Lama and also Sir John Templeton odd as that may seem. Another one would be Robert Fulghum. You may remember he advocated dropping "bombs" of colouring books and crayons in an essay on the healing of creativity and fun in one of his books. I would also put the people at Peace Pilgrim at the top of the list of advisors and enactors. Also, Women Waging Peace; Canadian Voice of Women for Peace; People for Peace with lots of good links, esp. for kids; And, not to be sexist: Men's International Peace Exchange; Yamoussoukro Declaration of Peace in the Minds of Men UNESCO; Interesting article and link to Pave for Peace; Musicians4Peace takes a bit to load; Musicians for Peace at PEACEZINE not for the faint at heart activism (warning, disturbing photo of war ravaged child); RHYTHM WEB - Peace Through World Music. If one enters "musicians for peace" in google, many smaller, individual orgs. come up. There are a lot of people out there thinking the same thing and trying to pull it together, despite the politicians and big money fellahs. In Peace Profound, kat
|
|
14 Dec 01 - 01:39 PM (#609759) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Amos Well there ya go!! Fertile minds on all sides. All we need is someone to get 'em organized and someone to turn on the taps!! |
|
14 Dec 01 - 02:10 PM (#609805) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: DougR Why bring in outsiders? I nominate: kat, Bobert, Claymore, Steve, Amos, Kendall, Wandering Minstrel, Dewey, and Jack the Sailor! I'm not sure about Jack, though. He opposes establishing another bureaucracy. I think getting the money for such a government agency is going to be a real challenge, though. Money gained by using monies wasted by other government agencies is an even bigger one, I think. DougR |
|
14 Dec 01 - 02:22 PM (#609817) Subject: A revelation! From: Jack the Sailor I am go proud to be among the first people who think peace is a good idea! The United States government wants Peace, but only where it does not conflict with "National Interests" That is why a "Department of Peace" is a waste. Who wins? Star Wars or Arms Control? Big Oil or human rights in the mideast? Change the answers to these questions if you want to "give peace a chance". (Hey what a good idea for a song.) |
|
14 Dec 01 - 03:33 PM (#609877) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Lonesome EJ Well, thirty years ago, I thought that Peace was merely a state of mind. If we had the courage to show peace to others, they would reflect and strengthen that desire. Since then, I suppose I have decided that Peace is a by-product of satisfaction. If a people are satisfied with their lives, they tend to be peaceful. War is primarily waged by those who are dissatified because they have less than others, or by those who can never have enough. And so, until you can guarantee mutual satisfaction among the people of the World, Peace will not be an achievable, not even a desireable thing. Suppose I am the member of a class of slaves whose number is tiny compared to the vast population of free people in my society, all of whom are happy and peaceful. Should I be happy and peaceful, satisfied with my lot in life? Or am I justified to rise up and smite my oppressors? Until you level the playing field for everyone, you'll never achieve mutual satisfaction, or Peace, on earth. And so we see that Peace is not the kind of thing that can be achieved by just having the right mindset. It would take a mammoth, co-ordinated effort from everyone on Earth. The closest we humans have come to achieving this was probably during the reign of the Roman Empire, when the atmosphere of Peace and Harmony was induced by a single over-powering governmental entity, whose armies were everywhere. Lonesome Cynical EJ |
|
14 Dec 01 - 04:44 PM (#609923) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Steve in Idaho Like I said Jack - when peace is more profitable than war we'll have it. Thanks for the nomination DougR - but I'll pass. I'm way too cranky to be effective. Steve |
|
14 Dec 01 - 06:13 PM (#609992) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: DougR Ah ha! Steve you profess to want peace but are not willing to take on the job with the Department of Peace! :>) Well, okay. I'm sure we can find someone to take your place. I'll bet Greg F. would do it! If there is any grant money to be handed out, I'd like to nominate Kendall. I would feel very comfortable about Kendall handing out money to ensure peace. DougR |
|
14 Dec 01 - 10:01 PM (#610157) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Bobert Okay, lets talk a little about the misconception that war is profitable or like Bob Martin sang in one of his songs from the Midwest Farm Disaster album, "all we need is another good war". War is not at all profitable. It is highly subsidized. Nothing comes off the assembly line that goes toward the betterment of mankind. I mean, absolutely nothing. If I went to my banker with a business plan to build "gizmos" and told him that what I was going to do is blow up my gizmos and my employees, he would think I was nuts. Well, this is waht "defense" departments do. They blow up their gizmos and thier emplyees. Where is the profit in this scenerio? No, the U.S. will spend about $350B this year on their "defense" department. Yep, a BILLION DOLLARS A DAY. All subsidized, lowering our workers standards of living, taking money from programs that could alleviate a lot of suffering by our elderly folks and folks living in or as those in Third World countries. Okay, ol' Bobert ain't going to stand here and say it will be easy but PEACE is a bargain. Profitable? In terms of money, no. But a heck of a deal compared to what we've seen for several thousand years. THE TIME IS NOW. It is possible. It is doable. It is TIME... It just takes individuals to stop long enough and say, "Hey, IT IS POSSIBLE!" There is a bill in the House. Write your Congressman. Peace... |
|
14 Dec 01 - 11:22 PM (#610189) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: DougR Right on, Bobert! Peace can be ensured by writing one's congressman to support the Bill! Wouldn't it be great if that really would accommplish it? Did you see the Osma bin Laden tape, Bobert? If you did, do you REALLY think that passing a bill in the United States Congress is going to accomplish what you want to see done? Do you really think that passing such a Bill is going to affect the bin Ladens of this world? I mean no disrespect, Bobert, but the threat that the world faces today (Terrorism) is real! It is not a malady that can be cured by a Bill in the United States Congress! It is not just a USA threat! It threatens the whole world, and I fear that it may be the most serious threat we have ever known, even more than the one we faced in WW2. Again, no disrespect meant to any who support Bobert's proposal. DougR |
|
14 Dec 01 - 11:42 PM (#610196) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: katlaughing Doug, it's a damn start, at least! Sorry, I know I probably sound like a pollyanna, but I won't accept "business as usual" because of the cynicism of the world. Just because there are terrorists does not mean we have to cave in and have no hope other than through massive destruction and continued strife. We've had two thousand years of patriarchal rule which has brought us no solutions. Bobert is right, the time IS now, we are coming into a time of more balance with women's voices and actions having more of a role and influence and we will NOT be silenced! |
|
14 Dec 01 - 11:49 PM (#610200) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Bobert Well, DougR, I respect what you have said but I think you are taking things out of context. No, one can look at a Department of Peace in this context. "Ahh, You all is going to have to play nice." This isn't about the existing conflict but the next. This one will play its self out and bin Laden will either be captured or killed, but how this failed foriegn policy is played out doesn't really have anything to do with the concept of PEACE. Our next big challenge will be in the post bin Laden era. This is where I want a Department of Peace. This is where I want a few of the bucks that were headed to the Department of War diverted to trying to get high profile right wing Islamic folks participate in retreats with moderate Islamic folks and other folks who represent a level of tolerance. Sell, "Live and let live" to the Jerry Falwells and Osoma bin Ladens of the world and the Department of Peace is on track to make history, rather than repeat it.... |
|
15 Dec 01 - 01:43 AM (#610240) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: DougR Kat, Bobert: I don't for a minute question your sincerity, not do I belittle your goal. However, Bobert I believe, validates my point (which I think was made in this thread ..but it may have been another) when he intimates that all of our problems will be over when Osma bin Laden is taken care of, one way or the other! President Bush told us after 9-11 that this was going to be a long struggle. One that might last for months or years. Very soon Osama bin Laden will be history. Does that mean that the war between Terrorists and free people is over? No way. There are Terrorists, most likely, in every country in the world. That's what makes it different from any other enemy any country has ever faced before. This war is not going to be over until every Terrorist organization in the world is gone! We are not dealing with individual countries, here. We are dealing with multiple malcontents in multiple countries. It's like this, I think, but on a very different and much more serious scale: the majority of Mudcatters are dissatisfied with their governments. At least that is my assessment after over two years of having been a Mudcatter. It doesn't matter which country, the majority of those posting appear to me, to be dissatisfied. Suppose each Mudcatter was dissatisfied enough to ally him/herself with an armed organized resistance that had as it's goal, the overthrow of the government of their country. It would be very difficult for any government to combat such a group. There would be no single entity to fight, just as there is not with the Terrorists we are currently fighting. We cannot think of war any longer as we thought of war as in WW2, Korea, WW1, Viet Nam, Bosnia, etc. Future wars will be much different from those we have known. With apologies to Amos, who, on another thread I chided for carrying on a bit long. DougR |
|
15 Dec 01 - 11:09 AM (#610384) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Greg F. Doug:
I'll bet Greg F. would do it! |
|
15 Dec 01 - 12:36 PM (#610450) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Bobert DougR. Consider this, my friend. First of all the present administration does not have the wiring to comprehend peace. It is an adminsitration that very much is owned, lock, stock and barrel, by the military industrial complex. When this President warned Americans to be prepared for a long war, he was selling his product with little regard for the real safety of the planet. He used 9-11 not too far differently than the scam charities that call you up and try to get you to give them money by invoking the images of 9-11. It's a very powerful slaes tool. I would ask why the demonstrations against the United States and its allies have died out in Pakistan? Well, their is a theory, even exposed by bin Laden himself in the recent tape that folks flock to the stronger horse. I believe that is occuring. We have seen vast numbers of Taliban folks defect and so I believe that there is an ability of folks to just plainly... change their minds. With this a given, I believe this is where a Department of Peace comes into play. Sure, we have proven that we can beat anyboby up that we want to and as we do this we insure more hatred and mistrust by many of our planet dwellers. Now, the radical Islamics are just a bunch of right wing nutballs, much like the Jerry Falwells in this country. They would have everyone goosestepping to their beliefs just as the Falwells and Robertsons here. They, like their American counterparts don't respect freedom, or choice. Now I don't want to get this thing to far off the tracks but if we just allow ouirselves to look into the teachings of the major religions we find enough collective commonality to bridge gaps between moderate people who comprise the overwhelming majority of earthlings. There are many things that could be done right now, in the midst of a hot war, that could short circuit the plans that the Bush Administration has for your, mine and the rest of the world's future. Somalia, Iraq, Lybia, North Korea, etc. This reminds me very much of Vietnam in one way. A small number of folks starting questioning this war in 1964 and 1965 but some 5 years later the rest caught on. I belive that if this Administration continues on this path that this too, like Vietnem, will be found to be a foriegn policy that is not good for America or for the world. It is my hope that enough folks will figure it out and act in what ever non-violent manner to effect change in one other person, if nothing else, so that a movement of peace can be the guiding force of foriegn policy of the worlds strongest and most influential counrty. Peace. |
|
15 Dec 01 - 02:05 PM (#610507) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Amos Not to repeat myself, or anything....but there are scores of heavy tomes analyzing the craft of making war, from the ancient Chinese to Klausewitz and beyond. Where are the manuals for "making" peace? The goal of making peace is to bring about...what? An absence of violence between humans? An absence of enmity? A world free of insanity? These are some starry goals, no mistake, and we are WAY behind the curve in even naming the steps to get there, let alone evolving the technology. Part of th eproblem is that while war is the deployment of mechanics meant to tear down things (like bodies) in order to change minds, ultimately, peace is different. It is the deployment of minds in order to create and improve things (and the well-being of bodies). Deploying minds, aiming them, taking advantage of their natures to accomplish the goals of peace is in some ways a much greater challene than deploying battleships and jets to accomplish the goals of war. More I think about this, the bigger the budget such a Cabinet would need to command seems to get. We really have postponed this long enough! A |
|
15 Dec 01 - 02:47 PM (#610528) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Bobert You're right, Amos, in that the manuals are not written and the maps not drawn and while that makes the task difficult, it also makes it challenging and exciting. Here we are at a croosroads of sorts for our planet. We have accomplished so much in the last 100 years compared to all the years before when it comes to technology, industrial output and medicine. But spiritually, we have not grown collectively or we would not have killed more people in this same period of time than were killed in all wars before the 20th century. I can see a situation where funding for the Department of Peace would increase as we learn what works but as we find things that do work I can see the funds needed for the Department of War (Defense)would decrease porportionally. Some folks still scratching their heads thinking, "This guy is nuts. Where did he come from? You just can't get people to act peacefully. No way..." Well, one thing that we're going to need are admen. Good admen, who know all the admen stuff that sell Nike shoes to folks all over the world. You zoom in on some conflick in Africa or Lebanon and you see Nikes. Now if they can sell shoes they ought to be able sell universal values of tolerance, coexistence and peace. What if it weren't fashionable to be a bad ass or bully? What if... Peace. |
|
15 Dec 01 - 04:28 PM (#610568) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: DougR Hey Greg! Where have you been? I've missed you! Merry Christmas! DougR |
|
15 Dec 01 - 06:01 PM (#610628) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Amos I hear ya, Bobo. I would say there are several very heavy parts that need to be taken into account here. One of them is the many-faceted art of PR, which acts as the voice of persuasion for postive attitudes and peaceful remedies, and brings about changes in the mindset of the target audience when it is well executed. But PR only works up to a point. The second issue is the undermining of peaceful policy by those who would foment war. Isama Bin laden could have promted his faith all he wanted in peaceful ways and never have drawn a bullet. But he influenced people into rabid states of mind. Why? Personal gain, or to satisfy personal psychosis, are two reasons that pop to mind. so the second branch is one of justice which intercedes against acts designed to promote hatred and violence. It also has to be able to provide justice between people and groups whose grievances have not been resolved in order to bring about enough communication for those grievances to stay at the civil level and never escalate into crimes or military excuses. The third front and the one we know the least about is the remedy of insanity. Even fed and rested people are sometimes too insane to figure out peaceful solutions. Drugs are a lousy answer in most cases, and not many people know how to manage conditions like that with herbs or vitamins, and most forms of subjective therapy are very hit or miss and non-repeatable even in subjective terms. So a lot of money needs to go into that front to work up a genuine model that addresses physical and emotional screwups in individuals and groups. Oi, such a lotta woik!! A |
|
15 Dec 01 - 10:18 PM (#610776) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Bobert Well, Amos, ol' Bobert would like to be the first to step to the plate and thank you for the work. I can tell from what you have written that you are grinding away on the matter at hand and for that, I nominate you to the "think tank" that is going to make the recommendations to the Department of Peace. We all realize that all conflicts will not have a peaceful ending. There are nutballs out there that have to be dealt with as nutballs. But this isn't about the folks who go up in the tower with the rifles. Its about countries who don't like their neigbors, but you know that. So, now that you have been nominated, are you going to Disney World or what? I personally, had I been nominated, would make contact with a certain Congressman from Ohio, but since I haven't been nominated?..... |
|
15 Dec 01 - 10:59 PM (#610785) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: katlaughing This is great, you guys, keep it up! I want to acknowledge the points which LeeJ made, also. I believe they are valid and that Amos and Bobert have begun to address some of those. LeeJ, I didn't respond right away because there was much to think about in your posting and it was a bit depressing to think about. Not your fault, just took off my rose-coloured glasses.**BG** As hard as the work seems, this really does have to happen person-by-person, in our own homes and neighbourhoods and towns. I believe we have to make it global and that we do need to fund a Dept. of Peace, but from my involvement with a human rights org here, for the part 8 years, I know there is tons of work to do on the local level. I've been the "ad(wo)man" for our efforts here and, while we've seen some improvements, it sure would be a big boost if the state and federal goverment was set up to actively promote the education, diversity, and tolerance we've been working on. Oy, makes me tired just thinking about it, at the moment. Our own gov. officials, from the Shrub on down, would need to be educated much more for starters. An example of their mindset and the ramifications of it are illustrated in this, from the Hartford COURANT: (Apologies for the length. I received this from another 'Catter who shares my concerns about our relatives of foreign ethnic backgrounds and the actions of Ashcroft) Detainee Has Had Enough Of U.S. Indian Man Eager To Leave After INS Holds Him 18 Days
December 14, 2001 TORRINGTON (CT) -- Ayazuddin Sheerazi loved America. Now, after 18 hellish days in the custody of federal immigration officials, he can't wait to leave the land of opportunity. For the past six months, since arriving here on a "multiple entry" visa that allowed him to conduct business in the United States, Sheerazi had shuttled back and forth between his home in Bristol and New York City, hustling orders and delivering rugs for his family's successful carpet plant in Bombay, India. Although the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington depressed sales of his rug line and made it more difficult for foreigners even vaguely resembling Arabs to travel in the United States, Sheerazi considered himself a success. "In all the respectable families in Bombay, boys grow up dreaming about coming to America and doing business in the most successful business country on earth," Sheerazi said. "Now I was living that dream. Everyone here treated me so well." Sheerazi's dream vanished Nov. 25, when a team of Torrington police officers and U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service investigators swooped down on the gasoline station he was minding temporarily for his uncle. The officers led him away in handcuffs as part of a dragnet for foreigners suspected of involvement in the fall's anthrax scare. Sheerazi's young cousins, who were at the station with him when the raid took place, burst into tears and cried for days after Sheerazi was led away. Sheerazi, 32, was never charged with a crime. The violation of immigration law brought against him by the INS was dismissed Wednesday by a federal immigration judge in Hartford. Immigration officials said he had overstayed his visa, which expired at the end of July. "On July 10, we filed for an extension of his stay, which is still pending with the immigration service, so he's technically in this country legally," said his attorney, Neil A. Weinrib, a New York immigration lawyer. The "witness" who initiated the federal sweep in the first place - by claiming that he heard two "Arabs" in a bar talking about spreading anthrax through the mails - flunked his lie detector test. But that didn't stop the INS from holding Sheerazi for what he describes as 18 often hellish days in the Hartford Correctional Center. The agency was able to arrest him because of another important change in America since Sept. 11. Under the terms of the "Patriot Act," an anti-terrorism measure hastily passed by Congress in October, the government merely has to "suspect" that a foreign national is a terrorist in order to hold him or her indefinitely without charges. Sheerazi, an Indian national, was tending the Coastal gas station on North Elm Street in Torrington because the owners, his uncle and aunt, Salim and Hina Sheerazi, were away visiting a doctor in Bristol. The immigration agents, as part of their sweep, had included the Coastal station because they heard it was owned by foreigners, he said. "They told me that they didn't have time to go to Bristol to see my passport," Sheerazi said. "They simply told me, `You can come with us now.' So I called my uncle at the doctor's and told him that the children were still here." For the next 24 hours, Sheerazi was shunted through a series of lockups - in Torrington, Hartford and then the Hartford INS building - without being fed, told why he was being detained, or receiving an answer when he pleaded with his jailers to allow him to call his relatives in Torrington. By his second night of arrest, Sheerazi finally landed at the Hartford Correctional Center, usually detained with three Pakistanis picked up in the same sweep of northwest Connecticut. He settled in for the grim routine of living in the cell blocks of Hartford Correctional by night , and then being ferried over to the INS building to spend his days in a lockup there. INS officials decline to discuss the case, citing rules that prevent them from discussing individual immigration matters. Sheerazi's strongest memory of detention is hunger. A Muslim, he was observing the religious holiday of Ramadan, during which Muslims fast by eating modest meals of vegetarian food. At the INS building, Sheerazi said, no food was offered all day. Back at Hartford Correctional, there was no vegetarian food, so all he could eat was the pallid offerings of white bread. "I lost a lot of weight," Sheerazi said. "But the hardest part for me was not knowing for 18 days. I kept asking the immigration officers `Why am I here? What have I done?' They wouldn't tell me, and then finally the Pakistanis seemed to know that we were all being held because of the anthrax cases." Isolated, uncertain how long he would be held, Sheerazi found it difficult not to succumb to despair at night. He was particularly humiliated by the use of leg chains every day when he was transported back and forth from Hartford Correctional to the INS building, he said. "I cried in my cell at night," he said. "I prayed for my release. We are from a family that is respected in India. But to be led away in chains is associated with a great deal of shame." Back in Torrington, Sheerazi's relatives were coping with the confusion of trying to contact him through the INS bureaucracy, and the emotional wake of his arrest. Salim and Hina Sheerazi's two daughters, 11 and 7, had difficulty coping in school and often burst into tears in the middle of the day, they said. "The psychology counselors at the Forbes School were wonderful," said Hina Sheerazi. "When I started to cry, too, they explained that for now it was best if I didn't show a lot of emotion in front of the children. But I wanted to show the children that we knew that we hadn't done anything wrong, that we were proud, and that we would fight for our rights." Sheerazi was freed Wednesday after posting a $2,000 bond required by an immigration judge. Weinrib, his lawyer, is convinced Sheerazi can prove his right to remain legally in America at any future hearings. But Sheerazi himself said no future hearings will be necessary. "I'm leaving and returning to India as soon as Ramadan is over next week," he said. "I loved being in this country and working hard to build my family's business back in India. But now I am having too much trouble understanding what happened to me here." |
|
16 Dec 01 - 12:51 AM (#610822) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: hesperis People fight for a reason. They fight when they do not see any other solution. If the reason for an act of aggression were given a viable solution, what would happen? We don't know. We haven't even tried, particularly on the governmental level. However, I have seen that happen on the personal level - if the reasons to fight are addressed, and given alternate ways of being handled, the violence stops. Is a nation so different from an individual? I think the dynamics of human relationship are merely acted out in a larger scale for nations than for individuals. And the same way of addressing the situation would be viable for a nation as well - first, know what the true source of the problems are in an objective and complete manner. Fighting is an act of desperation, when you think you only have one hope left - to crush the opponent. Suicide is an act of desperation, when you think you have no hope left. What if there was hope? And not just hope, but a solution? We as a human race, don't know. We have not looked. *hesperis* |
|
16 Dec 01 - 01:08 AM (#610829) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Amos I firmly believe that there is hope for individuals and groups. But part of deploying that hope is learning ways of handling desperation which is always compounded by confusion and re-activation of past trauma and loss, not just present factors. Usually. The problem is in the thinking, both in instances of war and in instances of self destruction. And the only things that can change thinking are the authors of that thinking, with additional communication or education. So those are tqwo angles on both individual and group dyunamics that need some really workable approaches identified for routine, repeatable peace-waging technology. Interesting thread. Good night all. A. |
|
16 Dec 01 - 10:03 PM (#611327) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Bobert First of all, welcome aboard Hesperis, and thank you for your thoughts. Peace. Now, Katlaughing, this story about Ayazuddin Sheerazi is abosolutely frieghtening. The "Pariot Act' is the closest thing to "McCarthyism" that the United States has seen in 50 years. George Bush and his cronies have turned back the clock almost 60 years on this one which should make the right wingers who bought his election very, very happy. Their goal, of course, is to have us all in the cotton fields before its over. They make me sick, using the memories of 9-11 as their mantra, much like the a barker at a carnival, to get Americans to think that if they don't support these extreme right wingers then they are not being patriotic. Sorry about the rant, but ranting is part of the peace process. It's about communication... These people in power don't want peace and they don't want a Department of Peace because it does not play into their agenda which places weaponry over understanding. Profits for those who bought their election over the pursuit of happiness of the other 99%. All the more reason, while we still have any rights, support the concepts, write the letters, try to teach peace to one other person. Let the warmonging right wingers who profit from war know that not everyone is "following". |
|
16 Dec 01 - 11:09 PM (#611356) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: DougR Bobert! Wake up! Nobody has picked cotton in years! It's all done by machines owned by all those big corporate entities you love to hate! Ain't nobody on the mudcat gonna have to pick cotton! I can practical guarantee it! So just free yourself of that worry and go on gathering support for that brand spanking new government agency! DougR |
|
16 Dec 01 - 11:25 PM (#611367) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: katlaughing HeyaHesperis, where ya been? Nice to see you back. Bobert, here's another interesting piece, op/ed by Helen Thomas. I think she is spot on: It's Time To Speak Up WASHINGTON - 12.14.01 If there ever was a time when Americans should speak up on behalf of people in this country whose rights are being abridged, that time is now. I remember with tremendous sadness the statement of Martin Niemoller, a Lutheran minister in Berlin, after World War II as a warning of what can happen when people do not come to the defense of others whose civil liberties have been taken away. Niemoller said, "In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me -- and by that time, no was left to speak up." Niemoller had founded the Pastors Emergency League to Resist Hitlerism and had been confined to Nazi concentration camps for eight years before his release in 1945. Happily, we do not have that kind of environment in the current terrorist crisis. But there is always the possibility that we could create an atmosphere where dissent and freedom of speech are not tolerated on grounds of national security. We all know America is admired by people around the world because of its freedoms, especially those under the Bill of Rights, which protects citizens and even non-citizens. We are a nation that has been governed by laws that have endured for more than 200 years. If we lose our title of "land of the free," what have we got? Under his authority as commander-in-chief, President Bush seems to have given his Cabinet carte blanche in pursuing suspects, detaining immigrants secretly and establishing military tribunals that could impose the death penalty by a two-thirds vote of the jury without judicial review. Attorney General John Ashcroft, summoned last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, was masterful in showing that the best defense is a good offense. He bluntly attacked the panel's chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and other critics who had voiced concerns about lost liberties. "We need honest, reasoned debate, not fear-mongering," Ashcroft said. "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: 'Your tactics only aid terrorists -- for they erode national unity and diminish national resolve."' Actually, the real erosion takes place when we allow the chipping away of the bulwark of the U.S. Constitution and our overall record on human rights, which have made us a beacon around the globe. Where are the modern-day Patrick Henrys and Thomas Paines when we need them? Henry was the most celebrated orator of the American Revolution. Every schoolchild has learned his ringing call, "Give me liberty or give me death." And Paine is remembered for his pamphlets on behalf of political equality, tolerance, civil liberties and human dignity. But Ashcroft argued that people who hope the kind of terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11 will not be repeated "were living in a dream world." He held up a training manual for al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden's terror network, and said it showed that "terrorists are taught how to use America's freedoms as a weapon against us." With strong support in the public opinion polls, the administration obviously feels it is free to proceed in curbing civil liberties. In their questioning of Ashcroft many of the senators, except for Leahy and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., rolled over. After all, who wants to be called unpatriotic in these times? Where are the profiles in courage? There are not many on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers seem to be giving up their own rights to set rules on the treatment of immigrants and others in this country who are detained or sought by the government for questioning. To Bush, Ashcroft and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, I would ask this: Please remember the quote of Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic presidential nominee in the 1950s who said, "Democracy is great not just because the majority prevails but because it is safe to be in the minority." The attorney general, accusing the critics of exaggerating or misstating the dangers of the government's new curbs on civil rights, insisted that the Justice Department "has sought to prevent terrorism with reason, careful balance and excruciating attention to detail." Of course, Americans are willing to defer some of the freedoms they once had for valid security reasons. No one can dispute the need for strict enforcement of the rules at airports and in vulnerable public buildings. Arrests of foreign-born residents accused of violating immigration laws or of having knowledge of terrorists or their plans are certainly legal. But those detained should also be given due process rights and equal protection of the laws. And the long detentions of innocent persons based on little or no evidence should be stopped. Ashcroft plans to offer immigrants help in obtaining citizenship if they snitch on their friends or acquaintances as dangers to the Republic. But such an official policy would undermine our nation's reputation for probity and decency. What we need now are more leaders who are students of civics, democracy and especially the Constitution. For to become great Americans, we must know why the founders of our country were so outstanding. |
|
17 Dec 01 - 01:33 AM (#611404) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: CarolC *thread creep* Hey Bobert, you're in Harper's Ferry? I'm in Shepherdstown. You ever go to O'Hurley's jam? |
|
17 Dec 01 - 03:27 AM (#611416) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: CarolC I just realized that I have an opinion on this subject. So I guess I'll post it.
This is what I think and I'd be willing to state my opinion as a prediction, with about a 65 to 70% probability of coming true...
I think there's a pretty good chance that the thing that's going to shake people out of the current militarily oriented mindset is when a problem of an even bigger magnitude than international hostilities and terrorism comes along to take people's minds off of killing. Such as a big environmental catastrophy. With a problem like that, there is no bad guy we can go after and try to kill. And to solve it would require cooperation between all of the countries in the world.
Here's a strange little idea I have about that though... I think it's possible that this little anti-terrorist business we're involved in right now will end up teaching us a lot about cooperation with other nations and we will use what we learn to help us with the bigger problem if and when it comes. And I'm guessing that some of the coalitions that are being formed right now will come in handy in the event of such a crisis. So while I think that the military way of dealing with things is not sustainable in the long run and will probably go the way of the dinosaurs eventually, we are learning, in the context of what's happening right now, things we will probably need to know at some point in the future, in spite of our stubborn little selves. |
|
17 Dec 01 - 10:02 AM (#611538) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Steve in Idaho Bobert, No, the U.S. will spend about $350B this year on their "defense" department. Yep, a BILLION DOLLARS A DAY. And this isn't profit for someone? Get a grip man. Read your history. Anytime anyone is shooting at someone in the name of a government there is a profit in it. You're just not looking in the right place. And yes I do profess that I prefer peace over war - I've marched in every anti-war protest there's been including Viet Nam, I've written to my Representatives and Senators, but I am too tired to carry on this crap anymore. It's the next generation's turn. So don't go giving me crap about what I want, what I've done, or where my head and heart is. Steve |
|
17 Dec 01 - 11:15 AM (#611588) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Bobert I'm not really sure what I said that got you so riled up there, Steve, but while I'm stickin' with what I have said, I am sorry to have hurt your feelings. Like you I am tired of fighting for human rights, justice, tolerance and peace. We shouldn't have to do this but our government has somehow been so corrupted by money, corporate profits and special interest groups, that is almost dysfuntional in that it just plainly cannot do things that it can to better mankind. Why? Warren Zebon said it best: "Lawyers, Guns and Money" and that has not chnaged. I'm tired too, my friend, of writing letters and demonstrating but I will do it because I feel it is not only my right, but more importantly, my duty. My parents were my age in the late 60's and having come thru the Depression, the Second World War, Korea, McCartyism, they too were tired. But that didn't stop them from marching in civil rights and antiwar demonstrations. Sure, it would be nice if our kids would take up the cause and maybe they will come on board. I'm sorry, my friend, that you are too tired to stand up and say, "Hey, this is what I have spent my life fighting for and I'm not going to let the Ashcrofts, the Rumsfields and the Bushs with their turn back the clock thinking chip away at the gains my country has made." Yeah, I'm tired, too, but not to tired to at least stand up and speak out against the right wingers who have nothing to offer America other than worn out, failed policies from our past. Peace. CarolC, I'm not familiar with O'Hurly's but have been to the Mecklinburg Inn. They have an open mike on Tuesday nights beginning around 9:00. I quit performing publicly in 1976 and have since then played only a parties but my wife has been pushing me to get back into it since I'm still playing and writing songs. Tell me more about O'Hurleys and I'll get by to see what it's all about since I'm only 25 minutes from Sheppardstown and absolutely love it up there. |
|
17 Dec 01 - 12:15 PM (#611654) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: DougR Additonal thread creep: Carol C: any "future environmental catastrophy" would likely be caused by the fravorite whipping boy of the liberals, don't you think? Some big multi-national corporation like Exxon Mobil or somebody like that? You could go after and try to kill them! :>) DougR |
|
17 Dec 01 - 02:04 PM (#611732) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Steve in Idaho Bobert - As usual - when I am tired I am not very clear. I mean the crap of this discussion. The point I was trying to make for you was the one of finances being the motivating force for armed conflict. The italics in my post were your words - and man if that isn't profit for someone - then what? I'm not angry, maybe a bit upset, just trying to point out to you that money is the reason for conflict. Goes right to the heart of my assertion that if peace becomes more profitable then we'll have it. The rest is semantical in nature and folks have got to do what they can with what they have. I'll never give up working for justice. As a social worker on a military base I walk a very fine line with my political inclinations. But I am highly respected for my position on armed conflict (can we have peace please?), yet my unflagging committment to work for the stability of Air Force families. Don't take me personally - when I'm tired I can sound like a butt. If I offended you I apologize (getting better about eating crow without salt of late). Steve |
|
17 Dec 01 - 03:08 PM (#611779) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Bobert Thank, Steve, for your clarification and for sharing a little insights into who you are and what you do. Being new to this site I haven't figured folks out and I know I can be a bit hard to take so bare with me. We have something in common in that I was a social worker in my former life. Adult services in Richmond, Va. My case load hovered around 65 to 75 folks, 70% of whom were revolving door Department of Mental Health folks, 20% old folks, mostly women and the last 10% physically disabled. I can honestly say that I am happy to have done it and look back on those years as very special. The only bad part was when I woke up one morning and couldn't do it another day, got myself about half wierded out and had to find some other means of making a living. As for the finacial aspects of peace v. war. Both are subsidized. And both have the same objectives. If and when we can look at it this way then we can ask ourselves, "Which is the better buy?". I am realistic enough know that we will alwayd have a Department of Defense which should be pretty much just that so I can envision both departments working together with a greater effort than ever before toward trying to use creative tools to resolve conflicts without killing folks. Peace. |
|
17 Dec 01 - 04:43 PM (#611847) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: CarolC Ok, Bobert. I'll send you a PM with the particulars about O'Hurley's to avoid hijacking the thread altoghether.
Back to the discussion...
The reason the government is willing to subsidize war and not peace is because a lot of people are making a lot of money on the making of war and they have a powerful lobby in Washington. The lobby for peace will never be able to come up with enough money to compete with these powerful interests.
Remember how things were in Washington just before 11 September? Everyone was focused on Gary Condit. The only thing that could shake them out of that profound stupidity was a catastrophe the magnitude of 11 September. You hear anything about Gary Condit since then?
I think it's going to take another catastrophe of much greater proportions to shake people out of the current military mindset. I also think there's an excellent chance that people will be provided with such a catastrophe.
Carol C: any "future environmental catastrophy" would likely be caused by the fravorite whipping boy of the liberals, don't you think? Some big multi-national corporation like Exxon Mobil or somebody like that? You could go after and try to kill them! :>)
Maybe you could do it for me, eh, DougR? No. I don't think it's just one big multi-national corporation that is going to cause it. I think it's our whole way of life that's causing it. I think it's going to require a big change in the way things are done on all levels of society to fix the kind of problems I'm envisioning. |
|
17 Dec 01 - 10:18 PM (#612090) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Bobert Thanks, CarolC, but what is a PM? And as for you theory about the invasion of the aliens or some catastophic event, I'd like to think that something of that magnitude would unite earthlings and teach us that there are scarier things than oursleves and there may be. But the ol' bobert is more concerned about the world's leaders right now because a lot of them haven't learned a danged thing from history and Voltaire said, "Those who don't know history, tend to repeat it." Peace. |
|
17 Dec 01 - 10:23 PM (#612095) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: katlaughing PM=Personal Message, something we can send each other as members, from our Personal Page, where you can also trace threads, etc. I just heard on NPR that Bush has withdrawn the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty?! Russia is making rumblings?! I am more concerned about our elected leaders, too, bobert, though I agree with Carol about something catastrophic needed to actually get people to understand and pay attention. |
|
17 Dec 01 - 10:32 PM (#612100) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: DougR Jeeze, kat, he did that a couple of days ago! You folks in Wyoming get your news pretty late, right? :>) According to the latest reports Russia thinks it is a mistake, but they aren't going to do anything about it. Heck, Bush said he was going to do it months ago. Shouldn't shock anybody. Hey Bobert, I just saw something on TV you might like for Christmas. It's a little inflatable figure with the face of Osma bin Laden on it and you can slap it around to take your frustrations out on it! Maybe you could order one with the faces of Bush, Powell, Rumsfield, Blair, etc., etc.! **BG** DougR |
|
17 Dec 01 - 10:48 PM (#612111) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: CarolC You been seeing space aliens over there in Harper's Ferry Bobert? I haven't sent the PM yet. When I do, you'll see a little banner just above the list of thread titles that says something like "You have 1 active message". You click on that and then when you're in your personal page, click on the title of the message. I'll go send it now. |
|
17 Dec 01 - 11:06 PM (#612131) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: CarolC Ok. Sent it. |
|
18 Dec 01 - 12:47 AM (#612176) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Lonesome EJ Our secession from the ABM Treaty is due to the fact that the treaty prevents the active development of the StarWars System, a Reagan Era boondoggle that folks like Lockheed-Martin had already invested tons of money in. Bush is using the current justifiable atmosphere of patriotic defense mania to dredge this Cold War concept out of the deep freeze, because any opposition in today's climate can be characterized as anti-American. This is a way for Bush to pay off some election debts while rapping this ridiculous and exorbitantly expensive project in an American flag. He points to the WTC attack as evidence for our vulnerability and the need for Starwars, but has yet to explain how this system will prevent exactly that kind of low-tech internal terrorism. This to me is a prime example of the problem we are talking about : we are hooked on technological magic that promises simple answers to complex questions. And our government is too often committed to selling us those very concepts, and in the process greasing the palms of industries which are set up to provide and profit from those products. Currently, companies like Lockheed-Martin are adept at producing products for war, and not peace, and as long as that is the case, in this country you'll get conflict solutions like Starwars. Here's the challenge : make the pursuit of Peace as profitable as the pursuit of war. Before you can have a Department of Peace, you're going to need a Peace Industry. |
|
18 Dec 01 - 12:57 AM (#612181) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: katlaughing Thanks for the explanation, LeeJ. That is horrifying to contemplate...the whole starWars thing coming back! I think, though, if we had a Dept. of Peace, it could help nurture an Industry of Peace, as I'd mentioned earlier, the same way the Defense Dept. "nurtures" the companies which profit in that way. The dept. of PEace has a budget, asks for bids on different ways to promote peace, or whatever, companies send in their proposals and they grow as they produce and there becomes more of a demand for whatever they come up with. Not necessarily tangible products, but think tanks, experiments with advertising/promotion of Peace concepts, diplomacy, etc. Lots more to do on this, but it's a thought, at least.:-) |
|
18 Dec 01 - 01:07 AM (#612186) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: DougR You might not think it so horrible, kat if, after the system is in place, it blows up a missile tossed at us by that madman in Iraq. It will not be designed to stop multiple missiles launched by countries such as Russia or China, and that's why they aren't too upset about it. And EJ, you certainly have a right to your opinion, as I do. Mine is that the president is trying to do the job he was elected (yes elected) to do! Protect the citizens of the United States and our allies. DougR |
|
18 Dec 01 - 01:23 AM (#612190) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: CarolC Alternatively, DougR, maybe we'll be really really pissed at him when global climate change ends up causing far more deaths and far more damage to economies than a missile lobbed at us by the silly man in Iraq, and all because we put all of our resouces into making the problem worse instead of better. |
|
18 Dec 01 - 01:37 AM (#612191) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Lonesome EJ Hi Doug (and Merry Christmas!) I wouldn't disagree the Bush is doing what he thinks is right for the country. I don't think he's disingenuous. I give him high marks in his handling of the WTC aftermath. And I think he probably believes in Starwars. He just thinks that the fact that it will defend America AND enrich a vital part of his power base makes it extra good. I think he's wrong on that one, and I don't want my tax dollars spent that way. |
|
18 Dec 01 - 10:19 AM (#612324) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Steve in Idaho Star Wars - probably just about as effective as the movie was about real life. Steve |
|
18 Dec 01 - 10:46 AM (#612335) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Amos Well, Norton, ya gotta admit that the "Force" metaphysics of Star Wars forwarded the consciouwsness of a whole generation of American brats!! A |
|
18 Dec 01 - 12:20 PM (#612382) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: Greg F. Dumbya doubtless believes in the freakin' tooth fairy as well, who will be just about as useful as the "Missile Sheld"/Star Wars fantasy boondoggle in protecting us from anything whatsoever. Plus, the tooth fairy would waste a lot fewer taxpayer dollars. The public will apparently by into ANY technological "fix" whether it works or not. Reality need not apply. Best, Greg PS: How can anything be justified on the basis of what this moron (or any moron, for that matter) believes in? |
|
10 Jan 02 - 12:51 AM (#624651) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: GUEST,Dewy Too important a thread to lose with the current deaths. |
|
10 Jan 02 - 01:01 AM (#624659) Subject: RE: BS: Department of Peace From: DougR "Too important a thread to lose with the current deaths." Guest Dewy, methinks you are a flamer. DougR |