|
From: Corvuswire
Date: 7/8/2006 10:56:04 AM
Subject: It's the damnedest thing I've ever, ever seen in my life.
|
|
Here's A Blogger's Theory on Our War That's Worth Giving Serious Consideration To…Thank You Corvuswire
Reply
Tag Archives: demagogues
Barack Obama, The Unforgiven, the Race Tightrope, and the Blame Game
In a very interesting Washington Post editorial (July 6th, “Obama’s Tightrope,” copied below), Amina Luqman argues that Barack Obama must present voters with only the whitest of credentials and speaking styles, and avoid blaming whites for black problems—while other candidates, particularly Hillary Clinton, remain free to stir up blacks by criticizing whites, and by using the passionate, rhythmic cadences and stirring challenges traditionally relied upon by black politicians and preachers. As Luqman watched the presidential debate at Howard University, “up seemed down and everything seemed out of sync” to her, because of this flip-flop in the rhetorical styles of these two candidates.
I don’t think Obama walks a race tightrope. I think he walks and talks and thinks just exactly how he walks and talks and thinks, and he doesn’t attack anyone, white or black, because that’s who he is. Somehow, Obama has learned not to bother with blaming anyone for anything, because blaming is a waste of time and spirit and resources, and besides, it only invites retaliation, which must then be defended against. Instead, Obama consistently accepts, “as-is,” all others, black and white, American and “other.”
Obama knows that everyone makes mistakes, and that the greater one’s power, the greater the potential for and impact of their mistakes. As Dr. King did, Obama encourages his audiences to move forward together to find solutions to unsolvable problems, to clean up impossible messes, to do better than the last generation, and he knows we can’t do it while carrying a burden of past guilt.
Not-blaming is a deliberate, habitual practice of Obama’s. He shares with King the best, most productive kind of humility: self-acceptance born merely—and spectacularly—from realization that they are God’s creatures, which is to say, imperfectly perfect, perfectly lovable, and forgiven.
In The Unforgiven, Clint Eastwood’s compadre regrets killing someone, but justifies it to himself by saying, “Well, he had it coming.” Eastwood answers him with, “We all have it coming.” We've all made mistakes, but it makes no sense to demand retribution for every mistake. Unless we’re delusional (as most of us are, now and then, including me) we can recognize our culpability in many things without insisting that each sin be punished.
Pointing fingers, assigning blame, piling on, creating scapegoats, and exacting revenge are all of one piece with the same fearful, guilty, hateful politics that keep us so mired down with old problems that we can’t solve anything new. Obama apparently holds to Jesus’ new covenant, which is all about forgiving, forgetting, lightening up and moving on to make things better.
More interested in mercy than in an eye-for-an-eye, Obama will leave worrying about others’ accountability to lesser humans. His positive, present-oriented spirit will bring him all the power he can use, and it will allow him to use all of that power for good. Of course he will make mistakes; all leaders do. Lovers of Shakespeare and classical theatre see demonstrated over and over how every person, however great, has “tragic flaws.” But because Obama tries to overlook the mistakes of others, he won't let his own mistakes become stumbling blocks that prevent him from pressing boldly on.
We all want second chances to do things right, to use our misdirected and under-utilized knowledge and talents and skills for good. We all want opportunities to redeem ourselves, because most of us eventually do learn from our mistakes. Obama seems to realize that only after he accepts others, as-is, can he accept himself, as-is. His safety, in fact, like Bill Clinton’s, lies in his reluctance to waste time defending himself.
I hope Hillary Clinton won't choose to stir up resentments, although resentments effectively unify antagonists against one another by polarizing and dividing. Radio demagogues also use fear especially well to pit one group against another, and all too many presidential elections have been won by fear-mongering partisans. Unfortunately, accusations and recriminations can't unify a nation, and stirring up ill feelings through blame cannot save one.
Please send comments to Nancy Pace at njcpace@gmail.com .
Obama's Tightrope
By Amina Luqman
Friday, July 6, 2007; Page A15
The world felt topsy-turvy as I watched the presidential debate held at Howard University last week. Up seemed down and everything was out of sync as the front-runners for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, spoke. In this debate, as in others, we watched Obama remake the traditional persona of the black candidate and someone else take what might have been his place.
From the outset, it was clear that Barack Obama wasn't going to be Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. For every rhythmic alliteration Jackson would have offered, Obama gave us pauses and sentences in paragraphs. For Sharpton's quick wit and scathing candor, Obama offered even tones and grave calm. There was no push toward applause-filled endings. He begged for contemplation and understanding. Simple became complex, demands became propositions and “they” became “we.”
The average black American onlooker can't help feeling proud but also just a little hurt watching Obama. Proud of his ability to traverse minefields on a national political landscape and hurt by what America demands of black candidates seeking public acceptance and trust. During the debate, black Americans in the audience sat, hands poised, yearning to applaud a black candidate able to articulate our passions and sense of injustice. We wanted to hear that he understood and loved us — not in the general, “we the people” sense but in the specific. Yet we know that with each utterance about injustice, each puff of anger or frustration about racism, we lose the very thing we seek: a viable black candidate. The closer Obama comes to us, the further he would be from winning the nomination and the presidency.
That is a reality of race and national politics in America. Part of Obama's appeal to white America lies in his hopefulness. It's in the way he looks toward a brighter future, and it's in his promise to bring us all along.
Yet the subtext of his appeal is in what he does not say. It's in his ability to declare that things must get better without saying who or what has made them bad. It's how he rarely chastises and how he divides blame and responsibility evenly; white receiving equal parts with black, poor equal parts with rich. The “we” Obama has created leaves blank the space traditional African American candidates would have filled with passion or a clear articulation of the state of black Americans. It's left some black voters unfulfilled and some white voters with a sense of acceptance and absolution from past wrongs and present-day injustices.
We are all watching Obama's tightrope walk, his attempts to appeal to the white majority while maintaining some semblance of integrity regarding the plight of black Americans. It's a heavy burden. In contrast, Hillary Clinton is on relatively sure footing. Obama must tilt away from clarity and passion about issues disproportionately affecting blacks while Clinton is free to perform the black candidate's role. In last week's debate, it was she who took on the traditional black candidate's persona, she who was both passionate and rhythmic in her cadence. Her endings built to crescendos. Be it real or pandering, Clinton can openly connect and show solidarity with black Americans in ways that Obama cannot.
There is no better example than Clinton's comment about the disproportionate effect HIV has on black communities. She said that if “HIV-AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country.” For Obama to have said the same words in the same fiery manner could have been political suicide. By forfeit, Clinton essentially becomes the black candidate; it's not a space America would allow Obama to fill.
Not long after Obama announced his candidacy, the buzz in the media was, “Is Obama black enough?” Many black Americans privately laughed at this question. We know that it takes only a slip of the tongue about slavery's legacy or reparations, a hiccup about institutional racism or paying special attention to the needs of black Americans, and suddenly the love would be gone. We know that the question has less to do with black America than with whether white America trusts that Obama is not too black for its political taste.
We laugh at the question of Obama's blackness because we live with a version of Obama's tightrope dance every day. We do the same dance in our workplaces, with our supervisors, our neighbors and our college classmates. In that way we know Obama couldn't be more like us, he couldn't be more black. We along with Obama know that even the most skilled tightrope performance may not be enough to ensure that you land on your feet.
Amina Luqman is a freelance writer. Her e-mail address is amina.luqman@yahoo.com.
Shall We Quibble Over Competing Ideologies? Or Choose Love Over Fear?
President Bush stumbles over the nuances of that thorny word “ideology,” just as he struggles to understand the concept of “democracy.” Together with Humpty Dumpty, he wishes words could mean just what he chooses them to mean, neither more nor less….
Unfortunately, the word “ideology,” a “bad” word he once thought applicable only to evil, foreigner-type “isms” such as Communism, terrorism, extremism, Islamism, and facism, turns out to be nothing more than: “an organized collection of ideas…a comprehensive vision…a way of looking at things” (Wikipedia)— a definition far friendlier than Mr. Bush first envisioned, equally applicable to the many isms he rather approves of, such as Americanism, free market capitalism, Methodism, and certainly the organized collections of ideas constituting “democracy” or “freedom.”
Since all political thinking seems to fall under various ideologies, it would seem unwise to let ourselves become so caught up within our own peculiar favorite ideological flavor/s that we withdraw our support for human life anywhere in the world in the name of that ideology—whether it be democracy, freedom, liberty, utopianism, capitalism, nationalism, Islamism, fundamentalism, Zionism, Protestantism, patriotism, conservatism, liberalism…. After all, that's how all the bad guys in history justified their scummy actions, by insisting that their chosen ideologies were “righter” than others.
The thing is, one can go so far wrong searching for moral consistency within an ism, because isms and other ideologies always shut out some of the people some of the time, making them less than fully human, less than deserving of humanitarian concern—certainly all those who think differently than “we” do, who aren’t like “us” because “they” don’t think believe as “we” do, etc. Inevitably “we” come to oppose “them,” choosing “us” over “them.”
Ideologies can be a useful, interesting, creative way to organize one's thinking, but when taken too seriously–as “the truth”–they are very polarizing.
It is neither possible to decide how rightly to treat other human beings by looking to ideologies and isms for one’s standards, nor safe, nor ethical, to decide on an ideological basis whether to support or reject that highest and most sacred value, the sanctity of human life.
“Treat all others as you would wish they would treat you” remains the most widely-accepted, time-honored, one-and-only gold-standard rule of ethical conduct ever conceived; it is found in every world religion and every moral, ethical, and justice code everywhere in the world, superseding all ideologies and isms, and consistently useful in every ethical or moral decision.
Ideologues of every stripe, every day, everywhere in the world, try to manipulate people into voting, killing, and even dying for whatever admirable-sounding preferred ideology their audience is familiar with, justifying their most horrific recommendations—invasions, occupations, terror, bombing, napalming, maiming, stealing, starvation, murder, neglect, torture, indoctrination, abuse, imprisonment, exploitation, coercion, manipulation—always in the name of some heart-stirring and noble-sounding aspect of a popular ideology.
Whenever demagogues (“those who gain political power by appealing to popular prejudices, fears, and expectations, typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda”—Wikipedia) anywhere in the world attempt to persuade fellow-citizens to act unsupportively toward others, they always cover their dark deeds with a soft, cozy, comfortable cloak of locally-popular ideologies. (H. L. Mencken called a demagogue “one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.”)
Whenever anyone in any country has done something injurious to any other, or left undone what could have helped another, no matter who we were, no matter in the name of what ideology we acted, no matter how noble we thought our actions, we were wrong. And whenever we chose to support human life, we were acting aright.
Politics is as simple—and as complicated—as that.
We either contribute to another’s fear, or we offer them loving support. We either perceive their anger and wrong-headedness as an anguished cry for help, or we attack and punish them. We reject them, or we contribute to their acceptance and well-being. We light a candle or leave them in darkness. We offer them war or contribute to their peace. We lift them up or we abandon them. We share their dreams or take them away. We help them or we hurt them.
We choose love over fear, or we quibble amongst ideologies to gain power, and end up losing shared life itself on our tiny blue planet.
Please send questions and comments to njcpace@gmail.com
I Really Like This Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Quote
To think incisively and to think for one's self is very difficult. We are prone to let our mental life become invaded by legions of half truths, prejudices, and propaganda…. To save man from the morass of propaganda, in my opinion, is one of the chief aims of education. Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction….The function of education, therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society. The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason, but with no morals…. We must remember that intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character–that is the goal of true education. The complete education gives one not only power of concentration, but worthy objectives upon which to concentrate. The broad education will, therefore, transmit to one not only the accumulated knowledge of the race but also the accumulated experience of social living. — Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., writing in college, 1947
Another War for Oil?
The Darfur/Sudan dispute is primarily over who will control the newly-discovered oil-rich lands of Darfur, in western Sudan. As often happens, the indigenous poor there have been ruthlessly pushed aside by voracious corporate and national interests in a typical no-holds-barred international competition for scarce valuable resources.
China’s respectful diplomacy toward the legitimate Muslim government of Sudan has given the Chinese an “in” which they are very profitably exploiting. The bumbling U.S. strategy of arming Sudan’s neighbors has won us only suspicion and resentment.
A mysteriously (well) funded “Save Darfur” media campaign has legitimately excited the sympathies of people everywhere to help the innocents, perhaps also to “justify” future aggressions. Historically, many illegal invasions, occupations, and wars of greed have been “sold” as rescue missions.
China has much to teach the U.S. about win-win diplomacy and trade, just as the U.S. has many important and wonderful things to teach China. May we generously support peaceful international humanitarian efforts to assist the victims in Sudan, and may we use the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing to further mutual peaceful understanding, dialogue, and good will with our trading partner, China.
(I wrote the above letter-to-the-editor in response to the following letter-to-the-editor in our local newspaper:)
Local Physician Who Volunteered at Torino Won't Be in Beijing
I was a physician volunteer at the Winter Olympics in Torino, Italy. Several people have asked me if I was going to go to Beijing in 2008 for the summer games. As I'm more of a fan of the Winter Games, and as Beijing in the summer is probably very hot, I told them, “No.” Recently, I discovered a much more compelling reason not to go and to encourage everyone to boycott those games.
In a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, Ronan Farrow and Mia Farrow (he a Yale law student, she an actress) made assertions which, if accurate, should cause a renaming of the Summer Olympics in China to the “genocide games”–and compel all moral people to boycott them. They state that China is “pouring billions of dollars into Sudan,” and that “they,” the Chinese, “purchase an overwhelming majority of Sudan's oil exports.”
With this money, the Sudanese buy bombers, assault helicopters, armored vehicles and small arms, most of Chinese manufacture. These arms are used by the brutal Janjaweed militia. The airports that are used by the Chinese, who have repeatedly used their veto power in the U.N. to block efforts to bring in peace keepers to stop the slaughter.
To date, more than 400,000 people have been killed and 2.3 million have been displaced from villages by the Chinese-backed Sudanese government. Efforts by our government have been unable to convince the powers that be to stop the killing. To his credit, President George Bush vows to go it alone to take action against Sudan if the other countries of the world will not.
A reasonable, moral person would likely conclude that, if the assertions above are accurate, he or she would have nothing to do with these games. What are some prominent people doing? Well, let's see:
Steven Spielberg, who founded the Shoah Foundation to allow the testimony of survivors of another holocaust to be heard, is preparing to help stage the Olympic ceremonies in Beijing. Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola, General Electric and McDonald's are some of the high-profile sponsors of these games. If accurate, these assertions should cause these people to rethink their positions. Maybe with some forthright action, the Chinese can be embarrassed into changing their ways to allow the killing to be stopped.
Specifically, of Steven Spielberg, I would ask: “Is one holocaust worse than another?” And: “Would you have helped stage the ceremonies for the 1936 Olympics in Berlin?” Rabbi Akiva, of biblical times, said, “Where there are no men, Be thou a man.”
Hopefully, there are still some men who will do something to stop this tragedy. Anyone who would like a copy of the article can call me.
(The author left his name and phone number.)
Please send comments to njcpace@gmail.com. Thank you! 
Soldiers: Partners for Peace
The following thought-provoking letter-to-the-editor denouncing war protesters recently appeared in our local paper. (My response, as well as the fantastic response of my friend and neighbor, Nancy Arnold, are printed below that letter.)
LOCAL PROTESTERS DESERVE RIDDANCE, by John P. Snyder
On behalf of the followers of al-Qaida and militant Islamic jihadists everywhere, I would like to extend our admiration and gratitude to those extraordinary citizens who turned out downtown to show support for our efforts and to register disgust with their country’s war on terror.
We share a strong common bond. We each despise George Bush, the American military and Western-style democracies. It is imperative that American resolve to fight our cause be diminished. Your assistance in that regard is greatly appreciated.
It is, after all, the highest form of patriotism to give aid and comfort to your country’s enemies—especially when our sons and daughters are sacrificing their lives for your freedom.
(My letter-to-the-editor, written in response to the above letter, is as follows:)
SOLDIERS: PARTNERS FOR PEACE, by Nancy Pace
Re Local protesters deserve riddance, May 8th: Some patriots fight, suffer, and die in the cause of peace, while other patriots work to limit the damage incurred by the catastrophically cruel, stupid, wasteful policies of tragically misguided “expert” leaders. Soldiers and peace protesters are not opponents, but courageous, conscientious, selfless partners working together to further the same universal goal of peace. No pacifist ever desired peace more than a soldier enduring war.
Citizens throw away the freedom our sons and daughters sacrifice their lives for, when they sit back and trust elections alone to insure good leadership. Unfortunately, as the democratically-elected Hitler demonstrated, it doesn’t always work out that way. Eternal (def.: unending, ceaseless, unstopping, uninterrupted) vigilance (def.: alertness, wakefulness, watchfulness, awareness) is the price of liberty (def.: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority; political independence.)
Wise leaders of western democracies everywhere listen attentively to their loyal oppositions, and continually change in response. We cannot avoid all injustices, but we can avoid adding to their sum, by seeking more effective ways to address terrorism, militant Islam, and al-Qaida. The real enemies of peace, the enemies we should never aid or comfort, are fear, and violence itself.
PROTEST OF IRAQ WAR IS PATRIOTIC EXERCISE, by Nancy Arnold
The writer of “Local protesters deserve riddance” appears to suffer from the same malady that plagues the Bush administration. This disease begins as a tiny seed of greed. It reproduces and grows by creating an image of fear and by fueling the need for revenge. Symptoms of this disease include the need to point out all of the un-American Americans who do not succumb to the furor and frenzy of the disease.
This tragic disease, where individuals almost instantaneously lose their ability to think rationally about the facts, numbs minds and sharpens paranoia and aggression. Those who succumb to the disease shout buzz words of fear–“traitor!” and “terrorist!”–and show great loyalty to homegrown war criminals.
Yes, the lives of our sons and daughters are being sacrificed because the Bush administration manipulated data and dragged us into a war planned before 9/11. Bush and company simply reshaped 9/11, fanned the sparks of fear and spread the disease. The disease now rages and destroys life around the globe. It has consumed our national integrity and made a mockery of America's good will.
The writer sarcastically states that, “It is, after all, the highest form of patriotism to give aid and comfort to your country's enemies.” There is tragic and costly irony in that logic: We ARE giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and we let him live in the White HOuse and let him sacrifice lives every day.
Americans have the right to protest. When our nation occupies another country and murders the innocent, the patriotic thing to do is protest. To shut down the voices of reason, to shut down an American's right to protest and raise concern would accomplish more than any terrorist could have ever hoped to accomplish on 9/11.
Please send comments to njcpace@gmail.com. Thank you!
A Fair Trade
I hereby offer a hypothetical “deal” to all the many deeply caring anti-abortion activists, such that we equally concerned anti-war activists will agree to give up all violence against the unborn, in exchange for their equivalent agreement to resist the use of violence upon those already born—whether through war, torture, abuse, poverty, neglect, anger, vengeance, retaliation, punishment, or any other form of violence. When we can all agree to respect and protect human life from all forms of violence, agreeing to use only non-violent means to resolve our conflicts, we will together build a culture of peace where respect and support for human life everywhere is the highest moral value.
Please send your comments to nancy.pace@adelphia.net
Can’t We Just All Get Along?
I’m tired of hearing all the arguing about who is right and who is wrong—especially about religious doctrines and political ideologies, from Christianity v. Islam to Democracy v. Theocracy, right down to partisan bickering, conflicts within denominations, and even conflicts within congregations and families. Why does everyone feel it necessary to have the final word and definitive answer about everything?
What would better suit me is for everyone to confess proudly to “knowing” what feels right to them as an individual, regardless of how well- or ill-informed they are, however finely or ill-honed their opinions and conclusions–and then everyone respect those personal truths for what they are. It’s perfectly normal to want to test our opinions on other people, and it's perfectly OK to respectfully disagree and discuss, but why do others have to be “wrong” in order that we may be “right”? Why can’t we just all be right for ourselves alone, or, just-as-right-if-incomplete, as anyone can ever be in this best of all possible worlds?
Why don’t we all just humbly accept that we are destined to live and die with great mysteries and uncertainties, and that we weren’t meant to know very many things with any great deal of clarity? We can still pursue understanding, but it's more fun when we realize that whatever it is that God intends for us to do and be and have and believe on this earth—a God of each of our personal understandings, and Whoever or whatever we each choose to mean by that Name, or none—it is very evidently not likely that we will ever clearly understand everything, or anything, and will certainly never all come to the same conclusions. That doesn't mean we cannot live our own faiths, our belief systems, our personal ways of knowing and seeing, even if we can't convince everyone (and sometimes, even ourselves) that “they” are wrong and “we” are right.
It must be evident by now to most people, in this great information age, that God, if (S)he exists at all, only offers tempting bits and controversial hints about His/Her/Its workings and nature and identity, not to mention those of mankind and the universe. Certainly each of those tidbits and partial answers leads to greater wisdom, but also to ever more questions…. The Bible and the Koran, for instance, are only the beginnings of discussion, not its end, as evident from all the conflicts and disagreement mentioned above.
To claim to “know” something, or anything, with any finality, seems the merest hubris, disrespectful even to God and his ineffable creation, and to all the other humans who invariably will come to some other conclusions. Certainly one sign of a well-educated person is that they finally have learned enough to realize how little they really know about anything.
To be sure, some scholarly inquiring types spend lifetimes educating themselves about particularly intriguing aspects of reality, and certainly we can listen to their viewpoints more attentively than to others, and to better purpose. But even then, we owe respect to everyone’s story, regardless of their expertise and talents or lack of same, if only for the peculiarity and uniqueness of their experiences and understandings, for their particular dreams, their one-of-a-kind strivings, victories, and holy lost attempts.
But why ever hope to find one unique and particular version of wisdom and experience which is generalizable to everyone, whether in the field of politics, religion, philosophy, or any other field of knowledge? Why not just celebrate our own unique versions of truth, and those of others?
No one can doubt the veracity of each uniquely individual experience and its conclusions, at least for that one person, however fatally flawed the limitations inherent in being only one person, with only one person's experience and understanding, and only a highly fallibly human capacity to communicate, to boot. We can always safely rejoice instead in the universal commonality of ultimately not-knowing, and live joyfully within such uncertainty and risk, supporting every human effort to grapple with understanding and sharing of personal truths—without setting ourselves aggressively into opposite camps that polarize attempts at communication and turn them into contests of rightness and wrongness.
Especially in religious, philosophical, and political discourse, we can spend less time divided among our many differences, and instead celebrate and focus upon our many commonalities—all the universal truths upon which we can all agree, all that unites us, such as love, hope, faith (wherever we choose to put that faith), respect, responsibility, honesty, fairness, hard work, spiritual practice, community, kindness, compassion, forgiveness, generosity, purity, selflessness, peacefulness…and the rest of the long list of good things we can all agree upon which goes on forever. These ecumenical values, in all their various positive permutations and versions, can always be communally embraced, taught, admired, built upon, and warmly shared among people of all faiths and ideologies, or of no faith or ideology. Then, instead of forever being self-righteously “right”–that is, wrong–we can celebrate and embrace one another's uniqueness, and…just get along.
Please send your comments to nancy.pace@adelphia.net
Saddam Hussein’s Hanging, The Bush Administration, Forgiveness, and Happy New Year
Saddam Hussein, who is very much one of God’s beloved, fallible children (just like the rest of us) met his death with dignity and courage.
If all such world leaders who wreak ill-conceived, reckless, needless mayhem, who destroy innocent lives in their ambitious pursuit of influence and power, deserve such grisly ends, then some of our current world leaders ought to be feeling a bit queasy just about now.
A fully-functioning Department of Peace (see www.thepeacealliance.org ) would do much to make such dismal futures less likely for all.
There is a lot of irony in the sad fact that we’ve spent hundreds of billions of hard-earned and greatly-needed tax dollars to kill off one violent despotic regime in Iraq, simply in order to install another one equally unpopular and equally dependent upon maintaining its power via the same undemocratic brutish means—armies and secret prisons and assassinations and torture. Why else would we need to send ever more armies into Iraq to prop them up?
The Bush administration sold us their disastrously costly war by drumming up American fears of an evil madman imminently threatening U.S. citizens, yet not only could we not find such weapons, we couldn’t even pull off a demonstrably “democratic” (i.e., fair) trial convincingly proving that Saddam Hussein indeed deserved death by hanging for even one single alleged killing spree.
The west is absolutely accountable for forcibly creating a country called “Iraq” from out of many original tribes, and for supporting their own preferred despot, Saddam Hussein, with only a single aim: to keep cheap oil pumping west. When Saddam later thumbed his nose in the direction of his original kingmakers (Rumsfeld/Cheney et.al.) they were so incensed that they were willing to do anything and everything to depose and replace him with yet another (hopefully more loyal) crony—regardless of how despotic and evil—again with their sole goal of keeping cheap oil pumping west. (The Bush administration recently reclassified all their original distasteful and disgraceful historical machinations with Saddam Hussein in order to cover up their bloody incestuous tracks.) What a grievous waste in every sense—human, material, political, financial, spiritual—this terrible war has been.
And to think that all we ever had to do was humbly stand in line to pay for oil at the market price, just like every other country.
The “war-for-democracy-and-for-love-of-Iraqis” notion came up briefly only when the American public (and, probably, our still-innocent and idealistic president) could no longer stomach the evil-Saddam-imminent-weapons-fear-thing. Rather than admit that this had always been a war about oil, Cheney/Rumsfeld used Rice to convince Bush (and the public) that continuing the war in order to spread democracy and save Iraqis (at least the ones who weren’t currently shooting at us) was important and necessary. Now they’re finally admitting, at least to one another and to a few others, that this war is indeed a smarmy geopolitical struggle for power, money, resources, and influence; that admission, however, doesn’t make the war any more wise or moral.
Democracy cannot be spread by war, just as peace can only arise from peace. We aging hippies used to say in the 60’s that fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity….
We need to begin acting like Americans again. We need to generously support peaceful leaders everywhere, and use our power and influence in ways that demonstrate our highest, most deeply American ideals. We need to stop acting like big bullies, and rebuild international good will with generosity and acceptance and statesmanship and diplomacy. We need to build up our economy ethically, and base our businesses and long-term trade partnerships on mutual advantage, not unbridled greed, power, and indifference. Peace on earth will come only when each of us learns to offer peace. And yes, we need to be the ones to go first, to take the first step, because we are still the most powerful, most envied, most influential nation on earth.
We can still use multilateral international police forces well-trained in non-violent intervention as necessary to lock up and re-educate violent criminals of all stripes. But we must simultaneously teach our next generation (every child on this small blue planet) to live peacefully with one another, to share, to love our mother earth, and to live and work morally, generously, and sustainably. (Again, please consider the beautiful Department of Peace proposed legislation already supported by 75+ congressional leaders, at www.thepeacealliance.org ).
The world of the future will not be one of vengeance and anger, but one of reconciliation and forgiveness (if it is to be, at all.) Human beings—we ourselves, as well as Saddam Hussein, George Bush, all those we love and all those we fear–each of us–will always make mistakes. Of course we should be held accountable. Of course we should see the grief we have caused others, and learn to regret our mistakes and make amends. But just as I would rather not be condemned or tortured or killed or thrown in prison forever for the harm I’ve done in my life (frankly, I’d really rather be forgiven, and supported in doing better) so too do I hope that in this new year and in all the coming new years, we will all learn to live and love and forgive others their trespasses, as we would have others forgive us our own, and then move on to build a new world, together, with love.
Please send your comments to nancy.pace@adelphia.net . Thank you!
Choosing Freedom from Fear (also see my photos attached)
Please read what I (helped) write about the upcoming elections–and check out my photo below–I'm the tall, smiley lady…. America's not perfect, and neither is our political/election system–but what is, in this world? We are so fortunate to have a chance to make our voices count…. Thank you for voting! – Eppy Harmon (a member of Women in Black Frederick)
CHOOSING FREEDOM FROM FEAR / STANDING UP FOR THE AMERICA WE BELIEVE IN
“America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way (in a) revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. These are the times for real choices and not false ones.” –Martin Luther King, 1967
All of us are inundated with images and messages that bathe us in fear. It has become the dominant, and numbing feature of our world. There is no doubt that we face many dangers. But living in fear is destructive personally and to our nation. The constant promotion of fear by all sides is driving policies and actions that have taken a toll on our nation’s soul and institutions.
It is important for us to understand the fears we are being urged to accept. We need to learn to live in this environment, and to find a way to put the dangers we face in proper context for our personal and national lives and actions. It is important that we learn how to not let fear dominate our lives and country in a way that loses the moral center of who we are.
We are hearing messages of fear from all sides of the political spectrum, and can easily feel manipulated, disturbed and confused. As a rational and moral people, we have it within our power to ask our own questions about what kind of America, what kind of world we want to live in. We can demand that our government take action guided from a moral center that represents the best of our American ideals.
Women in Black Frederick mourns the devastating consequences of fear-based politics in our country. We mourn the violence that has resulted from how we have responded to fear. We seek ways forward to build a strong and lasting peace, based on non-violent change and justice for all. We believe it is time to take a new approach to tackling the roots of global insecurity. It is time to invest in building the world we want.
OUR DEMOCRACY REQUIRES AN ENGAGED ELECTORATE
The future of democracy in the U.S. depends upon our informed, active participation. Well-informed voters, high voter participation, and elected officials who feel a strong sense of accountability to voters are key components of a healthy political system. Political candidates—whether incumbent or new—“listen louder” during campaigns than at any other times in their careers. We shouldn’t miss this opportunity to speak our minds! It will be particularly important for us not to be swayed by the messages of fear, sent our way in order to gain our acceptance of the unacceptable: war, torture, abandonment of civil liberties and human needs. We will need to find ways to discern when candidates’ records are distorted in fear-based attacks. We need to ask hard questions of all the candidates.
HOW DO WE GET THERE FROM HERE? WOMEN IN BLACK FREDERICK ASKS OUR CANDIDATES ABOUT:
Supporting U.S. Troops by Bringing Them Home:
After half a trillion dollars, and almost 3000 U.S, 100,000 Iraqi lives lost, we ask: What legislation did you support this year, or would you support to challenge the course of the failed war strategy in Iraq? Will you vote for a plan and timetable for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops if elected? Congress is not supporting U.S. troops in Iraq by simply endorsing the failed occupation of that country. The latest National Intelligence Estimate, U.S. soldiers returning from Iraq, and some of the U.S. generals running the war argue the U.S. occupation of Iraq is fueling the insurgency and helping to recruit anti-U.S. extremists around the world. A majority of Iraqis, including many in the Iraqi government, want foreign troops out within a year.
Supporting and Strengthening Nuclear Non-Proliferation Policy:
What policies and legislation will you support to make the nuclear non-proliferation policy of the US one that seeks to eliminate nuclear weapons at home and everywhere? Will you oppose funding and development of new nuclear weapons? Will you oppose any efforts to establish or implement a US nuclear first strike policy?
Current U.S. policy argues for maintaining thousands of nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future and nuclear weapons will continue to “play a critical role in the defense capabilities of the Unites States, its allies and friends.”
Additionally, U.S. policy promotes a more “flexible” role for nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons will no longer solely be used to deter a nuclear war but also to deal with multiple contingencies and new threats.
Making Sure There are No More Pre-emptive Wars:
Will you support dialogue and diplomatic negotiations with Iran? In the final hours of this congressional session the Senate passed the Iran Freedom Act of 2006 with no debate. This legislation imposes new unilateral sanctions on Iran, threatens to undermine the fragile international negotiations currently underway that would bring Iran into compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and further isolates the U.S. in the world community.
Investing in Peace:
Will you vote to provide more money for non-military tools—such as diplomacy, community-based development, and international institutions—to solve international problems before they lead to deadly violence? A huge portion, about 95 percent, of what the U.S. spends to engage with the rest of the world is allocated to the military budget.
A tiny amount, about five percent, is devoted to diplomacy, development, and supporting international institutions that can help to solve problems before they turn into wars. “….A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight ….” –MLK
Keeping People Safe at Home:
How do you think the U.S. government should prioritize the federal budget to keep us all safe from the aftereffects of natural disasters, from the effects of environmental degradation, from regional economic problems that cause widespread unemployment, and from the deprivations of poverty for those left out of the nation’s economy? Almost half of the federal budget pays for military responses to U.S. and global problems. Hurricane Katrina reminded all of us that not all threats to our safety are military threats. “…. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers…” MLK
Supporting Court Review of All Government Spying:
Would you vote to halt this massive domestic spying program, and to require U.S. intelligence agencies to get warrants so that we have at least some assurance that they’re focusing only on suspected terrorists or criminals? In the name of national security, the Bush administration has tapped into information on phone calls made by some 200 million U.S. residents. This invasion of privacy is unprecedented.
Outlawing Torture Now, with No Exceptions:
How did you or would you vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006? And would you continue to work for legislation to abolish torture and the opportunity for torture — without exceptions? On 9/28 and 9/29 2006 Congress approved legislation that authorizes the president to order torture and abusive, humiliating treatment; permits indefinite detention of human beings without safeguards recognized as essential by U.S. law and treaty obligations; and transfers significant congressional power to the president. This legislation is morally reprehensible.
Please send your comments to epharmon@adelphia.net .
